ney
J J ry
f — ara ‘
aes
—
if ge
“J
AHN
A ho
Cun.
—
aah
—
Hea Dat!
ian
— A) D —
— * FLATS 3 4 aN
&
43276 )
i
o- - — ⸗
SSOCIATIO”
4
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois
http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat198illi
,
i
, m4
iy
4s?
fe r
'
f
}
4 =
im
"A. ’
Ds 7
" a! 7 y
eee AN 3
7 ey, a, : Nee ks
77 [ 7 7 =f 7 jt®y 7 P
ee PAG AT Wai Yi!
a SP os vs a iy wap!
u av), j ‘ 4 J 9
JUL 3 9 —1968
Aan
eee
wae ~\ 2048 VOLI OF
eatate of Nantin Carra,
deceased,
7.8 AS cy Admr, of the | |
\PPEAL FROM
)
\phetites, j
‘ { SUPERIOR court
vs. OF COOK COUNTY,
‘ 7
BIG FOUR FILMIN TOY COAL F
t
COMPANY f — iy ee
pelignt. ff 1 9 © 1 4 4 o |
STATWENT OF THE CASS. This case eomes before :
this court updan appeal from a judgment of $4000 entered |
in the Superid Court of Cook Coumty, in behalf of appellee, — |
as administraf, and for the benefit of the next of kin of
the estate ofprtin * deceased,
PY 7G 44 Fee
under the MinkjAct of 1801: to recover for the alleged
wrongful killg of appellee's intestate, caused by appellant's
alleged wrong violation of certain provisions of that act.
fide, ff Sop 8 Lor & SER wet ee bs eas
J ceased, on the sorning of December 25, 19212,
The suit was commenced
while engageM his—expio; —— 2* miner in the- fi
underground stings" apretient'e mine, near Coal city, *
Grundy CountTIliinois, and while sounding ithe piel, | we
the roof of } working Place, in-seid-mire, wate Led _by ‘
a-Lerge-stofalling”iyor-him, The sp spepitic aay. of rae
wrongful vi 4 on by-appeliont * ta tate, charged in
9 La ation, are,, * lure te
have its mine
Ease %
vias — % j
* *
\ ‘edt ON , :
. - 8
ey R A X gp aa
*
f ‘
i \ PoH ot
, ¢ atatae
MONT LAME , enea0eb
‘4 TUOD HOTA
oypytiod MOOD FO
ee — — — —
hs
J" AUOU pla
: .YMAGHOD
ys G I Al SOEs |
ete ted comes send otdT Bead som TO THMMATS
i betedne O0OLF ‘to troemphut, & mowk Leogga — aicit
J
belongs to tiLeied at ,yimsod 400d to gusso%k
| tc all to ¢xenm ont to fiteonod ong tot hos t aiteiotabs en
hoonenmoo esaw tive eT — wets) aki
\ VE ee my *
bopetie et x0% adrcost ot , {Lek tO tokhh
eténelileuqs yt boavan ,otateotnk atoaileqgs Te F: List futgnomw
toe * oe anoieivong aketton ‘to mottale — bane dani
a4 +r) ORR BRL). AY TY, *
Mg Ay
ik ss " tadme sett E grknrvon rte ‘no bea 9 AC * —— 4 a
*
_ eet ai tonia tage & &B. spomynkent- .
oY ae 33 —* ACS, r
J 400 ‘Tae ft vaug —V — — ——
— sth elie bane — ——
tea — ake is 7? to vat
ole
decedent was working were in a dangerous condition,
Le)}..make-e-record;-in-«-book-kept for tha t-purpost; or
any examination of said roof or of the dangs¥e 8
condition thereof, —
(f) take into his possession and give to the mine
manager the entrance check of decedent and others
whose working amide were within said dangerous
portion, ;
(2) submit to the mine manager se report of the
mine examiner’ showing the dangerous condition;
(n) and failure by ite mine manager to withhold the
entrance checks and to instruct the men not to
work. in..the-place-un til the dangey had“ been-removed.
The—tecleratio further charges iin by — —*
such_wilfulvieietions, decedent leshuded. etl place in the
performance of his duties, and while so engaged -et-work was
killed, se-eferesaid.
The mine in—question is shet—is kmown as a long
wall mine, A long wall mine is one where all ## the coal is
taken out and the roof # supported by the brushing or rock
waieh-hes-teen taken down. In such a mine, the mining
commences in the center, the face or working edge of the
layer or seam of coal forming a sheen gradually increasing
in circumference as the coal is taken out. There were 200
rooms in the mine and two miners worked in exch room, The
room.in—question-extended-to-the richt and Left ofa roniway,
teri au gucelerty
but._more.to.the.right than to the-teft,and was only three
feet in height, —— height of the vein or seam of
coal, ‘The coal was dug out to a width of four feet underneath
the rock or brush not taken dow at the end of the roadway,
the face of the brush being four feet from the face of the
¢oal,
it—was-the duty of the mine exariiner-to~-exemine:-the
underground workings of the mine within twer¥a heures preceding
“every day-upon whith the mine waste be~opernted; to inspect
MOS Lbrioo aso 18 grab e at etew gnixrow aw danobeoeb
bags lh qrtntit o> deed aiood «. at ~bt00:et--e-oxam—(e)
BE puganeh eds to 10 toot bist to moitenimaxe (ne
«koored? mois Lona
enim ox Ot ovig bua noleasecog ein otmi ofat (%)
atodse bins tnebooesb to Xoorn soreittae ori tegenam
evoregash bisee aldiiw exew aeoaiq antirow eaony
edd to drogot a iegennn omke oft oF timdwe (9)
smottibmo auotegash oft yatwods teninaxe erikin
edt hLoddtiw of togenam enim afk yd erlte? bes (1)
ov ton mom off touatenk of dae atone *
ehovomont need haf yoymah ony Lr yim song edd. oh 25y
—XE
os Aonas⁊ Ae LIetalosh oat
edt mt soalge bbe hevetow tasboosh -enebinioit-twitledewe >
asw #tow-te bopepee o@ olinw bos ,aoituh ein Yo sonamro tre
— —
piel a es nwo ef-—dede of mideome—i oakm odT
ait Laoo rt *@ {La wrens one ek omim ITlaw auto £ A .onkm stow
aoot xo ynidauid edt yd bedtecaue a loot ods how tuo meted
_ painter ett ,enkm « tiowea nl .nwob metas —E te
odd to eybe gnikaw to cost off ,tédmeo ont at aeoasmmoo
ankesetont yilathaty — s gaderrot Lsoo to maee to t0eyel
COR etew ote? tuo solid at fade oft as sonotetmponto mk
ett moor dose al hboitow areniw ows base ontm off mk emoot
— * ‘Sted baw dingy oft -od-hebredxe amis coup-abmoos
wry os NA 2 Pte
eerds yino ean, dia—~d ted oft i -tinks od) of oom. tad
to mase to alew oft to Jrnted — ,tolniod mt 2802
Adisento hou toot swot to dtbiw a of tuo nub aaw Leon ant .Laoo
eYeawheot ede to * oft te cwob nexnd tom cewid to hoor oatt
od to eost of? mott foot tw0l anied dewtd ex to eon ont
| ae
01ld-ontmeco otro bese” win BOSS WI
wut beowng amon o¥Low?d atdtiw anim ont te egnts ow baxth ™ nobae
gooqent- ot” ihaseroqe-od-e2-wnw Vita Gi Ie mee —
—
——— “atl
by vf
232
‘Sit -working-places~therein, “aid to observe whether these
were any recent falis or dangerous roofs, and as eVidence
of his examination of the rooms and roadways. therein, te
inscribe in some suitable place on the walls of each, not
on the face of the coal, with chalk,.the month and the day
of the month of his visit. On the other hand, it was the
duty of every miner to sound’ and thoroughly examine the
roof of his working place before commencing work and if he
found dangerous conditions not to work in such dangerous
place, except to” make such dangerous conditions safe, It ms
also his duty to properly prop and secure his place for his
own safety, with materials~provided thererdy,
All of the witnesses #ho_testified on-the-subject.
agreed that the only means of ascertaining whether-or—ned the
roof sie saa hil was by placing pas 2 hand lightly
against, thereof, at the same time tapp ing, the-roef with a
bar, pick or other implement. If the roof was loose or
dangerous it would give beek a hollow or dead sound and the
wand could feel it quiver; while if the store’ constrteting
the roof was sound, or apparently safe, it would give back a
ringing or bell like sound, and the hand would feel no
quivering or shaking, and 6 via
mine—examiner, Can always ¢h6, determinecwhether or not nas 27
roof is safe.
The only witness to the accident was Prank Aragno,
& partner or "buddy" of appetter*s intestate, who worked with
him. Remigo Gambon, who worked in an adjoining room, and
John — Sana layer, were with aprektree’*s intestate
o-few-uinuter before the accident heppened. Aragno testified
that he saw the mark "23", eerresportine-te the date of the
month, on the "brush" above the entrance to their room, before
they entered, seme, indicating that the mine examiner had
oy
“SAGAT aediosw evisedd OF DHS [nto teri? esoale-yaiivow-iis
oonobive. es bre s2 toot avotogmab to ellat tmecet Yas otew
od — EX exavhbnon bas amoot ods to moifssnimexe aka to
tom ,dono to alley ont so eeelq eldetive omoe mt edizoenk
veb oft bos d3imom off ALads ntiw ,faoo oft Yo svet edt m0
odd aaw th ,band usdte ett oO .tiaiv aif to demom edt to
eat ontmaxes yidguetods bas havoe of tenia yueve to ytmb
anf th bas Axow yrkomommoo oto led bosiq gaitrow ak to toot —
avotoanab mowe ak Azow oF Jou emistipacs evexsgnab bavot
eavy SI ,otese enoltiibnos svoxeynab dowe oan st dqooxe ,soalq
eid tot eoale ald eines bas gqoxa ylusqeta of cauh etd *x
Westone hetiverq-efetiedem 3 iw aXdelae wo
joatdve ert belitiives civ asanontiw ont te {fap —
edt ton-te-sediede giiniatteoan to ensem yao edt — 2
vtsteyil baart ua aotoglgq yd aww — — — to
8 Atiw teer-ent aatqasts amis oman oft ts owe~ead ‘fenton
ao ovool eaw toot okt ti .tmomoiqml xacito ro dot¢ ted
ont bis basos baeh 10 wolied = teed evig bivow df suotoganh —
aabtutttenes-omte od) Tt eLtiw jteviup $2 Lo9% bios bast
a Aond eviy bluow ¢i ,otac vitmetages to , bawos sw toor od
om Loe% biuew baad et, dae ,bowon wll Lled to ——
nw *
— * bas vastaorte 20 aabtovisp
TM ane ton 16 rodtonwheaniaresoab nae eyawio moo pvonkman e enka” ' ;
one ak toot
,OnsstA Anat waew Jnehioos oft ad aeontiw vino eT? .
dtiw bektow ow .etataetnt eortteqge to "ybbad? oo ond 10g J—
bre ,moor gaintetbe an mt bextvew ontw ——— “ee smb
Otataetat eteeristegss dtiw exew ,teyet Ho
| bettttans ONngStA beret, fomhtoon edt exoted,.
f
i"
w4u
i
examin ed seh, room and that it was safe, but saw no similar
mark on the walls of the room. The evidence of the mine
Manager was that the mark "23" was on the "brush" {at the
end of the roadway) and about six or seven feet from where
the rock fell. The witness and asceiter*s intestate upon
entering the room, about 7:30 A. M., before commencing work
on—the—-day—in..guestiom, sounded the roof with their picks.
In the opinion of the witness, everything-in- the room was
in good condition up to the time the stone fell, —
9:00 A. M., appetters intestate, ——
Sambon and the latter's “buddy,* took lunch in the roadway
nearby. Aragno testified that upon returning to their roon,
appeitee*@ intestate sounded the roof with his pick at the
Place where the rock subsequently fell, which was immediately
to the right of the roadway, and about five minutes there-
after returned to the same point and while again sowmding
thet—part-oT tite reef the stone fell uvon him.
Sambon testified that he snd appertects intestate
entered the latter's room "the first thing" that morning and
found a “squeege,” namely, — a portion of the roof or
coal had fallen between his room and that of appellee's
intestate. Gambon testified, - _
Qe "Had you seen him go in there that morning to
the place where the rock fell on him?"
A. "* * *® Yes Sir. But he (appetlects intestate)
looked -- it was pretty bad. Then he came
out and I saw the props * * * he got the props
down under it (the stone) * * *, Well you see
the props the first thing off in the morning, «
he never sounded in the morning at all.”
ui
He further testified that he ==s—with —— 9 — intestate
a 4d Ldy
when—the-tetter with-a-—pick sounds@ the roof, the on
between nine and ten o'clock,snd that the roof sounded
Z00d, te-the-witness. cambon testified further, that the
stone slipped, diagonally, about six inches towdrd the
oda
X
tatimie ox waa tud ,otea aaw SE dant bas mons sloswn be elopxs
enim eft to eonghive eff .noor oof to elisaw add so Aten
eit te) “deutd® edd oo eow "ES" Ate ot tect eaw Tegament
etodw mort teet nevee xo xte tuods baa (yawbaot ods To base
noqu atasteotal e+vetieces bane atentinv eff fist doom ens
Atow gatomenms s1oted ,.M .A O8;% Suede ,moox odt aniiod m
ewlotq tkedd dtiw toot aid bobeswoe ,#eddeaup..h-yeb--oct-ao
aaw moor edd ah-gnbtboun ,akemtiw odd te noinigo ons al
tyoda ,ffot emote sit omis ons OF Gur noigibneo boos nt
—— ,otadeotat wewtiowges ,.M -A 00:
yewbsot aft ak donut Joost * yhbud® e'xestal eft ban andmal -
smoot tksit of ankewider soon tach betdisess oepetA .ydusen
edd tu Aoig ein déttw teor oft bebumeoe stetastini eeetivege
vletsibeomt sew moldw ,fiet yLlinetpeadwe Aoot sit evenw soalg
-o1sdt cotunim evkt tueds bas ,yewbaot oft Yo deg it odd of
anibmoe stags ofitw bane integ smee odd oF bested es 193 te —
mid nocs LLset enote off toot ey te tesg-sods .
staseetni etsetizres bas of dan boitites?d soduak —
bos gaketom tadt “anise tack? oof" moot a'toijal ade bored me
so toot eft te noiiten 4 oxoue Semen ",sxesupe” s Beuot
atoelfLoggs to tefd Sac moot ektl noowied nolis® bad Lao
a pho kbd cod codmae .edetootat
oF uninisom stadt oxvV9ds al og-mid meoe yoy hol P-~
"Tmid no [Lot tivo eng ↄ Pine ont
(etatestnt ateotdequs) of tut .tke wey * *# "OA
easo of sedt bad yttem1my sew BE -- botook ~
aqorq edd tog of * * * eqoatg ot won I bra f70 ©
eon woy Low .* * * (enote eft) #1 tobe avob — -
-, sakirrvom edt at tto yotdd gertt ef? agotg end
* {fe #4 anintom oft ni hobmvoe teven od:
o ad a oo nt —B od Stadt bebbidesd sepgivt off
babes aati chown oxtd re bates —
bobnunes Toor od tadt bos Aſnco orlo nes bag onta mowted
eds tarts todguut baitisees aoctaal ———— —
ed wtswot eedont xie dvods ,yllenogsih yhoreital — i
»~
25
face of the coal before it fell. Aragno testificd that the
top of the stone was damp, smooth and slippery. The stone
was seven fect long, three and one-half feet wide in the
center, tepering te a point at the right side, and about one
— ——
to two feet thick, One of appettant*s,expert witnesses, who
examined the stone after it had fallen, testified that in
such a mince a stone can change or break within a few minutes.
He described a "slip" as a condition in the top of the stone
which can be detected by sounding. Another expert witness,
who testified in behalf — ae Btated thet if a stone
is wet it can be ascertained by examination and the danger
determined. <Aragno testified in this regard, "It is harder
to tell if it (the stene) is solid when it is wet.*
The mine examiner, John Thom, testified that he
examined the roof of the room Dr-qUGEtion at about three o'clock
on the morning ef ¢e-kepeerine of the accident, testing the
roof with a pick, (instead of-e-rot’ Ur bar, as provi sed by
-stetute}—and strtm™i thet there was no loose stone nor dangerous
condition, teewe,. The examiner to get into the room had te pass
through a space under the rock or brush three feet inheight.
and four feet in width. On the face of the roek or brush, at
the end of the rondway and above the said entrance, he ine
seribed the mark "25," and did not place any danger mark on
the walls of the room inm—qtresetion, the testimony of Gambon
tended to show that it was owstomary to place the mark “on
the face of the brush or some stone alongside.” Thom
testified that he alse examined the room after the stone fell
and that at the time he made the examinatio before the
accident, “there was nothing could have come there * * *
except they * * * (Carra and his "“buddy") had dug the coal
out, that the cowl was * * * stiil covering the piace where the
eat tent boktites? ongetA .iiet ii oxGisd [noo off to goat hs
enote off .yreqqita bas dgoome gush asw enode oft to got
ett ai obiw toot tiad-ono bus essdt nol doo} mevee aaw
eno Suodsa bag, hte. ao eit ts taiog a of vert xo “p⸗d , tne | |
ow ,eoneenthw suisqxh,.eMretieggs to on .Axoidd toot ows ot i
mk todd bekittsest ,aolia? bad ¢2 t98ed ta onode ont ponkmaxe i
esetunin wot s nidtiw dsetd 1¢ o_maio apo esote o onima a —J
enote eft to qo? edt nh noitibnoo a as “qile” a heditoseb oh J
seonsiw Sregxe tedtoms spatdawon W hetootes ed nao —R J
5.
ry
* —* VLatled nk bektitaet ow
teprnab sat bas moitankmeaxe er hboniadieped: ed mo tk sow ob
tebtad ef 31" ,brsegox elt mk heithtced onpets -bontmasseb 7
"tow ai tf mostw bifoe at (emote off) Fb TE’ Stat: +
on todd bottiteot sod? mfol ,temimexe emiu off 8 = J
AsoLo'o cenit duods te errt moor odd Yo toot seit boukeene
edt gattaes ,tnbloon ost to <pmknoequdt—ecie—t0 antetos att 10
UO BSSTVOTY Bs tas “Yo here -Aa_has teat) vlote'a tlw —
——— 10m emote sacot om aew etedt dude fertete
enotve se ti Sands botate *;
ef
asaq et bad moot oft otni toy of VeRtmaxe sx! vase w0hs thn 7
tigied ni foe? vondt Mesrd to Moor off sneha 29ae 6 dase
ts ylexid to woot ext? to oda exit nO at hiw mk toe mot be 7
«ni of ,oonettnoe bine edt aveds bias yarbaot ect te bre.
no Aram tepnsh Yana goulg Son bib bas * eS" ion oe bodin
; nodmsc to ynomitaot off moot edt to alisw »
| MO" Atom aft soalg of yYtameteno aaw 34 todd woela of boom
4.) mont? ",ebtaynels onota enon to duced odd to west o
x Ifet onote oft t0d te moot smd hbenimaxe oale on — —
as; add owted mit antmaxd ont obam ext omit ould * eed bee
BAe obit oxredd emoo eval bLues ghhtvon aaw oreit®
{s00 odt sub batt (*ybhud" eiff baa ated) oe 4
J aa Set abies vee aude * © gow ‘
— a “ed - : * — eri aa ol
Po a rt! aa ere)
aiid
stamp”
7 %
268
gtone fell, and * * * that before Carra could have gone in
there, he would heve had to take the coal down." On cross
examination he wac osked "So you didn't sound it (the reof)
at the place where he wae killed * * * @* Answer, “It was
too tight * * *#, I sounded it after I got through, where I
gould get my pick to sound it, where the man was killed."
Samben tentified, "Carre did not take down any coal
that morning." Aragno testified that avpetree*s intestate,
after lunch, was working wnder the ploece where the steme fell
and *we had taken the coal out, where Mertin teovetberts
testimony, that the coal was 2842 coverinc the roof where the
stone fell, shows conclusively that he — ot entered or
examined..the-room-in-mrestion. Aprettree+s Rauber and the
mine manager testified regarding falls of coal present sat that
time in other rooms, some of which reoms were not in use, wete
condition, _1t..is.argued;s wis sur ri était to put-the mine examiner
upon-notice-of the dancer which existed-there., Presence of
such falls of coal, imeludine—thae-one—in—sembents._coan,
imsediataly adjoining--thet of-aprelieer’*s“intestete; were denied
by the mine examiner. ¥
ence — +
— ore >
is PN no adequate system byshich. the. pa of
the men into the mine,
» The veehe — to
contain the record of examinations emsisted of a printed form,
Signed in blank, with 4 different dake originelly entered and
erased, and the date in. —— viz, December 23, 1911,
inserted in Ate piace. The mine examiner admitted that he
erased * em signatures in said book and replaced them
wi thera, until a new book wes obtained. Rxemination of. this
pei PIIESRVC NETNAMES L MNT LOM Ts Ra py
— — that such was the practi®e”- covering’ W period or
nk snog oval bLuoo sited stoted todt * * * bae , fist goose
aaotes nO ",mwob Laos adt otfat ot beri oven bivew en ,oresid
(toox eft) tk bauce F'nbip voy o&” heaes sar of noidenimexe
eow SI” ,towandA "f * * * holitt aaw en aiedw eralq oft da
L etedy ,dgvoiwlt gon I tofte tt hobavon I .* * * telghtd ooF
" pollit saw nan oft oxedy ,22 bayoe of Yotg ym den biwoo
fs00 ya mwoh elet ton bth svtad® ,bsitisass sodmes
~watastnt ¢*eetieqrs dodt hbolititest ceyetA “.grkorom tant
List omse oA3 stotw eocl¢ off 1shmet aridter saw ,tiomwl 193 Ts
eeeiterar} nisial ets Av ome tame oat mgmt fest ew" bao
*.eTeted J wDitbaads caw federteodat.
By ly MR
edt stedw Toot ox nitfitewoo Litte new Leoo ert tetd ,ynomiseeds
“9 —** bat ed tert yierrewlonoe swore ,ifet enote
——— rhegittwry OMS ITM moom eid beakmoxe
gest tc tusrese [soo to elfat ynkpteget beltitess teqansnm onkm
dette ,sov ni som stow emer okhow to sooe ,amoot rottte ak amis
wihinsxs onia-edt tue oF Fhois Tian wow yheugas.ot- dh pooll i dep
te soneretl overt bodaine —— ‘tonnnh sit to-sebton—naqy
%o0t..21 s0dme-+—md--orn-orltamtbetow! .faon to alle? ——*
bolneh avew i te todd aatale bb. yietetbowme
— terhiwxe oeike ods yd
— — — —
2 —F gon rghit — aD
ary er
to xsi eas lo belie ee mad oye etaupebs ast bankas nis X
os antisoqiuut dood aft, Bedahenbeweer-eew ,ontm ort odmt rom ony
sezot beiakig s to heseisms anoidenimexs te haeoos ent abst 109
bua bexeine yLiaainizro ofub tem re Ttkh o dthw inated nt boonie
ALL 8 todmeoe” ,alv «10 53 a stab odd Sr sbeagte
ea tetlt dottimbds tonimaxo onlin oat +9d0Lq agi mk ecaũ
wont booa Cqat bus Xood blew at nerudanytn bus segib
atdy Yo noisaninsxti .beataide saw Aood wen a Skt ay é —
erwe 6 watadros worns e old wow Hoe ai senate
ite
four years.
The principal issues of fact in this case is
whether there wes a dangerous condition of the roof in
question at the time swppellant's mine examiner inspected
the mine and whether that condition wes of such a character
that the mine examiner could, by veagoneble inepection,
have discovered it. It is admitted that wnless the
evidence shows thet the wilful failure of appellant toa
perform its duty proximately cxaused the death of appellee's
intestate, there can be no recovery.
WR. JUSTICH MCGOORTY DELIVARwD THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Appellant seeks 2 reversal on the following crounds;
i. The suit is barred by the Statute of Idimdtations.
2. Errers in giving end refusing instructions.
3. The verdict is against the manifest weight of the
evidence,
Suit was commenced on December 21, 1912, by J. H.
Alsdurf, Administrator of the estate of Carra Martin, deceased,
On January 24, 1913, more than a year following the death of
“Martin Carra, the court ordered all papers and proceedings
in said cause be amended by changing the neme of the deceased
to read "Martin Carra“ instead of "Carre Martin," and on the
game day the declaration was filed by appellee eas administrator
of the estate of Martin Carra, deceased, Did such amendment
constitute a new cause of action?
The words “Administrator of the estate of Carra
Wartin" are mere descriptio personae, and an amendment
correcting the error in transposing the names is not a new
suit, Wileke v. Henrotin, 241 Ill. 169, 176, and cases therein
cited. The praecipe and summons were not changed by inter-
ai saso eid nk tost to equeak Lagioniag ext
4
—5 sldanoaset yd ,bivos 9 abmaxe oubat wuts
———
——— * as aob old bonuse ylotamexoxg wet yy nee %
bis 59
a 3*
—B on od nao wwe re —*
bys -
ay F
envod SHY YO MOTUTGO coM unn yinodbex surat —
Ehnuo td aatwollot oft ao Inetevex o Aavoc taalieaga
| anolsaS igi to etusati odd yd berind ab thos oat
9 anotaouas a at gakavtet Ss aritves ext —
ond to tiyiow teotinam ot tonkaga ek totbra
890 *
* i Gar
of “t “d SLL us —— rat) beouemmos Baw oben
pany P's
yas,
to diaob ont yakwollot 10% « aed? ovom ,S£06 do yxanm
asat boes01q bas atoqad LLs bovebre tues emt 4 _
beasooeh ond to eman est? gnkgasiio xd ‘bedaoms od 98
ent no 4 “ attis sited” ‘Yo beotant * aria ake
E — ——— as selieqqe yd helkt aaw fo tds t8L998 J
dmembrome dove bka -boesonsb oriad mks isi to odd
Potton 10 oauas won a
-
sti) bol tates exit to rhart eae” ebxon emt
bith leeds Vane, ea 9
‘evans bas 1 ate .00L ve 4 a sl
*— i Ale ieee ea Ae —* Sin — *
»d Jon exew anonmve bas eqt
il
-8e<
lineation subsequent to the order of amendment. Such
interlineation was not nscessary os the order of amendment
is sufficient to support the verdict after judgment. Lockwood
Vv. Doane ct al., 107 L111, 235, 239.
Appeliant complains of given instruetims 1, 3,
4, 5, and 6. Instructions 1, 5, 4, and 6, respectively,
are complained of on the ground that they do not point out
the issues of fact fer the jury to try, but leave it to the
jury to determine what the issues are under the statute.
A complaint similar to thet made as to instructions 1, 3,
and 4, was made in U. S. Brewing Co. v. Stoltenberg, 211
Til. 531, 535, 534, of an instruction which told the jury,
if they found from the evidence that the plaintiff made out
his case by a preponderance of the evidence as alleced in
the declaration, then the jury should find the defendant
euilty ete., and the court said, *fhis form of instructions
has been approved by this court in a number of cases and it
is unnecessary to repeat what is said in those cases," -
citing numerous cases. In Belskis v. Dering Ceal Co,, 246
Ill. 62, the court on page 69 says, "While the practice of
giving such an instruction is not te be commended, it is
not reversible error where every cornt in the declaration
contains the necessary allegations for recovery.” In the
latter case, the instruction given was similar to the sixth
instruction in the instant case, andit was there srgeuved that
the court erred in giving an instruction which in effect
told the jury that a recovery could be had for any injury
or death of which the wilful violation of the Wining statute
by the plaintiff in error was the proximate cause, regardless
of whether or not such violetion was charged in the declaration.
In that ease, as in the instent case, the instructim did not
dos® .tnembmesm to tobto silt o¢ tmeupesdye moidaonki
i tnembasme to z9b10 oft ua Ytseeeoen son aaw wo id somkived ak Hi?
boowloo, .tnomgbut totts tolbrev ott troqque ot Saolos? we at
-86S ,8e& .(L1 VOL ,.ta te gusod wv
. «> ef amitouitent neviyg to entalqnoo taslleqgs | 5 J
XIOVISOSGqSoa T, ð ,f anoltowtganl 1.3 bae ,8 ah —
two tatod ton ob yorsd tant bauoty edd mo to beniaLame 9 om
P 7
odt of ſ*4 evael tud .yid of ytwh ads tot don? to wouesk oxit ;
.stutasa ert treba etm neuset edt tardy onienetsh of yh
Rs .& .f£ ancitomwrsant of ae ebam tad? of tnlimia eat⸗ta⸗⸗⸗ a He
+; {18 ,ntednetlete .¥v -09 guitwout .8 .U at sham aaw «ab om
" Xxud ont blot dotnw moitowrtent ma to ,be2 ,€6@ ,f68 ne *
tuo ebam Ttitntala ed todd sonehive edt mot awe edt Re f
J ni bovefls as sonebive silt to sonerebnoqgong au o2aD uti ar)
| inabnetob ors bakt binorke yret edt nordt rohtdintoeb .
enoitorttank to rot eft?” ,biea dtsioo edt ban ee 0te vit, oe |
ti bos epaso to tedmwa # nk tues aide yd ooxo aage need aad :
- “,seaesd saodt nit bise ek ianw taoqes ot iasesses eek
yt: 1299 [s09 patted .v eitetem al .89aao svowomunt ko
to sokfoerq elt olin” eyes 08 ensg no dxueo aid 80. tr x
1 et tk ,bebaommoo of of tom et misoutiank na tome seins J
nottstafoeb edt ak faves yxeve ovedw sort sidteroven ¢
es a
edt at “.yrevooet 10% ennidonsila yiaeeeoon ont ont a
atxie edt ot telimte saw movin notvonwrtank ons aus
z tsdt beupte etedd eow tibas ,eaad Soodemk ent ot so bd ours ant
ic toette ak doldw aottouttent as gntvig at bert cn J — -
ai viutat vas 10% bed od bivot yrevonet « dant wut tt be
" etutete yrinty ent Yo omitelokv Lutiiw ont dotdw %
7 © obegulmaaie .oeveo otamtxoxg off sow sor; mit Ws
tsfoeb ont mt beyrsdo asw noiseLoty owe ee
—2
J “mm kt owes emt ont s9ano taotenk et nt es, yas f *
A
direct a verdict, and other instructims given for plaintiff
in error, as in the instant case, stated fully that there
‘eould be a recovery only for violations of the Mining
statute as charged in the declaration. The court held that
instructions must be taken as a series and that there was
no error in giving the instruction cemplained of .
It is argued that the fifth instruction is
erroneous for a number of réasons; thst it speaks of appellamt
as (a) wilfully failing to inspect the place where apyeliec's
intestate was required to work, (b) failing to observe whether
there were any recent falls or dangerous roof, and (c) thet it
submits to the jury the question as to whether appellee's
intestate had bem directed by appellant to enter the place in
question, when there is no evidence in the record of such
direction on the part of appellant. * a 99GE"
Paragraph 4, of section off: of the Mining Act of
1911, imposed upon the mine examiner the duty to observe
whether there were any recent falls or dangerous roofs. It
is not contended by appellant's counsel, that appellee's
intestate was not acting within the scope of his employmmt
at the time of his death, and, therefore, no evidence was
necessary of any specific directim to appeliee's intestate
on the pert of —— After reciting the allegations of
' the declaration, the instruction continues, “If mre jury
believe from the evidence that the roof of the room, where
plaintiff's decedent was killed, was in a dangerous condition,
and that said dangerous condition could have been ascertained
by the mine examiner within twelve hours preceding the day
aforesaid, and that the defendant was gcuilty of the wilful
omission alleged in the declaration as aforesaid * * * ,"
The contention of counsel, that this portion of the instruction
assumes that the roof was in a dangcrous condition, is without
ttitatalq t0T nevis dem 2s owedond tedto bax ,totbiev 2 soetkb |
etoit dadt yilut bodeta ,evso taatent oat uk en ,tOTT® m7,
aninim edt Yo anoistulolv 10% ylne ytoveost = od biuoo
teas Sted Jusoo oHf .notsetatosd oat oh beyreda a9 edutate fal
saw otedt tadt bas eeltoe o an netat ed Jaum- acoitownsent oo
- to tenielanos inolfoutieni edt gaivig ni wrt, +.
ek moisouxdank devil? et dot beugie ak at as i * (on ;
soslloqqs to atsoge tL sandy jpenoasét te TodmeN 6 TOT tan
a !oo oq as etedw esalq odt tosquat o¢ yatlier yf itd
tedtedw evisado of yatite’?s (¢) tow ot bextupen cam ata : tat
$k tent (9) bas , toot suotegred to alfa dasoot yma. stew 9 1
s'oslisqqs rtsidtedw ov ve apitesup edt youl, on of at: 18
nk eoslg odd tod of SnsLicogs, YW betocthh aod pati etadacts pi
gous to brooet welt Mt sonebive on at supsit od 101580
ayey Ne oy scl te to ¢teq edt a9 aota id
; t tos giiaiM odd to ,Lh mottos. Yo ,b MPT TRE
| %
> aaw oonebive on «oto lest. ae. hie: wd te a
ot sd aod mk atoeiteg qa. at migoarte aktkooga Yon ve. use
- ‘to anoltsgplia. oat _gakt toon taste, domiflogge- 30 og 088 me
| yt, sg TL" ,eounksdno o ne Ao onetork | ent. aftol f,
7 pio nw moot ond to. tor oaks todd eombive emt e
* d ts kbaos ayoteyiah fh mk eoon pbollit acw dombooos. m
bentatiossr need evad bivon moitibnes auoweyriad bbae
Usb odd gukbsosrtq umuod ovlows —E 1
kw tibe ent Yo wilten sow — aca: bin
“ge le 8, Renee a a Ra rd: i :
i ars
yr) Se i a 1
10+
merit. It is alse urged tht because this instructicn says
that, “If the jury believe * * * said dancerous condition
could have beer ascertained by the mins examiner within
timelvye hours preceding the day aforesaid * * *,* that the
jury in effect were teld that it was the duty of aprellant
to inepect all places in the mine, continuously, for twelve
hours preceding the beginning of the day in question. This
part of the instruction clearly presents the issue as to
whether there was oa dangerous condition which could have
“been discovered at any time prior to the cammeoncemant of the
working day of appellee's intestate. There was no error in
@iving this instruction,
fhe instructions offered by appellant and refused
by the court were fully covered by other instructims given
in behslf of appelisnt, and the instructions given as a whole
correctly end clearly present appellant's theory of defense
and the law applicable thereto,
It is further urged by appellant's cowmsel that the
verdict is eontrary to the weight of the evidence. It is
eotended that there is no evidence in the record which even
tends te show the: there wes eae dangerous condition existing
in Cerra’s room, at three o'clock on the marine of December
83, when John Thom, the mine examiner, made his examination
of the reom, It is further urged, that even if there were a
tetal failure on the part of the mine exeminer to inspect the
roum, thet appellee could not reeever, because, it is urged,
there wes no dangerous condition present either at 3:00
o’cleck in the morning, or at 7;50 or at 9:30 of that day.
It is further urged that no dangerous condition could have
been discovered by any reasonable inspection, and that,
therefore, the failure to inspect could not have been the
hy ayes nottouttant etdt easeoed todd hagas owls ek si vitae
4 nott ibnoo quereRR AP bina * ® # oval Lod Tre, att 7" atest
Sid kw no mkmaxe erkm eft yet bentatteous needs ovad —
odd tadd © + * binessots yab act gutbooese paso 1
tnaliscgs to ytwh ott cow $i sari? bLod J 100 * de at
; | eviews sot ,vfewouniimmo ,omkm ed¢ at eeostg ifs toe
atdr .nolteeup ni yah ont Yeo gatnntzed ont satbesenq &
OF a6 event edd asnesetg viteelo ne isouss ank a⸗ te t
evel bLiroeo flo Lol noligibms evotepnsh s saw ened?
< ons to ¢ ripase © ren imo 0 ent of tong omtt Wan ts — F
nt Tox%s On Gey eveMt ,otadond nt #'eolleqgs to Wah pet *
2m £9 ones 2 nb =e ae vis —*
sano) ‘te yrosut 2 —— dneesre — * * 19.
A
* Li * * J
yaks alxe mo ts ibaoo avoregaed 5 Rew omena ‘twat — vata st absers
F codmooe ‘to pak errom eft no XooLloto wowid te yatoou
J nolsanionxe sts Loageet etonlmaxe onkm oelt moth aaloT
| 8 etow prods TW neve god row ayudar we 9 —
say odt toeqent of womtmexe sokm orlt te stag ody Mm Ox hs
boar ak gk 20s ed ctevege . Fon nism, eoltocas 3 oid
(0026 a edt ae Pree) neg wo? 109 aa *
—* test © 08: ° te <0 98 v te x0 ——
otuoo mAFLdMeo avoregnnb om tot Tah,
* = taatt brs are tgooqnat seamen we x
Ae 7 F
af * ovait tom biu0o. 1b ot oxwd
R a pA iG AY a, 1e Saar é Wise J J 7 ‘
ot de
preximate csuse of the death of apgelles's intestate, because
all of the tests of the rect made on that morning, showed the
roof to be in good condition, and no other mthed could have
been employed if inspection had been made. In Henrietta Coal
' Ga. ¥. Martin, 222 ti, 460, 468, the court seid, “Appellant
urges, howevor, thet even if the examiner did not comply with
the statute in this respect, his failure so to do is not the
proximate esuse of this acvident. The evidence shows that if
the examiner hed properly examined the entry where appellee
and Zak worked he would have found the roof to be dangerous,
and had he mace a record tO that effect and placed the con=
spicuous marks required by the luw, it is fair to presume that
eppelles and Zak would not have been permitted te enter, and
wuld not have entered, (for the purpese of mining,) the place
where they worked, until after the conditions there had been
made gaffe, CSunninghom's wilful failure to examine the mine in
the manner required by law, whieh the evidence tends to show,
and his failure to make a recerd of the facts which such an
examination would have revealed, and his failure to mke the
works indicating denger at appellee's working place, contributed
dircetly to cause the injury to eppellec.*
Thether the mine exuminer inspected the roof of the
room at the time in question was for the jury to determine, The
testimony of the mine examiner as to physicel conditions of said
room on the morning in question, cannot be reconciled with the
testimony of appellee's witnesees in thet regard. Indeed, the
testimony of the mine examiner without regerd to the testimony
of Aragne oid “ambon tends aetrongly te show that he did not
examine thet part of the reof which fell. The jury had the
right to infer from the evidence, either (a) that the slip or
dangerous condition of the stone, with its wet, smooth and
“fk~
sesaoed ,otntustat a'seliovqgys lo Atash odt to optizo stamkxerg
edt beworde ,guiriom dadt oo shem toor off to ateet oot to [fin .
evel biuoo bodtca redse on bus ,noliiones beog ot of of Yoox
£803 siteiznell at .obsem need bel moigoegani ti beyotgme nod
tnslleqqa” bier gus edt ,Gd ,00D .fiT ISS ,otdted ov ogo”
Atiw ylgqnoo ton bib tonkmexe edt TM neve todd ,tovewod , eogty
oft ton ek ob oF OM otnliet ein ,fooges't eld? ai stufate ony.
YM tends awode sonobiva emf .tashioon elds Qe sexes stamixoug
sellegqs oisdw Yisem srif benimaxe yireqotg bar te aimaxs ont
,auotegneh ad of toot oft buwot evar biluow ei hexitor 108 baa
noo ais bessig bus foette fede OF Dxooet « sham am be. be
tends eepasiq of sist al Gh wwal oft yd hoatliepe staem euown bg
Brus stedce of betsinisg moed evec Jom bivow Anh bam selleqggg.
goal ast (yoinia. to sceqreg ect set) ,betedmo oven dow biwmw
med bed exots anoisibnos sit sevia Lido . bolton yet rere -
nt entm ed? animexe.od ouwtisl Le itw e'macigadoow? .otse ohem
wos oF abnes sonebive ect oidw ywel yf besivupot ‘te eum ont
ms dove doidw.esoct adi Ye dyno" s gdom of otwiiat ali bana
eat stam of otwlist ala bas ,boloerst oval GLoow nooks sckmexe
betudiatnon ,sostlg gnkitow 2 ‘odilecgs Ja wyunt ; Said tad bck econ
* vellojqges of yuwiak oft onus os yltooukh
edd to Ytooz oft HDotoeqeai tenimsxe ents ost soattoaty
ent .onignetobh of Yul of? tO% aow nolsaonp 4 — at⸗ ts aoo ⁊
biae to anoitibaoo Leoiayrig of as ‘re Mbiars aati ec} To qanateand
eds Atiw beLllonaosot of Joanso ,woitueup mt wal som om? ap. red
“ent ,beohbat .bitegot fond mk soanontiw atesileega to unomt? 208
Yoomisent off of baxyon suedtiw tentmaxe ouim oc? To ymomiisad
tom bib of tant woe oJ ‘Lanotta saat aodma ee to
ea? bad yuwt ody .fiet doidy toot add Yo duaq boat ankaaxe
to qila edt tot (#) wAtio ,sonebive edt mort total ot fats
his dtooms ,tew eSf rtiw ,enota edt to mots thewo
wi
—
slippery surface which was present st the time of the hanren-
ing of the accident existed at 3:00 o'clock on the morning
in question, or (bv) that the stone changed end broke within
a few minutes preceding the killing of appellee's intestate,
There was no evidence to the effect thet the appesrance of
the stone after it hed falien, indicated any sudden chenge
or breaking thereof, “he placing of props under tke stone
by sppellee’s intestate, and his repested tests os to ite
safety om the morning in cuestion, indicated enmxiety or
eubt im his mind, as te its condition. The evidence clearly
establishes the fact that the mine examiner in the exercise
of reasonable care conld have discovered euch 4anrerous
cendition, if it existed.
While it was the stetutory duty of appellee's
int«state, te sound and thoroughly examine the roof ef his
working place bcfere commencing werk, there is nothing in the
statute thut relieves the opernter, under such circumstances,
from the duty te inspect, enjoined upon it by this ect.
Davis v. Missouri & Iliinois Ceal Ce., 186 Il), App. 478,
435. <Appellee's intestate nad a risht to rely vpon the
performmce of the mine examiner's duty, and the absence of
a mark in such working place indicated the opinion ef the
mine examiner that the roof was not dangerous md decedent
ecannet be held guilty of contributory neglicence in working
under the stone, Piazzi v. Kerens~Donnewaid Coal Co., 262
Iii, 36, 35.
It is not contendcd, even if appellee's intestate
waa guilty of contributory negligence, that it ds any defenae
to this actim, if the appellant was guilty of wilful
violation of the statute. ‘%A wilful violetion within the
meaning of the etatute signifies a conscious violation
enote sit tehay eqotg to grtoaiq ed® —E — ia
ati cf es ateet beiseyet aid bnew set etued mi atoeitequs et
— to yteixna heteotbaks ,n0! troup a gitierxom 9sid mo were
’ Visnole eonebtye sat .aoktibnoe asf of en , doin sir nt tdyob ate
a entoroxe ant ac Torkmaxe onke ori tedt tort ait sosoh.tes oo
ne | evorogr at lose botevoorth ovat bios onas oAe anocas⁊ ba —
* bere ixd ei tk ———— i
eteet£eccn to sue yrotussts ead had bk Mick
as
jas ends ue ok noq beais 4 frat og ub
Leva oo 4D ner 8 shonk ith a Lasod f
i ari rots vhow of tdait # deal wtatentet ataet
ey to sonsads ond bre slat 2 "rorimaxs ent ott x0 4 : .
h ot to not nico ont hesan that sosiq gnikrow sto se
"
i,
ee
tnabeceh bre anotsaneh tom aew toot afd Jacs combat
— gnksitow mt sonegtinon Yrotudiudmoo to yLken bled ed sonnsa —
(SOS 4.22 Lood béswonmoc-anetek .v genase esos dt robn
ey 7
(HEN pipes
—52 Bteollog qa tt aes \bohaneaee 0m, * a .
oe Yate ad tk tustt onenttpen | eatedhasae, —*
“Ly tLiw to — wane — 9— sg ant
te aen kw notin Lety fortes 9
eli.
thereof.” Marguette Coal Co. v. Dielie, 268 Til. 116, 122,
$8 seid in Kellyville Céai Co. v. itrine, 217 Til. 516, page
546, “Whers so large a number of persons are engsged in a
preauctive industry as in coel mining in she otete of Illineis,
end where the work is of such a character that it is recognized
as being attended with unusual hizerds and dengers, the
constitution requires that legislation shali be had for the
purpose of protecting those thus engaged from the known
extraordinary hazsrds end dangers, In the coistruction and
@quipment of mines, therefore, the act requires the discharge
of apecific duties, so thut the utmost sefcety can be extended
to the miners. ‘this requirement of the constitution is sought
to be met by this legislutim, which directs the omer, operator
Or manager to make provision for the safety of the miners
employed within the mine, ‘Where an owner, cperatcr or manager
sO Gonstrusets or eyguips his mine that he knowingly operates it
without conforming to the provisions of this act, he willfully
disregards its provisions and willfully dieregards the sefety
@f miners employed therein.” The miner under the statute is
entitled to the benefit of the supericr knowledge snd experience
oi the officers churged with the duty of discoverine conditions
ef danger in the mine. Yelis v. Lumeghi Coal Co., 166 Ill. App.
404, 4ii.
While the evicence in thie case tends to shew that
in such o mine a stene cen change or break within a few
minutes, the eviderice also discloses thet the condition of the
stone cculd have beem discovered by examination et any time
Within tweive neours preceding ite fell.
Under all the facts and cirqumstenees in evidence,
it was for the jury to determine whether such dangerous condition
existed at 3:00 o'clock on that morning, and whether the mine
@xaminer in the exercise of reasonable care could have dise
as” Be
J SSL ,PLf .ifT OOS ,otfek” .v .09 La09 atteupash °. teenodt
‘i egeq ,Afc ,{f7 VES ,anbiso .v .92 dadd aflivyital at Stas aa
a ai bagegde ets ancateg to todagn » egtal oa atest J
eetonilll to atads wits ak yatain Isoo al aw yudawb mt oria euto a
besimgooe: ai dt satis istostado o dowe to ak Auow onif oxeiy *
aig ,ateygosbd bus abrenod Laveunm s Ler bebastis guted as
Y —F edt uot had of ails selisLakgel Jad? —— aoktutiiades
| avocd eft mort begsynye uudt seed gaivesdang to anogTyg
bus soltouiteamwo edt al ,ategnabh bas sabres aol PROM DIOS AO
egitadseth ont aetlupet ton J OWotew ds ,eenks Ww Sromghups
bebnetxos od nao YWo'lss deonty edt todd o2 ,@eltub oitlosgs Lod
triguoa si woliutitanco esd to tusmexiupexs aidl .aveatm orig ot
“totaiteqo . tomo ont asoerib dp iidy ~wmitofatgel aing yd tem od —
etoninm oft ‘to yYsotse edd ict wekaivotg eam oF 2 _anem —
Toyanam 10 Toisxrege ,venwe we erode eokm odd absi¢he poyotgme ‘A
#i aststeqo yYlpniwonx orf sede outa aid sqkupe w adosidemo on
Viiutiftw od ,toa elds le aminiveng eng of gadmuo ines suodd iw :
vasdas oft Bhainnevelb ULiwtiiiw bas emoletvoxg afk abeagotesh —
ei otuiaete edi? tebe a9satm of? ".nieteds beyeiqno emaio to
| sonelteaxe baa spbe work toitequa eit to titoned odd of —R
anoltibnos saktevooakbh To ysub odd Aidw bograto exsoktte off? to
oQGA .ff1 G8L ,.09 feo) itgamwd .v si sonia ody sk wgnod to
Py ee) 0⸗
Po
; Sarit wore od abnes eee0 aids af aomevive od sLidw
wet a ofdtiw xsoud to eanede aso onete o onia eo Mowe ak
ems to aoittbnoo sii tani essolosih oals oombive ved avd |
| emis van ta mois siimaxe yd beteveoakb opad evan erry
A -ifst ugh yutboossy sawed ovd
go mpbive a asousdumwonks See atoud omg ffs te bal
‘ ftbmoo avoteyneb dove todsenw onkerrageh of Yr oe :
omim edt torltertw bas ,gnimrom sasid mo XeoLoto on 7 -:
whe
covered same, and if he failed to do so, whether such
failure on his part, was the proximate cause of the death
of appellee's intestate, We are unable to say, after a
careful and exhaustive review of the record in this case,
that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the
evidence, and finding no prejudicial error, the judgment
of the Superior Court will be affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
obhin
dove svontedw ,os ob oF bofist of Ti baw ,omee betevoo
diseb edd to egauso efemixotg od sew ,ttnq eid mo stuliat
# totte ,yee of ofdsow ots OW otatestni s'sefleqqa to
.eaao akdt mk broost ot to welkvex ovisteuedxe bane Ivtors9
esi to tentew taetkneam ent oF Yusitmes al toibiev sat ssdt
Smeamgbut, edt ,torr9se Islolbuietg on ynibnit bas ,eonebive
beak ed iliw sivod totteqwe edt to
eCEMAIVIA THIMDCUL
666 = 21004
MARTHA SCHNGHTMAN,
' | Appellee,
vs,
CHICAGO — COMPAIPY,
éeliant. }
198 I1.A. 28 -
STATRMENT OF THE CASE. This appeal is prosecuted
SUPERIOR COURT,
COOK COUNTY,
to reverse a judgment obtained by appellee, the plaintiff,
against appellant, the defendant, in the Superior Court of
Cook County, for $2000 and costs, as damages for injuries
alleged to have been sustained by her while attempting to
alight from one of defendant's street cars on which she was
a passenger for hire,
yee, The testimony-or : laintiff's eattendive physician
vate effect, that on Sa September 11, 1911,
about two hours ON: e occurrence, he found wpen
examine tion-—ef plaintifete beax, a large bruise upon her
hip; bruises upon her left thigh and back, and, wpen the
following day, a slight bloody discharge from the vagina,
which ¢tscherge continued for about a week and that he neat
continued to treat her "off and on" for pain in the back,
especially on the left side, and for retroversion of the
uterus, Ypon“examinetion $hree or four weeks before the —
trial, he found the uterus turned backward, tee—nitanns (HX
testified thst he had cone yg plaintiff for e—periat-ef-
Bix or seven years; that-he, attended her at the—time—of
the birth of her first child, more than two years before
the accident; that six weeks af ter the birth of-+he-fttret
ehild, he found, ueco_examination, plaintiff's uterus to
MONE LASIIA ‘
.THUOD, HOLABAVE
: S¥TuNOD MOOD |
' @9 AT Sey |
besuosacig el Lasqqe Bin? eH8A9 BRT WO TwMATATS ;
»sttksatalq ont ,eolloqqn yd bentatde Inemgbul, a evi9seveT of
to fused toizequé edz nk «J abso tab elt ,tnnlieggs fentoge.
}
‘ neltiutak ret eogamnh as ,etuoe bie O0OSE i07T o YF ead 4009
q ot gnitqmetts eLidw ted yc bontadave need overt of — ni
¥ asw eda doidw no atso Jootds utimabmetob to ono moxt Fi ails ie
J na Wate souk 10% How acag 6
msloiaydq pad ret a! ttit mind ——
— LL t93dmesqed — —J—— ai ee
segue bot ef ,eonetIwese 9
al sed mogu oalyid egial # wabed p*¥lsalelq >
: ots sogee ,bas oad bas dgidt Stel set mock sani —
,Snkgsv odd mott ogustverh yooedd Idgile o wea es ory
; . Shesst ef tadt bes Xoow « suede t0% bowsthd s00 Sey . :
i dont etd mk nieq to% “no hows Tio" todd teens wanuuere
eit to noaaAs vo xdᷣ tot bas ,oble #teL any m0 Doge
edt exoted afoow awe? © oontf wit wa
dy — » beanntaag —— * * —
be normal in size. iar) tan was practically complete
at that time, * the-witress, further testified that at the
time of the accident Plaintiff was in goed health,
+ Qua Mo tion of_defendant*s—counret to strike out the
\ ferecoing testimony with reference to retroversion of the
» uterus, as not connected with the accident imqoestiemn, was
éenied, *
the plaintiff was three months advaneed in
pregnancy at the time of the accident and gave birth to a
child six months thereat ter,
WR. JUSTICK MeGOORTY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TH” COURT.
The defendant seeks a reversal on the following
grounds;
(a) Mrror in overruling defendant's motion to
strike out certain testimony of plaintiff's
Physician,
(vo) Brror in giving certain instructions,
(¢) ‘he damages are excessive,
The evidence of the attending physician of plaintiff
tended to prove that the conditions complained of by plaintiff
at the time of the trial were the result of the accident in
question, and the metion to strike out was properly denied,
| One of the instructions complained of, is as
follows;
ra “The jury are instructed that the law requires
the employes of comnon carriers to do more than to stop
reasonably long enowh for passengers to safely alicht
from its care, They are bound and required to ascertain
and know that no passenger is in the act of alight ing
from the car before putting it in moti again. If an
employe fails in that respect, then such failure is
imputed to his employer and is actionable negligence on
the part of the employer, provided the passenger s at
such time not guilty of contributory negligence,"
In Loudsville & 5. I. Traction Co. v. Korbe, 94.N. =. 768,
etelamoos ¥lisoitoatg, saw sole stowed” one ct Lamon od
oft ta dandt beititaes soda? tweet “omit Sel? ta
witised boop ai eow Ttiinislq daebioos eat to omit 9
oft tuo elfite of feempev-rttrsbneteh— te nots og OF 7 te 4
ents *o notetevettet of eoneretot dtiw ynomisact antoyene, | nit
aaw ,seteeewp—wt Jnobloon ons itiw betoesnnmo Jou as veut : —
nt beonsvbs apftnom se1tt oew Ttiiniaig oT i?
es of dtutd oveg bre trebiooe ect to emks ott Ie qonsagetg < :
| te ws teotedt adtoom xia bhtio
THUOD NNT TO WOLMIGO SMP GQUNKVEMNG YTAOOOOM AOETOUG «AM
TT oe
; oak Sys aed, ai
gniwolfet edi ao dsatoves 3 exowe ineabaeteb oslT —*1—
— Saas
ꝛ ab cuut cc
ot motion a'iasbaoteh yalinvievo ak 108x%k {s) * bah:
a'ttiintsla to ynomitesd nisdvoo tuo ektate
onsioleydg J———
it 7
,anciiousteni staties gakvig al zoxti ra ay
as . a Wore) a
seVisaooKs ots vegamsh oifT (8) ARE 4
ttitaislq to astoLevilq nalbeette ont te esmebive oft
tiktatalq y¢ to bontslgmoo seoitibaon st dadt svong od bobs
mk tnobtooe od to thunet sad otow Lalut odd to emt one
eo Bk ,to bonisiqnon enoltowssemi eft b emO
; ————
aetiupex wal oft eeg besoutteni ets Urst, ots :
_qots of madd oxom Ob oF ateirzao nemmoo Yo eeyolgno eons
4 idyils yYLotae of ateynoeeag Tot Amon gaol yidanos
niatrooss of bettupet ban bawod exes yer? .etno ooh
\ gitingifs to fom oft ak at aeaq on tedd wo
oy na tI .niage motion mi ti qaktiuq er0led to ot
4 at erulist dows odt ,dooqeet Sedd at elist syolque |
¥ no eonegkigen oldanocitos ai bas seyot ay ot boduqnmed —
ss de apw togmeacaq eft bebivorg ,% Lame to S2mq oat
“ng *,oomgifgen yrosudiat noo 16 + dove
am ⸗er oH 000 nee v +O) ee
(TERE tania —
I
3
769, the court instructed the jury in part as follows;
"*# * * You are instructed that stopping a reasonable
time for e passenger to alight from such car is not
sufficient but it is the duty of the conductor or other
person in charge of a street car to see and know that no
passenger is in the act of alighting from such car or in
a dangerous position before putting the car, of which he
is in charge, in motion.” In commenting on this instruction
the court said, * * * # The vice of this charge was that
thereby the trial court informed the jury as a legal
proposition that it is the duty of the conductor or other
person in charge of a street car to see and know that no
passenger is in the act of alighting therefrom or in a
dangerous position before putting the car in motion; that
the jury was thereby given to understand that under all
circumstances it is the duty of the conductor in charge of a
street car to see and know that no passenger is in the act of
alighting from such Cars Counsel for petitioner cite no
authorities which can be said to uphold the correctness of
the charge in question, * * *# *
The foregoing opinion is in harmony with the
uniform line of decisions in Illinois. Tri-City Ry. Co. v.
Gould, 217 Ili. 317, 321; Wimmer v. Chicago Railways Co.,
185 Ill. App. 523, and eases therein cited.
What constitutes negligence is a question of fact
and not of law, The giving of the foregoing instruction was
reversible error, |
REVERSED AND REMANBED,
oe
saunttet en ftaq ak yist eft betouttank jxuns oft , 2d
efdsnoaset 3 antagese sads botowtgant ors veY * & & ®
ton ek tao cove mont tdgliia of wyaeaesag a tot omit
texto to tetoubimmo of To ytub odf ab 44 Sud SnelolYiwe
on godt wom bra sea of tao toorte © to sptedo mt noeteg
nk to t69 sows moxt yaiinyits to tow eat at af tegneseag
of doisw te ,tao on? gaidsugq wre'ted neisjiaeg avo teynieh a
noijoutsani aids mo gnitmommes al “,nolgom mi ,opiado mk at
todd saw egiaih elit Yo oolv edt *# *# *# * bise Juveo ent
layol a us yrs, edd homo tat devon Latad off ydetodds
songe xo totowbaoo oft to ytub oni ef $2 dadd moitieegoriq
on dant wom! base esa of 199 Seotte o Yo egtaro mk moeteg
s mi 10 mortoveds grisdgifia lo tom oft ok ak a9gn9a8sq
tact jooltom ai tao off gaistsoq eteted noitisog avo tegaab
ffs tobays Jatt Daetexebos of movin ydoteds eaw yunl, ony
s to sytadto ai tosjoubnoo etfs to yuh ond ak #2 soonndomumato
to jou odd ot at wyn9saag on seat wore’ bane seo of tao sootde
om atko teonoizvitog tot Le anno? _ + he down wont gabidy tia
to eaentoorroo ent blodqw of Sisa od mao Solow weiftied? us
"“* * * ,motivoup ai sgiado edd
ead diiw yoomisnd wk ef seiokgqo xynkenexc? eAT
-V 100 .¥S ystOwdae .etomdi fi at emoieioes 10 omkL mrotiay
—
1-02 Byswlial oysoiso .v yf86 , VLE .1LT PLR .bhwod
ebotio akortedt seam ban ,o88 .q@a .LLt Oar
font to soltsoup » a8 sonegifLygon sxedutivanoo dant
aeow sotvouttant gaiogetot edt to antvin sot? wat to ton bas
tort eldistoevet
eTHMAMEA CUA CHGARVES
; 4
1 yaw
449 = 21647
WILLIAN A, NURTSE, )
APPGlLLoe,
APPRAL BRGH
ve. GIRGUIT COURT,
COOK COUNTY,
198 I.A. 28
Mi, PHO We€hG JUSTICS wcOUAELY
DELIVSR&D THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
CHICAGO CITY RALLWAY
COMPANY, °
— — ey,
ppellant.
Plaintif?, alighting from one of defendant's street
care, wee injured, ie brought suit for demages, siieging that
the car had veen stopoed for him to alight and while he was
in the act of alizhting it suddenly started with a violent
jerk, throwing him to the ground, The verdict of the jury was
favorable to him end he had judgment for 41,600.
We have concluded to ceverse this judgment for the
Yreasen that the evidence fails to prove that the accident
happened ss plaintiff alleged; it clearly appeara that he
alighted from the car before it urrived at its usual stopping
piace and while it was in motion,
U Plain tity lived on “ast 29th place near Indiana
Avenue, in Shieago,. He was riding homeward on a southbound
Indiana avenue car, His daughter, about 15 years old, wus
with him, He was carrying quite a lead of provisions of one
kind and another in different parcels, He testified thst as
the car neared 29th street the conductor called out the number
of the street; that plaintiff and his daughter went to the
rear door; that the cer came to a complete standstill about
twe car lengths north of 29th street, and that as he stepped
down, still having one foot on the car step, the cer suddenly
i started, throwing him down. ‘His testimony is corroborated in
—
VBIS. Bas
E————
— Logs
—
IAM 3°19 ODAOLHO
2) BASHOD
HORT TARGA
TAO TIVSAIO
eT KUOS AND
8S AI 8eL
Yau Weom QULTtelL pre .
-THUOD BHT WO WOLRISO SAT Gao Vidic
soowes a'inabasted to eno mott gaktdiuiia ,titgaiold i
sans gnigoiia ,2ogemud tot dive tdyword ol .betmial ese , uss
saw on oftmw bar gotpife of mid Tot begqod a noad bast tao ont
tnefoiv 2 atte bettata yLrobbwa $i Boiidghia Yo tom edd ak
Baw Yt edd Yo soibrey oAT .bawaty, off oF min griwowris axet
2008, 4% xot dronp_bet oaal erf bre —* ot eidetovet
edt rot tmempbul, eisi? setevoy of Lebulonop ova oF
trebioos off sant? evoro of eilet sonebive Sot tas nOeeet
en tone sinecqs yhuaelo df — E— ts ibs ath an bone qqad
gniqgotn Levey atk te bevizwa #4 oxpfed «od amt wot bettyhis
eMoitom @t Baw ok 9 (hele bow ooalg
ansibal teed eoelg Ae0S gest so beavis a ae
bruoddtsoe a 10 hbisremod gatbi«a enw eH +0091 mi, OLTeVA
saw ,bLo ersey aL tucda a tet dyueh sti ts anime ve sims i eed
eno ‘to amtutvetg to bool s otbup gars 9 Bs on mkt Ad dw
ag tend beltidacsd OH .@Lenorag tro 19 ARE © a = att bata
xodusn oft tuo beatles todeubaos 99d joomd e ges
edg of drow to¢dpush eli bam vibe atta
duoda [Lttebnsta eteLqmos # of gino Hue
boqqota on an tectt bas ,teetts Aves 0 Att
Ylnebdbbun i909 eff ,qose tao ent no foot ano
{
ni bodavodotios ek ynomttaes att ae
oe
certain respects by his daughter, It is not disputed that
the accident happened some distance north of the usual
stopping place of the cer,
whe atory of plaintiff and his dauchter was
contradicted by at least seven witnesses, nost of them
passengers, Their stories are ne .elear and conaistent as
to convince us of their truth?iiness, These witnesses
substantialiy agreed that when the car was 190 or more feet
north of 2d #véde Pidin diy? datkod 40 °tho rear’ or the
dds, yo Preddd By nf? dah dhe? tat hie “cas “Was ‘then “in
motion, going 6 or 7 miles per hour, slowing down; that
the conductor warned plaintiff not te alight until the car
had stopped, but plaintiff proceeded, with his arms full of
bundles, to step off, and as soon ss he lenced on the street
pavement seemed to lose his baiunce and fell; that tne
daughter started to follow but was stopped by the conductor,
who barred her way with his arm, and she waited until the
car stopped and then alishted and walked back about 50 feet
to where plaintiff waka
The verdict finding defondent guilty was not only
manifestly opposed by the creater weight of the evidence,
put the manifest preponderance of the evidence supperted
defendant's theory as te the facts, Plaintiff is not entitled
to recover, and the judgment is revereed without remsnding
the cause,
REVARSED.
toads Soduqalb gon at SI , tediauab whe yo ascequet
faves alt Yo diiron soratalkbh emoe bonmeqqait seebives «
tao ext to gonka y: bog
zaw teoddnuah ahd baa Tiitntal@ to \tote ost 1*
medd to teom — never taasl ta yd aaa
ec Sasteivmo? bas —** on e%e eeitota thot 0703,
asteontiw e2edT yanonkwtdtwid sion Yo aw pier P on
Pw Tooele
| soot s Toat 10 OOL gow tan ed? nedw tedd boerge
J ec} 0 unex ocd of bedion ‘ivabalg shove MAGE Ws
” at edd wow tao ont tanld yroddyued atu Yd boweLte®
7 duns jaweb gatwole , rer wq selia T vo 3 aikow itd
geo oft Létanw toiyiiea of tom Dtinkelg Sentaey cosovonn
to {fut anta ain Agiw pbeboenotg Viitmbalq tud ——
‘feewtea sft mo bobned off ax sooe a6 bao. . tte qota ot 5 ss
add dadt ;ifet bas adnaled afd oval of bemoga ome
sto¢oubneo edt yd heygeda saw Jud wolLot of botuade xose i
vid Litas bodlew ose bao ome ead dthw yaw cot borted ow
feet O8 tuods toad betlow hae betdat£in meg? faa —* te T9
Nr ebaw Tibinkele 9
vdeo ton aaw yen Sabae tah yichboik't todbuav ont -
o2Kebive ot ‘ko tinier astaer, oot yo beuoqgo
bedseqqra aunehive ait To sornetelnoqeryg fast
boliitne Jom af Tiktaials ,atent eft oF en yoo *
actinemas Syodsiw howiewex ak dnomghut, oft .
o CHEMy VEE
PINDING OF FACT,
The court finds that the defendent was not guilty
of the negligence chareed in plaintiff's declaration.
| Ea)
489 - 21657
WESLEY SUIKEALL,
Appelice,
APPEAL WROK RUKICUIEFAL CGURT
ve.
OF? CHICAGG,
ERNST KE, LEHMANN, 4
, Appellant. &
198 1.A. 29
WA, PRESIDING JUSTICR MCGURELY
DELIVERED THRE OFTRION CF THE COURT.
Vin a cage of the first class in the Hunicipal
Court, an action fer goods sold and money loaned, defendant
filed an affidavit of defense as follows:
*“pefendant believes that he nas a geod defense
upon the merits to the whole of the plaintiff's demand,
as follows: The whole sum, exclusive of interest, ‘sued
for, including item for diasond ring and money loaned,
was, on or about July 26, 1913, paid by defendant and
tnereafter received by plaintiff; as to item of interest
sued for, on ground of alleged vexatious delay in payment,
the nature of the defense thereto is, that said paysent
included interest up to tne time thereof, and, in addie
tion, there was, and has been, no vexatious delay in page
ment,”
Upon motion of plaintiff the court struck the affidavit from
the files and entered judgment against defendant,
Plaintiff contends that the affidavit is insuf-
ficient under the rules of the “unicipal Court; defendant
argues that it is aufficient. Tne rules of the Kunicipal
Court, which have been preperly preserved for our review,
provide tnat defendant shall file an affidavit that he be-
lievesa he has a good defense upon the merits, "specifying
the nature of suci: defense, whether by way of denial or by
way of confession end avoidance in sucii a wanner a3 to
reasonably inform the plaintiff of the defense which will
be interposed at tie trial." By Rule 20 it ia provided
thai it shall not be sufficient for defendant's affidavit
"to deny generally the facts alleged by thé statement of
’
TaGIS - Cad
el T ASML —53
— J J .09 £Loaga
TAMOD., FALTLOLTUM BORN IATTIA,
: av
sODASIIO YO —
Wines oo Tea
. tae f fn IGA,
es AI 801
YLSiUE OK “xOLTeut PELGCLEARY 4
eTHUOD NHT FO KOLNITIO aur Casevi. xa
Inqivinb edd at weeto tari Stt Yo sakes ul Vv
. trsbustesh ,benael yenom bas bfLoa ebooy, tot netese aa 4 oaeed ©
rewollot am-eensteb To divebitie ca bedlt |
estiateb D0oy a ead oi Jails dgveliad tuphive teu * 5 Ae ake —
baatauc⸗ a tidnieig ods to slodw wily os ediaem ons 9
bows’ ,Jestotni to ovisulaxe .mile alow ect? tawdfie® an’.
sbanset Yeaom oe goit Haodeth 10h mesh gaihe loot tet
baa tnabne'isd yd ole, ,eteé ,dc yiul tiode. 10-4
feetsak Ye aeli of aa i PARI ptalg vd bevieoot 1 od Ve
wJasmyaq ai valtob — bone (in t6 favor ney
Inemysq bine Jeas ,#i- odSien? any Teb ens _ to eayee ~
-libbs ni ,lan ,.tosten? emit ons cf qu Seotetit Babwiont ‘ea
‘eyaq ai yoteb ayoitezev on ,nged eel baw , Baw oteds *2*
4 ‘ Jnom
*
mort JivablTia edt vowrte tsu00 set Vttintel¢ to melsom noqu
.snnbae teh" tenisun Joentut betetne baa eetl? edz —
-weai at sivebitte add sas) ebuetaos Tiisnials
tasbae%eb g¢suooD LegioinuY ed! te eatut adt tebse snoiolt
fdqiviauwi oat Yo eoliut vit .tnpioltiwe ai ti dat) seugum
~wolvet iw0o vot bevisesty viawgorq axeed ovat doin ,Ji08D
cod gh Jedd tivabitie on off? Linde Jashasted Jans obivetg
auiyvlioequ"” ,esitem ous soqu seas teb beoy a sad on sevoks
Xd 10 Imines To vevw ve tocddous .ocneted some To oxmian env
og &# TIAAOM M LONG 4 BONED LoVe Dee aolsve too to yaw”
iLiw doisdw sanetos ens to Vtidmtatg ond wrod vidnoouses :
bebtvotq al JL OF wiut ye ‘ foead ed) im bovogredad od.
Jivebillts e'siabasleb t02 sasiot
to daometase ais vd bege (is *
Claim * * #, Any denial of any allegation of fact made
by the opposite party must inot be cvasive but must answer
ree
We de net understand that these rubes renuire
the point of substance,“
évidentiary facts to be pleaded. We hove held allegations
Similar tc the cne now before us to bs sufficient. Allen v,
Roughan, 175 App. 560; Kayes v, jage, 175 App. 410; Laskey
V. Mendelson, 191 App. 597.
fhe nlea that before action the defendant sat-
iafied and discharged the plaintiff's claim by payment is a
geod plea, 2 Chitty en jleading 446,
We hold that the affidavit was in cempliance
with the rules of the Hunicipal Court and that it was crror
to strike it from the files, Defeniant was entitled te go
to trial upon the issues made. ‘The judgment iu reversed and
the cause remanded,
REVENGED AND KEKANDED.
ebam do2t to moisgageite yor Yo falaad yA .*% * * mlalo
tewens Jaum Jud evieasve ed som) Jeum yiteq sdisogqoe ads yd
™ ‘Ye duhog: wilt
etlupet selut seeds Jads bansertebaw Jon ob oF
anoiweygetia bled evan of ,bebselq sd of alont yralsnebive
Vv meltA§ .tavioltTiwe ed of aw e10led wen ene ods of ‘tatimie
yoxues: (UL) .qgs GL .eael .v Beye (066 .qqA 681 ,petiquoh
08 .agA £0 ,goelsbood .¥
-3a8¢ Snobastes sit mottos s1oted Jasid asfi¢ si
8s et sosavaq yd misio e'ttisnialg sa% bagiadioslib hum beltet
; eo
2356 gnibsol. no yatiad & .metq boog)
eonsif{gmoo ni anw ¢ivabilts eus jade bios sw
tors. saw Ji Sais baa Srwoh faqivinge oe To eelur etd dttw
03 0) beitiine caw casenstot ses lit nuit moxt th adtaste of
baa beatevet ai Jneayouy, oy .abam taueel ead ogy faitt. of
ebebaamet esuso edt
eCAUHAMIA GHA CAGMEVA)!
—
539 - 21987
PRED F, ROBERTS, Admr, of the
Hetate of Alfred Gmith, deceased,
Appellee, AYPUAL WROM SUFERICGR COURT,
ve, — COOK COURTY,
f
CHICAGO CITY KRAIL#AY iCCGKEARY,
Appeliant,
— —
wr
\“ 1981.4. 31
WRe PRESIDING JUSTICK Mesure
DELIVERED THE CPINION OF THE CGUHT,
Vin an action for damages for vrengfully causing
the death of plaintiff's intestate judement was entered
ageinst defendant for §1,750,- manifestly a cosipromise vere
dict.
This case has been tried three times, From the
judgment on the secend trinzl appeal was taken to the Ape
pellate Court, and @ majority of the branch court waiech kad
the case under consideration were of the opinion thai the
judgment should be affirmed. (See 177 App, 400,}) A writ
of certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court, and the judge
ments of the Superiar and Appellate Courts were reversed,
The case is reported in 262 i11., 228. ‘the facts involved
are narrated at length in these opinions and will not be re-
peated,: }ene Gupreme Court in its opinion said (p,2351):
"Phe evidence, in the Light most favorable to
the plaintiff, with all tne inferences tnat could be
legitimstely drawn from it, did not tend to prove any
fault or neglect on the part of the defendant or the
exercise of ordinary care on the part of Smith, ‘the
question whether Guith exercised ordinary care is to be
determined, not by the probabilities when ne left the
sidewalk, but rather by the gitumtion when he reached
the tracks and attempted tc cross between the avyprosching
cars when the street was clear and there was no obstruc-=
tion to the view and no necessity for maxing tne attempt,
The evidence esteablisned tnat Gaiti misjudged his ability
to cross the two tracks between the aprroaching cars, and
on sccount of his error of judgment, for which no one else
could be held responsible, he lost His life. Smith could
. oss to etmbA 4 ht CHM
“aa ‘ ,beumeoeb ysis tie Sounin te e2adex
THUGS HOLMAVE BOAT —8 soo Llauga AS
rave
semis YAN DLA ¥tL9 —
nat
Xxrihoð ROOD
/ \ —
re Alger
YIZRUGOM MOITTUL ONLALEeRE GRE
_?iOD ENT TO ROTMIGO BHT CEOMeVELAT
gcleuss Yiivutgaotw i0% oogennb 2107 not on 12 at .
borsste eaw Jovaubul, ateteeasai a'Ttigalaigq te déaseb eds”
ae ealmotquoe s “viteetinan -,0d9,13 tot i nabie tee teatage
| tonb
— Rott | —* oats bolts wood —* pany wast Fr 9
244 ods os ao ins & 20 tangs {eine buecee sade we Ja9 abu
bad doiaw diwoo donaid sfp ‘to (tizojaa * bus —— ———
git iad? aolaigo ed) to stew solsaiabianoo Teh A ceno on⸗
dite A (opm otqA TEL oe) s-how1ltin ed bIuorts Jamsbut
eybui, eat baw exnod emo aaut. sis xd batapis saw dragelszee 10 —
~bestavet stsw ei1u0d stmt [oqga bun roltoque ant Yo strom
bovioval asest od? . 888 veill SO nt botraqor ak seav oat
re
et ed Jon [fiw bas enolmigo seat mi “dgael de é an ote
:({88.q) biee nolutae ao: ai deve —*
od oldatovs? Jeom tigii odd ab ,oonebive = 7
od hitwoo Jad? esonototni odd Ife datw ,Tiisntedg
YIe8 sveTg oF bnee Son Sti ,IL mort wath \ 0 aS Sy
949 10 dnebasteb oAs Yo , we foal
sai ,Hdlee lo Sama add no
od 08 al aso Yraenibic hexsatanae
vis JtoL of nedw soisiiidadoty ed?
baioaes of nedw coiseupie ont yd *
yuidosoriga off noewted g4ote of be
“guisJeco on Srw ested pam teaelo
stdmecsin ods ynixee tol yo levsoon
Wiiiida eli bonbatuin usglal Inaas
bia ,etso gutdoxetyqs ond deewded
9eio eno on toldw 107 ,tnemubul, to
blyoo dting ,etil ein Sool om ge.
see both cars and the entire situation ways open before
him, fie was not on any crossing for pedestrians and
needed no warning or signal that the two cars were ap-
preaching each other,- a fact that no cone could fail to
observe, The evidence raised no issue of fact proper to
be submitted to a jury, and the court erred in not direct-
ing the TURORGNs** |
The facts adduced upon the present trial do not
differ materially from tnose which were considered by the
Supreme court. Its conclusion as to the alleged negligence
of the defendant and the contributory negligence of plaine
tiff is controlling upon the present appeal,
It ia asserted ey plaintiff that this case is
different in that it is now claimed in an additional count
that defendant was gulliy of a violation of the wunicipal
ordinance requiring a fender to be attached to the front of
the car in such @ manner that pedestrians would not be ine
jured or thrown under the wheels of the car, and that the
violation of this ordinance was the proximate cause of ine
testate'ts death, tt iso sufficient to say thai it waa preven
not only that the car was equipped with the required fender
but that the presence or absence of a fender had nothing to
ao with the Lect kenk ont even were defendant guilty as to
the fender count the contributory negligence of ploeintiff
would preclude a recovery.
The judgment is reversed without reuanding the
cause,
REVEROED,
eroled asqo eaw moltjautiao etlins oat bee BtRo dtod en .
) dno eneligeobeg 10% gaiegoro yous fo Joa amw of mist
“16 o1ow etd owt od tall Imrylé 20 gaierew om bebeon
ot [tal bLyoo ono om tad Jost 4 -, toto dose yuidosonq _
od teqo1q toe’? to susek of beatwr sonebive ad? ,sevresds
~Jootlb tou.al berte si1yoo oft ban ,vtut,. 8 of besiindus od |.
[ aeree sid gat”
gon ob [alts Jnvuotq osdt negqu Seoubbs eétont ant ‘
end ¥d hoteblence otew doliw eeott mort yliaitetae ‘eThib
oxnesi {geo boyetle end of 8 MoLleutonod asl —E ome T u
ening to ooneyi lyon yrotudlrt aos edt boa nabasted edd to
. eLtssqan Jnogaetq silt aoqu yniiferdnes ei tiie -
-@d iene aldd Jads Thisalafy ys bedteses af oh : |
Zawoo (munoltinba um mi bomleto won ei Ji sarid me snore Tt hb).
- [aqiolnum off to aes sfoly & to ww lig eau sonbae teb sastt
Yo tacx? and o2. Loe cian — — 9d of — & Boivivpet sonsnibro =
oni od Jon blyow sealateobeq daddy Tenaan © dove gb ta0 odd
eds sais birn i890 one “e afoot ont tabeu rw orga ie bot —
efi to ovuso sieminetq ef waw sonanlbre 2 iilc +o! motte loty
meyotd sav Ji jas yw of 200% iteue 0h ot ddneb Weraseed
ZoLust Setiupat eid diiw beqgleps sew tao oo jai: xiao ton
os gnivitdon ban asicet a te senenia 30 s0MSesT 7 oid sans sud
ol an vs fioy insboo lek: s tex agve bad tiebiooe as atiw ob :
tiddaials 1G 90tens Egan everpaialeed ent savos Fatget ond
eVtevooe: « shu Seema bfuow
ens gutoranex ivetidiw bestevet oi Jaemghey 307 .
29880 :
eCRGMAVAN |
ihe
539 ~ 21937 FINDING OF FACTS,
The court finds taat defendant was net guilty
of the negligence cnarged in plaintiff's declaration, and
that the contributery neglicence of plaintiff's intestate
was the proximate cause of Kis death,
i ~8TOAT GO DAIGKIE >
“tilug soa esaw Joahaetoh Jedd sbalt demos oat
bos ,nottatsloeb a’ Ttignialg ad b (tat ac
A?
- gdasaosnt et Ttisniaig te vonpgiigon yrodudt —
X
widaeb wil To veuno odaminong
| ;
=
8
=
440 = 21858
KISSEL MOTOR COMPANY, fi
corporation,
Appellant,
AYPWAL PROK CIRCUIT COURT
vB,
OF CUOK COUNTY,
1981.A. 48
RUDOLFH DOCAUER
ADOLFH DOCAUER,
ER. JUSTICK BAKER DRLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
beeen 1, 1912, defendants, Rudelph and
Adolph Docauer, bought of the plaintiff, the Kissel kotor
Company, an sutetruck, and in part payment therefor gave
twelve netes for §125 each, one thereof payable on or bee
fore the 6th day of each succeeding twelve sonths, and to
secure said notes wave a chattel mortgage on the truck pure
chased, the defendanta and their brother Jerry were part-
ners in an auto express business, ‘the first four notes
falling due were paid, and the controversy is saa to the
note wad on fell due April 6 and the one which fell due June
6th, Jerry Docauer testified that he and Adolph culled on br,
Rix, the assistant wmacager of plaintiff in Chicago, about April
1, and told him that they had some money coming from plaintiff
and wanted m statement; that Rix said, "Never mind the April
note; that ne would furnish us a statement of all our eredits,
and if there was anything te be paid for these tio April notes
that we woulda pay the balance, and he agreed to it that he
would send us our statement,"
Rix died before the trial, The contention
that the Court erred in admitting the testimony of Jerry as
to the conversation with Hix cannot be sustained, Jerry
Pocauer was not = party to the suit and was net precluded from
testifying by the statute, ee
BESIR ~ Obd
® .YMAGQOS MOTOM tuReIn
, | ——
tea Lhaqgga | |
TAUOD TLUOALO: MONT LANELA
.¥THUOD aooo x
Eb ATS8er
.THUOD ENT WO WOLNTKO aur — —— awa ran .au
big sh Lob ast <BIAebaeteb ,8LOL- Af ‘wodaavon
147 OM feecka was tMidolal¢ ous * #dyuod , towmoad —
ovsg ‘rotoxods tosayaq txaq as baa towttosun 4B «rea D-
-od 10 mo eldayaq toetwiis ome stone asi6 tot sedon eviews
os bes edd com aviows gaibeeoous done te yeas dad oud atot
“TG wows esd 10 ogeas tos snes que a eva wa son wee oawose
-s1aq 1988 — roa ord thead bap sétevne toh aff .bowauio
asdon “nu daxit out —R& —R aun ae at oren.
eit of ea ol (arevorsnes acid biuas bing onow auh gable?
enut ovb Ifet 49 Ach⸗ one esd bas haga oub fot Aeisw efon 7
4 no helio sig Loba bna 9d tania borrigaas ton n000 UxI%st ddd
Litga’ duoda ogas dao ih Tadaielg to togA00m coreee tt ond exif
Ni⸗ataa most gitLmoo Yonom emou bap vo a⸗ ald waht bios be wf
LitqaA and } bata tovou⸗ bbwe eis Jad? — E a iietnaw baa
«8tibexo i)e Lin to snemelasa oa wit panes bLuaw on 9 ats ‘iaton
@egon LitgA ows seeds tod bieq od og mentale aew onset ti one
ea gadd 31 of ee oat send eae fad ons WHY bdssow: ow Jad
| —* » aman Jugs te uu bees biuow
aoldiuatnos eAT tata⸗ oa⸗ —* bei xan
88 CrxS. to caonlase⸗ outs oaks Shae at hereto — eas sis ;
UTI9L -boataseus od onnma shi tm ao l aaa vo vaos odd L. ee
mou? bebu foorq tea saw bax slue vat od cota a foe —* uased
ae ay Oe ‘s Daal.’ <0 a
“the Court gave fer the defendantsthe following
instruction:
"The jury are further instructed that if they.
believe from the evidence that the defendants requested the
plaintiff£ company manager to apply credits claimed by them
to be due from the company toward the payment of the April
note, and that such manager stated, in substance, that he
would do so, and requested them not to pay any further ate
tention to the April nete until ne rendered them a statement
of such credits and that the statement of account was not
thereafter rendered them, and that no demand or request was
thereafter made upon the defendants for payment of such note,
such facts will void any right which wight otherwise accrue
to the mortgagee company, plaintiff herein, to forfeit the
mortgagors' interest in the property, as for # default of the
mortgage terms for failure to pay said April note, until such
time as the mortgagee company should render such statement
and demand payment thereof,"
The Court erred in giving this instruction -
virst: Because it is not founded on the evidence, The deée-
fendants requested Mr. Hix to apply credits due defendants
and their brother Jerry, and not alone credits due the de-
fendants, seoond: There was no valid agreement for an exe
tension of the tise of payment of the April note; and an exe
tension of time for payment entered into prior to the falling
due of the note must be for a definite time,
Lanum v, Harrington, 267 i11., 57.
Again, the testimony does not show that a
fixed amount was to be collected ion the note, nor does it
show any consideration for the alleged promise of plaintiff.
made through Rix, The defendants did not agree to keep tne
money and pay interest on it for any definite time, nor did
they pay interest in advance,
Cwossman ¥, Wohlleben, 90 ill, 5357;
Julin vy. Bauer, 62 111, App. 187,
At the time of the trial all the notes were due,
the condition of the mortgage was broken, and the plaintiff was
entitled to the possession of the mortgaged property, and in no
event should there have been an order for the return of the
property, £
gitiwoilot aitaesashbne tes eds t8% eveg samod edt Y
Meas YL tadd besowrteni q0ddtw? v1. wrtast . oat”
edt beteoupet sinabvetebd sit Jud? sonebive vad —* avelled
mois yd bemials eslbeto “elqqa of teyennm t
{itqa od Yo suomyeg os biawes yasqado odd ao ab
oi Jans ,conatedus at ,bodjate wegsnem dose Jadd baa
+38 teddiet yous ywaq of Jon sed? betecwpet base .oe ob Db.
fneae3as« a goat beteboot af Ihtaw eton fitqa anit ot
ion saw I9H09908 Io Jaemedate eds daiid hon atibeto dows
aw JHOUPST 7 Haamed oa tads baa yoort borxsbaet tod taot0dd
,esoa dova Yo Sngueveg 102 adaabae ted off noqu eban 19¢tastedt /
ewipen OniwxedTo Jagia doldw sdyia yaw Blov fLiw atoat omy i;
ois Jiolaot ed «nleoted Tiisnialy ,yasqmon seyaydiom eds of | 1
eddy ico Jivaies # Tol eo ,Ydtoqotq ead ni teotetal ‘etogays re it
fous Lidnu ,esen Liuga bina ysq of otelint tel sorted oyayitroi
ttpaelosla dowe tebser bLuosdis * © segcyttom edt ea emis
“ Yooxrds tremeq pomamd — ve
is
~ Noisovuatseai eld? goiviyn ai betes tues eAT — yo
a eT.
-ob sedi .eonebive edd ay Sobowet tom ak Ji saunoekt fends —
* J
@taadasteb ae efibeuvo “eka of xi . XE botaaupert ataaboot 7
ob odd aud S#ibety cael ton ban ,¥rtel toddors thesit 8 ie
-“%0 8 <0 t srsusetys bilavy om eaw ored't baeond: .agnabn wee
ko o# bun j;aden LitgA acd to tosayeq te anid ons to nolenet ti
——
poaiifat ‘ald os. toirg otmi bexe di insayaq tot emt to woolen
.omid SSioklob 6 20% od Jeum atom sit to °
%@ ,.111 Yes ,aedgmizeed .v iwmed |
8 sans woe Jen abod YNomidgees oats ,alaaga .
3k wo0b 10m ,oten oad oO. betoution od of aew tnwoma b “
‘ttigaiai«a Yo eainory hogelia oA? t0ot aoltatebianeo yas
ens geod of setgs von OLD a2 nebas'teb ont iy — aN J
SiO ton ,sumid Stiniteas yas wot sh wo seetedni vaq se
.souavbe aL seototai * vant \
N68 .L1T 08 .mpdetsdow -¥ ggsne 099 bok
VOL ,aqA .ifi SS .teged .¥ lint
ub etew esdon ends fe taher ois Yo emis od JA
Risnialg odd baa .wedond saw — edd to ac
dec, 22, chap, 119, Kk. 3,3
Yarwell v. Hanchett, lev Lll., 575;
Chuse ros, v. Conners, 182 Il]. App. 418,
Yor the errors indicated the judgment is reversed
and the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
£.8 oil «Vil .qeuo .Sh 200
reve ,,f44i O8L ,tseuonad .v Jiorss’s.
eB ,qqh .ffl SBL ,@xeanod .v .goxd gaaid
bewtove el dtosmubut edt betsoioni eto1t ed 164%
: -S9buese% eanao od bas
~CRCMAMEA GHA CRAIN VE A
446 - 21844
OLIVER W, HOLMES, JAMES M, PYORT,
partnership,
: FPEAL PROM BURIC [FAL
f Appel Vga:
va, ? } "
COURT OF CHICAGO,
DAVID suPPRIN,| * ‘te
, a : i
| , ppellan 1 9 8 Toke 45
i
Weer
BR, JUSTICE BAKER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
V the defendant suffrin was the owner of a build-
ing in Chicago and June 7, 1911, contracted with the United
Construction Company for the remodeling and improvement of
his building, The Construction Company June 8 made a con-
tract with plaintiffs to furnish and creet the structural
end ornamental iron and steel work required in such isapreve-
ment for the sum of $2189. The contract between defendant
and the Construction Company included a waiver of the right
to a mechanic's lien, but this was not known to the plaintiffs
until after the controversy out of which this suit grew had
arisen, The Construction Company failed to pay plaintiffs
the amount due them under the contract as the same became
due, The contention of appellees is that Guffrin promised,
in case the plaintiffs would preceed with and complete the
work they had undertaken, to pay them the amount due and to
become due, and that this was a direct and original promise
and not within the Statute of Frauds; that the promise to
pay the pleintiffs was based on a eufficient consideration
and therefore was original so far as defendant was concerned,
That the promise was made was testified to by
Netchin, Holmes, Pyott, Anthony, Forcey and Shober, and dee
nied by Suffrin, /From the evidence the jury might properly
=
—
*
>
Yu .M SEMA ,QXM10K .W AVILO
avd gatob .TtOYE oA GIVAG baa }
cYHADIOO BA TTOYL ,ANMIOd aw
qlaeresstaq . :
aso logqa } une
ie it , .
\udawwoe arvad
Pang ope I eer staniloggs / ae i :
AAD OLAUM MOAT SAR TTA
»ODADTHO TO THIOD
,THUOO AUT €O MOLAL4O MAT GARAVIUMC AEMAG HOLTAUG oe
ebilud a to temwo edd saw mit Tied tanbdoeted ott
{
, hao &
bodin eid atiw bateatsmoo , LLL . 0 smut ban ogeaidd nf yak
‘to Jnewsve tame brie afd Lo bone sate Lot YRAqnod wekdouttaned |
-109 8 eben 8 srw) Yasqnos agiteutsecnod’ oat . — — eb
{eiutoutsde edd teers bose deters? oF stiivaialy Ad bw goats a
-evougal: doue mi botliupes vtew L[eote bus ootl Ladneunsre boa a —
jnabasteh seowted toaxsnoo od 8818} To mus ot 10% sont ‘3 "i
—XR oe⸗ ‘Yo teviae @ bebsfont yYaaqued aoldoutsanod ode ona AS si
| aviidaiata edd of cwond sém ase abit dad yaekl &odansioem a os : a
i bad weg thie alse doidw Yo tvo yatorotiwoo end tod ts tiaau
attisnlele yaq of bo Liat courted aolsoutsenod out monte
emsved omne oid e0 Soettnoo ods tebsty mens sub tnwone ont 9
sbostuong Sicha davis a ane I Lo qae te Ho. Iaerios owe ob —9
end vtoLqavo bas addin bo 9061g bularow ettianissg odd nt
1 OA,
ot bas owb Setssownss ond mosig waa ot ,noxettebay bag fed
wt
find that the promise was made by defendant,
The question whether the promise was a direct
ang original promise, and therefore not within the Statute of
Frauds, or was a promise to pay the debt of the Construction
Company and therefore void under the statute, presents more
difficulty. The account in question was charged on the books
of plaintiffs to the Construction Company, This fact, if
unexplained, would be strong evidence to show that the eredit
was given to the Construction Company, but is net conclusive
of such fact,
usk vs Throop, 189 Ill, 127;
Ruggles v. Gratton, 50 id. 412;
Green v. Burton, 59 Vt, 424;
Walker v. Hill, 119% Mass, 249;
i Reed on Statute of Frauds, See. 90,
It is possible for one to make a valid oral
promise without releasing the original debtor,
NeLaughlin v. Austin, 104 vich, 487;
Howell v, Harvey, 65 W, Va, 510; 22 L. R.A.-
BR. 38., 1027; where there is a note in which
the authorities on the question are cited and examined, In
the opinion in the case last cited it was said:
“The rule by which to determine whether a promise
is original or collateral and without consideration, is thus
stated in 29 Amj & Eng. Mncy, Law, 2d ed. p. 929: ‘An absoe
lute promise to pay the debt of another is not within the
statute, though the liability of the original debtor still
subsists, where the leading object of the promisor is to sub-
serve some pecuniary interest or business purpose of his own,
and he receives a benefit which he did not before enjoy and
would not have possessed but for the promise,' In support of
the text a large number of authorities are cited, amony them
the case of iimerson v, Slater, 22 fiow, 28, 16 L, ed, 566
which seems to be a leading case upon the subject. That case
is so very similar to the one now under consideration that we
think it well to state it. The plaintiff, tmerson, had been
employed by a railroad company to build certain bridges, The
Company failed to make payments according to agreement, and
Bmerson refused to proceed with the work, The defendant was a
large stockholder in the road, and bad leased to it large
ities il iron d held B nt of the
ot ot — — He et a he ee a tt tt The
,Jcabaeled yd ebam saw caimotg edd Saud bait
toorlb a sew setmotq eat todtedw aolteoup off 4
to edutaty asit otiigiw Jon orotetods bus ,eelmotg Lanigite —
noltovrseaod ois to ddob ot yoq of sakmecg # Baw ro —
exom atnecetd .ofusede ont rebas blov eteteteds baa vreqaod
exood edd no begthado eaw nolteoup ai taxooon oilT Ud LyoE Tt th ;
ti ,foat eid? .ynaqmod molsoutsenod sie og attidatatg Yo- ‘
tiberto odd Jatt wona of oonebive gnotéa od biwow boniefaxday .
evieutonos gon ek gud ,yoaqmod aeisvoutsemed ort of revig oa
ga, | sont owe to
:VSf ,L11 @6L ,goomi't «v xoms ie
(Sib .bh 08 ,mestero .v Botagsl a id jh
[kd IV 86 ,modiwH .V ne0%0 By me Ne
WAS weak VLE LLG .v goxiten — Ry
-O8 .o08 ,abuett to gdatase so bose L —
#10 bilayv s okess of? emo tot — — ai ot
calla
stotdeb faniaite ous gnivse tor duos kw oaknorg
7 88a 2 fio £ MK bot. ——— v AMAiaæl sa
ew ad gs [0L6 ,a¥ .W 8B Yevis' +¥ Llowel ure
‘ F Vik
Moidw ak ston a ai —X ered 18804 gab 4*
at hou lmaxe bus bedio ots motteoup ant ne neitivedgus oat
ibis aaw Ii betio seal sane edt ag solalqe ont me
gaiimotg & tedéerdw onlinteseb o2 odie ud oa firs ant i “1
awdd af ,noldatebtaseo suodtiw bus feredafies 10 Lamiyire ad Bs
-“ouds cA’ r@S@ .q .be b& ,wal .youe . Beh & gaa CE ab *
eas okcusdiw gon ai tasitons to ab sav yaq od oe
{Lite tosdob Lankyixe oid Yo ythiidedl eds dgwods | osusns
edya of af toalaotg edd to toetdo agibeet odd etodw —
two ekd To eeogtuq saenisud to deautedak Ctalawoog §
baa Yotno oroled gon bib ea dolow #2tened # sevisoes
to gxeqque al 8 ',eelmotg edd «et Jud beeneaseg pbs e
‘Midd 3 eens 250349 ote Golsiroisusg %@ todeum pene’ *8
obo .i Of ,88 wok SE , regal +¥ 010
eke Jack -$59tdwe ose noqu pean —2*
ow dead aolintebienos Yeban wom eae oAd oF —A ty
( Meed bad ,woatem’ ,MWidaialg edt dh e8etea of £4
ely — S oinssseo blisd oF Yomquoo |
bos ,tahemeerya of giibtovom sinomeeg |
4 baw Jnabaeted odT tow ond Adiw bo 00"
at eyiel gi ot. ore bad boa * oa
"ihe
ARS BR sg Fo —————
he .
road could not operate and there could be no emrnings until
the bridges were completed, Under these circumstances the
defendant orally promised to pay plaintiff if he would go on
and complete the bridges, which he did, Defendant refused
to comply with his oral promise, and plaintiff brought as-
sumpsit, The court held his oral promise to be binding, and
stated the law to be that ‘whenever the main purpose and obe
ject of the promisor is not te answer for another, but to
aubserve some pecuniary or business purpose of hia own, ine
volving either a benefit to himself or damages to the other
contracting party, his promise is not within the statute,
although it may be in form a promise to pay the debt of
another, and although the performance of it may incidentally
have the effect of extinguishing that liability,'t The ope
inion further says: 'Nething is better settled than the
rule that, if there is a benefit to the defendant, and a
leas to the plaintiff consequential upon and directly resulte
ing from the defendant's promise in behalf of the plaintiff, -
there is a sufficient consideration moving from the plaine
tiff te enable the latter to maintain an action upon the
promise to recover compensation,'*
in Ciifford v. Luhring, 69 ill, 401, where the
Gefendant employed a party to build a Keuse and on his faile
ure the plaintiff, whe was & subecontractor, made knewn the
fact to the defendant and informed hia that ne would be
Obliged to guit work, and the defencant thereupon told the
plaintiff te go on with his part of the work and he would pay
him, it was held: That the defendant's undertaking was not
a collateral but an original one snd was not within the State
ute of Frauds, a3 assuming to anawer for the contractor, his
main object being to serve a purpose of hie own, To same
effect are Crawford v, Zdison, 45 Ohio Ut, 259; Gldenburg v¥.
Dorsey, 102 Md, 172, ond a large number of cases cited in the
note to Howeli v. Harvey, 22 L. Rh, A.» He. S. 1027, In Lusk v.
Throop, 169 I11, 127, it was said: "“Yhether or not the prowise
is original or collateral within the definitions already given,
is = question to be determined by the jury from all the circume
stances of the case and under the instructions of the court,*
Ruggles v. Gatton, 50 111, 412,
Ye find no reversible error in the rulings of
the Court on instructions er evidence or in the remarks of
the Court made during the trial,
Lisay eyaintse on od biwoe etedt bas edetaqe Jon b£yoo it
‘odd agonstiamuorio seeds xeba\i .boteiquog etew segbitd o i
ne om biuow of t4 TRidalaiq yoq of bevimesq yilero —e—
beavtet Jnabnoted. bib otf doiny ,#egbixe os ets iqueg ror
wit tiguetd tTtitnialq bus ,eeimoxqg Lato eid dtiw —* ot J
bas. ,acibaid sd of suimorq Leto ela bles — oat ; ,
«do base evoqiug aism edd tevenodw' sadt ed at wat at ont re uu)
ot gud ,teddous tot tewens of ton gt aoeimong ot te ; ean
-ni ,owo eid to saeqrag seentsud 10 yxelnwosg emos . bar
’ fedeo edd od sogamah to Meamid of sitoned » tedzie anivioy a
,etutease off aictiw ton ei sekmorg aki BD dons. gaitoanxte
to Jdob odd yYaq oF vaimoety o axot al yam $2 dguods,
Vilasaebtoat yas ti Te sousexetreg odd dywodsia bus ,tedtena —
“qo oft ‘',ydiitdall sant — paeee to toeTts aft eved 4
add nad? beisdes issted si gaidsou' :eyae xoddiwt molar
& baa ,snsbaeteb ont of eves Ti ,éadt ofur
etiveex yYLdoetib base aoqw Iulsaneupeenos Plitniaig ed? of seol
+ ,Yivaialg etd to tiaded al seimoerg a'sagbaeteb oft mott 28
enialy eit mort gaivom noivarebianse tnalolTiwe a el ete i
oid stoquy seitos na oietniaw of tedtat oft ofdane of %%
*' goisasasgmos tevevst o2 oal
—* > 2
~
eit onstw A @8 suititied .¥ bweRRilo al ee aaa. 4) J
—
eiist sid wo bie seuou » bfiud oF Ydrsg © beyeique ¢nabasteb
eid awouk obam ,tosoaténeo-duu mn aaw odw ,Thidnkalq oad om J
J 9
od bivow of tags wld bourtotal bua dnabasted ods of de
eit Slo? saoqueted? Jnmpusted ed? bas ,Atow dhup oF be : — *
yeq bivow ei bas dvow oid Yo daog eli Adie ao on of ithe
gon @ew gnitasiobaw s'dnabaetead anid pau? thien saw a —
+jaté oft aiudgiw gen eaw bas ono Lanigixo aa tud aN
aid ,tosssisnoo ofd tot tewene of atiavese as J— tot 0
ease of awe eld Io seoqisg & evted of aniand mentee 2
o¥ gaudmeblo ;@68 .s6 oid 6b ,~noOeEbE .v Rrctwang oma toe
edt al bedto sees to todmun egtel s bas ,STIL .bOu aes X CEES
-V deul al .VSOL ,2 0K 4A oA od BS yep. + dana 0
ealnorg eds Son 10 t9AtodW" thise wow SL ,TRL Lil ear rt
shoving ybserla ancitialtes eds aiddtw iatosalios to * “
*
hs: Pa
iin ;
emetic eid [ia merit yl od¢ vd benloteded ow oo we
*,J2u09o edt to anoltouasond odd tobaw bra ease ois 9
J Sth LET 08 yuosied .v 9 aaue |
ve
te egailux od oi sotre ofLdistevet on — —* we : a) {
af yi ria
?
4
<
, Jae
te eitanet edt al to soneblve to enoksas
We think that from the evidence the jury migit
properly find that the promise of defendant Suffrin te tune
plaintiffs was a direct and original promiee and tnerefore
not within the Statute of Frauds,
Pinding no reversible error in the record, tie
judgment of the Khunicipal Court is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
digin yasl ect somebive edt moxl gadat Anka oW
ait of miaTlwi snabae'teb to seimoty ote Sand ball yLlreqerq
exotereis baa eaimotq Lanigito bas foeuih a eaw attivalalg
5 Bbyert Yo ofudeds add whadiw som
aid ,bxover oid ai torre ofdiartesyez en galbni®
ebomtitts ai dase) Ieqioinuy sai To daomgbyt
AMAL TA
o 7 Lap
.
A.
456 - 21856
PAULINE EHRNARDT, )
Appellee,
" ‘PRAL FROM CIRGUIT COURT
va, ‘ )
a ) OF COOK COURTY,
GHORGE K. WHRHARDT,
Appellant.
ia
‘
*
Sse, Fauline Snrhardt, filed her bill for
divorcee against appellant and he filed 5 cross-bill against
her. June 25, 1914, both bill and cross-bill were dismissed
for want of equity, end the same dey an order was entered
that the defendant, appellant here, pay to complainant $108
on account of her solicitor's fees in the case, An order
was entered commanding defendant to show ceuse why he should
not be attached for contempt in foiling to pay complainant
$108 solicitor's fees, and on hearing of the rule april 12,
1915, defendant was adjudged guilty of contoupt and an order
entered that he be attached and confined in the county jail
until he pay such solicitor's fees, but not exceeding six
months, From that order this appeal is prosecuted by the
defendant, vif
ER, JUSTICE BAKER DELIVERED THR OPINION OF THE COURT,
The Court had no authority at the conclusion
of the case to order that the bill be dismissed for want of
equity and at the same time order the defendant to pay to
complainant solicitor's fees, The dismissal of the bill
gemonstrated that the suit of complainant was without founda-
tion, The reason for the rule that required defendant to pay
solicitor's fees to aid the wife to prosecute a meritorious
case previous to the dismissal of her bill having ceased,
that rule should no longer exist, Newzan v. Newnan, 69 111,
167,
" * 930 [
rnuoo TIVORIO MOME JANE —
xruuoo AOVD FO } niet .
my. A. 1801
aot iLid tos boll? —E— eet fused pene
Jeniaga {fid-caor s boil? oi bee tasttegys teaaga * >
boseiasih erew Iftd-aacts ban [2d tod , MUL oS sant ted
betsesin9 saw Tobie me yeb sabe odd bas \ydivee te tasw au
BOL% fanaieiques of yey .oted tonlisqqe ,dusbdoteb oat ¢ ef.
tobio aA esto et? at soot e'totiotios text to tm
aie ganibssoxe son tud ,2o0% attotigifoe doue wag os | : ——
wy
eit yd befvoeeorg ei ievgga aid’ tebro dais moTt .edse
oTAUOD THT YO MOLMLGO ANT GAATVIURG AIAG TOTTI
. o\/ Pras
| nolteulonos oft de yIbtonive on bud dxwed edit a
to Jaaw tot beesimeid od {Lid ené sms aebto ot oe oa
of YAq Of Susboeted oad Tebte emis omme od tn bey
| Iftd sat to tmaaimeld sat een atuesoition dap
~sbavot Juousiw eew snoniaiqaos to tive ede Lads |
Wg of Suabce ted berlwpet dans ofut one tot ons
evolrotixvem 8 gsuoecorg of stiw ond ped fi :
gale:
a
vat .bssa00 aaived {iid t0d J *
EE ee aaa ae ee
in Chestnut v. Chestnut, 77 Iil, 546, it was
held that the dismissal of the bill operated to revoke the
order allowing temporary alimony, in that case it was
said, Pp. 3492
"Such provision ia for her imnediate support
and to enable her to meet the expenses of her defense pend-
ing the litigation, When the bill was dississed, the hus-
band's common law liability to support his wife was revived,
and the necessity for alimony did not exist, it will be
presumed he discharged his obligation in that regard; at all
events, the liability remained, and it would be oppressive to
impose upon him the psyment of an additional sum deemed suf-
ficient to suppott her if living separate and apart from him,*
The order adjudging defendant guilty of contenpt
in failing to pay complainant $108 solicitor's fees and com-
mitting him to the county jail is reversed,
ORDER REVERSED,
gew ti easo sads ai owaoud La ‘yretoqned
Ue: ‘eal
troqqve otsibesml tend tot si moleiverg dowe™ ~~
ehoeg saneteb tod to asenoyxe edt toom of to oe
-aud od ,boesimeld saw [Lhd edt red .nolday *
beviver asw stiw ysilidatl wal 5 ion !
- ed {Liw JI ,teixe son bih yYmomils 10? + e900!
fis ja ;bteayget tad? al soiisgiido eid bs
«et eviesetqgo ed binow Jk base ,honiamet 4
; -lwe bemveb mys iaaeitibbs sa to Jacmyaq ods ona
* mld awoxlt tisgs bas ose taqed aaiens ti ted Mo aod
bias
epeinee lo ytiiuy snabmetob pakgbitba sabre. * 9— ir
-m00 bas eset a'tosiotfos BOLG tusnialgauoo 8 ‘
ebeersvet ei: List reauss sult 6 va
<CHEHKVEN MBGAO i J
564 -,21962
MAX STRICKBR,
Appellee,
\ AFPRPAL PROM SUPERIOR COURT
vs.
GP CCGOK COUNTY,
19S 1.A. 48
WILLIAW kK, Bie
Appellant. ;
KR, JUSTICH BAKER DELIVERED THE OFINICN OF THE COURT,
the judgment in this Case was rendered Narch
22, 1915, The time for filing the appeal bond was by
Orders properly entered extended “to snd including June
1, 1915, fhe bond was not filed until June 2,, —
If the time within which an appeal bond is to
be filed is fixed by statute, the requirement is mandatory
and jurisdictional, and the court from whieh the appeal is
taken has no power to extend the time. if the statute
does not fix the time for filing en appeal bond, but ree
quires the court to fix such time in its order allowing
the appeal, the court may, prior to the expiration of the
time so fixed, extend the time for filing the bond, sand
when the court fixes the time by extension or otherwise,
if a bend is not filed within the time so fixed, the ap-
peal must be dismissed; and this requirement being manda-
tory and jurisdictional, no sotion to dismiss the appeal
ia necessary,
Hill v. Chicago, 216 111, 178,
APPEAL DISKISSED,
9 THUOD HOLHAGUG MONE LANGA
| «¥YTHUOS AGOD FO
B.A 8er
.THUOD SHY O WOIMIGO GMT GEAAVIING MENAd cortayt a
dorsi betebast saw seen eins ai saempbut eat i ae . i
ud eon baod Lasqys ons gattld tok mis oat 80k
-otwl galbwfont bas od" bebaesxe herosae —
—8 on Lida beLit ton aaw baod ost ta
os el buod Laeqqs aa tolaw aiagiw emis eis TL io oF mat
YI0Jabnsam ai snompiiupei sf3 ,etudates ys boxit a. be. ti
ei {meqqe sid ——— moxl stu0eo esd bas « fanol
ae ee - ae
—— p c.
— a ee
=
etutase oid ty Omis at buesxe os Tewog 4
“ot dud ,baod {eeqqe aa gnilit tot omit one
a aniwofie ebro ati nt emis dave xit od
gett to noitatiqxe edt of seltg Ran —XR oat «
bas ,baod odd gailit tet emis end? dnote
eeiwiedde 10 nolesetixs yd emis edd aoxit Jum
“qe odd ,bexdt 0a sald odd midtiw bof? gon al
-shasm yniod ¢nowetispet alut bas jbeeatawlh of p =" *
Laoqggs of? eaimeid of moitew on , Lane! olbe tewl, | *v ie
, 3 ; . a ' Rick .
i
.8VE fit 648 + gage lag 44
CHESIMEIG —
S88 - £1786
CRYSTAL SYRING PERCHERON HCRSE
AND CATTLE COMPANY, a corpora.
tion, and M, ©. BLANCHRT?,
Plaintiffs in ¥rror,
RAROR TO MUMICIPAL COURT
va,
OF CHICAGO,
198 L.A, 4g -
PRED BECKLENBERG, f
Defendant in *
iy Qa ‘
hy “i
Lt “i
8 — *
Mihi, JUSTICH MOLDO- DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
V this is a writ of error sued out by plaintiffs
from & jucument of nil capiat entered on a verdict instructed
by the trial Judge, on the motion of defendant, at the conclue
sien of 30 wuch ef plaintiffsat case as the trial Judgs admitted
in proof,
The cause of action rests in # contract between
the parties for the exchange of certain properties in Chie
gago and North Dakota, Plaintiffs seek to recever in this
action daneges for breach of the contract by defendant, by
the terms of which contract defendant was to convey a flat
building which he claimed to own in Chicago to plaintiffs,
and as compensation therefor plaintiffs were to convey to
defendant certain ranch property in North Daketa with cattle,
farm maciinery, etc,, thereon, The particulars of the terms
of tnis contract are not material to be atated at this tine,
ae in the conclusion at wiich we have arrived the cause must
be returned to the Kunicipal Court for a new trial, Neither
do we intend to pass upon all the facts involved in the rece
ord, but shall confine our references to such of then a8 impel
our conclusion, |
Plaintiffs and defendant, within the time as ex-
tended for the performance of the gontract jand on November 6,
1913, furnished each other with abatracts of title to their
respective properties, ‘The abstract furnished by defendant
* 74
3
THUOO JAG DIMUM OT MOAT
Qh AL eer i f
‘ AOD UM? GO AOLULGO ANY GHARVI SEG wou sorreut «
ertisatalg yd sue beue torr to divw @ ek aldtT V
batourdend toLbisv 8 io botedne se.igee iin to memset
} -viones eit gs ,tusbneteh to nota ow: end ac —E folad
Hatt imbs esbut, fait? edd ea 9en0 'sYtidnisaig te dome o@ ee: note
—E oar roo a a eteor ‘wateen to oehas out
~iid5 al eols¢teqeta ahadtes to sgunsiors utd at |
gids at asvooet of dese ettivalalt ,sto%ed ona
or Janhas eb YC tostduoo ocd to. donetd a0? —
ea
: Wii
ne —
tat 8 \Yovaos od Baw duabise ted ‘foetddes sin bss in
4 et italals os ogrotss) ai two od bomtato od ao tan
o⸗⸗ vorno⸗ of e4ew ettisniealq totes aoktav 4008
rents aid stow dso ad yeaeqotd dene nhadts9 3
i emret od t0 staluoidisg oate | ODTEAy oto —E a
; emis aki 3a bedese od of talwseu ten om pis ‘ ats
f Jeum sexno of? bevitze evad ow oie $0 sotautence ¢ J
x9iid Low tabis want a tot Sxuod fc odes sis os
. e091 sit at boviovat séoet ode Lis ogy wong *:
| feqai ss noid * dows’ ot eo onos tor i ince
—
——
zoduevet ao bas — ote me
at iad of efsit ro pent * 7 ‘ * |
Th. TELAT AL "va
showed title in him hovember 4, 1915, to the Chicago prope
erty wiich he had agreed by the contract to sceonvey to
plaintiffs, subject to certain encumbrances, iiaintiffs
likewise tendered deeds, etce,, running to defendant, of
their property to the holder of the contract in escrow at
his office in Chicago, that being tne place appointed in
the contract for the passing of the papere and the comple-
tion of the transaction, What ploeintiffs did in this re-
gerd they contend constituted a perforsiance by them of
their contract obligetions so far as the attitude and con-
duct of defendant made perforsance possible,
Qn November 22, 1913, defendant conveyed to
one ¥rank ¢, Rothje by warranty deed tie property which he
had contracted to convey to plaintiffs, which deed was
thereafter and on November 24, 1913, filed for record and
duly recorded in the Recorder's office of Cook County.
Thereupon plaintiffs, without any other demand being made,
commenced this action for demnges claimed to have been suse
tained by them on secount of defendant's breaching his con-
tract with them, upen the theery that as defendant had put
it out of his power by the conveyance to Kothje to carry
out his pert of the contract, the law geve them a right of
immediate action for damages and absolved them from further
performance of the contract, (which performance, but for
defendant's dereliction, would have been incumbent upon
them,) On the theory that plaintiffs were not absolved
from doing all those things that the centract provided they
should do, notwithstanding defendant had by his deed to
Rothje put it out of his power to convey to them the Chicago
property as contracted, the trial Judge rejected, on the
objections of defendant, ali the material evidence offered
af a ory? ie — en Pri’
*
ae iyi Ta tity
: J
isu : ay Masts
Pi - toy *
a
of yovmoo od Soatdaes oft yd boots had esi dole to
atiisvaisli ,eeonardawone alesxoo of Foetdue ——
to ,dnabers te oa atkansst «938 ,abenb botabied —
ta woxese ai Joartaoo as te tebLodt said of wrreqory ck F
t ui betaieqqs eostd edt yaied sads ,oqeoidd ‘at soltte’ an
~9iqmoo add bus areqnq edt Yo gutena sad tot Joardaoo ond v
wor wid af bib CYTUInioLg dade moivonennry ond to oid
to mead vd gonnmtotisg 6 beiutitenoo See saeo coms bay
ened baa ebutiddn odd. ae tet o8 enoiseghido fostts09 ried
| widiseog sonaante'trsy abna dashes to to Co
eae va
:
esw boob dolaw ,ettidainiq of yormoe of be J
bas btepeat sot belit ,éfeL , hs wedewvet no baw
; .YIHVED Hood to saitte x'xobToaed oat mt —
shan auiod boameh tecte var deondiw ,eVittatiealg 0 *
~aue nood oved of bominlo eegemnh vot moivoe ekiis boone:
: -a09 eid yoidsastd o'inabse'teb to tuseooe ao mont xe b
P tuq bad tusbrnetebh as vant — eid moay wod —*
to oni 8 wos oven wal ond ,toeutnoo ane To er
tecigxwt mort? mod bovieeda bas aoyuuab: 19% woten
tol Jud oocamrotieq doksiw) ,doendeay od bo a:
nogu Jnedawonit need evad bivew HOLso Lions 1
bevioadsa Jon eter eTii¢gnialy Jods wrosdd wd ¢
Ye sis bebivorg Jootsnos ofd gadd agnidd — ite ;
of bash eid vd bad sasbaeteb yatha wero
11D end mods of Yovaon of toewoq tia 30 A402
_ fo ,betoetet matey —XR a Mis HOD |
q . aie
4*
by plaintiffs to establiah their claim for damages, Wa
We think, from the fact that defendant by zis
conveyance to Rothje hud put it out of his power to perform
his part of the contract, that defendant must, in legal ef-
fect, be held to have rescinded the contract and to have
given the plaintiffs the right to so treat it, whieh they
may be regarded ag hnvwing dene by the beginning of this ace
tion, As enid in Eure v. Denny, 16 ili, 492, "The right
of recovery is not put upon the mere fect of a neglect or
refusal to convey, but it is siiown, in addition, tnat plaine-
tiff nad rescinded the contract by selling the land to ite-
phens,* Smith v, lLemb, 26 Ill, S97, Seiberling v, lewis,
95 Jil, App. 549, Treat v. Smith, 159 ibid, “62, Newcomb
v. Brackett, 16 Hass, 161, Lowe v. Harwood, 159 ibid, 165,
and Osgood v. Skinner, 211] {11, £29, are supporting authori-
ties on this point. The trial Court therefore committed re-
| versible error in excluding the proofs offered by plaintiffs
and in instructing the jury to find a verdict against then,
The measure of damages plaintiffa ere entitled
to recever is, under the rule laid down in }lummer v. Higdon,
76 Ill, 222, the difference, if any there be, between the
value of the property agreed to be conveyed by them to defende-
ant and that which defendant agreed to convey to them, Defend-
ant argues that at most the plaintiffs are entitled to recover
but nominal damages. However, from the evidence on this
question found in the record, it would seem that plaintiffs
have at least laid a foundation for substantial damages,
which, if likewise successful on a retrial, is sufficient to
call for evidence on the part of defendant te rebut, Ye do
not (intend, however, to be understood a% passing upen cr
settling that question, Our reference to it is simply for
oN ,eeyemeb cot mialo thodt det idetes — * |
eld yd dnatine toh Sodt sont ods mont .aaine of -
aot rey of tawog sid to duo tk sug daa sition ot + vonacora fig
“10 isgei al ,teum sachet teh taeddt someting oat to aa
oved of bas toaxsnoo ent behaloeet eve oF fy Aaul * 3 wll Hr
Yods dotdw ,sk Jaetd of od as ar odd attisataly os | a 9
~of sidt to gatanined edd yd * anivad se bebtaget —
Sdgit oat* .S@h ,L12 OF .Yomed .v Baws at bine oA —
J i
| 40 doolgon a to Sout ofem ott mogn tug toa ak — 9
Biwol .v gitiivedion .TGG ,f1) Of gael wv os kag
dmoowei »SOS ,vidt CCL «ut dme .v gneet Gds «TA. aL
.e8L .bidk CEL ff .enm o£ dtodvent .v
ehrodtus gaidqvoqque ets ,@8s .1f% ££8 A ——
“ot bossiamoo stotetedd sumed fables edt dato abit me
ettisuisly vd betotto stoou eas gnibotore mh 1oTKe ofd
i mode sSuaiaga Joibsow a bakt os erat, ould wnisounacnt mt }
J bolsiice ets anez avyomead 10 etgesom od't |
a 1
‘ Dat i
i i J
4 —A— 4 Rost) at owel Slat eiws sat tebas pak roveoes os My
‘ «ot noewied .2d etoid Yow Th ,oncete Tih os sb, Bt
| sbuote od mods yd beysyaco ad of beotga yetogerg oid | F
Sas to ,modd of yevmes of bootgn Jnsbmeteb dodaw sda a $
‘tovoost oJ balsisns g4a eltidninly eas sown $a Jaad ar
eid ne gonebive ead mot? (tevewaH —* Lon ;
| atiitainig tans wou binow ¢L ,btooet odd ad bi
| Bognoeh Lalsnasadve tot meldgsbayel —
tno o LTLun ef ,{aixies a ne [vieescoue wax
- eb oW ,tudez of tuabme ted Yo tang ens mo ® XF ey
To mogu nitleasq ea boolJarebau od * *8 *
ot Kiqmia at Jt * ——— ea — nner
een):
the purpose of disposing of the point made by defendant that
this Court would not reverse if it conelusively oppeared
from the recora that plaintiffs could recever but nominal
GaMAg ee.
The judgment of the Kkunicipal Court is, for the
reasons advanced in this opinion, reversed and the cause is
cemanded for a new trial,
REVERSED AND HiBANDED,.
atia tuabnoteh yd ahaa daleq eid te galveqaih to saegrug edt
botaoqqe YleviewlLonoo sk Th vaetovex son biuow dawod aki?
Isntmen tud sevooet bivao attisniaig dads hisses eat mort
, -9gsuab
eds sot ,wl tguy0d feqiolaul edt Yo Janemmbuy eat
af geuoo oft bas beatevet ,aololqo als ai boonevhs anoaset
«feins won @ tot behaamest
UAGMAMAA GHA GkeRaVes
431 = 21829
JANET S. WINTERS,
Appellee,
\ APPEAL SUPERIOR COURT OF
vs. |
5
THE AURORA, ELGIN AND
CHICAGO RAIL'YAYS COMPANY,
\,Appellan —
COOK COUNTY.
—
J J 7 —* % )
, J 1 9 “> Lelie a) 2
‘y ff a
Ne, alt F)
MR. JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Super-
ior Court for $7500 in favor of plaintiff and against de-
fendant, founded upon the verdict of a jury in an action
for ar
The declaration, consisting of one count,
charges as negligence defendant's failure to remove a cer-
tain door or covering from over the steps of the car on
which plaintiff was a passenger, and carelessly, negligently
and improperly permitting the door or covering to remain
upon the platform of said car and upon and over the steps
thereof, rendering the same dangerous and hazardous as to
the plaintiff, and carelessly and negligently failing to
notify and warn plaintiff as to the condition and position
of said door or covering over said steps and the dangers in-
cident thereto; that plaintiff, in consequence of such neg-
ligence, while in the exercise of ordinary care, and during
the night time when it was dark, and while attempting to
leave said car, under the direction of defendant's servant,
stepped from and off the door or covering of said steps, ine
stead of stepping down to and upon the steps and from said
steps down to and upon the ground, causing plaintiff to fall
and to be precipitated a great distance from said car down
to and upon the ground, injuring her, etc,
eS8lS - Loh
.GHATAIW .&@ THAAL
sea lisqqa
10 THUOD HOLATLUS JARTIA
} ev
.YTHUOD AOCD
aMA wipe {AMOAUA HHT
ut — ODADIHO
.THU00 HHT {0 MOIMIGO KHT GHASVILEC MOdLOn HOITeUL ,AM
-teque edt to tasmgbu, & mott Isoqqs as efi eft
-0b tenisgs bas ttisnies{gq to trove? ai OOGT§E tot Frw0O tol
soitos as ni vit e to soibsev edd amoqgu bebauyot ,snsbaet
woineiak Langinm <0t
,émvyoo emo to aniveianoo ,moitersfoeb oat Vv
180 8 svonsr oc stylist ea'insbasteb sonmegifgen es esytedo
no 189 edt to aqese eid tevo mott anitevoo 10 toob alist
ylinegifzgen ,yleeslotso bas ,tegneeesq & saw Ttiitnislg io idw
aitsmet o¢ ganttevoo to toob edd anittimieg yirteqgotgmt bas
eqate ett tevo bas moqu bas 189 bise to mrotésiq edt ogni
ot es euobtssad bas evotegnsb emse ent anizrebne: , toetedt
ot gnifiat yvitosaifgen bae yfaselotso bas ,ttitmialq edt
noitteog baa nolsibnos ead o¢ as Ttidaieslq otsw bas ytison
-ni ategnsh ed! bas eqete bise isvo yaitevos to toob bisa to
-gem dove to someupeenoo ai ,ttitaisiq isds ;otetods tneblo
gnitub bas ,sts0 ytIanibte to seiotexe eit ni oLidw ,sonegil
ot anidqnetss eLlidw bos ,Ateb saw ti oodw omit tdgin odd
wtasviee e'’insbasteb to acitootib odd tebmay ,1te0 bise evseel
eni ,eqetea bise to ynirevos so toob ext Tto bne mot? beqgete
bise mort bas eqedse eit amoqu bas of awob gaiqqete to baste
{fst ot ttistaisiq ymieuso ,bavotg sat moqu bane ot nwob agede
mwob t89 bine mort eonsJelb taertg 8 betstiqioe:s od od dpe 4 i
ots ,tod gatiutal cheweza ott nog * oF
ie
On the day of the accident to plaintiff she had
been with her sister-in-law, a lirs, Yarger, to the cemetery
where her mother was buried, and in returning to her home
took defendant's car at Bellwood with the intention of
leaving it at Des Plaines avenue, Forest Park, and from
there taking a Metropolitan elevated train to Central ave-
nue station on that road, that being the nearest station to
her home, 332 North Taylor avenue, Oak Park,
It is not denied that defendant's car platforms
were equipped with flaps, which let down from the steps and
were kept down while the cars were in motion, At stations
where defendant maintained elevated platforms, passengers
got off the cars on a level, without the raising of the
flaps from the steps. Where station platforms were upon the
ground the flaps were raised so that passenger alighted by
walking down the steps, which ran downward to the station
platform.
At the time of the accident the car had stopped
at the Des Plaines avenue station, Forest fark, and remained
stationary until after the accident, Flaintiff, who was
seated in the car, came out of the car onto the platform,
When she reached the phatform irs, Yarger followed and
stood back of her, Plaintiff then took hold of a perpen-
dicular rod with her left hand and took hold of another part
of the car with her right hand, Plaintiff testified that it
was dark and that she stepped off of the car expecting to
step on a step leading from the car platform, but as there
was no step there, she fell.
It is assigned and argued as error that the
"verdict is against the clear preponderance ot the evi-
dence," and while there are other errors which we think are
well assigned, we shall rest our decision on the second as-
bad ede ttitatelg ot tnebioos edi to ysbh sAt MO
Yieteomes sit ot ,19gIs¥ .61 6 ,wei-ni-tedeia ited dtiw need
esmod tod ot anktaruwter ai bos ,belind aew tediom ted atertw
to noiinsdni edt déiiw boowflod ta ts0 @'tnebneteb xoos
mort bas ,Awrei sese1r0% ,sunesvs agenieiY{ asi ts tL gaiveel
-svs Isiined ot aisxt betsavele astiifoqotiell s gaidss etedt
o¢t soliste tasteen oot anied tsdi ,bsor tent no —*— eu
1tsf 280 ,esunevs tofyst dito SEE ,emod t9Md
aniotisiq tso e'snsbasteb sadt bsineb gon ef sI
bas eqetea eds mott myvob gel doidy ,eqsit diiw beqqiups sisw
eanoitste tA .noitom ai stew etao ot oLidw awob tqex eitew
atoynseasq ,amtotis([q betsavols boentatarsm jasbne teh 8 to rw
edd to ynieist odd tuodwsiw .fevel 8 no arso edd ITto tog
edt moquy etew emrotislq motiate sieAdW .agqete od} mort egslt
YO betdgils togneeasq tant oe besalet etew agqelTt ent bavotyg
noliste oft ot btsewawoh asi doidw ,agete sat mwob yalidisw
meheete
beqqote bed tso sdt gnebisos sdt To omits eas TA
benismet bas ,Atsi gesto% ,moitste sunevs aenisl({ esd ent ts
esw ofw ,tiidaie({L .inasbioos ant tetts Litany ytanolisise
-mtotdsl(q edt otno tso ot to two smeo .169 eat al betsca
bas bowoilot tvexziteY ,atil mrottaedg sit bsdosst ene asdW
-naeqteq 8 to blond Aooo send ttidnielLl .29d to Aosd boota
trsq tedtons to blod Moos buns basd ttel ted dtiw bot tefwotb
dt dedd bottigess Yiisdalell .bmed dogis ted oéiw 10 edt to
ot unitoeqxo tao edt to tto —— ene tedt bas Ateb esw
stodd as ind mrotselg iso oft moit gaibsael geste es no getea
{fot one ,s1odd qote on saw
edt dJedt torte as beusie bas bengises eL tI
-ive edt to sonsrtebmogerg taelo elt taniegs at toibtev"
ets Anids ew dotndw etorrs tedio ets etedt oLinw bas |*,eoneb
-2e bnoose edt mo motetoeh rw0 deer fiade ew ,bongisas Llew a
7
signment of error, However, there are errors in the rulings
on evidence and on instructions, and some of the questions of
counsel for plaintiff put to Dr, Pickard on cross-examination
were highly improper, entirely uncalled for, and tended to
unwarrantably prejudice Dr. Pickard in the eyes of the jury
and to, in a measure, destroy the effect of his evidence.
The questions, "How long have you been the quasi investigator
physician and doctor for this road?" and "Just let them walk
out there like cattle?" and the reference to the defendant
as the doctor's "boss" were entirely uncalled for, as were
questions of similarly insinuating character, the effect of
which we could not say - if it were necessary to determine the
question - was negatived by the terse ruling of the court
without comment as to the impropriety of such questions,
All the evidence in the record considered, we are
unable to find from its preponderating force that defendant
was guilty of the negligence charged against it as being the
primary cause of plaintiff's fall from the car and the result-e
ing injuries to her, On the contrary, the evidence overwhelm-
ingly preponderates in favor of the contention of defendant
that plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care for her own
safety at the time she was injured, We cannot from the evi-
dence regard it as a disputed fact that pleintiff knew the
condition of the phatform at the time she stood upon it and
was conscious of the fact that the flap over the steps had not
been pulled up; and while plaintiff charges in her declaration
that it was dark upon the platform at the time of the accident
to her, yet all the evidence on the subject of light consid-
ered, w e can hardly say therefrom that it is a disputed fact
that the light was amply sufficient to enable plaintiff, in
eagnifur sdt at erortes sts stedt ,tevewoH .10T1%e to soomagie
to anoitesup eds: to smoe buns ,amoitoutseni ao bus sonebive no
nottantmexe-eeoro mo btexoid ,1d of guq thidatstq tot Leenuoo
ot bobnot bas ,tot beilsony yLleritns ,teqorqmi yfdgid erew
yt, odd.to aeve edd oi btsxoid .10 eoibujetg vidstuettsewaus
-oomebives etd to ftostie edt yortesh OTueHs a s ai ,ot bas
totegtteevnai lasup edt need voy eved gnol woH" ,emoltaeup eAT
afew meds tefl ftayl" bas "Fbsor aids tot totoob bas asioieyadd.
tnsabaesteb sdt of sonstetot sdt bas “felitso sxif{ eteds dso
e%9w es ,tot bol{sony vietitns stew "aeod" a'rotoob sAt es
to tostts odd ,tetosredo gaitewnient yfueiimie to enoiteoup
edit omimretehb of ytseasoen etew ti Ti - yYse con bivyoo sw dotdw
duyoo edt to gaits eatot ont yd beviteson esw —
anmoitesup dove to vteixgqorgmi st of es ImeMmmos Wotlo kw
ets ow ,betebienoo btoost emt ai somebive end ILA }
tnebasteh seads eotot goitstebnogsig eti mort bait o¢ oIdenw
edt gnied es Si tenisgs begisdo sonegiigen odd to Wling eaw
et¢{{ueet ot bos tso st mort [fst e'ttitnisiq to seuso yrsmitg
-nfodwitesvo sonsbive old Svierdnoo eis m0 tem od eoivujat gat
tasbnetsb to moitnednoo sat to rovst ai estaerebmogestq vigai
awo ted tot stso sub to satorexe eld ak ton eaw Ttitnisig decid
-fvo edd mort tonnss eW ,beruini esw ode smit od ta \Y to ise
edt weaxt ttitnisiq tant toet beduqeib & as JL btegst soneb
bas si noqu boote ede omit ont ts mrotts&q sdt to noltibnos
ton bed eqota sdd tsvo galt odd saedt toast ot To avotoanoo asw
moisgatsflosb tod ni aoyrsdo ttisnislg sliuw bas j;qu boliug used
S$nobtoos oft to omit sot ts mtotésiq ond moqu atsb saw Si sade
“htamoo tigifl to tos{due edd mo eonebive edd [fe soy ,tod of
_tost beduqein es al Si Sass nottesteds yee yibtsd nso 9 w ,bets
ak ,ttitnisalg oldeno of tnetoittue yiqas asw Jdail odt Jadd
'
X J hig
pi 5's
tie)
A
a) Pe
i!
*
the exercise of ordinary care, to become aware that the flap
over the steps had not been raised. | Plaintiff |herself| testi-
fied that "it was sufficiently light so that I saw plainly
that the vestibule door was open and I know the flap was down
over the stepswhen we started to get off," and that she looked
down for the express purpose of seeing where she was walking,
| Plaintiff was also well aware of the construction
of the platform of the car, that the steps were covered with a
flap, that on station pi svemead eave at a level with the
car platform the flap was left down, and that on grounded
platforms the flap was raised and the steps used by passen-
gers to alight.) she herself testified, "I knew that the
first step down would be some little distance inside the
sheathing of the car, I kept that in mind." Alsc, "I knew
the flap was down over the steps when we started to get off,"
Plaintiff had many times travelled upon defend-
ant's car between Bellwood and Des Plaines avenue station,
Forest Park, and was\perfectly cognizant of the construction
of the car platform and cf the station platforms at both
of these stations, (rhe fact that it was the duty of defend-
ant's servant to raise the flap on the platform at Des
Plaines avenue station to enable passengers to alight with
safety, did not excuse plaintiff, on theifailure of defend-
ant's servant to raise the flep, from the negligence imput-
able to her in attempting to alight from the cer without the
flap being raised. In this condition it was the duty of
plaintiff to wait until the flap had been raised before at-
tempting to alight,
In determining the probative force of the evd-
dence we cannot lose sight of the fact that in many material
particulars plaintiff's evidence is contradicted by credible
and disinterested witnesses, | While plaintiff testified that
—
qalt odd tadd stewe smoosd oc. ,etes yYisnibio to satorexe om.
-iteods [Yleared! Ytitaisl4 hos tex mresd ton bs egete oanld tevo
yioisiqg wee I tedd 08 ddatl yYltaestoitiwe eesew 35" sods bett
nwob esw qs{t odt wont I bas asqo esw toob eluditeer ent stadt
bextool sda tsdt bas ",TtIo fey ot bediseta ew sondweqete odd Tevo
gninisw esw sile sisdw yoisea to seoqiuq asetgxe sat tot mwob
moisouttenco eit To stews [lew oals asw MWitaield |
8 dtiw beresvoo etew eqete ont tedt .teo ont Io mrottaiq odd to
Ho iciw
edt dtiw [evel s ta stew\amrottalq moltsta mo tedt ,qelt
bebasorg ao Jeads bas ,owoh tiIsl eaw qelt sdt mtotisiq ts
-neeasg Yd bean agete soit bas beaiay asw qsit ott emrotiai{g
sit tedt wend I* \beititees tfloatod sd@ Vtdatie of etez
edt sbhtani aoastath aftsif emoa od binow nwob gete tatlt ~
went I" ,o2fA ",bnim ai dsdt Sgex I .teo st To gnidtsede
“ tto 393 ot botitste ow noadw eqete oft tevo nwob esw qait sd
-basteb noqu bol{svats semit ynsm bs Thi¢gaisi{[
oitdsta suneve senisld eed bas boowfisad nseswted tso e'inas
“ik
25
moisgouttenoos odd to tnsesinges witoetieg esw bas ,A%t8f tae1r0t
dtod ts awrotdelyg noiteste ocdT to bas mrottsiq tao sdt To
“1
-bastsb to yiub odd eaw Fi Sead sost edt | <eanoliste seeds To
aot ts arotssfg sdt mo gsit odd saist o¢ tasvtee a'tas
dAdiw ddgife ot etsgneeesq sfdsno oc molista sunevea aoateld
-bnaetob to etwlistieds no ,Ttidnisiq sevoxe ton bth ttetae
Sues eft mort ,qsit st ie hikes ot g¢nsevrtoa ipa
edt tuodtiv sso ed¢ mott Sdgifs of anitqnetis ni tea od alee
to yvdub odd sew ti nolitibnoos aid? nl .beetst snxted qalt
-ts sioted beater ased bai qelt ont {heaw thew o¢ ttidgmisla
| togifs ot gaitgqmet
ehvo oft to sorot svitsdotg edt gninioreteb nl
{fsitetem yasm ni tends tost sde to tiyte saeol sonnaso or eoneh
s{dibeto yd betolbsxrinoo et sonebive a'tiitnielg axe {uot ag J
tedd boltiteosd Ttttntelq oLinw [:eeeeand iw boseotosatatb basis
A
she stepped off the car, she told Mrs, Morrow and Dr. Fick-
ard Bhat she"was pushed off the train," Dr, bickard pro-
duced a statement signed by plaintiff to that effect,and
although she claims that the paper she signed was in blank
at the time she signed it, the guantum of proof on this
point is against such claim,
She also testified that it was dark upon the
platform at the time of the accident. Her sister-in-law,
Mrs, Yarger, testified that it was sufficiently light so
that she could plainly see that the vestibule door was open,
Several witnesses testified as to the abundance of light,
both on the platform of the car and around Des Plaines
avenue. In the testimony of some of the witnesses, lights
are specifically mentioned as follows: About twenty-five
feet from the station platform was the entrance archway of
Forest Park, on which were seven clusters of 60-watt forty
candle-power tungsten lamps with five lights in each cluster,
which threw 1400 candle-power of brilliant tungsten illumi-
nation directly onto defendant's train, the vestibule door
and the platform from which plaintiff alighted; lights in
the tower of Yorest Tark, about fifteen feet removed from
the station platform, and an arc lamp on a pole thirty-five
feet high just inside the entrance to Forest Park, with a
lighting power of 3500 candles; two street electric lights
within fifty and one hundred feet of defendant's track; four
clusters of incandescent lights of five lights each on the
crossing gates, and a cluster of lights on the watchman'ts
shanty immediately west of Des Plaines avenue; a cluster of
lights on a pole on the east side of Des Plaines avenue;
also tungsten and gas arcs on the front porch of a fruit
store just south of defendant's tracks; all of which were
-Hoig .1¢ bas worroM ,erM blot ode ,teo sit tto beqqese oan
-otq btsvoid .1a@ “ mtert eit the bsdeuq asw"ede tect bis
bas,tostts tant ot ttitnist@q yd bengia tmemstatse we be oud
anefd ai esw benglie eda teqegq edi tadtd emislo soe aguontia
eidt mo tootg to musgosyp ent ,ti bangle ene omis add ts
.mialo dowa cseniags ef taiog
edt aAoqu Aish esw ti tadt beitivees oats sa .
wwel-ni-tsteie 19H Anes one eit to smit sdt ts prsetea ty
ee ¢dgil vistnstottiva esw $i tedt bettitees .togtsY .eiM
.As o esw toob sf{uditeov ont sant sea yinislq Sfuoo oe tsdt
tdagil to sonsbouds sci of es beittitaset egeaesentiw {stevee
eenisit esd bavors bos wzso eAd to miottsiq sat ——
adaAgt4 ,asagentiw sat to smoe to yromigeet ods al svas vs
evili-yiaews twodA sewollot es penolsoens yfisoitioogse 9T8
to veawdore sonsiinas ent ecw asottsiq mottate eit mort toot
yYirTot tisw-03 to ersteul{o neve etTew aAoidw no ited seor0%
ytetaut[o doses af atrial svit dtiw equal setegaud tewoq-9 [hbase
-imulf{t neteagnus Snsli{fixrd To tewog-sibneo OOSL wetdt sto Lotw
toob sf{uditesv edd ,nisit a'iasbaeteb ofmo yitoe1ib aotten
at stoigil ;betdgifs Ttidaisly soidw mott mrottelq ont bas
mort bevomer seet needIit tuods ,Aisi taste, to sewod ond
svit-vyirids efoq 8 so qmsl ors as bas ,mrottsiq moifate ould
a dtiw ,A18{ tes1o% of sometins oft sbieni taut Agta toot
etdgil otttoelfe teerte owt ;aatbaso OOGE to tewog anitigif
tot ,xostt e'tnsbaoteb to teet betbnud emo bus yt tit middiw
edt no cose etdalt svit to etdyil tmeoaebasont to etotauto
e'nsodotaw adt ao etngil to tevaufo 8 has ,aetsg ANLeBeoto
to teteuslo s ;eunevn eontald aed to ¢eew yiotsibemmt vtosde
ieunevs aonisld eed to ebie dese sit no eflog & mo atdgit ‘
— s to dotog tnortt sid mo sous @s8y bas nedagaut oaL.
Sete
etew doldw to {fa ;exoatt o) saat ted to adss08 — Tod
oF.
* y ’ — srr ee
burning at the time of the accident,
Plaintiff testified that she was carried after
the accident, which disinterested witnesses contradict by
testifying that she walked- Plaintiff also attributed the
asilments from which she was suffering to injuries received as
the result of her fall from defendant's car, — is
clearly proven [that alli of the important physical ailments
of which she complained existed prior to her fall from de-
fendant's car. She also testified that after the accident
: she was an invalid * unable to do her own work, |We think
“this testimony wap(puccohetutly rebutted by the testimony of
credible and disinterested witnesses.
Whether plaintiff fell from or was pushed off
the platform of defendant's car, does not tend, under the
circumstances established by a preponderance of tne evidence,
to prove defendant guilty of the negligence charged against it
in the detlaration. The negligence which was the primary
cause of the accident is attirbutable to plaintiff in failing
to use that prudence incumbent upon her under the conditions
environing her at the time of the accident. Her want of pru-
— is such contributory negligence on her part, as a matter
of fact, as precludes a recovery. Davenport v. Calumet ang
South Chicago Railway Co., Generel No, 21346, not yet reported;
McAvoy v. St. Louis etc, Kk. R., 150 Ill. App. 620.
The power vested in this Court by virtue of Sec-
tion 87 of the Fractice Act, includes the power, upon appeal
from a judgement of the trial court, to reverse such judgment
without remanding the cause upon the ground that the weight
of the evidence does not authorize the verdict. Borg v. C.R.
bie Er. Ry. Co.,, 162 Ill, 548; C, Cc, ©, & St. L. Ry. Co. ¥.
Alfred, 125 I11. App. 477; Casper v, I. C, R. R. Co., 162 ibid
104; Poliakoff v, Chicago Railways Co., 162 ibid 632.
.toebiocos sdt to emit edt ts guiaid
tetts belirso esw ria todd bottiseed Ttitaiald
ud toibstiqoo esseventiw bedestatuiaib doidw tnebisos 9 (it
eit betdudittss oals Tiitmisiq -berlfaw otis Jedd gatyiisees
88 — ———— eeliuiat o¢ anitetinve asw offe doidw mott ednomftis
DUO Gan bow anof
ak fp Liaw ~189 a'Jasbastebh mott [fst ted to ¢ivaet ead
atnomiie L[sotayigq tasttoqmt sad to Ife teas nevorg yitasto
-9b mott [{st ted o¢ toiiq beteixe benisiqmoo ode dotdw to
tasbloos ot yedte tsdd bstlisess oals ode .4eo a'tasbaet
wats ew | .Atow mwo ted eb of of{denu bus bilfsevai os esw offe
ls tan Keae Ke Qorao x6
Ne (romitass edd YO beidtudet Viluteéeooue |acw yuomttesd aids,
QW eqaeesniiw botsetotnieib bas efdiberto
tto bsiieug.eaw to — tiitnislq tedtesdwW
ent tebau ,bast ton ss0b ,teo a'éaebastesb Bo mtotisia edt
,sonesbive sds to sonsisboacqsig 8 yd bodeif{dstese esonstamuotto
ti teniegs beyisdo soneyifgen sdt¢ to yslinug tnshastebh svotq of
yremiitg edd eaw doidw sonegilgen ofl .noiststai{esb odd at
goilist ai ttismialq of sl{detudtitsa si tnebioos ent to seuso
anoistbacoe sit teban tend nogu tnedmuont sonshutg tad? seu of
-siq to ¢nsw t9H .tnebioos sdf to smid eat ts ted gninorivas
totisn s es ,¢isq tod no goneyitgsn yrodudittnoo nove ei sone
boas seaulsd .v trogievad .ytevoost 8 asbuloe1g as ,tost to
gbedtoget Joy gon ,SbEIS .o% Lerensd ,.09 yawltsH ogsoind isyoe
-OS® ,qqA ffl o¢L .,ff ~H .ots atvot .g& .v YovAoM
-o92 to osudriv vd gruod atdt al besteev tswoq sxT
fasqas mogu ,tewog sit eebulont ,JoA sottoerdi odd to T8 waolt
Snemebs, dove setevet o3 ,dtwoo Isixrt ont to tnemabut s mort
tdgieow od tedt bayotg edd moqu seuso ond anthbnamet Juodtiw
.H.0 .vV grog .toibiev ont esitontus ton es0b sonmebive ent to
.v 00 .vA J .d8 8 D9 9 ;8be .1fT BBL ..
bidt SOL ..09 .f .A DI .v xegesd ;VTA .qqgA .fLI ESf ,
S88 bidt SdL ,.00 eyswiiet oysotdd) .v ifod ;a0L
yt .
ehhs —
We are unkesitatingly impelled to the conclu-
sion that the weieht of the evidence did not suthorize the
verdict against defendant, and that the judgment should be
reversed with a finding of fect, which is accordingly done,
REVERSED WITH FINDING OF FACT,
431 - 21889 PINDING OF FACT.
The Court finds, as matter of fact, that the
injuries of plaintiff were occasioned by her own careless-
ness and not by any negligence of the defendant,
~uLomo9 ont of bolleqmt yinaitetioeniuy stp ov
ed¢ estrodtus ton bib sonebivs sAt to tiiptew od? tans moka
ed bivode tnemabut edt tedt bes ,tasbaeteh temtage tolptev
.ono0b vfanibrooos ei dotdw ,tost to anihait « At¢iw 5eetevet
TOAD TO OAICHIT ATIW CLENSVAA
~TOAT TO DOMICHIT @aais ~ [és
sig tens ,tont to tetism es ,abnit g100 eAT
-seslotso awo t9d yd benoiesooo siew Tiidaislg ‘io asirupat
Josbreteb edi to sonsgilgen yas yd som base eeen
462 - 21860
HESRY BELNSRAUSER et al,,
Appellees,
APPRAL PROM CLRCUIT COURT
LOUIS C,
)
OF COOK COUNTY,
On Appoml ¢
MATRA et al.,.- /
f WALTER D, BRAPRN,
iOS faa
BR, JUSTICH HOLDOM DELIVERKD THE OPINION OF THR COUN’,
V this is an appeal from a decree of foreclosure
in which the mortgaged property is ordered to be svld to
satiefy the esmount found due by the master's report, and ap-
Peliant seeks a reveraal of that decree,
The trust deed foreclosed waa given to secure
the principal sum of $1500 and interest, payable nalf yearly,
the interest being evidenced by coupon interest notes of £45
each, Two of these notes matured and were not paid at the
time the bill was filed, The mortgaged property had before
this time been seld for taxes and the certificate of tale was
outstanding, uncancelled and unreleased, at the time the
bill was filed, The trust deed contained a covenant aue
thorizing the legal holder of the indebtedness to deciare
due the whole asount unpaid upon default in payment of any
interest coupon for thirty days, or in the efent of failure
to pay taxes on the wortgaged preuises when due, Advantaging
of these provisions, appellees declared the whole sum due by
Yyenson of the non-paynent of the two interest coupons and the
non-payment of taxes and the sale of the wortgaged premises
by reason of such non-payment,
Appellant confesses aod endesvors by his anewer
te avoid the legal consequences of these facts, lie contends
that nis ogent paid these interest coupons at the pince where
they sere payable; that the person to wiouw the interest was
‘ - Nh
4s :
OOSLE »~ Bad
ete 20 fay ns VAAN
evo liogga
THUOD TIUGHIO MORE JAKGIA
eX THUG AGO WO
oc AI ECL
."U0D AHT UO MOLHIGO HHT GRANVE.INd MoGion MOITeUL , Au
siunofostot lo eatoeh a mort Lesgqe aa al eid? Vv
os bLos od a2 beaeito ei “dteqosa Soygaygitoem esis dokdw ak
-(a baw ,S2oqet a'i9deno edd yo owh bawet Jnuome ont vie liae
.o9%0sh fan? Yo Laateves = exvoe saalloq
—
91008 OF novly saw bodoLoencl bead Jauwtd oT
‘Vitaoy tisd eldayeq ,Jeetedai baw G0éL4 Yo awe Laqlonitg oa⸗
Gdy to soson seatetul moques yd beonebive —R — E —
ott de bisg Jom etew baa between asdon eaotd to owt . Mone
o1cted bai YsteqotG begeydtem od? .beLi% eaw Lit oat ome
asw olae to ofasailtifis ead due aoxad tot bfou need oats ekds
ont omid oid ge ,boosolortaw baw boliaonmenw ,anibuatesue
-s8 Jnanevoo a beaiataoy bash sewrt out be Lit aaw (lid
e1sloeh of avenheddwnat ald to tebfod Legot oda galatzods
yas lo Inoayaq of Luster mequ binqew Invosm ofeow wdd oud
omtist to tastes ede as 10 .eyeh vetlad 16% noguen Jeoted¢ak |
anigaduevbA § ,eub aestw ese inetg —— ois eo aanad wag of
Yd gub awe 6 Lovtw ole bewstoeh aselieqes catokedvong seeds to
oad bas anequeo seertosal ows wae Yo Ins ayaqenon ond te sOeRet
eesinorqg begsatitom edt toe elas aad dae woxas te saomyaqenon
-Tneaysq-mon ceva to mosnet yd
towene sid yd atovaebns bus wovartaoce suallogqa |
Shustaoo oi ,edoat o@oas LO sooneupuance Lagol oid blove of
etonw eonig ott 3a enoqueo Seortesel evodd blag saege eli east
Baw Jaotodil oA wodw of Kote edd add joldmyag aren Yods
paid delivered to appellant's agent two coupon interest
notes for $45 ench, duly cancelled, it transpired that
these coupon interest notes did sot relate to the mortgaged
property, but to other property near by, whlch was morteaged
by another trust deed tc the same trustee and was of like
tenor, date and amount as that secured by the trust deed
foreclosed, there were many other such trust ceeda in many
essential particulars the same as that found in the twill in
the record, but covering other, though contiguous, property.
There seems to have been seme negligence on the part ef the
agent of appellant in paying two coupens due under a trust
deed covering property other than that secured by the trust
deed in this record, although appellees deny tois,W however,
be this as it way, if the agent of appellant did pay other
notes by Snndvertenes, and did net pay those notes which
appellant claims he intended his agent to pay, such mistake
must be attributed te appellant, Uf appellant Kas volunterily
paid seme coupons other than his own, he sust auffer the con-
sequences of such action, The law will not allow him to
folat the responsibility afen appellees, who in no wise are
responsible for the predicament in which appellant rinds
himself as the result of the actions of his agent, When
the bill was filed the two coupon notes nad remained unpaid
for sore than thirty days after their maturity, This con-
dition permitted appellees to declare the whole awount se-
eured bytthe trust deed due and payable and to proceed to
forecloee the trust deed according to itu provisions in
this regard, It was the duty of the agent of appellant to
gee to it when he wade the payment be did that he received
in return the coupons which he intended te pay end not
others, Whatever appellant's intentions regarding payment
were, his agent received the coupons whieh he in fnet paid,
Appellant admits the gale of the mortgaged
fuoredat soqaos ows siege o'daallegys os bertevi los bieg
sadd botiqenets #! bolloonas ylub ,done, dd) tot eston
hegaye tom ads of otsfer toa blb soton suersditl woquos oaons
beysadtom wew dofdw ,Yyd taon yaaeqgonyg seddo of Jud Vi toqerg
exif to wesw bas esdewt? omse ont of boob dunae. aecitone yd
beeb Jeuxd odd yd botwven sads ae Inuvome bee odab ,tEnee
Youn ol ebheol Jeuxt done tedso Yoram onow eieat - .eeaofoeto?
wi Lfid od at bavol dads en emoe sds statuoiinag faisaseso
UI9GerG ,avouyisaes aguoads ,tedso yaktevee sud H1009T ag
aig ‘to ttsq eid mo ooaeglgea emoe need evad og amove —
seuwtsd #@ tebau eb ancquoo ows gaiyeq mi Janifoggs 20. sa9 98
tauwtt edd yd berw0eses Jade nad? adie yenoqgotg “‘yabtevoo boob
-tevewoll Vaiss ynek soe lleqgs ctysrocid La sbtenes aid’ at boob
tocigo yaq Bib gaelieqqe Yo faeya ont 14 (yam 22 ea ahdd od
doisw esfou eaods vag ten bib bra soaostovbent yW aeten
odngolisa Aowe ,.ysq os tasye ala bebnedal va smiafo taslloqan
yitwtssaufLov aan taslieqaa t3 .tanliogas of bodudscien of sou
-neo ede tot lwe oma’ on seo ais onde teodse Bmoquoo ome hing
ot wid wolle fom [fiw wai eA olden douse ‘te eoonsspoe
ete ssiw on al odw (eae Sloaqe Wee Ys tlidlenoques etd: abo?
ebnit gnalleqqs doide nk sesnaoidery aad 10% oldlencquet
ned ,Jnoyea eld to emeitoa odd to tiueert odd ca YWodmid
blaqa beniawet bad seton sequen ows edt HeLit amw Lild eds
“100 aldT ,ysirudaa ieds isdte eye youidd aead otom 10%
“ea Jovouws olodw gad otatood of soo liegys boitioteq moishb
od beeverg oF baa oldayaq bts eu beeb Jewkd addiyd Deus
al anoivivorg adi OF yuibrosem hood suwad off gaolovt0?
Of dnatiogqs Yo taege os Lo yiub oad gow $1 .btaget abit
bevioosx of Jadt bib oa Jnomyaq eds oboe oc gone 32 Of soe
gon bas yey of behbtosai ov dotiw anoquoo odd atuset al
fcomyaq gulbtayget eaoisnolal atinalieqqa teveiatW ,eredto
ebiag tom t al ed doldw enocqwoo odd beviesest Snaye aia —8
begegsxom ond to onu socia adimba Jualleqga
property for taxes, To avoid the effect of such sale as
vicoletive of the covenants of the trust deed requiring
prompt payment ef taxes, etc., he contends that he has
and owne the certificate of sale, This condition in no
way redounds te the benefit of appellant or changea the
fact that the mortgaged property was sold for nonepuyment
of taxes,
The purpose intended, in requiring taxes to
be paid premptly, is to avoid &® wale of the mortgaged
property for non-payment and te preserve the paramount
lien of the trust deed. The certificate of sale was a
cloud and lien upon the property conveyed superior to
the lien of the trust deed foreclosed, If appellant
sees fit to contravene the covenant of the trust deed
in this regard by failing to pay the taxes when due and
Sllowing the mortgaged property to be sold for such non-
poyment, he waust suffer the consequences of his derelice-
tion, It would be inequitable to hold otherwise, Cray
v¥. Kobertaon, 174 i1l,. 242, and Hrockway v. Meclun, 146
Ill. App. 465, ere authorities sustaining this conclusion,
The decree of the Circuit Court is right and
ia therefore affirmed,
A¥YFPIREED,.
an else dove te JooTie ed? biova oT ,eexad 102 Yhteqe7g
gaiziupet boob tewtd ead Yo sdnaneves et? To evidaloiv
aad of gadd ebastacs of ,,0¢o ,eexed Yo tremenq tqnong
on al moisibacs eidt .sine Yo etanitistes edt sawe baa
ond eegnado to tasilogga to siloned odd oF shawebet Yaw
tnemyeqenon to? bLos saw YStaqotg begayirom edd tad? soa?
,sexad Yo
eo? goxas gnitiupet ai ,bobmaodni gRoqiug oat
bogegitom os to olsu @ bieve of oi .ulequorg blag od
dnwcantag of evesue1g of bas Snomyaqenon TOL ys teqoTg
gs uaw oleae to otaoltitaisca eT .beeb dauid ocd to noit
os t0olteque beyevanoo yiteqertg 943 aogw moll bua bwsofo
jnalioqgs TI ,beeolsetet beeb Tausd odd to moit eds
booed seuxt edd to snsneveo oat sievantneo oF +2 e008
bas sub node sexst oid ynq of guitia® yd bieget etd at
“20% dove tot blow od ot ySuequig begagdtom ont yatwolta
-oiloxob sid Yo asoneupetnoo of? to Viwe Jee ont tineungalg
X .eelwreido Slat of eidatiupent ed bfwow 41 mold
Bal ,oulooM .¥ Yawioond bow ,ShS Lr AVL .gegdteded .¥
-tolestonoo ald? gauiniatawe eseicixveddus eta ,038 .qqA . {IL
bas tigit ek diwed divorl) of? te setosd —J
-beatitie oretetde at
eGEMHIGVA -
—
§30 - 21928
GHORGE J, SAYER, )
Appellee, }
AYPRAL FROM MUNICLFAL COURT
Vs, F
* OF CHICAGO,
ANDREW J. G'CQNNELL, yf
pellant, 2 a
fit LOS L.A. Gar
—
sf
BR, JUSTICE HOLDCM DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
V me BRunicipal Court entered a judguent by cone
fession fer rent and attorney's feos, under @® power contained
in @ lease set fortn in the statement of claim, in favor of
plaintiff and against defendant for the sum of 31181, Dee
fendant afterwards made a motion to vacate tne judgment on
the single contention and claim that the Court had no juris-
diction te enter it. No affidavits were filed in support of
this motion and no claim made of meritorious cefense to the
—— of the judgment or any part of it,
Defendant grounded his motion upon the fact
that in the statement of claim it is recited that the lease
containing the power of attorney asutuorizing the confession
of judgment was lost or wislaid, This contention is true,
but it appeared by an averment in the statesent of claim
that a sworn copy was filed in its place; this fact is not
denied by defendant, It is further set forth in the statee-
ment of claim that the copy of the lease attached to such
statement had been admitted by defendant in another action
between the sane parties to be an exact duplicate of the
original lease; and it was also adaitted by defendant that
the original lease was executed by him, Plaintiff alse
averred in his statement of claim that the said lease had
never been assigned or transferred to any other person, The
trial judge denied the motion to vacate, and defendant ap
Hi pears,\/ |
*
THUOO JALLOLNWH BONY TATDIA
(
~QRADLBD: TO
Bd AT cer
rauot aur 19 ROLMIGO KAT CARAVINNE MOCLON aꝓrrour
—8 “a —— 9 a born $n: 3009 Leqhotita est — By
benisiacs tewo, 8 tebau ,eseT e'yvantotia baa inet 10% | anniek
Yo tovat ni ,miaio to —— axis ad agro toa sesel s ak
— £618 to wise ott tot Jaabaotebh teniags base Nu ⸗ata ty
ao smemibul, eat atavay of cotton a sbast shrews taaboet -
eaitul, on ‘had S100 ed? Jndt mielo bas noignstage oigate oid
te Saaqaque at befit oxew adiveb: Tks of SE tague os moitoth
Sas od su weaeh wvolretiqen 10 shan mel oa bas noitos elds
etl to sxaq vile to ⸗ↄae nabu ons to suvens
gost adj noqw solsom alu ——— insbine tet
eemsl add Jnuis acinar wt te t aivnfo te avmesase oud ae ome
moiaee'tabs ois acislroadie — to tewog one gniniasaoo
Burt ek moidaoraon eine’ y BioLe den to deol aaw Sommpbou t, to
‘miato ‘to tnoap tats ott ci dnomreave oa yd botsogge th sud
gon ai toa? eluis joontq ati at bolit ¢aw yqoo stows @ sadd
eojase vit ai Aiuot tea teddtel ok $1 .tapbaeteb yd beltneb
igsue of bodvatia oanet edt Yo ¥ygoo etd tad? mielo to tnem
Boljon tendons oi dasbasteh yd bottinbs ased bad tnemetata
e422 Yo eisolilauh toare an ad oF we kined guee ed? meewled
deus susboeteh yd bodtinbs cele aaw oi bns joRael fentgire
oufea TTWitnial( id ¥d.Dodwoexe aaw euool Leniyiro edd ps
bad eeae tl bisa eds tons misfo to tnemecsate etd ol borreva —
eT ,1o8tog Taio (om of Dewye tuuntd to benglecn aeed toven
“(6 Jasbnoted bite ,etaoay of Golsow sit Dolaeh opti, Labi
a Te
It appears that the judgement appealed from was
entered in open court, Consequently, a1} preaumptions in
faver of its velidity must be indulged, Farwell vy. Huston,
151 111, 246, is directly in point, In this ease the Court
BEY s
"{t way aleo held * * that there is a broad
distinction between cases wherein the proceedings are nad
in open court, and cases where the judyment is confessed
in vacation; that, in the latter case, the authority of
the attorney must affirmatively appear, while in the former
ease the presumption will be in favor of ibe validity of
the judgsuent,*
the original lease being lost or mislaid, the
aworn copy proffered to the court in its place was sufficient
evidence from which the court wae authorized to enter the
judgment appealed from, Hapecially le this so in view of
defendant's adsalssion that it was o true copy, #e think it
Clear from plaintiff's statement of claic: that the Municipal
Court had jurisdiction to enter the judgment wnieh it did,
While many other guesticns are argued by coun-
sel for both contestants, the question raised in tne court
below was limited to the jurisdiction of the court; conse-
quently no ether reason is available on appeal,
The judgment of the Municipal Ceurt is affirned,
AFYIREED,
4 Fee ae Y
few most halsoaqan snommbay, ods Jails oxacgga tt
sk anoliqmmera (fa ,yitasupsanod —E noqe 1
Botuui .v ilowza .begtubat od teem vetbi tay
Sine) eas saso aidd * -thieog ai vivourtib ek . OM
bua — an .
= 4
bsetd 8 ak otdi Jadd * * Pied eta saw 31” ‘
bad o1Kn epaibsevcrg od? aieteaw seano — rok
besaetaoo al Inemyoy), sds etods egeno ban ,omMOD |
To veiraditus ood ,o@ny teddaf ond ai —
tqearet od3 al iidw .sasqqe yisvivearitte Jaum ¥
to ywibifay sat to toveat mi sd ILlw ———
eat ,bisigin 15 Jeol gated seeel Inalgixo oui
faetoltiue eow soetq ati at truvo ois of betoe Thotq ee ato
649 toto of beatioidus eav tive ost dokdw mot gone ps
to wotv at es sind ai “Yllaiseget mort de eoaa⸗ ‘2 —
ai wiiad of .yqoe awit s anw $i tad? solewimba ats
Leqiotava eit Jad aieio to inematade a XRE wort —
X
sblb ti doine Jaeagou, eds t9edHd of sol soLbe taut bod vt
-nvoo Yd beugte s%6 anolsecup tease Yaa eLiae
diw0d edi ai Soeist moltsesup sad ,ataadestues diod not
“sano ,FiNEs aAv to woidotba Lust ont of bodimkl —
eLaeqgs ao efdaliava ek MOBHOX wedto on
bowtitts ei guise) Lagloins eid Yo sasambut oat
-GRRALYYA
per
404 - 20544
ROYAL COL EERY COMPANY,
-—@ Corperat ion,
APPRAL FROM
@
ve. 7 MONIGIPAL COURT
Hg
ALVART BROS, COAL mae } OF CHICAGO,
a —— # OM »
F dogo ttant. 195 J 67 *
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE PAM delivered the opinim
:
3
}
)
3
ef the court.
Tiié 18 an appeal from a judgment for $1155.69,
rendered in a Suit brought py appellee (plaintiff below)
against appellant, (defendant below) fcr the value of
Gertain washed coal #old by plaintiff to defendant.
The statement of claim Sets forth in detail
the various months during which wash e¢ goal was purchased,
the delivery thereof, the tinue men payments were due
under tie agreement vetwesen the partiss and the exaet
amount due. It aléo sot forth 4 claim for interest at
the rate of five per cent. per annus, for failure on the
part of defendant to pay #a2id amomt when due.
Plaintiff was in the business ef mining md
@hipping cecal, having ite mines at Virden, Lllinois,
Defendant was a coal dealer in the city of Chicago, and
had a cmtract with the bosrd of education to supply
part Gf the conl wed in the Ghiesgo public schcols,
(On the 26th day of July, 1921, plaintiff and defendant
entered into a written contrast whereby plaintiff agreed
J to sell, and defendant egreed to buy, appr ox imate ly
NOL BASITA
yeuso TATE ST wy
OKT TD TO
my) A, I eer —*
minatqe off bexevileb ours eater as
3 .tmu09 ont to
80 .8ELL} wt Mmongdel * sovh Leoqes aa. a ah
(wolod ttieutalg) seliegqe yd ddguore porn * os borabaer
% utlew oft vot (eelad Joehaetat) stast Leger: danke ge.
taabneteh of Ttieatdfe yo Slow Laos beddae Maines
{istos mt dirot “etee ghaty to tramotete ont
*
ghetedorun: sew trop bareen ot c gin tah eH. wetter —
One oon Gchötuet “om tr ok 4 ene —R xyort Leb odd
Jour out One bet dred erid seomted trromeos ge ett reb au
te tered wot mieio dba? mime otls #3 .owb Fwome 9
et? no omiisl 102 , wens veq .oeee neq evil ke evar oft
,owk ae ite toasone Shae wag ot pei trsg
bos goiatw To a wots Syd aie * aa RM tae fT
Oho WELL oehetv th eset atk ink wast face yatqat de ,
hd yagwotad Yo ytho ovstt at teon ieoo » Gee tnebaeted
vigawe oF mtieouse ko bread odt dtlw teertme @ bad
ewoodow os f dug opeok ao oath ab boas aoe ont to tasa
tosboeteb bow TY tak ala «ite etal, te va —J ont 0 Woke
Hootgs Miiahwla yseredw tomthawo cate ee * ovat beretae ane
we tomd x0 29900 WG ot BeOyE rath ‘baa iene
-20
20,000 tons of lump and egg coal at a price of $1.07¢
per ton at the mines; said coal te be shipped in approxe-
imately equal quantities (about 2500 tons per month)
between the date of the contract and March 31, 1912, as
ordered, and payments to be made at Virden on the 20th
ef each calendar month for 50% ef all coal shipped during
the previous month; the balance to be paid for on the
10th of the second month fellowing shipment,
In January, 1912 there arose between the parties
some difficulty with reference to thie contract,| te which
more detailed reference will be had later in the course
of this epinion. | During the period that the school coal
contract had to rum, defendant needed certain coal known
ag "washed coal"; however, the transaction for washed coal
was to be considered separate and apart from the transactions
involving the school coal contract. It was also understood
that payment for the washéd coal was to be made on the 10th
of the month. following shipment.
The evidence is undisputed that there was furnished
by plaintiff to defendant washed coal as set forth in its
statement of claim, amounting to $1485.37, and that the
coal represented by the first item was delivered on February
20, 1912.
During January, 1912, there was delivered to
defendant on the school coal contract, coal valued at
$1817.08. Under the terms of the echool coal contract,
there was due on February 20 the sum of $908.54. There
was also due at this time $266.11 for washed coal delivered
in January.
oe
$¥0.L@ to sofiq 5 3m Lwoo R39 boo qowl te smot 000,08
-xergga ait beqgisa ed of Leen bliae yeonim of? Ja aod 198q
(cidnom xeq aneot COGS tueda) wotiitnayp Laype Ylot ams
am ,SfLel ,£& dots bas fostines eft To etab old noted
A#O8 ocd oo aobxrav fs eham of of atnoamyag ora shotebte
qaitub beqqina isos [La to ROE sot Atom aba Lao heat to
eat mo x0t biaq od of sonalad off ptnom auoiverg odd
<tneagide goiwolfot dion amosen edt 0 Mtn
ackizueq oft asewied eaore siet SLOL ,yrawnal nl
ae
ifo Lite 02 |, axdmoe aids of oonoretor dtiw Yrivelttas omoe
eaioo of? al uetal bad od iLiw oone1e to” beLliateb »tom : “a
Laeo Loosioe ond tmit bokrsq ond yoko | sso Ankge aida to 0 ei ‘i
mwoni [s00 niatxes bebosn insbnvleh ytux ot jet sositmes | ;
Leen Sertmew tot moigcoaamars eff ,teveword ;"fse> bedaaw* en va
noitonsnaxs of} mort fiaqga ine stataqes baetobianes ed ot saw We Y
beoteatsbas aeic anv tl .tomitaed Leno Loodoe sid gatviovnt ee
HtOL edd xo sham od of aaw Lao0 baiaew off tol snemyng add *
einomqide yuiwollot.dtaom ont to
e
eiuinist uew overs fot betuqaibrw ak sonmsbive ont
eti ni Atdxot tou as Leon hbedasw tunbnetob of Ltasnlatg 2). i
ons tadd ome ,VE.88dlg oF gaisauoma ,okslo to ———————
visio ao bowviieh asw oosi sail? oft yd bednsasrget ison
cy ———
ae
ot boxovileh eaw oveds ,SLOL pyreaunel gold — *3*8
3a boulavy Iaoo ,toeirines Lgoo foonse oft mo t
etoatdneo Lees Loosioe oft to emaod off tobe 80.
| _ atodT 58,8008 to mun edt OS yrewadet no ou cow
ode
On February 20 defendant sent plaintiff a voucher
sheck for $1100.00, which voucher check stated that it was
& payment *on acaount." This cheek was received by plaine
tiff and was paid in due course.
On June 15, 1912, defendant sent a voucher
check to the plaintiff for the sum of $376.40, ‘This
vyeucher check had on its back the following memoranda;
"3/26 Bill rend. 91209,72
y 7 »* " —5*
2/20 * " 53.09
1911 or. ;
10/6 Or. memo. 130 - 4,49
26 Gr. memo, 144 - 13.92
18.4
1503.78
1912
11/3 Cash 27.38
1912
2/21 Cash 1100.00
27238
34
This cheek was received and deposited by plaintiff and
paid. It will be seen that the defendant in the voucher
check applied the $1100 payment of February 20 on the
washed coal account.
It further appears from the evidence that after
the beginning of this muit, plaintiff, on October 15, 1912,
began an action against the defendant in the United Stetes
district court, in which suit plaintiff filed the ordinary
common counts, alleging damages in the sum of $5000.00.
—
todouov a Yitnialq tnoe Jowbaetod OS yxewsdet AO if a 4
aw if fuskt bedata soodo toovov xo tedw ,00,00188 — * ie
enielg yd bevieoa: aaw aondo als? ‘.dauopoe 19" di {ie
9eB%c9 enh ak bi ag 9—
tefouey s trea imabnotob ,S£0L df smal ae
aii? O08 to awn ed tot Yiidmiale ent oe
isbratomem yuivelfet ort Xoad alt mo bat xyedo vedo
RY .CORLE ebnew L1H 88
d8.f8f — —
Bzv.mos
883 lh
a
beam ‘YtEpusonte ‘et tiie hist sala * mn
weHowey ont mt Saale tb ext tant nee og ike at al tag
J elt no OR yranadet to snemryaq OOLLG outs
— strawoos I
« tette tadt someniv od? mort stasqqe —
enn .2f xedeso0 no ,TRitmintg ,tiva eke to ym, wet vs J
> setaze bot tet oui? wk smadaoted di —* tos 4 aot
_— od beLtt Mitanielg diye dole mb — stehb
— wing Aes
nN
> J. Py Sone ot a 4 7
—* a
«40
Defendant pleaded the general issue, That suit arese
cut ef a contreversy with reference to the scheol coal
contract. After suit was begun in the United States
district court by plaintiff, defendant began an action
in the Municipal court of Chicage to recover damages
which it claimed te have sustained because of plaintiff's
failure to fulfill the school coal contract. This cause
was removed te the United States district court and the
two canes were tried together,
Defendant claims that in the trial of these
two cases in the United States district court, plaintiff
admitted that the $1100.00 paid on February 20 was applied
on the washed coal account and not on the school ceal
contract; that according te plaintiff's accounts, there
submitted in evidence, the $1100.00 payment was not
applied by plaintiff on the school ceal contract; that
all the coal ordered and delivered previously te January
had been paid for; that no coal was ordered under the
scheol coal contract after February 20, and therefore
Plaintiff in that case was suing fer only the coal ordered
and sold during the monthe eof January and February; that
there was due for said coal not to exceed $3523.00; that
there was proven in that case damages not to exceed $1206, 00;
that the interest due on any theory ef the case could not
have been more than $175.00; making a total of $4998, 00;
that therefore the verdict fer $5081.95 rendered in the
United States district court proceeding could have been
arrived at only on the thoery that the $1100.00 payment
in question had not been applied on the schoel goal cone
tract; that the judgment entered on said verdict was res.
Adjudicata of that fact; that with the elimination ef that
' be — 43.0
enota tive det! oneal Leteneg odd bebanl¢ tnabme tod
{Lsce Looros edd of someio'tet dtiw yet9eversmeo & to tue
anjas® betinl odd at avged eaw tive weeTA ptonttmen
neigos na meayed jnabsetodb ,Thisniale WwW suvon ab aaa aib an
aeyaneb tevones of ogsolds> To tuo Leake bt aid u Wes
e'ttkinialq to eavesed bonintveue svat oF pemtsto oh fo ; =
ssuso aidT .Joarsnon {seo Loorive off ILPTe? oo ol J
edt ois +100 toltdakb setate betin! edt a3 — iy
| etadtagot boiad o19w eeuao owt : 7
eusds to Lalit ode mt tad emialo Jnabagted , 2 aie —
ttiinialg ,tiwoo fokuteib aetata betinU sid at somes od
beifyqa aaw O8 yisurdet oo bhag 09,001L§ end Jadt podsinda ih
Laco foodoa oft no don baw taveopa Seon besiaaw ont me
otedd ,@inuopow altiksalalg ot gakbveme tats jfoatimen .
fon eow teromyag 00 0OZLG oft ,oormbive at hots knee pen
tad? ;Joatsneo Is00 Loooa ofd no Thitniste yi betiqgs |
Yreunst of yLevelverq betevifeh bas osiebuo Laem exit ts an
eit 195mu betebie esw Ineo on Jods ytoT bing avod bed | he
sreterod? bas ,O8 yiawstdet seta sSosttmop laod Loorioa | |
perebto fnep edt _ELmo tot gmive sew sas tate a Trhtmk J a
soadd pystanidet bas Yiauiret, to siitnom ott. ania Plea By J
dads zoo caacâ booo xo oF Jon Leon bine to? exh asw ouedt ie
700.00 813 boooxe oF fon asyaued ad date ai aevoug asw oro
ton SLv00 sas9 oft Yo yroods Ye mo oh teesesmi odd tate
{00.882 to Latot » yr tomes gOO.a0LE mame exon wood ovat
odd ak botebhmes &0, Aong <0 tobbrov oat overeat sas —
org S100 fokudebb aotadt a *
trearyeg 20. 20449 ont, asta Yroods od KO ylno. ta | 2
exon Lxoo Looroe oid te bekiagn woe —
g97 Saw to tbaov bise ao botssn9
tad? 20 nottankmbde om thw tac
=
need ovat hives guibeso
question here, there was no further issue to be determined,
consequently piaintiff had no cause of action, as the paye
ment of $1100.00 and the check for $376.40 constituted full
payment ef the amount due for washed coal, the subject matter
ef thespresent suite
Plaintiff contends, however, that its suit in
the United States district court was not for the value
ef said coal at the contract price, but for the market
Value thereof, together with damages for defendant's failure
to order cosnl im quantities orovided for in the school coal
contract, during the months prior to January; that it based
its right to a recovery fer damages upon an alleged breach
of the contract by defendent; that the $1100.00 payment
was applied by it on the school coal contract, and that
the jury in the United States district court proceeding
so found,
In support of their reppective contentions, beth
Parties introduced testimony as to the proceedings in the
United States district court, not only as to the evidence
there offered, but also the rulings of the court thereon,
the pleadings and the instructions to the jury. This testie
mony was given by th: respective attorneys who represented
the parties in the litigation both in the United States
Whaerith sans 1% the proceeding at bar.
It appears fren the evidence that the testimony
in the proceeding in the United States district eourt showed
that up to Pebruary 20 about 7506 tons of coal had been
delivered to defendant under the school coal contract,
5262, 02 tons of which were furnished between January 12
ané Fenruary 20; that on February 20 defendant demanded
that the balance of the ona under the school coal contract
—
i:
—
é
=
=
—
— —
7 oe
— a4
shontntesed wv of aucat tedicut on sew etods ,e4es soignewp
<(eq od? ae ,noites. To ones on ball TUabely visteupeartes '
Lust botutizanco 0,8VE5 ret desi ort bow 00,0048 to toe ie
tetiom toetdua eft ,faco Seriaaw 10t exb dnwome ot Yo Sl a :
stive — ie
9
*
9
ai tive att snd ,covewod ,abemdmon Tubtatass | ay.
Hy
is
9
@uflav oft tot ton sew tauom eoetb aetare bor ket edt
Soavun oft tot tnd ,soktq soantioeo add ta Leoo obna te a
etulia? atinehao teh 1ol aegenab ditw rodteged . tooteate euler |
{aes Leonog oAt mi tet bebhvow geldidomaup ai isen tebe os
beaad ji sont porauisl of tote edtwom odd gait —
doaetd hogolia ca neg avgentab TOt yrIovenet « oF dghe atk
soe sega 90, 00LL9 of3 tadt sdnebaetead yw toatinen ad? te
tad bas ,toartnoo Lace Loodee oft me ti yo be sigue eaw
gniberootg t1u00 foind¢akh pasted? bovkny odd ob wut odd
—⸗ is
Selah Se
Fates
Ased .,anoitactmes evisoogaes xivad te oaaus —X
eis mi aynibseoorg odd of 96 yond Jd ood boouborgmd Arrea
aonnbive oi? of a8 ying ton Aaues dotutadw aetase ber ind we
eMoorndls Sivoo sit to agniser emt oaLe Sud ene te onyn⸗
ehiaed aid .ytul ot of anoigouttami att baa santbne te ont .
i
bednoserge: oly ayeototia evitosgast oat wl raves . von
asgasi botin' adv mi dtodd norteyka ts ort 9 Zura ous : r
OLS sna sey ee 4 7
etad ja aa ihessena ait “ * +
Wromidsest add taett sthentve oF? umxt awaceqa II rae
bewesin $xusoe teixrsakS actat® pedkav off mk gitdceneng a ) mk 7
J xood ben Iaoo te ame¢ OOGY sz OS asierea of qu # it
etowxrtnoo Leen Loodon off teony Meebneteb oF .
RL Yrauiat meowted bertnteayt stow Aokiw to amet :
bebrasnd : oaenint ot eee eee ae sas
7 es a
26
(Aæ, co tona) to be delivered during the reminder of the
contract period via., »y April 1; that upon plaintiff's
refusal to comply therewith, defendant declinede to order
any more coal from plaintiff; that plaintiff claimed that
the failure te order coal as provided for under the cone
tract, at the rate of 2500 tons per month, constituted
a brench of the contract, by reason of which breach
plaintiff had the right te recover any danages suffered
as a result thereof, also for the coal delivered during
January and February, on the basis of the market value,
and not upon the contract price.
The evidence further showed that in the course
of the trial in the United States district court it
appeared that after thin contract had been entered inte,
| the price of coal declined to a figure below the price
therein provided for, during the months of August,
September and October; that during said period, defene
dant's erders fell considerably below the monthly quota;
‘ent during November, when the price of coal rose above
the contract price, defendant ordered 2000 tons - nearly
the full quota; that during Gecemwber, when the price again
declined, defendant ordered only 1000 tons; that during
January and February, 191%, when the weather became cold,
the price cf coal advanced sharply; that because of defene
dant’ s failure to erder cosi as contracted for, plaintiff
had made certain contracts with other pecple, so that when
defendant ordered in larger quantities in January, the
Pinintiff, by reason of these emergency contracts, was unable
t® commence deliveries to defendant until January 12; that
:
=~ —5
ont te xsantemns gid gaixvd boreviled of of (amor (908,82)
e*tiigeielg moqu tard gf Livga ul 4 .skv boiteg to nnteoo
t9bt9 af Senifoob tnabastoh Ative silt eto ad. Laawtor
tate beetalo Thiemtald dads yTbtiakald; wort Leo. omoRt ese
eves off tebmu to? bebiverq as feon asb10 of ont List wey
bedusisenoo iltaem req anet GOES to eset ont De. ,soeet Tra
inoetd dokelw Xo coamet yf ,nattnen of? to Mose a
boxsttvc aegeusbh yaa reyeoet of dys oste bact Vektekete
giitub boveviteh foo odd tot oats ,towredd divert a em
,eutev texvitem oct to ainad eit mo — E ire Pies
| ooking toatinor ‘ats moqu fon baa _
eeivoo afi ni sSadd beworla isadist sonebive oAT
$i Fuveo tointeid voted? bos kai! ont a2 Labut eft Yo
ini betstee need bad toavinos eidd toda takt botsoqqe ‘
soing add wolod ormgit o at honifeob Lmoo Yo eatig aft)
efaugua to orinom ont grinned ,rot behivesq nioreds |
mp teh ,boiteq bisa goiiue dodt pxsdotoO bam todmerqeat
jatoup videnem sit woled yldeteblewos Ifpt exebte a’ nab —
svods gaex faeo ‘to coir ond conw ,tadmevet qittab Jadt y J *
9
Yisaon - ano) JOOR Letabte tnabnoleh ,opbig rarere sf? i
J
loge eoing ond norw ,todexoed gmituh fade gatoup Llut odd 4
guiiubh tact ganot OOOL ylno bereb<o gnebaetoh ,bemtfoob 6
ebieo amacsd tedisow sot netw ,SL0L .yrertdst bra Oe by
JN
ensteb to savsped jarit ;ylqteda beonavbe tn00 Yo sett ott babs 3
Ttitnialg ,»rot besoatsnon aa Leon tebt9 oF stwiist seme *
tertw dai? of ,elqorg tonto ttiw adowrdmoo alaties obam
edi ,yrauniat. mi avtti¢nayp iwgteal at bowbi0e —*
sidan sew ,afoerinon yoney tom sais be nosaer yd ,
the amount ef ccal delivered from January 12 to February
20 was practically on « basis of 25°00 tons per month,
It appeared further from the evidence in the
case at bar, that in the su&kt in the United States dite
trict court, defendant's statement ef claim in the
Municipal court of Chicago was. introduced, showing the
market price of coal during January and Yebruary was $2,060
and $1.75 per ton, respectively; that plaintiff introduced
evidence showing the market price dsy by day; that defendant
Claimed the market price of coal during January and February
ranged as follows;
January 10 to 16
do
$2.25 per ton
16 25 1.75
do 25 Bl <= - - 1,78
Feby. @ & Beene 1,90
do 4to Qeoew = 1,65
do 10 19 w-2 ~~ » 1,95
do 19 &220<+-+-+- 1,606
it further appeared that in the United States
district court Paul J, Alwart, secretary of the defendant
company, testified that the payment ef $1100.00 was origine
ally intended as payment of the $908.54 due February 20 for
January cosl deliveries under the school coal contract, and
an item of $268.11 due for washed coal, but that later, viz.,
in June, he applied the entire amount in payment of the sum
due for washed Goal, and that plaintirr acquiesced in such
action. It further appears that defendant based ita claim
for the application of the $1100.00 on the washed conl account,
upon the fact that the voucher cheek for $376.40 showed that
the $1100.00 was applied by defendant to the payment of all
washed coal, This was also testified to by Mr. Alwart in the
case at bar,
It further appeared that in the United States dis-e
trict court proceedings there was evidence that the washed
@0al account was separate from the schoel coal contract, and
yranidet of SL ytawnst mort bexrevifeb Igoe te tawomm ett
«tines tog amet O°88 Yo aiand os co yYlisoisjoaig saw O8
eat ni somobive odd mott wentewt ooteocge #1
eaih aotai® botin edt al @awe oft ni dedt ,tad tn ogee
edt mi mielo to tnomegste a'tnabas ted _— toixt
odd aniwoda ,boovboteni enw ogoolal to txvos Lagtotselt
00,88 aaw yrauvxdést bes yrewnel grtiuw {eco to eolbtq foatzam
booubowsi Tisnial; tatt gylevidovsgeet ,vot toq BY.f8 dna
tunbasteb Sand pyeh yi yah eokig fexttam oft geiwore oonmbive
YIsuideT bas ytaunel geiuh La00 to sotxg deste ost bomtalo
rewollot am beget
mos 19q@ Gh,R8
-~-~- «= Bf of OL Yteunal
Qv.f + «+ - 8& af ob
O¥.t -~« - = £& ue ob
G@4f «~<« -«8f 6-8 4
aa.f oe — e ot EY ab
@@.L — Of of ab
O0.0f — — 7 = O & OL ab
gated besint! off ai sarit peraeqan voddugt 21
tusbnetsS eft to ywietstese ,trawiaA .%. Lual pjaives deltteth
etiigtto asw 99.0018 ‘to tomoaryng ond Jandy Sek tated , yuaquoo
sot O8 ytawstdet sub 54,6008 off lo treryaq as bebnetai ylis
bas ,soaxtmoo Isom Lovidoa of? isbay eoiieviiob Leon yraumal
eRhY ,todel tad? sud ,Looo boceaw sot onb £1.60) to mesh as
sue oft to tmemyeaq oi Snvomm otitne old bokioga of ony ak
dowe at beogelupor Vildnialg satis bua ,Laco beriase +02 oub
misio afi beasd Snabnetob Jatt atseqqe todduvt #1 = .aeksoe
furcoos Ison bedaaw ent no 00.00L1% off Yo noivnoliqga oft tet
dads bewods O8,0TE§ 102 xinedo todovov edt tad? font odd woqw
Lis to tnomysq ett of fnebuo'tod yo bebiqqs ean 0 .00LL9 ent
ant ai trewiA .iM yd o¢ boltiteses oals ssw eifT .fe0o bodaaw
«tad fa aso
-8ib getas® bhotinv off mk tact botaeqgn tedtiyt 31
berimaw ont tadt somebive aaw otecdtegatbeovorq duv0o totit
brs ,foatsmeo Loeo Looe odt sott edetaqea aaw tevovee Leon
-Be
that plaintiff anc defendant had agreed that the washed
coal account be taken care of independently of any
difficulties arising with reference to the sahoel coal
contract; that A. J. Maloney, vice president of the
plaintiff company, testified that the $1100.00 was
applied on the amount due for coal delivered in January
on the school coal contract, and on the washed coal
éklivered in January; that afterwards (in May) the
defendant, by separate check, paid for the washed coal
delivered during January, whereupon the entire sum of
$1100.60 was applied on the mmount due on the school
egal contract. It further appeared that in the United
States district court proceeding, the question whether
or not the contract had been breached was one of fact,
and that the jury were instructed that if they believed
from the evidence, that the contract had been breached,
Plaintiff might recover the market value of the coal sued
for.
On this state of the record, defendant contends:
first, that its voucher check for $376.40 was tendered
te plaintiff as a payment in full for the washed coal in
question. This centention is based upon the fact that
the voucher eheck contained on the beck ~ the memoranda
which we heve already set forth; that plaintiff, by accepte
ing this check acquiesced in the application of the $1100.00
to the payment of the amount due on the washed eoal account;
that in fact, the giving of this voucher check and the ace
eceptance thereof constituted an agreement on the part of
plaintiff to accept this check in full for the washed
coal. And co .nsel for defendant argues that under the
facts, the sourt should have held as a matter of law that
=e
bedeaw odd tect boorge ber grodneteb one Wdalalg dedd
win to ylinebuaogebmt to e180 9 sing ow, SMSO OR Laoo
{soo foorva off of evomor8eles male gilalse avd¢, art bY,
edt to dnobiavig wsdv ,yemolek .% .A tad a
— kaw 06 ,00LL9 ont todd beltiseo? ,yingmoa- oF
Vidura, at beivviteh Imes 0% exb socom oat ao bab,
{ooo bevleaw edt mo bee ,Joatteon Laop Loosen oat m0 |
one (yal ms) abweriet ta dads poreumel ab herewrh id
fae bernew ost sot blag ,doois otetaqges yd foaiee eb
to swe orltne of? moquesarey , yeas gots aerevhind ie
Loodoe ot no wh tomoma oft Oo bed loge amw 00,.00440- peat
hosinY sd ad tach betmogan octd cu a —R Lacu Nites 2
todtedw moiteoup ond ,yolboooorg #11109 todnte th aosata —J
stoat Yo ono aay beriveotd need bast tassios ould ian 0
bevel ted yodt Th sasit Setowrtant omw yaut ond Ans ba.
4 doit
bedoassd need dar toasdnoo — dans somes bv, omg. *
fabmesace saabnytob ,broves oad to wdede vid wm —
“petadr9d adw OB.9TER ‘vol Koodo vosovev atk tase 7 att 7 :
“mt Laon beifsew eos vot! flirt mi trosyaq a an Vitimial@ on ea
tadd ont ott koqw poaiad et nolswotnos. naar no er
‘habratemem od 2 Hood alt ao demtetien ‘Henn ——— moe}
stqooon ys ,YWidnialy dat poldvot sew ybevrls over’ ow ‘ose ne J 9
00 .00LL§ ont to ao dd ad ð Aqas sot mt beoastuppa Aoose aia) yak
yimvoove Ls99 bedamy ot mo sub tavoms ont to tema oat ‘7
-08 off bua Aoedo tendovev atdt to gelves ont doer mt do
to tiaq ont mo dromeetye oa bedud Yoowes monte.
bottasw edd tot LLwh mk Ad veld olay —3 og v
hi le 19 beus sedd aougte Snabae ten | 0 8
9— “tests wal to s9d3an a an biod v
29
thie constituted a contract. In this contention we camnot
concur.
It appeared from the evidence, that during
January plaintiff delivered to defendant coal valued at
$1817.08. Under the terms of the school coal contract,
onewhalf of this became due February 20, This was due when
the $1100.06 check was sent. There was also due at that
time for washed coal delivered during the month of January,
the sum of $268.11. ‘The evidence in the case shows thet
plaintiff at thie time applied the $1100.00 te the payment
of these two items. The item of $268.11, however, was aftere
wards peid by separate check of the defendant, and thereupon
Plaintiff credited the entire $1100.00 on the amount due
under the sehool coal contract. Aecording to Alwart's
testimony, the $1100.00 was sent on February 20 in order
to protect defendant's rights under the contract, some
difficulty having arisen between the parties with regard
thereto. On this very day (Fevruary 20) defendant demanded
of plaintiff the delivery by April 1, of the entire balance
due under the school coal contract (12,506 tone) ef coal.
Clearly, therefore, at the time thie $1100.00 payment was
made, defendant must have intended that it sheuld be applied
en the school coal coytract, in order to justify its demand
fer the 12,500 tons under the contract. This is evidenced
further by the fact that February 20, the date of the paye
ment, was the date when the first item of the account sued
for in this case was purchased, and thie item did net become
due until Warch 10,
The first intimation that any claim was made by
defendant that this payment of $1100.00 should be applied
ee
tomas ow aclénotmen aids al .tomttoop a —— beard
atiuwh tant ,sonebive eit métt boxeseun #2 4
ta Seulav aos tmabnoteh of botevifed Thitnialg yw
«tomtines Lmon Loose acla to axed ond tebe .80,
now oub asw aid? .O8 yxswtdot eub samood aise to Wm
tad? tx sub oats saw oxsdt trea sew foods 09 .00006 f
Vrnumal. to dion ott yatuwh Sereyiied Lago bode cot sane ian a
datt @worle onan off ni comobive off 1.8085 to awa ont *
toemyag ot of GO .0Q1f0 odt bokfgus amit siat Ja Tiitetelq
tatts caw ,covewot ,£1,8089 to meti oft .amedtl owt eucdt to y ;
Noguetet? bis ,tnebreloh oft to Aoeso eteteges yt * —
a'itawt, of gnibtoonA .toetenoo faoo LIoodoe edd 19bau ; ae
tebto ai 38 wrenidet mo fnea asew 00,.00L11¢ oar Veromttass
amos ,Soatino: sit usbae atvinda ateoabae'leb foasetq of n
bingei ddiw ackirey ost meowted meatus geived ive tEEh 4
hebnanch jnsbastoh (08 yrmrsdet) yab yxev adsdt a0 sotorodd
sonaiad exkine oft to ,f Linge ys — ext ⸗antata nel
eye oft Te efabd odd ,O8 yYraNIdeT Jot soot oft yo
howe 3Jnuonoa ot to weti Seuli ond? wore otab od? cow ,énom
emcoed You bLb smth elit tun ,decadorg sew Sane ste am ot
QW oham saw miato yrs tasdd — ont
=1G-
Other than to the school coal comtract, was by way of a
memorandum on this voucher check of Junel6. At this time
th re was a disagreement between the parties with reference
te the seheol coal contract. However, there had been no
dispute as te the amount due for washed coal, and it appeared
from the evidence on behalf of both parties, that this
was a separate transaction. Defendant admits the amount
due for the said washed coal, but arbitrarily applies $1100, 00
to the payment of it.\/[ieving ones applied this $1100.00
on the school coal coniract, plaintiff was net bound te
transfer the credit to the washed coal account; and se the late
ter account was not in dispute, it can net be said as a matter
of law, that the reseipt ofithe check for $376.40 with the
foregoing memorandum thereon, by plaintiff, without objection,
constituted an agreement whereby the $1100.00 credit was te be
transferred from the school coal gontract to the washed coal
account, and the $376.40 to be considered in full of the
latter account. On the contrary, plaintiff was at liberty
to ignore the memorandum on the back of said check, and
apply the $376.40 as - partial payment on the washed coal
account. It therefore became a question ef fact fer the
jury to say whether or not by the acceptance ef this cheek
Plaintiff had agreed that this $1100.00 might be applied
te the payment of the amount due for washed coal. The jury,
by their verdict, found that it was not, and from a careful
reading of the evidence, we are firmly of the opinion that
they were fully warranted in se finding. It isa net in
accordance with reason and probability, that men, having
already received money and applied it, should, several months
later, consent to the application of this eame amount in paye
ment of an account which had not even begun te exist at the
aie
a to yew yi aaw ,¢oertmos Lmoo Loodea edd of nat pry
emis aint th .@Leanut To ap erlo xeowov etna a6 mus
eonorete dtiw entiiaq ord neewied Ineeeorgselb a saw 14
gins fad? ,asiirsq ted to Waited mo semebive ond |
geome off atinds tnabneted .noidosamend oceragna & maw
9 .00LL$ asiiqgs ylirattidie sud ,fzoo, borlaew bien ont set ob
00 .OOLL# atv? ooilgge vone. — te 2a 9Ergag. ous 08
os bauvod tor aay Ttignialg ,toarénvo Lege foutow set mo
tel edt ae one jztnnonos Leos bedaaw ant of tibexo addy. reine
reftam s aa bisa o¢ fon mao $2 yoduyakb at con aew tones tot ~
ed? Mtiw Q4,0°S$ sot Aoedo ond! to iqleont edt dade gwek te- -
moitootdo tuodtin, .Yibiniele yd .sKog vel? mybnetomen aatogotet
of of aaw dibets 00. .001L¢ ont ydeisde treweotas me bedus tienen —
izes baviaaw odd of toaxtuon fiaeo Leadon s4% mort pone:
edt to Livt oi botebianod ad of Ob.GTEH ont baa stawoo98 in
Yredil ts aay Misniale ,criatiaen oft oO stuonea sedtal — ——
bate ,fosrio bias to Xond sift mo mubmaxamem ont i J
{eon bedanw oii no Insmysq tetisag 6 ae Ob BTR MF
eit Tot teat ko motineup a ommpad otarexontd, a. poo
toons visit to sonatqeooa odd yd ton 10 tester we ot q th
beifous s¢ tdaim 00 .0O0Lf@ wind Jadt bee tga bast Vidatale ee
; XxXxub. sui? £200 aoleaw rot on ay ote ‘te —E—— edd ari)
ivtetso a soxt bie, fea aaw ak darts — * * — A a
es
5 at ¢en ah #2 — ob ‘peti itu ers
_—gatvad jem dnd? yyelitdadotc bas monaes dttw oo |
⸗ larovos .piuona , tt betiaga baa xenen beviooe x
ai Invome sme aint Io moisaoklega odd
} ta teins OF muyed neve Fen dad sioLutw,
alle
time the said payment was made, especially in view of the
fact that the account to whieh it had already been applied
was in dispute. |
Defendant niso maintains that the jury in
the United States court proceeding had determined as a
matter of fact that defendent had not been oredited with
the sum of $1100.00 on the amount due under the school
ecal contract, but on the contrary, that the jury by
their verdict had found that elaintiff had applied said
$1200.00 in payment of the amount due on the washed coal
account; that therefore such “essential fact having been
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction may not
be again paseed en by another court in ligitation between
the sans partica,*’ | counsel admits in his brief, however,
that the question whether cr not such "essential fact*
Was passed on cannot be determined from the pleadings in
that case in the United States court, because the dceclarae
tion cwnsisted enly of the common counts, and the plea one
of general issue, but contends that the doctrine of
®esteppel by verdict” applies to the facts in the case at
var. This principle of law is set forth in Hanna, et al ve
Reod, et al, 102 I11, 596, wherein the court anid (p.602):
Rk** Where some specific fact or question
has been adjudicated and determined in a former
suit, and the same fact or question is again put
in issue in a aubsequent suit between the same
parties, its determination in the forme? suit,
if preperly presented and relied on, will be held
conclusive upon the parties in the latter suit,
without regard to whether the cause of action is
the same in both suits or not.” ——
Defendant further asserts that in arriving at a determination
as to whether or net such fact was adjudicated in a former
proceeding, the rule of law as laid down in 23 Gye. 1506
wfLe | ;
ect to weiv at «liafoweqa» .oban cow tremyeq hike ’nty anche
beifqgs need ybaotls bed th cokrnw of Snvepagm grit tons tout
| a ak aew
.
ak rst eat add ombetmham onta ery a
& ae boniuistobh bart antbseoore Pep aateds oa pinns ode
itiw besihoww ased fom bed suabmsteb fart). tow te x98ttam
Loosen. oft tohaw awh Jnwome weit ne 90 00500, ‘we. gue ould
yd yumt odd stadt , yteténoo * fm dest towutstes {noo
biea boliqqe bad Ttivaials fant Bavot bact doi <ioult
feo berteaw ed mo ah tevomm of to trongay oh OOCOLEE _ | ;
need gatved toat faltaonae” dove —E 5 ani jenregen
Som \aut Mortoibaiaul tasteqmes to deo o at voninaaden
nowwted moisatigi£ ak saves seailt orem v ise pevasng alau⸗ od
vtovewor ,Yotet ein at atimbs ‘indeed —— uaa oui
®toat lakineneo” dows or vo ed noiteeup one ants
ai aynifeele eid mort bemhecedab nef Formac “eG haanay 4
egiafoob ots gawagad ,duies sededh bos int vals wh sao tants
ono aelg odd baa ,stmueco somos oft to yoo detatenmacts
to eniutooh si? Jedd sbaetnop ted ,owead fateneqg to * J
ta vaso oft mt atent i) of aedlqqe "tolbrev vd fegqotae" ;
at £8 12 . gang at dttot toe ai wel te siqionixe eidT tad z °
3(808.q) bise duneo oft miaxrsdw ,8@8 .IfI SOL 4a 8 bao
neisdaonp 10 toast sitioeges sume ov bhsiahal ——— “i 4
tomxo% x oi hentarrwede! bros 2 aan
fug aisga oi welteeup to Jos? come 9
onan AF Meowsed Shue tr.
biod of ILiw ,ao beilet ina beta
live tosial oft mi woituag odd wow ev ¢
ai molto to sevag oct xextode of Baayen yp
| [ "stem xo at kus “ited ok omen
— ® te yniviwte mk sale
rewio? 2 nt hefenthutbs ase font soue t ax
ask 2X2 ES ah twob bint sn Wad. 20 le
olla
applies, which rale provider as follows:
“Matters which follow by necessary and
inevitable inference from the judgment - finde
ings or determination of the court in relation
to the subject matter of the suit which are
necessarily implied from its final decision
as being detersinations which it murat have
made in order to justify the judguent as rene
gered are equally covered by the estoppel as if
they were specifically found in so many words,
or in other words, it is allowable to reason
beck from the judgment te the basis on which it
stance and regarding the judgment as a conclusion
and finding it te be ene which could have been
drawn only from certain premises, the premises
are equally ree adjudicata with the conclusion
itself,*
Defendant contends that, under the facts in
evidence in the case at bar, it appears conclusively
that the verdict of the jury (in the United States
district court proceeding) can only be reconciled with
the theory that the plaintiff had not applied the $1100.00
to the school ecoaxl contract.
|The question whethereor not there was an estéeppel
by verdict was clearly ene of fact for the jury, and the
court in the case at bar so instructed the jury. |
Defendant introduced evidence from which it
contended that the jury should have concluded that the
verdict in the United States diatrict court was justifiable
only upen the theory that plaintiff had not applied the
$1100.00 on the school coa contract. Plaintiff introduced
evidence from which it contended that the jury in the
United States court must have arrived at their verdict
upon the theery that defendant breached its contract
and that plaintiff could recover on the basis of the market
Value of the coal sold during January and Vepruary, and
not upon the basis of the contract price.\ Therefore, it
was for the jury to determine whether or not the verdict
4
tewolle?t ea aebiverg afwt dio tlw an iLogn
has Yiseasoen yd wellot do Low etottau™
-hait « tnompoyt oft mort eonovelat oidetive
noidaior ai guveo sat to molsanintetes 16 et
ois dotdw tive odd to tettam Joo(due ry 4
soLoioed Lanit atk mort bebiqeti eS ae a
evar sawm 3i doliw anoldanionsiek goied . —F
wot a6 toomgbwl edd YRistewl of 19540 as 3
ti aw focqodse eft yd bereven vileaupe ota beteb
,ebtow yan o2 mi buvot yLiaoilioage stew b a
novast of sldawolie ai 21 ,ebtow rerite fm, ——
$2 doisnw oo aivad sid of Inomgbul, oft mort ; J
motaviones s an tramgent sft galbiayer tne — a
need sved Sivoo mokdw ono ed of 24 gaibnlt baa
aveiaerq off ,eenimetg nistres sew? yino.
noiawstonen off dt iw agapibulbs Soi % —
nt ago? oct reba ,tadt abaotnoo ctaers ted
YUeviaslornso etasqaa Jk ytad te gaan ort ai acasbive a lag
getes betint off mi) wrest ot te tokbaev end tad?
Atin beLionvees od yieo age (gnibseporq tine foirtakb f
90 .00LL8 en? belicgs som bat Thitelala eat sede? yuoedd odd —
atoartnoo Leon Loodpe oft of
Ieqqetao ma saw oxo) gon tosreifedw moitseup ont |
sit bos ,~aut od tet fost te ono yftaeto saw dodbtev yd
vxi ot betourtant on tad te ean ave mk fayeo \
tk doidw mott sonebivea boowbotini tnebnas ted |
——
eid dedt bebulomoo evad biveria vil sid tad? bohrocod ; J
eidsititent, esw ttveo toLttalb eetat& betint! ond mh sotbtev J
odd deilqqs ton bar Yrivwkalg sant Croseta odd noqu vino a
bsoubersnl Tiisnials .doaiines akon Loodoe ont me 00,00L1§ |
eid ni ytwl ot sant bobmogmeo fi Moldw aott eonoblve ‘ i
foibiev tient da beviv«e evead taym due setatt bosin
togismoe att berloaontd Jnabme hb Jad? yreeds aad mocu ar
teotiam sit to atand odd mo teveoo Dives WMitniale sald ona ns
bas .craurn(@t dno Yraunat yatwsb bLoe fac ext Yo olay Me
di ,orotered? V.eoitq soatiavo ot to alead Mot moe gon ‘gh a
ip
* On we wade ia alla
ol5-
in the United States district court was based upon
the theory advanced by plaintiff or upon that cone
tended for by the defendant. The jury in the case at
bar were evidently ef the opinion that the verdict
in the United States dictrict court was based upen
plaintiff's theory, viz., upon the market value of the
coal plus the damages for the breach of contract. The
court entered judgment upon said verdict, We are clearly
of the opinion that both the jury and the court were
warranted in arriving at their respective conclusions,
Defendant aleo assigns error on the question
of interest, but in view of the fact that in the course
of this opinion we have treated the amount due for washed
coal as being undisputed, it was clear}y entitled to
recover interest.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment will
ve affirmed.
AFFIRE ED,
“goo tads togy to Ttitnialy “ne bor
te sean evi? ak yw edt = .dmsbro ted watt y
goibtey ont act woinine odt to yltne
noqu beaad saw tives fotiuib aetada bax
eis to eufav sedrem esit moqu ,saiv ,y rood?
aft .tomitnos to desetd et Ot segamab ect
‘ yftaefo exe oW .ftoibiev bias mogu dmompbst, botesan9
stew Piveo os ~~ anon heal
sanoleuioneo evitoegaes tlesd ¢s anivicwe at & 5
NOeFooup od mo TOTYS atgieaa ogin tnebme' ted
saxo old xh dant tot ent to wetv mi dad teem:
hefeaw 10% oub tavoma odd bodsott evaul ow moimtge 8 —
of boltitne yftmeto asw th) heguqn tian wiied wt -
—J——— ‘tev æ
iy
Liiw mepbut, od? , tore sidiexever — Th = Ne
oC MALTA J
ya
378 = 20708
\
AMMA COX, \
—_ in Errer,
RCR TC
CIRCUIT COURT,
ook courry
Vie \
RHOORS AVENUE HOSPITAL Vi
PlaintiafT in aes
498 TAs?
STATEMENT OF THE CASRse \Thin dn an actien of
tregpana on the case by dufendant in errer (plaintiff below)
againet plaintiff da error (defendant below) and also Dr»
Frank ON AO the rooovery of damages fer the alleged
wrongful detention sazounting to fole@ imprisonment in the
hoapital conducted by defondcant companys, During the trial
Oy. Deacon was dismiased from the case and the trial proe
cecded against the keapital company alone,
in the amended declaration it wae alloged that
defendants were operating the Skhedee Avenue Yospital for
profit; that plaintiff’ was o vatient therein for reward;
tuat she was recovering from the effecte of «a serious major
operation which bad been performed at the howsitals that
om April @, 1912 ahe was disehorged from further heepitel
treatment by her surgeon, with permission to leave the
hespiteal and return home; that she was in s weak and
highly norvous conditien, due te eaic operation, but that
she war phyticelly able te leave said heepital, and attempted
te do say thas dafenda mths, disregarding their duty en said
date, desanded that —— plaintiff? be pernitted to leave
the hespitel, she sign a pronlesery note for the eum
tamed aus defendante from plaintiff, for accommodation as )
mt in wald kogpitak; that aid note contained a —*
ce
\
: one are
J
eee vs sonnet |
,THUOO CUNET 9J 4 J prone
YORE AoGe:
fsa —* son
keer <8
ss A.I an Ly os
to moses no at aft aN J wea’ aur wo TWaRATATS |
(weted. Piswor Laty } ete. Pa gaan’ i J meh auld wo wa 3
ti outs bine. (wads teruione eh ) ‘20%. ae ik, —— ——
‘beyiila. os OT amgamih. ro, WRAY OF ok aus xt «bee oe ,
ott ak Inocmonbaqat oelat od, gunttawoine xotdrotob tyne
fektd wilt gotbawd xnaaos terad Vole pedo wise Hashana
eaig fakx? O59 dune saan git woe, besa icons J oes aa
One ba ngror —— unt —— —
‘gud bognlin —⏑ o o ———.— belicmime nel? evil
wot Lngiqect’ wsmeri saber ont gtitareqs om abanbeeteb
poreHey x62 phos Ipite « saw Titelele sss ieMorwq
aotam suoites « Lo efout'te ade newt. ‘gubewroiin: aw ete (ace
dant {Lad iowa ace om hagmietang mond fase! fe bite nod tertago
bat as o nel au mirth Rigleiiiee 2s awe wie ‘StL (@ Lag we
oat — ot woxmedaneiy cite sacar et ot ema,
bas taow a rik iciy Mle Slat joel read
tant dud swobtorsgs Siew of uh ,moiebhinon orune age
botqwezte bus , ladiqpor pies syHe! 03 Ofte vb Low bewte ow sete
btoo vo yuk thodd prioteneiath . str adeotod * * **
ovmel of dbottloneq of Ttkentaky “Sata —X
mua edt 10% Ohom Yrowadmony # ty | Fe
Ba NaiInboumeses rol ,Waiele wovt tt
bp haeintenn ao¢ee Shee bald
* sy
= oe
warrant of attornqg authorizing confeseion of judgment;
that defeudants informed plaintiff that unlese said judge
ment note were aligned ahe gould not leave the hospitals that
thereupon cefendante wrongfully and oppressively cetained
her in aid hospital, without probable or reasonable capse,
fox the space of throe hours, contrary to the lees of the
State and against the will of the pleintiffy that during
guid unlawful restraint, defendants applied threate and
Vile spithete to the plaintiff, by reason of which prewises
Plaintiff wee frightened and rendered hysterienl and her
weak condition aggravated, and her recevery from the offsets
| of said operation greatly retarded; furthermore, that
peintiff was expoged to disgrace and injured in credit
and clroumstonces, whereby she euffercd damages to the extent
of $5,060, ‘There wae a second count in thy amended declare
tion, but imagmuch as the court instructed the jury to
Gisregard oem, At ie not necessary to copsider it here,
To thic declaraticn o plea of general issue one
filed,
On the trial of the case befere the court end
jury, » verdict for $778 was returned, upon which jucguent
wan rendered, te reverse which defenient has prosecuted this
writ of error, \/
MK. PRESIDING JUSTICE PAR delivered the opinion ef the courts
— —
sfoempia |, Lo codsao ieee grdmss ori dans arose le tuartew
egbih Disa susiow sand Mdtniely somsotnd ataeiw ied Tadd
Sul? gheclqacd odd evaotk Jom bivce em Songke ompy often Jaen
bonietes yfeviesotuye bane yi luignorw atmabie ted mogueneds
seuuan aidanorsesi 10. aidadoxry tiuwovid bw edati«qto sies ak ted
943 to owal oi? of yrextaon ,axuor aout te songs odd vot
grituh Sond gttignialy od? te Liiw off Senkuges dae ofa’
one ataord? beiigus atosdeetod ,talaxteot fotwainw bisa
eseimerg dotdw to nonawnt yd , Tilsniesq ete of eteddiqe siLiv
ted bee Landuotayt berebest bas honored? eon Vtitaiak
atoetts ads meet ysovooo" taf bus ,botevarygge Nols sbmae seow
dad? ,sniomxesigin? ghoirater qliaoty aolbtaregqe oie te
Skbow mi homsimh bow enatyelh of dowagzn aan Trasmbaly
thetxe ois ot ogemab ooreTiwe ade wWeaedw eonnatemunete wa
eetclook bobmresm ot md teu baopen o wav ote +900, 8¢ te
os waut ocd¢ po dome ead gto off ge commen tud sans
etter Sh tobsegoo ov yxaeuncen Jom ai 3% somna shane
ean sweat Lexentog to z0ig » noldatetoss obdt of
obo Li't
bane stu0 anid wasted eaan off to febat off gO
Jaompout, doisw aoe ,borsute: ear GUYER sot odbuov « oyewh
Blid besuuewoxg sad tombe leh dotdw ewreven of ,Petebeex saw
N ster to ohew
S100 of) to nolasgo od Sorevetoh MAL SORTUVL OW LCLORRM oA
“J
=Se
RHRKKXKKARKKRARXRAAKMKK ARK
V Plaintiff on hor behalf, textified that she
entered éatendant*s heepital on Harch 23, 1912 ——
to a couparaktively minor operations that at that tine she
guve te Dr, Hertel, her surgeon, $30, for which she was
given a reoe@ipt by defendant; thie $30 wae to pay for one
week's accomodation at the hospitals that she was taken
to the operating room en the 23rd, wut was not then operated
en because 4t was divcovered she had ether allsents; that
on the 25th she was informed that she was euffering with a
tumer; that on the 7th she was operated on fer fibroid
tumor, appendicitio, hemorrhoids, and aysat ef the ovary;
thet beesuse of these operations she wae compelled to stay
at the heepiteal longer than the time ehe had gaid fors
that on April @ she was informed that she was physically
fit to Leave the hospital, by her physician, Dr. Hertel;
that about five e'alock pam. on the seme day she wae pree
sented by one of the nurses, with a bill for $62 hos pital
ehargess that her phycisian alae told her that aif the bill
wan net paid whe would have trouble with the hospital; that
he then handed her a judgnent note for $32 which he requested
her te sign and which she refused to executes that at the
time the bill ware presented, che had but two er three
dollars in her possession, and that she informed the nurse
that she could not pay her b111 then beonuse she was unable
to get any money until she ceuwld go to the bank; that she
had avranged for a taxicab to cull for her that evening
at six o'olooky; that she was later informed that the
taxdon’ was there for her and she was abked whether she
had signed the note and was told that unless it was signed
ade fudd Leliddaod , bhatied sod wo —E——
gies of SAGL .hS douweh oo sasigeot Bi iaabae tye oxoeae
eda ould dott te ducts povidgoogo tomdn choy dteragaee a oe
eow ony sip iviw 40% , 080 yroogiue ues » fadsol wt, od ova
eno tol yaq oF saw 08) wads ponebnolod od soieoos w gewsE
wo%nd naw sie goed giatignad wdt t6 modsakanmorine. er
besetoqe modid fon sew dat , WER only no vet was waode wd of
tad? jadeenlia seito had ode berevooelh saw os onwaped me.
a ddiw giive Two vaw asin Sadd bentwotet ame ele a688 edd go
bioxdt? sol x bedetoge aaw oe SETS ett ao dads yooome |
tyreve avid to day Sux ,ebdodetamed ,witioibaenqa Sonus
wate of beflegmon anv aie anoilanege sand? 20 sanaood —
Axo baan bad sola omit ocd wart tones Lad kqaart oat ta
_linoieydly now oe taeld beorrolnt- sew on © — ao jandt
force wad stots kaysic tot ef Aad Lagan ond owned os $kt
entq sew ode yah omme oFf7 Ko stiey Boolete svi't suedu 4⸗.
Lavigne 866 “ot iLid wo ctiw acurn oy to one yd bedmes |
£iid ost th to0tt soil Bios owls aaiakowiy and fast yangtedp
— —V—— odd Wiw aliivart oval bLuow ore Biag dom aos
boseoupsx of doidw B85 «ot aton dranmgby, « tou Debawet mold out
edd 38 tat jodimexe oF boauten gila dotdw baw apie ad xox
saxdt 4@ oot sud bad one ,botnanovg waw (Ld orth omke
saturn 949 beanetn! ade Saks bee .notanengog neu) os wenisob
Sidans anw side sauared mpc) Ligd tot og Jon bineo ode dustt
ene gad? zaciad odd of oy Sion ona Ligne yenom yas fey oF
Biiceve tad? tol 192 Live of danixed « gv bogueste h/ei
onl? sad domretah todas maw aio dads phootote mke te
aio rentodw bexde saw ode bin tod tot exe? aow deotxas
hougéa gow fh vaeday dodd Bked eaw pie 8200 et bunyde haut
i
aden
he would not be permitted to leave the hospitals trat
Che requested that tae chauffeur bo sent to her room, but
was informed that he would not be allowed to come into the
gullding; thai she tien went te the window ef tne building
and threw a dine to the chauffeur whe wae standing outelde,
te telephone her eiuter that she wae being ditained and
eould ned come home; that at eight ofeloeck thet same
evening a lawyer by the ane of Terwiliinger, at the
requert oF plaintiff's sinter, came to the howpitels that
when he Game, he picked up her wsuitense and walked cut
of the roc towards the astaire; thit they were met there by
a Mise Ghiteemb, the night nuree, and were told that she
had ercers Tyea the office mot to let her goj that she was,
however, permitted te ge cownstaire so the matter might
be divcuseed at tie office; that there again a talk was
hag with the cashier whe demanded that plaintiff either
pay the bill ox sign a note for the amount; that finelly
Rr. Terwilliger wtated that she could not be held at the
Mowpital for the payment ef that debt, and tnat she would
Pay BAMe as HOOK ae She was able te do go; that while such
gonversation took plase, someone who she believed to be
Dr. Deacon, remarked that plaintiff did set want to pay
her bil. beonuse she was a oreck; that after a little more
Golloquy, the door wae unlecked and plaintiff and Kr,
Terwilliger waht hewe, VYlaintiff further testified that
she was in a weak, hyeterical condition thereafter; that
whe required aseistanve down the steire and te her taxicab;
that thereafter she centinued to ve in a weak and hysterical
gondition as a result of the acts of the defendent and that
he was not able te do any work for eix menthe after ahe
A
a ; —
i> ee
whe
fait plagijned ott evund of sods berroy ad fon bLvcw ote
tut moon tod of teen od qweTtinlls ond Late Soswanene ota
ond odnt ends of Yewolie od toc bivew of amid boaexotok —*
gatbliud eas ta woitkw exit od dame meld ede Jade | ratte?
eeblctue guiboata vay ony aeTRvasio os ds oat 2 “wield ae
bas beniadod grted saw one Sake xodaia vor enosign fed ot
one tert Tooke oe ye Jo Saxe yom emoo amoo $00: biuae
ott Sm ,tegert tL kewat ‘ke wonmale id et. awemnk @ yalaanee
Saris jistkqoad om? of een gtotuse al Viddadedy IQ Jaeupor
jue Dolisw one suaptine aed cu hodoky ot ,omap od eoster
“i sient tom — yous Jods gatieda ot aheawoe woot od? Yo en
| ode deit Died — * ne gua Chota whe .deoot hi east ow The
,aae * sass (0% tod gol oF fae 9923 %0 anf Lewl siebte bad. |
tdyia toseuu ots of wubadeawad oy ot Sedokareg a tovewad
saw tlas a miagns veld — goodVto oui ta oeaumadd ed
geigho Vistnints dads bebseowk ow aeidead one dtbw baal
“iLantt sus ywivown ett 402 oder w mgko no CELE oild vo
‘ond $a ble af For Lives veo sald vogade ‘goad LLkener me
blvow one sand bra saad sag To Inoryaqg wid “oY Lad bquest
dows oLide tadd yee ob of viva haw outa 2 Dees eM oasis we
od of bevelled ole onw amgosoe esas Sood aoiseexovnos ‘i *
wy oF Ieaw Jon bib Witnialy cede destinwen ,mosmed oat |
xan oLfthl a» r9fie Sot gleoun 2 unw orld seyeodd LER text
1 bre Tkktrkaty ama bole o Leu aw woth oud swpetteg ot
fais bottigaes iesrwt Tiitoial eed Shaw aouktiowmet
fads pret tao ody alt ibaop Lao swoseygi. —2 oad ae ola
tdacixed 18d oF bus exhale weld moral vomataisen ve
tao lisaeyl bow daww eat oo ot er — —
aiid dre Fasonowb oxy Yo aoe ede tq dhe
_ Sata —— actos xo wot Meow Ye
om Eben
returned home from the howpital,
Mx, Texywilliger was alvee called aw a witness, and
eorroborated the statements of the plaintiff am to what
ogeurred while present, and wheat he did. Also, thet when “
Game to plaintiff's reom in tie hee pital, he found plaintiff
in « hysterical condition and that he bad to assist her out
ef the hespitel to the taxicab.
the cheuffeur corroborated the teatimony of the
Plaintiff ae to notifying her sister tha: shoe wan being
held at the hospital, and that he was not permitted access
to the plmaintiff and that he was ordered to take hie machine
frow in front of the henpitaly that at the tise plaintiff
entered his car she appeared te be in a weak condition and
locked ug though she head been crying.
Another witness « one br. Harpole « stated that he
gaw plaintiff on the day after she returned home; that he
found her in » weak and highly mervous condition; that the
etcurrencse at the heepital an related by the plaintiff wouid
have « tendensoy te retard her recovery frou the effeote of
the operation which had been perfermed on her.
On wBehal? of the defendant, Dr. Deacon teetified
that he knew nothing about the cecurrence aforementioned,
becauce ne was wot present, Dr, Hertel, testifying on
behalf of the defendant, also stated that he knew nothing
ef the slleged altereaticn relative to the promissery nota,
and that there were no threate made against plaintiff in
hiv presences ite did atate, however, that he told plaintiff
that she would better settle the 111 and seve trouble. He
Glwo teatified thet plaintiff em, highly nerveus condition
ose
p hud ty wou od soxk emo bonivaet
ban ,enentiv « te Solleo cele vow woghiliwtet «iM .
Saste og aa TPitakaly ols te agnowotate emt — *
“oil node fadd ,dath .BLb od dade bas ,sasanny sLtely osae
Titatale bayer of «Lot by cart ond nk moo% erttisnialy J ‘ola
WwO tod taiees.at baad oot sald has mots kona Lap tuotaysl 4
oh aden tat out * ta on ong Ye
ould te ‘wach Saw aly: bedoredortos mip kei ORE
we sted @aw ein dmuld ‘gedety hit posyberon os) Be, —R
atooda welts aarnau dem maw oe date wate. hat kama oats he bhod
onttito ace ate ease. ag hewhirad wane oat gadd baa Thgotalg est OF
teddni ata otk? off to suit ylagiqued oxy to dmevh, wh mor?
baa nors Loe sisi a KR od 2 bexwcggn oe thm abet, ba caame
* — eed. bar oe cyargdd, ee bostook
Stine
a
adi Sadt toteate « —J— —* ong « ‘aoaces kw ‘wouzoms
ori. 2 nat? omer benisdet exe tod he ‘ab ons 10 Yidarwly waa
arte dass snand Hyred wwovren yiigkd See now a th toe bavet
— uaiaia ult ‘ea hotator ga fawtaqeort ode. te SHEE THORS
%e — ny nied groves xen bueter of ynewbamd a oval
nels ate Dania ene! Weed Wet Mo kee) — ort
—R&& nai a, dtabne res oxi to ‘haste 0 |
Hveio tasraeKe hs, somortan es a⸗ —RX — went ‘on auu⸗
oo yk en a foteon —J ——— sens Bow oni sauavod
guider wom ac add dosage ovis emanate ots to ‘teased
bo qeowe snot ond of wvidelex soteaosuabe beget ould to
ph Vitdnkade Sans bangs b au Oe Of ow or et oe beiua
eebontake bLod — ide — —R&& —— re
,oitvous oveu hema LLted eit —R — dicom a, aa
HOLt ives ewownes YLrty le a Lien tody ⸗au⸗ bo tthdeed oula
*
we |
264
before entering the honpital, and that upon leaving it
she was in better condition than at the time she entered
it, and thatoat the time of the trial ehe locked hettor
andi weished more than at the time srier te the operation,
Another witness for the defendant «» a Kiss Randel,
the supervising muree «ft the hespital e testified that plaine
tiff was no’ detained agnimet her willy that there were no
leoka on the doors of the patients! reomsy thet Ur, Deacon
wag net there et the tine in question} that ne one called
plaintiff names; that when plaintif’ wae esked to pay her
bil. ehe becoss hyrtericeal; that plaintarf asid ehe would
not pay ity thet she alee complained about tr. Hertel and
threatened te sue himy that plaintiff used the telephone
that evening at 6:50; thet she had never heard ef plaintiff's
alleged detenticn or the alterestion relative to the Judge
ment note, before thie guilt was started.
Another witnens for the defendant e = Hise
Gearuvb, one of the nurees at the heapital » testified
that she never made eny threats conccrning plaintiff; that
nobbdy present made any threate; that plaintiff waa not
asked to pay hey bill or sign a note; that she saw plaintiff
walking about the building sleng tae corriders, between
$230 anc 7 o'cloek in the evening; that the doore were
never looked, end that plaintiff was not detained.
"@n thie state of the record, defendant ¢otends,
firet that plaintirr had failed to prove the aliegations in
her declaration and that the trial court should heve ine
structed the jury, at the clese of plaintiff'a case and at
wile
$2 gatvael asqw sade bus ,Latiqwor este un rroaas arene⸗
botosne effa sais off 24 madd xoizthase — Bh’ ⸗ ie
tested weloed oie Loitt oct to amie odd sagas oom wn
sttoitatego ond of waite watt off ta ndutt o7008 —
Sobre sett a » Sxahivets sit cet seondiv osteoma,
ihadq tes beltigaet » Indiqeodt ost tm srw giielvrogue ofa
On Siow evod? Salt pili sod tamtage honkageb oon aww exxae
aabant «ul salt ganoot latnotsay oft Te asoeb alt mo aloes.
beifes ame vn susit —D — — — ai eehs att om woe een oan
ten yaq oF 9 nay TSleniale- erie £ eit pron Wedntalg —*
bivew oie biun Thignialg fei jiagixnsoyl emacod ode Sid
bia LoduoN. euoda honietynae oate ofin tert go yaq tom
energeios oft boay WdIaials Sed gain sun oF senos sass i
ttksnintg te bined rover bast ede sadt yee sa gakeors ‘dase
epost, oi? of ortialer noltsorps Le ot? x0 noisneteb bogelhe. #
wettads aaw flow nee, oreted o ser0m
aeii 5 « —E— “it tol agns iw —2
beitheses « fnttgno of $a asmain odd to ono Giwies *
add jitlenind: gmimieenes aleowsle Ye vba Sover odin 2 asd |
Jou sew Tiivaiaty sadt yataeuds wie bem Ineweng yoddon
itnialg wee wie lait goson « myke to ised tol yay ot declan
Mopwgod ,uxobhinon or? goles gaibliud out scode yadaiew ~
otew at00b ovis tals panineve oft at anolote ¥ bam ot
X ebouteges to wa ———
eRbnetmo snabmotod ,bte0ex ant Io otute what re Ba
mi arolsoyel Le orld ovetg oF bo taa. faut atenteds Fas foxkt
et ovat oi vostn fees inked itt Sesto ona phe wralond ts
$a ona esse e'Ttiemtele te emote elt ut ont bodound
a rat ;
= oFe
the close of wall the evidence, to fing the cofendant not
guilty. in urging tein contention, cefundant asserts that,
agmitiing the truth ef all testimeny effered on venalf of
Plaintiff, 1€ did not present «a cave of wrengful detention
agninat her will, amounting te false tupriscmmont, In
this sontention, however, we cannes concur, a8 thure are
mmerocue authorities whieh held, under faate such similar,
that plaintiff hed = good cnusce of notion. Heyk Ws Hicmwey,
33 ill. 473; GSooteken ye Porehed) Pecks © ues. AOD TLL. App.
466; Yadloee ve Gecds 216 Penn, St, 475; Lartin ¥+Jiouek,
441 4,0. S29; Bmith ye Biate, *¢ Tomi. 45, In order thet
the vleintiff may recover it wae not necesssry that she should
have been physionliy and forcibly detained by defeniant is
the howpital, If the conduct ef the defendant was of euch
character as to make plaintiff’, in the gondition ig which she
then wae, velieve that if she attempted ta leave the hospital
eke would be foreily dotadned, then such conduct constituted
@ wrongful detention agninst her will, ‘The focte and cire
Cuustances in evidence parmit the applisation of this principle
of law.
Defermisnt mext contends, that under all the evidence
in the case, the jury were not warrented in finding that
Plaintiff had proved her cause of action by mprepondorance
of the evidenes. thie presents to us the question whether
or not the jury were warranted in arriving ot their verdict
for the plaintiff. The evidence given on behalf of the
Plaintiff and the defendant, presented a pure question of
foot for the jury, ap te whether or not plaintiff had been
wrongfully detained against hey will, The jury evidently believ
. is entering
ea the testimony offered on behalf ef the plaintiff. The oourt,/
ale
fon gnabnet > oi? bnil of ,gonehave add? Ile to exon ol?
¢ eut⸗ alts2an Sncanetes ,aolsaognos eldt yutgtw ol oye lke
te ULored ae Souette ywrowt@aes (le to stare off gocetiaba
nolitaesed Litgrctw Ye ease a tavesxq fou bib 2 ,Phisedala
al .tuamrostuqet oalat at wisi ons ian Pon saniage
era erode ae ,twonee fowtan ew eto VONos! sHolImogoe oki
etaLinia Hosm atoa? “obeu ebion soine aeliivodtun sucowonwes
ead ox de 4 «notvon to enuan bong o bal Tiidmtadg sands
vaqh £50 96L ,.a2 6 AMOS Aeiena oe aaainKgod zero £07 BE
Hout ok Gidme GSC) .00 eet OLS .boOd oe emsngm 400d
gadd tauTe al 46> .oRet OS Stee GES oD ON
biuode erin fads yraasoves fom aaw th tetoows qa Viddekele odd
ai fmolmetod Ul Seoniedeb “idiore? one yYiinotmely moe eved
Howe To caw tumeocoteh oat to sombaee et UW ehadiqnedt edd
ain cipisw ok aoigibaoe owt al ,Piddniake edleu of as Tesomtads
Aatigaot off event of Sotquedte ete Ti Jatt wvebiod onew nods
besudskianos go: idaroe Howe nett ,vomtodeb (hdiowot oof bivew oda
wilo baa etoet oT > CLiw cont J tea bas go iggndwob — a
sigionizq eins to wesduvlicogs ait Siemeng sonebive ad *
vt 20
sompbive ot ile tanele ,ebnodios txen Saedow tet.
Sauts ae hoes"? ai beteevsaw Jon otew went, est — — ad
oosato bog oT KC! wolgom Lo onude teat bovorq dau Vibtatele
wedverie nolteery edt av of ainoworg aiay seorobive oa⸗ Ye
soibuoy sis fe yrivivio af bodmestaw wrew Wil off fon te
ols Xo Voded vo nevig somebdve oft) «¥tiemiaig odd 10%
Io nolteen, otuGg © be taegeng gomnbap teh edd tne Yiisalalg —
mond bar Ttidncele Jou to tedindw of am 9 yxwt ot TOT dost
rob Lei a Wi) ot? ~ihlw wed ferkage bemdadeb VEL tgnoEw
oat PT anints ony 20 Yad ao nomttie wrenteve oad te 4
aa vita ’
fod tw At ‘ 7 ot Jaw
eo Se
dmg Judgment on the verdict end in denying defendant's
motion for a new trial, aust have bern of the cpinion
that the evidence supported the verdiad. From an exasinae
tion of the record, we camot bay that the verdiet is
Clearly ond manifestly against the wight of the evidence.
In goming te this conolusion, we are not unmindful
ef the contention by counsel, that it was not shown that
the acta cf the ampleyecs and representatives of the defene
tant complained of were within the seope ef their suthord ty;
in Our opinion that issue, ae the other questions of fact,
was determined by the jury against the defendant, and we
Gannot gay that im se finding, the jury were acting clourly
and manifestly against the weight ef the evidence,
Defondant further contends, that the court erred
in giving plaintiff's instructions Pe, Loe and lied,
We have read these instructions carefully and are of the
Opinion that they correctly stated the law as applicable
te the facte in the case,
instructions of the eame character wore, under
much the sawe cireumetances, approved in Jewk ve Eiduwuy,
SUREA, Gnd Goblohey Ve, Yerehel. Bield & Con. supra,
Defendant alco Gomplaing of the refusal by the
court af ite offered inetruction Mo. 1. Kewever, that part
; of said instruction that wae applicable te the facts, vas
, aoveroau by Other inwtructionn given on behalf of the defendant.
Defendant further complains that the ceurt erred
in the admission ef teatinony, via., with reforence te @versne
tions had by defendant with Terwilliger and with the chauffeur ;
onthe
ny git tang
at dnsbustob gerd yun b wt bax Solbeew oft — *—
sto na MOTT ¢ , okey std —R vt rvtha el
ak solotoy oa? duit yeu Somme ow — * —
— — —— odd Yo sigkew ost tualayn Yeas tian vo teat 9
—— —
J
—— sions to oyone ould aintin empew te: bn La i .
etoat to anoisvenp toate Hd ae ,ounet Saute otsage + Lada wh
ow bree , drabae "hed ont dantion Yeas, asia ef — con on
7 Qriium opow wut a vv 2 on a⸗ — — — — ti eg
| womb ive ont be Maton & alt rnlav⸗ — bn
—
te
9— elell bine Del ylia’ ana aanarea wat wPethontede mina 8
odd 20 ote bee Ute eree ewtenideNh Sends Bare ovat
sides kioga am wal oud betatw ‘canis we “a
THbry ,oXOW Lofsmtet omen me he —
MANGAL 2, Mia, 2 DevO EGas .mOomMEMMBDTLD onde mie — —
ee eee eian. bhasins 0X, alodte® bit
e ont Ys Lawutos nit 10 entatemee oaks tasndse'od
9 reag dade ,wevewsn A ait wok somes amt boners wed
— aaw jeden? ond od asap than caw tlt 2
maono old To Riad’ ae wovky * —X
erre 00 wie sadd amrbatqnoe raft ome on
o HED ot Hy MOL TOT — * —**— *
~~ ' cal vs.
ato edt déiw baa 4
So ed
cuteide of the presence of the representatives of defendant,
and in refusing to instruct the jury to digregard such
evicence, We find, from an examination of the reoord, that
ali conversations cuteide of the presence of the representae
tives of the defendant which were not part of the Zee gestae
were ruled Gute The other cenversations were properly admitted
as part of the rey gestae; Groff vy. Hallinger, 18 111, 202;
Magiahon Vs Shicage Jity Ry. Goce 239 111. 3343 and the
imatruction dirceting the jury to disregard seis evidence
Wan properly refused.
Defendant next complains ef impreper acts on
the part ef counsel for plaintiff, with reference te the eroas
Caamination of br, Deacon, Whatever error there may have been
in the question put by counsel for the plaintiff wae waived
by She witness whon he insisted Upon answering the question
after objections th rete had been sustained, where such
action en the part of the witness was coneurred in by counsel
for defendant, the witness in question being the superintendent
of the hoepital and the person in aetus1 gontrel of the affaires
ef defendant company,
Defendant ingints that there is ne evidence warrante
ing the amount of danages awarded, and that the verdict must
therefore have been the renult ef passion and prejudice,
in cases of this kind, plaintiff hae the right to recover
not only actual damages but alse punitive danages, The
entire question ¢f damages de one for the jury. We find
nothing in the record which shows any act on the part ef
_ « @gunsel or any witness, that tended to incite the prejudice
+ OF inflame the minds ef the jury against the defendant, In
solo
—— te avwivagarao nae est? yo onamaong ons Te. obhmawa
dove brageweils at yawS odd douwtunk of gaientot as _
gud? .baecex oo te nolterianne ge wort ,bash oF ——
engine rav⁊ ade ‘te consersq 44 Ye obtatuo oe ike
gatecn B21 ot te dung Jon etow dine somknetob wie ve dewhs
hatdimbe ylroqeiq wivw anoitasiovees dicio ot! ahue bolt wLow
008 140 OL ,xeanhiset ay Dies. wate moe wl Wo dt90q oe
nat han {OLE -L41 OBS 4220 Mh MEAL Sot oy aedeliogtt
nomnbive bias otayetelh of ere, odd gnivowtlb aoisvowssags
soountes Usaqotq auw
ao a7oo aegougml Yo ax ietegos gabe Jase tet
Se0x eis o3 ovMPTehe: thw ,Tiitniaty tot foamson Yo diag oft?
peed evant yo atedd to118 Govesaiy .nopeel .u Te notdanioske
boviaw awe itivnial, os? 18 feanwon yt Sug woiduoup odd at
Holsesup edd yoitewann ooGw betoienk od opalw oeond kw od? yl
flown ovatw ,bamiod¢oum ceed ber ofer-dt smelsostda aeota
founwon yi ni bestunne cas coontiv sit oe faq ot? me molfoa
srohnotiakioqgue outd wiied notteeup ot eeenghe ads ,onaiewtedh tet
atlatia odd Yo Loxgaem cewten «i mowrey ost baw Ladhoned etd to
— tnaareteb ke
wnaxvisw oonehive oo ef ove Soe atedmek tenders tec
‘foun FOLLY ons Sarid DOE dob LIM CORAM Io dome ons gad
ebolbuteig bas wotanmay To divas oft mood oval esebe red?
Tevooey of Hist odd eel TEideiatg ~hahd ead? te senan wt
ofT ee ymtab avitinwg coke ted anyamab Leatoe ylno fom
batt ov .ytsl, ond cet ono ot Baga To Holdeawp orhime
Ye diay sid WO fom yam eworin Aodiw BueoeT ot mh gaisison
aoliwicrd on% etient of ueiane tact ,awonsiw wre to Sooner
at .Asaiue tod oft fomtens wil ond Re wba ont om ind tO
oh Ge
that view ef the case, we see no reason to disturb the vore
diate
Finding ne reversible error, the judgment of the
Cireuit court will be affirmed,
AYPIRBED.
wD he
atov odd distelb of souset on 990 Ow ,ouse end to wady save
ssukb
eds to énempbwt edt ,seTrs eidinaseyes on —XR
bomaktia od ifiw tiweo tbyoatd
ARMALWHA
47 ” =O81 7
STATE OF LEDER,
Pefendast in Eea0n TO
Hi ICGIPAL COURT
OF CH Te2oe,
¥Se
HEREY JACoRy,
Plea intifa i eg or 5
| 198 1.A. 88
STATEMENT OF THE CABH,-Piaintiff in ercvor (4s fendcnt
below) was charged by information -ith petit lerceny. A jury
having bean waived, the trigi proseaded te hecring before the
Oeurt alone, #wio found defendant guilty at charged, and sen-
tenced him to the Hogss of Correctian far three acnths and te
Bay & Fine of ane doliay md socts,
MR. PRESINIRG Jieticy Pak delivered the spinien ef
the ¢ court:
in suing eut thie writ cf error Viefena 448% Sears 4
TEversal Sehcuse, ak he Sllege’, there is n& preef that he
Gommitted the crise ef petit larceny 25 charged. [He sleo
Rospiaine that the court sdaitted isrretesr sy idesce wiich
eas prejudicial to the defendant. This latter point se need
EO CoMsider, however, if there is sufficisnt avidenss in
thse reeord t° sustain the fudgsect, for in « trtal without «4
jury, it & gresuc)ed thet the caurt, in entering jude sent,
Ge idered oniy the oGinetent savidesce. Palmsr v. Meridas
Brittanis Cg., 124 Lil, S08; Grand Pacifie Hotel Ge. v.
Pinkortm, 217 11. 4; — Btes! Go. v. Preble Ma-
Betendast saves the further Point, that the aagn-
Gea infdrmation was dafectivs in that it “ae aot filed uetil
ail the evidenes had been heerd, [Be are ef the opinion,
J however, that there iu no merit is this ¢ostention. The
hae t
| Grime of petit laresny was sufficiently charged in the or-
| oF nore
ewoo Pot |
.ODADI RO TO .
88.. Pe meee.
sosbasteh) woes al Tita etl TA THE WO PRRTTATT i an
qrwi & renee! tisag <ghe aot tease ta” ed fogzrsis ase (voted
Sat e10lad grlwedt OF Nekemseed Cebee oe Devtaw mead —
-nes Dee bo Rtede ae Yilidg Tashanteb bawet ese cones feo
of Bus Effnon bord) WL vesseerIeD Yo oto Rent oF ‘ota boondt
stu bas wetiok oné fe att ne
to sakekge edt herevi feb WAT SDP et, Geer ag — —
*
& 2Aoe6 tnzbaet et, wsete to rice what tue woisa x er 0a
et tetd Jory Sm af ivedd ymegelie ed ae. oeuvond En aaever
eals 3B\ fegsids- aa ‘~eental ai fed te eatre ex Bes? aod. a8.
Seite euvebive voqovil bat iwhe Mee edt daa eakatgnoo
been ew ritog vedrat »t97) sombmateh) eds 07 ——
wk oonat ve fost ob Miy's ad otadtd tt yrawawod crohda 9 te
a niodtie Lalat-2 at tv .teamghict od) atenene ed Biboer mb
i steul prbvetae at .dowee sad tad? paainere a 4 ecw
Bentzel wv zomtst .eenablve teed eee & sid <ine : ee
.v OD LetoM ααν ice 410 OM 6G sheeterse
— yo eee state ce ser TOS ae
— —
iginal infermation, bence 14 wee not negexoary to file the
amended informatio, Purthetmorse, this Point #26 not raised
in the trial Gelow anit therefore it ¢ ome tte late. |
Tre avidende shows that J. O. Funts, the oom-
igining witness, shiie viding on 4 Street car at S3th and
Etate otrects, in the City af Chissaco, wi September 11, 1914,
Suddeniy found that his pocketb<ok vee missing; that he say
aefendart jump off the cer; thet he @auted the a@ar to stop
a& 800m a8 Possible, snd ran Sack im tha direction the defen.
dent had taken; that shen ko nomred the defendant, he saw
Bim "with the pocketbook ian hie Aands;* thet Ne arasoed his
and aid, “Give her here,* and that defendant harsied sim his
pwrkethcok; that he took hold of defendant snd danvired tor
an officer, when one Bargess sterred up end @aid, "Let ae
have hig," whereupon Kants tursed defendant oer to Burgasa,
wha, the ovidenos “hows, reprevented nhinmieif to bs an uffleer;
that & police offiser than arrived on the Seone, 10 mou Kunta
related the incidset; thet he took aefsnient inte ewitody,
and when he found thet Surgeon hud repreatented hinssif te ba
an effieor and in fact wee not, orrested him alse; that ®ur-
gass Tsk Mted ¢tresuously; that finally, vith the seniatance
of enothar officer, the twe wors arrested,
Befondant testified that he ros died in the vicinity
Of Séts street, and at the time im queution, wa8 on nie way 40
Procure thestre tickets; that ke sah ¢ressing the street;
that just sa he resched the middle of tin Streat, Ac stoohed
dow and pleked up & Bocketheck, and just 8 he did eo, Kurtz
graoved his; that the "ather fellow gam rurning ever = the
big fellow that eas standing on tin corner’ (Nurgetsd; ond
that o struggis followed, and thet ea% 41] he knew; that he
wae not riding on any car thet doy. ON Oras oxamination ha |
“
~Le : 7
sig old of Yresenuen fon dev tL eoted «wi tovrelnt 7
bother fon ssw rake wie — aaeAr ae sed ten voNa bab
eOi@e {1 rednesze® «© oo rel MO 0 ain edt ‘a cotearte on
wea od tad? pat wets Row wood ietveg ad teste waved 4h ; ‘meme
Aor et tee att homme oi fous peeo od? ne ‘emus, ae
oratek eat not tomath attr nf coed Gee bee iate va as soo
wae ea Jaebaol eb oi bowsen os nome tart ironed bes *
ald besdery, of dade “hood aa mi dood auioeg edt bs
Gif aie Hubret sapboeted sats DAD * ered tod Lat be
w9'> bwrdenat bow Inehuslet to bled doos on iadt too
on 20%" ,bbed Pow Qe {005 s8eyrwE vay edie « ——
sees Rs OF THVe Jebel st baer 22 aid aos ered — *
seal? t¢ wr @a¢ af SF emt x boone Seater awe te baseblve “8
xacurm wo tt OP gw Os wT MM | hawk vee oone resi iio sobteg 8 Py
Xho swe otk Snnkionys m “dpa at tent isacbiea ea -
od OF Diswad « betepnentor bei Senge Sede bowed ‘od nes .
af tH Mt outs abi Lokedrrs een Ber foe? i bas veut tie
eothinives odf dee av frvadl send ix fevourotte otal cor a0
hedeerts seen Owe ont s100h to 7 rom *
Lint oly cit ak bad dor ot aeet waRTb tess Aomk@oRel
of qn aia to mew oop keecour m feak a add 0 ine — * we 7
iremtle efd gril dors wee on S00 pavodal d oxtuess: Tuo
beqowsw oxi ctoerre os Yo afbbkn eit sedoneT od we em
uted gue DLS of ap tout Low vdooszainad 2 qu r
ad? - teve poianst opad wollol rede” ial ! | .
boe ~fesagrel!) “eheros av pe preboese ne
ed foci? wont od [le Gee tone boy yhone Chek
ou moi santas eT MO exab toute ne
wn tes
aduldtted andwing Burgess.
Burge@s, #10 algo testified, Stated that on the night
in question, he wat standing on the @arner; that there wae a
man @reising the street on a runy that “he ran right up te
thie young fellow here® (defendant): that "it seemed like ae
if he #28 stooping down, and he (Kurtz) Jumood right on his
yack and he mocked hix down, amd then four or five aolorsd
fellows Gaas slong thers, ahd I went Wer theres ang I raca@~
Rived this young fellow (defondent) as being a boy that I
knew over Gines he wae 2 ki4a;" that he said, "Hat le thes
matter?® and defendant replied, "I aai't know, this fsilow
jumped on me:* that he then said, "Let ae have hin:* that he
weak gorsly trying te find out what had harfeneds that finally
defendant Gaid, "Yall, i¢ 16 all vright,*® and that defendant
thea handed Kunts Housthing, veut what it wat he 244 not KOs
Burgess alee denied having repretented that he vee a police
orfigcer. aa |
Wile there 16 Eano OmPLivt in the evidenes, yet
the court sav the witnessce and heard thom testify. Ba hud
the right te comaider 211] the faotse and @ troumstanees, in
connection with the euse, He was eithing s@ court and jury.
In the abaonce of errors of Law, this gourt Aas me richt te
set a6 ide the findins of a court, unless from a ¢ me Licrat ion
of all the evidences, it clearly appoars that there iv & rene
250919 doubt of deferniant!s guilt,
After & careful examination ef the reeerd, ve dann ot
Bay that defendant did not heave a fair trial and that the
finding of the Gcurt Gna jue tified by the evidence, Acoord-
ingly, the judgment of the Municipal Court of Chieags wil) ve
affdrned.
APPIRURD,
— ⸗
coe gTyt gniwons bedshabs
tdgle ocr mo dead betetze ,boldidoo? cote Of .asegiwe
aS
dey oved? tad? greawe eft co gebbosee Sew oa cae steasp af
oF Gu tidpty net om fod? port & oo toorde off yabetero oem
oall baxnoee 92° Seated s(Snebealed) "oted weliel gavey afd?
Lif so tAaty beam (eta) ed bore yowok pebooee Sap en TE
bhewloo evtl x wet aed? bor .pwor wit bodoomt of Bae tose |
“wos I bao etecs vew free I bow . ote? gaeis amae Grol ie?
I sec? yod a gated ea (snebnet a) wolfe? yawey shat Borla
oft Si SSAR* hlew af Pant *% +0 ks wee oe gonk® teve werd
wolfol a@icz ywom toon I* ,betige: testeebeb Bas *Trettag
{ 3act "*“:0i oved aw fet” bleu sat of dade 9: ee &e beaeut
{Lent} tad? yberotves bax dey too babt od gatyed eleven Ree z
taebasleb fect bon ",featy fe 2b of .fio®® «bies sashuaked
pom Jor DLS of Gow £2 sore toe 4 plato > ctiwi bebnad sea?
ogkiog a Gen of Sad? botneaengey gadved holabt outs naogree
: — oo 110
toy ,socollve off 22 fOL DM wo om Bi oreds ofh@
bad oF .vti¢uet east be2e! Hae eoeerndiw ef? wet fr0d0 Gf?
nt indresaawends oe ofsel off Life rebdeme of tagha eff
“tut bam fruoo OF gebetic sew of ,s@np ete thw sostoonaee
o¢ Jipls Of ant tudo Sit ~wol Wo merte Yo eoneede oct af
>.
noldaxreit 499 & aout s@efor yfteeo © lo salbel? »@ ob ae fee
“sor #8 Wi orodd? §odd reoyta Ylreele #1 .osrabive em? [La Ye
ting ettoabaviel bo feb efdawe
Jonnac or ,btooer of# TO wlientwero Luteteo © TeUTk
Bae es
— 71
oo
ent gest Dew [reho? ried 2 ovad ton bhi @uehoedeb sant yas
ooh ,oorehive off ye bebilvaut Jom Ot dug ont to pibatt
{de oppokm to sewod InqlolavM off Yo toamghet etd syhgnk
boat 14
TM TTA a
7 ae
wan’
*
EPROR 70
BUR IO Par, coyny
Se et ll a cc cal nat —
OF CH lags,
1981 — OT
’ _ ETATIATNT OF FE Canr, 2 writ ef error is Praie-
Suted by plains iff in error (defendants below) te reverse &
— —— eaterad in favor of defendent in error (plaint if
Ge , ma suit Dr cusht in the une ip spay Gourt of Ghiesge
oS ghee .
= against do fondants ang pare Frederick Drs, “Plaintifrts etsten
Sor end waterials fur~
iterations to the
Stieeze, [lliseize,
il oom > Bap wher
as Soutrastor,
a “1i@ daii-~—
the defendants
ie Thomas Hennessy; “that the sum
Pf fe Seid work 4nd material is
| Plaintiff caused to ne —3 the
4 * the —— —* eave TO Mao
tes) @ 8¢34 defendants Roeland and
il 23, — — 50, 1914, r
=
1
—X thie — of claim defendants cites heperate
eee — — thy *
meee end affiasvite | of mor its,” “GE Hennes sy.
Bry ae the Promivas , sed further, that the atatutery |
has been vorved a * Set ferth in the stateust
r ae sateriate sued tor, 1 the Gam wae the wubtect matter
ae —
ot anaes
PHO 9 we 1°Ee
ma a «eo
12 CA. x US @ ft.
gud TF J ———— eee vem 40 Pater ss i
if sbrev: x od. Anolon. sdeabnetet) * et ti sob aft
Yt iaiesa) errs ma fae eetieh’ te set at bovedae tne seat
eased te seed Featenait asta sd ——— tee aby) Pin
waded i eS 227 “tt eu, — — J———— waits
eh sicsh wh aeweak —E — —
cw setae wid tad gra eres Etna’ — *
snow eders ode al Komeh: tee: Sh abi pole Surege —
oan) neve: Ode we at tanndee. borg bebs bref o® ” ee
ony oF ———— mite tad? bopekle: be deca
sortase dost — evs sev ee? oo — Sere eel getoe bus a
dot where wo WHY otak bored, Sg —
noives Xana «⁊itx see ** -
ro biwesp th ‘dactuery ond. ge aishroree gle: , : — *
wens Io, @ailen es tov gder got wa ewe 2 ibe *
—9 -Qlaim ad Set teeth in Plainti?f's xtstement of elaim PFred-
\
OY.
é
=
entered into an agreement
contractor, » ith Pisintif~f te furnish: lebor and meteriale for
the Carpenter repaire and alteratime to the building in
question, and further denied that he had 2 emtract for said
Tepeirs 16 aid buildins with the owners thereof, |
The racerd shoes thet Plaintiff diswiesed hie euit
af to deferdant Erb, and that the gourt, trying the ease
| with out a jury, *6und the iseues sqainst defendanta Reland
and Hemesey, and $8 go@eod Plaintiff's daseqes in the aux
of 722.20, for which smpunt judgment was entered,
| I. PRESIDING JUNTION Paw delivered the opinion
q of the court: |
—— in urging a revereal of this judgment,
pressed upon the theory that plaintiff's action wav brought
under seectim £6 of our Mecshanies' Lier det, Ci. 88, Sura's
* &, of Illinois for 1931, They contend that a recovery vy
‘Bub-c miractor Bust be against bth the ‘(Onner and the or-
i ina contractor and the judguent aust be & joint ons, and
furthermore, there gust be & proper ten-day nctice Served
upon the cyners; that thers were no findings vy the ¢ ort
her recitale in the judgment, of the facts required by cur
3 Statute, vis., that the omer vas indested to the. contractor,
— and the date from which aid Lion attached; that in the ab~
7 a Benes of such findings or recitals, (1) the court erred in
< onter ing 6a14 judggent, and (2) said Judgment is void,
x Plnineste e ontends that under ite statement of
erick Erb, a6 a ¢Mmtrsetor, denied thet he ever for himeelf,as a
tlle
shart vwiels 20 seowegage a'Tilseiet af daeet to2 ee maha.
B 6S, ifexmia wt TeVe of e283 ited ~wigerwrae es a2 ae. — vatxs,
—— as ot¢ai — jai a
1 Slatredea bra todal Meiorst 6% Vib gat sae ae, te
st gatbitud ear os smiterctie tre out ager’ — ase
bies * soart@e * bad sd ted? betaed redtrst hee eroltsesp ‘s
oeréae seme ed? die gubbilec hie OF Gragee
figs bid Sovblasth Wieaiele #e4)- ae brocet oa?
—1
——
Gas au nt ettveOb oft fare bos . aen ob of @&
basicd efuabaeteb @*ciege eeweal ods Brave? — s ae dad w
mut off of Geguead “*2%t Ini oly beesease bas. ye RemoR bak
—E— Bay 78cm aber, -Javeue Mol se wait —
ieta oft bevevifen MAT TOLTRML OMTGI Reset D5, —
— ——— oa te.
.ftemgk, S£% to laasever o gata at eetace rote i.
iiwets eae cthdog attti cabety safer ots ose mere boowery
slot .@8 .a) 4 fod call 'eateedeel wo to 8 abdees robs. ;
{Co YIew cer « tact bestma yes ~f48L x0? siosktiE Yo 18 Loot ae
“Wed? kas sem wi Ge Fenhege eo Faum c⸗va OGNS Be
has . ono ssh t & oo fee smn gba ed? kre cere co Ta J
bovrea eal $s J — Tege7TG 2 ac faye eves? .owaredsrey te
FUL SO ei? yd ayeiiint? oc eter owed? tecey peneowe on eal re
10 ¥d bertupes eteest of? fo .dasegbut say 22 che tk oot Om
,vosostsass enag ef barcebat Wee icape wt. sasha «thy gotudeta-
~Je ont mi ands betosdae Salt ater “at te mort otah ont bea
gt berrs e<uoe eae ft} odie 19 onthe (urn Yo. some
ebioy at sraaphoct See {4} bas — EDE — — bine galrosne
WW inamets se wet Toh todo Seder 2 Meaa ace - 8*
Teens Srebeslob et? lig senkaye boreveow: OPE, uie ed eielo- J
— ced? beweda conahive ea? 12 SIBLE yFOD ses — oees —
~am bos rOdeL oft botebys mo Teta © —— —
q eormetive eds 34 4 9709 Ue @16 cra 2 20 oh Bye 8
~ Ap ie. —
Showed that the labor and aaterials in questi were ordered
by the said Erb a@ the agent or reyresentative of the omera,
Roland and Heanetsy./ 4 reading Of plaintiff's statement of -
eis im showa that plaintiff’ is: correct in this contention,
Defendant frp, by denying that he onters4 inte a
Gwmtract with Plaintiff for the laber and saterisis in tusa-
tim, and in further denying that he had « emtract #ith
the omere of the premises {6 furni#h Gaid labor and sater-
fais, raised an igawe ef fant, the deotersinatio of which
had s direst eeiring wpon tha qusé¢tici shether plaintiff had
the right to ree@over against “11 the defendents under the
Eschanics! Lien Act, eurrn, er azsinet the owners, Poland and
Hewes sy» aLOnG,
It cust bo Presumed that evidence waa aubeltited in
the eeee t0 determine thet izaua as wel] a8 any cther insaue
Preéented by tas Stuteaunt of ejaim and the vericns a?fida-
vite of marite.. The evidence upon «high the trial sceurt
Based ite jodement eae not preserved by bill ef exceptions,
Stategent of faete or stencgrarhic revert, ae rer wided for
in our Municips! Court Act. %o aust, thersfore, presumes, in
the absence thereof, that the evidense offered wae of saffi-
Gient trative feres to swtsin the gourt in fina ing the
issues for the Plaimtiff and in entering juigment theresa,
¥ou Hermas v. Berry» 1G4 Dil.Asp. S68; Gelivyer vy. 2okroth,
183 Tl. 437; Blair v. Ray, 103 TU. 615
| T% must be further frosumed sy this ¢ court, that
in the ebeense ef anything im the reoerd aopearing affirm~
tively 42 the emtrary, that the court c@restiy applied the
law t¢ the tsetse offsred in evidence.
ror the ressens hereinabove asvigned, the judguent
ieipal Court og —— wilt be effiresd, a
ee GiGi
—
berabw uvtow Miscewe af aleiteden Sep vedal ott ded? bopede
.eteme? off 10 eviseasnevatzer to fooas ef ap Ge Stas edd yd
30 Imemesasa ® gathers a \jte donne bee baalok
»M0isnednoo eidt mbctesttos%.e: tritatese sods evens abate
2 ofnl boretus of tad? gmiywed qo .@eY soubor
~aeur ak @feitosae bas vodel ed? wed hitate’dg Witw foastmse
tiie Soatimo #2 bed ed ted? gatyoe) veiw? wf bas «whe
~tetse bas ywodat bise® detewt ¢¢ sesimnes’ ody Ye atenvo ed?
foide te mitentotetob edt «tos to osaei ee bouber a blue
aed Utitala{y vadtom miseecp off sede smi teed toon! 2 bad
eff xebey agasboeleh et fla feaiags Towser 08 aig edt
hae baaio® ,etemyo ad? Steiage to ~avqee y tok oot tuoi nedook
sanols eye emnw
at bos tindss sev sonehive ted? bemroong et famm, aa
ees oi teats yae ae (ine ae eet teat ostesben ek ama eat
~chi iis acobvev qd? tne miele % semosere-eae ye betnoverq
J TH9D teins ex$ Jaide syle sesebhive ed? - .oetsem I eshv
at sqsoxe to .ffie Ve aves oe PO 37 aoe foenyeet ef. bound
“ot hebivw+w @@ «Freese o2 Ki seyoweee Ts Foe We seouetasa
ok ,esvcesq ,ymtoms@ . teas oF «Pek Lege ohne we oat
-il}oa Jo Cex hevelto eceahies aft tad? .d ote equecds ost
of? pM bait ai Ime aap <teowe o¢ aire? evi sae 7g sa0t®
etoered? $aen pial, —— nh One etent g o4f cot eavend
sitotiee .v sovle ¢a8 .qgk. til AOL «yotem .¥ genzed ost
| ie Tit B01 ayant -* BOE aha iff mm
teas .roos ahd? y comsont Tota? wi vemm OF.
~sathie prissol¢s ave oer eff af gal ddyne Yo corsage oa? al
ex? beliqdsa ((iserw © tum. off Seet ,Yresew@s aff OF love?
| oveaebs vo af Doreths aioe? off Of wal
Stewphut of2 .beaateea ow dent eved oom wee vit wk
ehouwrkite od Iikw ogeats) te toed (nag tee out ote Bo
474 21872
CLARA STIMVRL, Individuall
and as Administratrix of
Hetate of ABRAHAX STIPVTL
\ Apywellese, APPRAL WHO
\
\ Wie BUPRAIOR COURT
AMALGARATSR SHEET META PORKERG* COCK COUNTY,
LOGAL UNL HO eR Ae
TIGHAL on rporation,
THOMAS REDDING, RF RAY 2
B. Ae BOR » & , 98 I.A. O4
ae Appellanta.
Cwatt apelin lh )
* Le
CT oF rity ot Ss filed
(vinta appeliaeg@fomplainant below, as atte
trix of the estate of Abrahan Stiefel, deceased, against
the Analganated Sheet Yetal Workers" Local Union Wo. 73,
j
7
| international Alliance, and Thomas Redding, "dgar Ray, ]
| Be Ae Schooley, and Paul Chrictmany (defendants belew,.
i ae Oe Sth wiethilenn- —— — |
by the -terne-of-#hieh Complainant claims she-wne entitled |
| Ste_-recover” & certain death benefit or insurance fund, as |
“a result of the death of the decedent, her husband, i
‘
f
MA. PANGIDING JUSTION PAK delivered the opinion of the
ya
court: ' 4
The bill of complaint alleged that the said —9
Abraham Stiefel was, at the time of hin death, a meubker (ary
An good standing, of the suid Amalgamated Sheet Metal
Workers’ Leeal Union Ne. 73, International Alliance; partys
that upon his death complainant was entitled to the death |
benef ty pursuant to ‘the - by~laws of the said union, whic
MOMS DATTA
THOD VOLES
eXYTHUOO AHO
he .A.1 Be =
F wa
— ‘cite w — ae ‘
ao axetd
doniana ,beeaess) ,foteisc miata Te etagee odd to xhie
988 otf mode! Lago! ‘stedsoW Lagey imorit bodanmatamA ald
—— amg bi —R —
— — one ep Loaso® A fl
onatwent te -domndnao~ 2-Ye-snnineenetrany-uatheegn-enlt—20
bole line enw oda ankole gana rskanod: the eke -eertod wats —ge 4
ae , oat. we marsaseeet £ xe Pte! Mae theta 2 ‘xeveonT os — M
ebriadawed teat — E ‘ott te — ots seein
ede to moinige ois poeeyiled AA. aerveut PRIGINTAT *
gua Sal ee rt 58
*
A phew off tata —2 — ve aie oe
—* ont ot feteisne. — pair ia tcuiro athe
te stokm dine ost To — os
we
by-laws were set forth in the bill, The bill further
alleged that said death benefit consisted of a mus of
money iade up by the assesenent of one dollar upon each
member cf eald umien, said assesement to be levied and
collected, and paid te the complainant; that anid B. A.
Schooley, one ef the effiacere of waid union, refused to
, perfora his duty to collect said aasemement; that Thomas
Redding, “dgar Ray, B. A. Schooley and Paul Christman
were the duly qualified and authorized officera whe were
charged with the administration of the affaires of the
gaid union, and the collection and dirbursement of its
funds; that eaid officers refused and neglected to pete
form their duty and were confederating to injwre and
defraud complainant.
“fo this bill, anawere weve fihed by the Amalgame
ated Sheet Metal Workers’ Leeal Union Ne, 73, and by the
several individual defendants, putting in isewue the allega-
tions in the bill ef complaint.
Upon « hearing om eadd bill and anesversa, the chane
e¢llor found the inewee for the complainant and entered a
dearee, part of which wan as follows;
“That the defendant, Amalgamated Sheet
Metal Workers" Union, Local No. 93, International,
Alliance, ' to the complainant, the sum of
$2531.60 within ten days from the entry of this
aecaree, "the Ste the other defendants, Thomas
— — » Be. Ae Schooley and Paul Christe
Miso co afk the auid defendant carperation,
eaute paid wau of $1332.00 to be paid by enid
defondant Union within ten daye, in default thereof
the complainant has the right to apoly to this
court hereafter for all necessary ordera to enforce
and obtain the relief granted by this deeree, and
this court retaine jurisdiction of thie case for
ane —““
wie
uedtawt (Lit off Lid ons at dtxet fee ovew awalayd Bisa. ;
to sua e to bedatance sitoned dimeb bkma jal? bogelia
doue soqu tallob one To Jaommeataga oft yd qe whem yenom
bra beivel ad of tanmenense biee ,nolnw bhee Yo todeom !
wA sh bine todd pdnankeLqwon ont of bhng bist ebagon fos oH
of beoewtes ,tolaw blew ‘te atephtte eff to owe pyetoades He,
samont dait gtnomuesean bhaa toolivon of Ytub hw wae kreg j
; .
nangekrtd Lunt be yoloolo®? .A .€ , yal toaghl ygakbbel J
oxow ow axsoh?to beahtotiya bre beititasp yinh o> wrew
oft 36 atisYie sie To —XR ond — bo g raci
adi to tnomearudath baa moltoetivc ont baa ,wotm bien =
wteq ot petootgon bra doartet atoolito bina eect paonut Dae
bne oxsins oF grisoarebe trom ovew Daa ytoh ifeds mot
ode an hetqmea duntios
eusgiamA eff yd boLit exw etaweme , i iid abuts of x
od? yd baa ,eY .oR mole! Laval Nwrokrow fase toods hese
aagolic odd sueek at gaittug ,atashiotod Laubivinns Larevou
etuielgmoo Yo Ilkd ote mh anoit
eis odd ,atewann ban Sild bieo wo gaiuaed « sogi
a herein bre deontelqmon ott tot ewwnes oo buwet toffeo
jeweilo' an dew doldw to d¢taq ,eoteeh
deoas botameagiand ,snabxe tod ns — ——
Lanoivonteinl , SY on Laved ynolnl ‘wrestued
to mwa edt ,dnanialqmeo odd Ph vy
aiid Yo yxén ode wort eyed ned pat re ®
aamont?! ,ainabae lob terse oft 2 add boa
etatuid iva'l ban yoLoalos oA .
bisa x? > haat od of ie to mum —— 4
Tooreds ry he mi ,eyeb ost middie no — — ren
alls of yloqa of temix oft and «5 Lage
soxotne of BiObYo YLAReeoor ay * xd Lee 7
haa ,eorpeh ald? yl hole tok ec {2 alate
x0T Bean * to aoter thba ala ete
oe
In said devres ther was incorporated the
prayer for an appeal, which was in the following languages
"and the defendants by theiy BCliciters
Guly excepticte the entry of said dearne, and
pray an appeal therefrom te the Appellate Seourt
of Illinois, First District, which is sllowed
upon the & filing @ bond in the sum of
aixteen h ea Gollare to be approved within
forty days by the wurt, and the defendants
are given leave to file a certificate o evidence
within sixty dayg,"
This is a motion on behalf ef the eomplainant
to dismiss the appeal for failure on the part of appellants
to comply with the prayer ond order of appenl,
The reeerd shows that the appeal waa prayed for
by all defendants and was allowed for ell of thes, The
prayer for the appeal was joint and net several. ‘The
decree allowing the appeal required a bond to be filed
by all the defendante, tno record shown that the appeal
a" was signed by only three of the five dofendantss
éefendamte Ray and Christman not baving joined therein.
The authorities in cur “tate unifermly hold that
Me right of appeal is purely a Statutery one and gan be
availed of only when allowed vy court, and aust then be in
conformity with the prayer for the appeal.and the order of
— — —
Sudesh of Uarvard ye. Bane,
Ne Hnumond, ot al., 199 111. 476; /
eft, 207 — Redrick Lox use.
i. 252 111, 214) Lingle y. City of Chicago, 210 111. 600
— — — —
The record shows that while the appeal was granted
te all the defendants, it was perfected by only three of
theme This ie not in compliance with the prayer or order
of appeal, and therefore the motion to dismiss the appeal
i
— —3*W
ake
eds besarodresm! naw Lori — bAaas wi
segeupnal gaiwolfLot sans na anw itp hate ofaeqqs te ‘so mug
etotiotlos tied? yw ajnabne tes at faa" Ae A
bas ,potpeb biae to yxdao oid . —*22 yinb iv
duved etalloggs ea? oF morte os ia ¥yeIqg ee 7)
hewolls ai doldw ,foliiald toute honk tor to ean
te cum edt at brod » guilt — ie aay
— —*—z of of otal er gel . V
en? bam o ene 4 * Ri, Paver : ‘
aomebive te — —— of evasi mevig ote vidi
* spyad Viaie whisiew — —
trankeiqace etd to Elatod a aeitdon » ak aidt-
etnalloudn to freq edt mo om Lis? sot foncan oud aatonk * rn
-fasaqa to thee ben re Yere out? ia dw — —*
Rat bayasq sow Laeqqe eff jot? awom brenat eft - diate —
of? .uadt to Lia te? bewolie saw one edwabanted Lia we
ed? .lwreven fon bine omio) aaw Low 48 edd tot so%eTE
boitt od of bmed & botivpot fanqqa nate paiwot ta eetoeh ;
Lasqaa ed Sadé swote Srooet ont — ES on I La w 4 i F
sasnaebnotod evit eat te aerials ydace w bongte naw nod *
— Reales ged vaei son ——— ona 0) aimabaotod |
tad? bLlod ylerretioy esnz* two of epkdiveriiua oAT
od mag bia one Vrotusare « young ak Legge te tigtt a
gt od mong Jaw ban #00 yf bowelle aedtw “lao to botiave
to. yobr0 ond. — — — ——— oud 302 wxva eu⸗ at hw —
zoro ofil @82 ain aa 3 ‘oma at & BALES 3 J
of 2a 0} Aaiabes aan ee fos ak.
00a VILLI oL8 oneo id to Ytio .v olaniu pea — ga
is
. boinstg saw fasqqn wis oilstw tat? awedta bxooet nia’
to ee1de ylao yd —9 enw ds en
242
In counter suggestions ta the appellee's
motion to dismize the mepeal, counrel contend that the
only real defendant was the Amalgamated Sheet Fetal
Workers' Locnl Wnien Se. 73. If that ie true, why did
Thomas Redding and E. A. Sehooley,join in the anpeal end
in the appesl bond} Uoreover, the bill mede both Christman
and Ray defendante, and made certain cherese against them.
These charger were met by answers on bebalf of said
defendente, The decree ordered all individual defendenta,
including Christman and Ray, {who did net join in the appeal)
te perform certain acts, The prayer of the appeal showed
[ enor aii defenceantea felt themselven arrrieved, and conse.
quently they all joined in the prayer for the appeal.
If there were any findings in the ceeree which
)
/ affected one as separate from the others, whereby the
f
{
\
) pray separate appeals, This they failed te do, and the
parties did net wish to prosecute the appeal jointly, it
was their privilege at the time the decree wae entered, to
mere fact that eouneel suggest that no eubetantial righte
of the said defendants, Christmen and Ray, were affected
by thie decree, cannot be urged against the plain provision
of the law, that heving prayed a5 apoeel jointly, it must
“be perfected jointly.
APPuat, DISMISSED,
oon
a'eelleqce od of anolinagune tefnuoe al
ont tad? breogmoe Lounvon .laeque eat eaimele af moidom
{ate toads betamagiemA odd sow teahestoh Lawn «ine
bib yow ,ouxd of fart? TI = .8Y wot molnt food texodtow
bua kascaa off ai wiok,yotourde® .A .f one gr lbhed eamost
namtelii tod obaw (Lid wd? ,xeveoxol fheed Lavqge st wh
sens taniann sontads miefren whan ban etmebrw tod we bre
bios to tieded mo wtowaas ys tem cctw neptade eeodt
sairehrotoh Lavbivibat Ile rewire sexed oat .afaaheetob
fences odd mi mot fon bib oder) , gat bom mamtakedd withetowh
boworte Lmeqqe oft Yo teyets off .atoa nhagies mee lieg ot
epanod bee ,bovebigne soviensedt? $fot afambewteb Lia fact
eLaouge ait tot seqorg oof wh bemiog, fia we —
sdoidw esiocb off mk egeibnit qm stow eteode 11 |
| ods ydorede ,wtodse orf mott efetaqes an ono —R
ti ⸗h Laeqge ot! steoaeety of dalw tom 646 aekicag |
oo ,boreto new Gor9ed odd omat oc? to ogediviag tiodd sow
eds bre ,@b of Bofkat cncdd vie? «ofeaeqea sider agon gon youd i
atipix Latinatadun on fend Saogaue ieennes tact fear 9—
AUMONTBAIC TANT
169 = 20483
ERITZLER ADVERTICI 2G ooy
4 Corperation,
MURICIPAL Cour?
}
in URrer, ERROR To
}
)
a Of SAICACO
’ oe b.90.,
— thet the y= ant waste Ve
te ct rings Ne@ieal Ins Tnatitute
and the Orpheum ental Pariers. ve cwned one share of atook
i each corperation. Plaintiff? offered in evidence a note
Of J. L. Deonahwe for S840 25, Gated September 16, lone, pay=
able three months after date to the omer of the plaintite,
ti with Amteroct at cix per cent. ner anwr, ond also the fol~
rs — document:
"chi gare May 20, 19172 ¢
Nonttater svar ti sing Commagyy , , ; . ee
Rte ’ ; Chisago, Tis x
— Ueentlement- | a
Pe cots —— are hereby authorized te insect adver. 7
—* eee !
Bern * ; — aaa
: ay 4
Yee
Hep emth or Ui
‘ane event. mm of Sever | a
oa — 01 red Tinto v8) For whigh wo ‘agree to be re
> ES, “Youre on etfully, 7
bo it a ‘ _ ‘ ; — ae Lee Demahue .
etgned) Leute T. Orr
eer a notation:
z to note of 3. 1
“
_
. — 7 J * ay i
OT most eevee! of ta)
F pees MEA. a Net . ; ‘ Wy
PAUIOD TATTOT
Onan wr
80 Arger teTt! ak Tt2
euino es Yo mpinico od? somevi feb Bas hs
os berrotery toftatterad ,sorre at th
at Vtkintete est) froettncsy Tenors Bat 8
HORe X atin Tek ae | — —
tt ger nek
— ——
fecie té etete eo fanwo of inborn tela —— 7 —
efoa a sqtebive a2 Sette lee tert -smoktarogteo dong mt
ya SLL . ol modwedqos ho eb . at. 008) SOT Gunter 6S ·
sVYitielales off to teheo edd 02 ofa c8fta. nitgovoes sorts oben
-S0% ef caf Seo Qumea weg .daee wor chs oo Sotsinhdthe a
sterommoob gmtrot Aig
eQEer .2° yet poheebre* 9
gaan antytereyn: fatina” — a
an Ext — Peon ei ;
— “Dera —— weve 4 * it Besone Wi
“er of OF BoM. or ober * { 50.0 MERLLOG oo
— — oe LE ti ey Vi ae eae
oe "> ag keaadoet pea ber Bt ae
Sse’. * * —— —
of meen OOr\er bees
sso — —
ane ee
The defendant toetified thet this metation wae in his orn
3 ‘ horivriting, ami made by him at the tim: the nete referred
F q to was pigned and delivered. 4
a he rrinmeiple upon whic) — to
: reverse thie judyment is that this metation at the bettem
Ne of the advertising oontract, if binling at all, ia me
mowe than a continent custunty of the note. “os sannet
L—agree with thie view. ty the gontrest the defondarit, mith
fommbwe, cmiered the insertion cf the atvertiaine, anti ;
J 1 ngread to be reanonsible for it, and consequently wan
7 primarily liable te the extent of the ancunt cmfersd,
parely, $780.00. When the defeniant, by «riting the no-
| tetion at the foot ef the contract, says, “hie arplties
to note of 7. i. DOnahwe,* ote., he seve expressly that
he agrees to be responsible for that note; when he says,
"Taken im payment of balance due on neccunt to date,"
Be bo says nothing lees than that the advertising had boon
= furmighed os o part cf the care account, whieh it appears,
had been contracted for by defemiant ard Comahue fointiy.
‘This dogument ia, in our viow, « direot admiesion that
upon defemiant's order work had been performed by the
— plaintig? tc the amount of (642.06, for whieh he was
| responsible. “hat being an account stated, plaintitr was
at ig entitied te interest, and the giving of a net e of one
«| Jedmbly Liable would not constitute « payment of the
obligation unless the note itself was paid. voreover,
ae £% wore admitted that dofendart was mot Liable on the
i TT «sine San jorthan — ⸗
" anon ft 46 cloar thet he wn ar absolute quaronter
SSN of the note in evidence, Ho has sald in words that his
gt to be recponsible for the advertising aecount
(emt wo must aoouns it oe, with — toro)
q
*
a3
on ve
J— aes J —*
—
pole
wo off at aaw cofsadaer widtd tedt holt tines Srecheretet ont
horrs'ton otoer wet 4 omhs ot ta abd vet Paint Bevan vant stewie
shovovbiad — he oe ot
— —*
| Matted att ta mottiagon stett tat as —ã i J
“Gn at 4 fle te gedterta 4 | |
dontas e” .ason och Yo ‘toon tment ioe © aadt om
Aske -snntmateb odd sowutemp ots et wwaky ate det 2
tee eartotiaovto wotseronet orit bevrentany —
won veciacpueras Kas t «or old bommrsary we ot Bootge
+ Sosteteno more a3 To dnosxe ruty o⸗taaet yhbeaxteny |,
SOM OMS stenhao'ten ots cin £0, 0—eF Vos Hr
eokiqgs ata .aynn .Joonimis ony So Foo} otf $e aotdng
tatt \Conetqns aeae od . code ", Mi oT 4b 20 edam of ba
ween ot coche ; (eton foci? oh Oleihaacqien’ ed Of seem ed
* ted of tormnane og ou vans fed “se Semargee ut matt
“freed hat wate terowie arts face cect? seed mis fetta ayen ‘et
sOraeers $2 date ond to eq 0 ae fede dee |
⸗xtantot emigeo! hen dnaheestwh eet oot bedoottace mosd Bat
teds sofsatebe (Wokw “a0 cut gat doomgeb efit
Odd US Sommpotting eed fut ioe setae a hershey enmepey |
oaw of dei dy I> .a REE 4 twons edt ot Tikeohete
Baw Vthantola «hedade tnuenge me amted tat) .aktteeegees
O80 to oe #0 per rhe ade fom tae ReIN? of bold itwe
afd % fread 2 o hut tunes dom Ame Gldntt ysemtop |.
stovooto! § .Aleq ase toes? esan od envden fi
ait 1 oftatt tom aow smehesteb vate Race Boh ceyeyty * be
——————
Strata eteoadts + nar Od tnd aoto ak Ot gecko lerophe
aiet Sede ebeow wi Phew gat ont -Comedhwe 2 ogew orth to |
roooe yatulsrovha oot to oldtumqaet of ot Shenton | rol
(oom? Laue igre aoktone $2 wmrune den ow few) wottqus an
ee —————— * —*
om ame
game necount. “e do not soe hew lancusame sould be used —
“whiten would express mere clearly an intention to be
absolutely responsible for the payment of the note.
Defendant ' a contontion that thin Mancuace “cust be con.
gtrucd most strongly in faver of the guarantor,” 1s con~
- trary to the ruling of our Supreme Court im Crigher vy.
Decring, 904 Tll. 208, whers at 46 gaid at fe TOG
| “The contract of queranty should be comstrued an favorably
| to the creditor as other written contrasts." It therefore
follows that ag the note wae not r&id, rinintiff ms on«
titled te fulement acainst tho defendant wttheut shoring
any attempt to onforee payment acaincst the maker of the
“note. I this view of tho matter 14 will net be necessary
to eensider the rulings of the court with reference te
{
the admiveiton and exciucion of evidences, aa that evidence
had only te do with the questions ef immclvenmsy amt ailigence
The julgmont of the Timfieipal Court will be affirmed,
; Us
oh AYPTREED «
ent od Bivoo enaumnnt vod cea ton ob @ + deo
od of motamrt an ytooke ommm aaongme Bike aie
sot td to perxeey echt ooy ated 7 :
“ne Go “hhdetate Bhat tom acw eter att an dettt —*
aitocts fed · ↄduntooren oc? toukere auumtut Ob ·t⸗t⸗
Git eo worlae od tontens sromyer spots of tenets ye | —
Wrsuscgen od fom Lftw $f swtdom off % woty abdy at . —
— ren Sauer
274 =» 20601
OWEN B. VAUGHN,
Defendant in
ERROR TO
V&Se MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO,
CITY OF GHICAGO,
Plaintifffin Error.
aa I98I.A. 100
MR. JUSTICE GOODWIN delivered the opinion of the court:
This writ of error was sued out to reverse a
judgment against the plaintiff in error, hereinafter
referred to as defendant, in favar of the defendant in
error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, for twenty=
seven days’ wager as a carpenter in the police department.
The trial was before the court without a jury, and the
evidence was preserved by a stenographic report of the
trial. Plaintiff contends that as there was no statement
of any judgment incorporated in the stenographic report,
the judgment must be affirmed. Cur Supreme Court, however,
in Miller y. Anderson, 269 Ill. 606, has held that under
the amendment enacted in 1911 te section 81 of the Practice
Act, it is not necessary to preserve an exception to the
judgment, nor is it necessary to recite the judgment in
— — 0...
TAM trial it appeared that of the 27 days for which plaintiff
recoveredm 10 days were in May, 1913, while he was absent,
as he claimed, on a “double header" vacation of 21 days,
and 17 made up the pericd in November, 1913, during which he
was suspended from duty pending investigation of charges.
It subsequently appeared from his own testimony that the —__
— —
ss
—
(0808 ~ vs
«MHOUAVY .2 “WO
at tnebrotee —
OT HORAT
TAUVOD JTATIOINUM
|
2eODADLHD TO
OAD
rot mihttisateld
O0L AlSCE Nk
stiu0s ef2 Yo wolaiqo oft bevrevifed— “LWaOOo worreut “sat
‘
s satevet of tuo beva agw terto Yo diaw aid? |
settentored , tot tt TYtitniaslig of% Jeniage saempiu,
mi insbroteb ont te t6vet ni ,tnabnoteb aa ot bexrvetes
«\Jnowd tot , tiisaiely as ot borioter tot taniorter torte
deis ad tage b sokLoqg di ni totaeqitas 8 88 Bepey faye neves
edt bas , yi) # dwoltiw dawos ond oteted aaw Laitd of?
edd to txtoget okiigetgonese wa yd Sovtoesetyg aaw eomebive
tnoemetasa on Baw eto x3 ag todd abgotnoo Yritntsls «Lek x3 |
eitoqet oliugstyoneda of? mi botmtoqroont seomabst, qns to
~tovewond ,txv0D emetque twO .bomrithe od seum tovenggioss f, edd
xobay sed biod aod ,608 .ff1 COS ,moaxebah sy zoLlin mt
soivostd ond to £8 moitoon et [1@L ni hetogns tnombmems ot
ot of moltqeoxe ne evaseotg OF YIaeeooen Jon ak Tk JOA
mi dnosugbut edt etioer ot praseevem tf ak 10m ,toemgbyt
—
‘edd on to {Lid 10 stoget oidqatyemeda add
trismtate sto tse zeta Scab TE old Yo tatt Meemeae ot. tnket
a
~tnsada agw od elinw ,cL@L , yo mi stow ayob Of gbetev coos
te .ayab LS To molteoav “tebsod ofdveb” s no ,bembelo od ea
of dolsw yitih ,éLef ,cedmevow ni boiteq eft qu ebam vt bas |
| eRogiado to aoitayisseval guntbneg ytub mort bebnoqaua anw
-2=
| charges were sustained and he was dismissed from the
City's employ.
eu
From am ofdinance in ferce January 15, 1912,
j it —— lta skilled laborers who had been in the
service at least a year were entitled to a vacation of
Has
eleven working aays Plaintift claimed that he was |
Gatitied to and had ‘been allowed a “double vacation" |
in May on accoynt of his failure to take a vacation px
during the previous year, {but-the ordinance™ im-evidence |
Nepecifically beriael kunt "All persons eligible |
provided, shall be entitled to such leave of absence
during any fiscal year, and in no case shall these
i for leave of absence with full pay, as hereinbefore /
| periods be cumulative. of Piaintitt wa was eilewed, and received
full compensation for, eleven days' vacation in a hone
7 .-ordinanee he was not entitied--to~ anything mere,
a! as nid
asd no within tty. “LE Gnewin in any officer to grant him the
} "do blewhe ® i 1 b th o
|_| Moiike ader" | Vacation claimedy/but, on the contrary,
— — — expressly forbids the allowance of
-any=-such cumulative vacation.
Under Chicago y. People, ex rel Gray, 210 111.84,
a civil service employe of a municipality cannot recover
wages for a period during which he was under suspension
and did not work unless and until he has been properly
reinstated. This disposes of plaintiff's claim for the
remaining seventeen days. The record in this case conclusively
shows that the claim of plaintiff was entirely without basis
in law. The judgment of the Municipal Court must, therefore,
be reversed,
REVERSED,
—
eis sort beoeeimeth esw ad bas benisteve stew aegtaiio
eyolgme alyt fd
~8LOL ,aL yraunal eotot ut comsntbho 0 mort
edt mk mood bad ow aretodel bellice tastt Sxmegqe tk
to wie aoa s ot bsltitne stow taoy sw tassel ts eotiviesa
—
| eau od stadt bauialo Tiisnteld Peayeb grtiaittow reve Ie
——
“®gotdtsosv- efdueb*® a bewolls need bet bas oF ‘botstias
«
— ao t aoav s sist of emmiiat aid te tarcops mo yal at
—— gi sonanifso ois tud § Seanad auolvotg edt gat ——
efdigifis anoereag ILA" jad? bebivera Vilas iooa⸗ ; —
——
etotednieted ae ,ysg {Lut dite eomeada to evsel tot 9
gonsads to evesl dova of boltitne ed Iiscde (bobivexa
\\. eeontd LLuste PR2ZO on ne bia tae baad Yas anitub
bovisooes bien , bare tte asw Tiitnielt $*.evivetumve of ubeizeq
bas «Yael ak ——— ‘eyeab nave Le TOT no i teaneqiteo {fx
(otdm griie ys ed deltidwe sox ewes oBnant beg oas ve 7 ~
edd mid tnatg of teoltto yas ni awotia ae ys irortsse omnes
eWietsnes srt so; dud) ybemtalo Nolet Bosv . SapbasdneLdvob" |
te sonswofls sat ebidvotr qievstaxe toatt comnnthse ons
smotteosy evivatumse fio ve —Yaa-
28.01T OLS ,yam0en xe selcoss ax easoidd tobal ‘
Tsvoost tonnes yileqiotaum # to eyoigis eotvaee’ Livio 8
folanegesa tebrnw acw od iho ube sgenkaa Soined s tol aegew
viteqotq mesd ead ed [iin bas —— ow ten bib bas
edt tot mtefo a'titeniale te soaogeth ata? ebetataniot
feviaulomes easo aint mk bresst est .aysh asetasyos aninismet
ealesd jvodtiw yLotitns aaw titinielg to miato outs dads aworle
yototexors eum tivedD Laqtotass edt to —** exT wel ok
hoatevet od
i aero smmunre * art
2065 /
32 = 20861.
RQBENT THISLMAR, )
Defendant gn irrer, )
} FRECR TO
‘ } NSONTOIPAL coune
Re TANIN Y tng }
business of SRICANO.
& COMPANY,
ERs JUDTICN GOOWIE delivered the opinion of the court.
This writ ¢f error ic breught by the vlaintiff in
errer, horeinmatter referred to ac the defendant, arainst
the defendant in error, hersinafter reforred te ae the
pleintaf?, to reverse cs fudrment for (500 ebtained won
a check dram by the defendont in favor of the Tanm~a-
Breckenridge Company + ami by it endorsed te the plaintiff.
——
Im the “urtelral Court the dofendéent filed en affidavit
of morite stating that the check was proeured from the
defendant by the payee by fraud ond micrepresontation;
that payee, at the time the cheek was given, frauiontly
ropresonted to deoferfant that it wae the owner of cortain
proiseery notes te the value of (2,600: that aald notes
worlé bo paid at maturity; that makers of ssid notes. were
solvent ami would pay the same when due; thet said makers —
ers were, in fast, insolvent and payee knew them to be insole
si“ wot and that the notes wuld net be paid: that defendant
bs Ki gent belteved naid representations an? gxve payee a cheek for
be — $8005 that all] statements mate were falee, ard known by }
a i payee te be false and traudulont, and made for the purpose
i ss OH Obtaining the ehesk for (500; that plaintife nover paid
any value for the check and wae net an Immoeent holder:
ee and tint the shock waa delivered to him for the purpose ‘
TOD TATOTWEN
‘
—
wy rope (
§
{
es WA
OADTRD HO snes tated
eYUATHOO &.
8 0 J JA. Is 8 Q ent phate
Aruoo off to sointqo oy Sewwhleh AIMOGH FRETOT, oA. .
mh Trttaket, edt yd sdgwon! of aowte To. Fda abaT,
Sxeitans .toubuoteh odd an of Sorwsetoe sod ecstorrert oT
afd ao of herrre ters reas Laut teera nore th taoherw tot ets
eves port? nado odes sot Semerbuh 2 oeroren Of » Mewatoly
sana! of Bo wove? af tr Saeteh otf yt meerth —— *
MrtInkate ot? of Sowwabas $2 ws bem. ymmmmo on btewradaow! ;
shyobhits mea & Sal Sip hepa asta ema? faq to beng, etd ot
on? sor? Sewersa aay doodte ott newts opt dade a$t tact to.
— fr Roath qd eopar ods Ye shen ted
elénetutuart etoviy aaw Konte oie wee oad 2a oes surt
— *e torem off aa 2f dad? dese Benes b os hotensenqtet
“geton Dine tasts 1O0G.8 Bo onlay ces 3 meron Yada
grew neton hos * onesie Fath yt Sree ae tn bhey of Bkvew
erode bien tat! reuh necw sane off yor Seer tym droelon
«foveal od of mocks ver! oeyat faa freriogy? . doe of .oew
trebasted tact «hkoy od tom Biwow stan edt tort Dae éaew
+o? food 2s eOyAT ovan ire DOOM odeeceuyey hey dene fed
vi mort how ,eafet oven ohat chmemetadn fhe tote 70008 |
earns esd “mY ole Raa <Motifuert eso omkitt of of aeyer
bles vevea Tiftirtato fats 1999 sett Heads naff ay helardo to
rrobLod saogoced! an. ton eve beo tvende aft 402 enhlay yee
eae afd wt wit oF bowevli of Ted tooo cfd dai? bas
t tobfed See toawo oft naw et tadt Qeeqqa $2 gatiten to
outa 30% Seodo bisa
On the trial, whieh wae before the court with-
out a jury, « depesition of the piaintiff woe reeoived
in evidence to the offect that he had had business Acal-
ings with the payee of the check fea a rertod of two yeares
that some time between Revenber 7, the date ef the eheck,
amd "evermber 6, the date it wac pretested, he reecived |
$t to apply on an account of shout 4,000 owine him, ont
thet ne part of that amount has ever been paid: that he
deporited it in the bank, wae oredited with it, and after-
wards it was pretested and returned.
yey The defendant was called in hie own behalf, and
testified thet he had a conversation with the prostdent
of the payee company at the time he ‘elivered the check
te him. \Obgeetion to this conversation was sustained. »
— TT
“is ccunpel offered to provejthat on the day the cheek
‘ iS wae datod the prosident of the rayee company etated to
defendant that he would not use the check umier any cir-
ip + Cimetangos: that plaintiff mes net indebted to the rayse
— at that time. and "thet upon enid representations that
he would net use the cheek, mooning they would not put it
im the dank for eollestion." cefenteant gave him the cheek:
F Pt | that the payes company had offered fer sale to defemiont
a (= @n @afid dates, notes to the amount of $2,800; that maid
ce | motes vere of me value; thet the payeo ower Ctraus over
i | HP $6,000, and thet the president of the payee hed the note
Bt: —* in his possession ae late ae the Mth of voverber. Apide
from the proof made in resard to the dtistanees of aifrercnt |
; towne from Chicago, thie was all the evidence offersd or
— ae
i
«ditty doe or? oroted aew datdy . lobes oth m0
bovtooer acr Whdntole off to mmkttacrd o eget eam
«fa0h nnentard hat bat of faft sooTte eft of sametive ak :
tareoy ows ‘to Bottled o at toede os to seyed oe APhw mye J
ifoote ot to eseh ont .° aedaevol noented emt? enon Putt | i
hevtooos of ,~bedustowy cow Sf odah od? , 98 sodagvoli teow vat is
Ben eat petwo 000,.M suoda to semroons aa mo ygrs of OF *
ef tedt thet cood wave cai temone fad? to dang on Jade
pads Bee ~Sh ditw bosihero oar ated ed? af $2 Bog heoze *
-hemmtor bie fetnagore oan #2 aisaw '
fetn <tiared cme etd ot helfwo sav ¢meheeteb ad?
drobteory ott dttw sotinateweme # best od tat? So ktheaed
toorlo off hogevt£e” on omte od fa yemmmee eyed eft to J
donka taun vaw mettammwtes atttt ot avkioakds! abt of ate
— —— Se
AAMa⸗r ‘ots “as od? «0 Aeyera —VV — — —E ate |
of betaste yrange ations ett Ya <0 pusievey wah Boke Py,
the yoo rehers foots at? ou fom Biuow of tacds tested
aaa oft of hoddobet dom aew Wlintala tad? recemnbenso
tats exoktaimonerces btae mony dard" Bee .eakd sake ta
of tiny foo Aivow yortt quttment agate oof om dom Bluow on
tooo oft mbf oven dteimetws “\mekioolloe ao) dead odd ont .
duohretab of offoa «9t Sorotto bad veers eayey off dats x
btan Jats 1008.8h to fmm ett of weter .vete® Dies ae - =) J
Tevo avers” cero ooged att Salt yeulov on to one aedon . J
ofan odd had aeyar att Ye saehbaon edt anit Mae 00088) |
obtdA -modwevo' to 108 ett eo etal on motocrmnpe att at | a
froneTt!H to avenasath aff of trramen at oben teomy elf sort ‘
1 bowo?to osmebive edt (fe eaw ets ,opeokds dort amos —
»roviooes comefive ait wogy Jat? asefo ef 91 J 7
: meds nofteorp of” .deroom byt ob boatan sow tetate | 2
erro sues att socks mo kro snow et ination edt noge seatwn on
—
& Gomparicon of the affidavit of meritorious defense and
the evideme offered aml evcluied, shove no comnestion
between the two. In his affidavit @deferdert alleree that
payee obtained the check by frautulentiy rerresenting that
ee
he was the owner of cortain promicsery notes cf a certain
valve, with solvent makers, ané which weld be raid at
maturity, “he procf offered io only that the payee sata
thet he would not wee the cheek under any ¢iratrstancens,
meaning they would not put ‘t in the bam: fer colloation
{a matter which is in no way relied upon in the affidavits
that payee had offered for sale to the ‘otendant notes te
the amount of (2,500, which were of ne value, and defeniart
at the time of the trial wae not inle>ted te the rayee.
Thies @oes not in any ~ey make out the ‘ofense rolied upon
op, in fact, ary defense. Had thic evidenee been received,
- 4% would stil? heve been the cuty of the court to enter
fudement. ‘The offer of proof was made in comneetion vith
the testimony of deferdant, whe, himself, owerse to tho
affidervit of morite in whieh it was stated that the false
and frouiulent representations wors made to him. “Ne did
\ not make the affidevit upen information and belief, but
ap of his cm tnowledre, yet, whor he te cp the stand and
ee his counsel cakes an cffer cf vreof, ho does not offer to
| prove facte or circumstances sustaining tho defense alleced.
It ie a well settled rule of law that where the evidence
— defemant makes an offer of
—6 preef which is excluded, the fulemert will not be roversed
\ m⸗en ‘the specific fasts offered to be proved aro sufftotent
_ te eptablish a defense. {(Lugas v+ Yeebe, 88 Til. 407.) Tt
ne AB, ot of course, not necesnary tht the proof offered should, F
| — rake out the defense. It would be evfrictent =
, Of. a ——
1J
bra eoyetoh aveltos isan Io tivebitts wie 2 mise heraneam 4
rofigontms on awetea ,fotrfore tne hotetts: ecaehive wie An
todd oenotla taspretes sivebitte wid ot ome odd omertod
gad? atiincaotet (lioolutuat? yo fvotto afd Doalaido eeqedq
aiegwo 2 % seton wrewtuord mladgine geo odd apr en
$n dkny od Siwow clo trty Reus .oweaine deer koa ante nr
Bian seve odd facie vfvo @. bores oom ad’? ©
ssooratemuazito yea Note doode ott euw dae — ae ona |
moLsoolies tod ‘ad of wh 3° dee tow Siow cud gekames —
i(sivebiYts edt at moqy betles yaw ov at of dette oedema)
Of vogom anabaot>” off of ofce wr bowtin Ped seyeg dodg
frabrtotobh Here gotloy on to one datiw 00%. 2) to dace odd J
-eoysq sit of hotcotat tom ace Latest ofd th ends od? 3a J 4
\
soqy bolfer vente off sum offer gar yete at dom so08 attr Le Wi ie
ghovioooy noud somebive atts Sat -ommeteds gaa «teat mE oto >
todme of Hoo eds tw Ese ol? woud evad (1 ite bSssome tk o™
Agi aotteomioo «t oben wae Yoows ty vette edt. Amomabat :
odt 04 @rows «2loamtt ore «#nateroted to yomttons ody
eafet odt teat hotots saw tf dolviw at effmm to shvalitte .
Bib of mkt ot ofom omew sapbiatrosewret teokuteer® tan a
ded telled ime mofierw tert asqu divablYie edd eden dom |
fers trate edd ae af at ode dey yonbelwent am att tome
Of tat%o fon a0OD ad y toons, Yo Tel os omtian Lemmas wht
Bozelln garetoh old paintotase vegrntaminnto wm efeg't avon?
eorebtve of? ovecte gute wes © potion Ye poten ifew a ak os
to 1Tte me vetton srofreteh feet _ comme
hearovot od Jom Iliw soomhut oft ,hobotone ai: —E oon
ehorYive eo hover, of oa hereto —
$i (.99h SECT PO edee saoet) -ounotod # aeitcndme of —
ybiluorin Horwtte toons of? tod? etoaneoen Som — Maa
Sagtve aa) wt (0 esoemne a8 erase
a A
—
3 recoived or expresely offersd on behalf cf the dofemiant,
| _- eonatitute oa defense. “tn thie ease the defendant's own
teatimony moo all thet was offered in bia behalf. “he
testimony offered 414 not conntitute a defense in iteelf
oy when taken in commection with the other facts in ovi-
@denee or ecloly tn cormecticonm vith his owm atmitted ten-
timony, nor war it evprlemented by any offer of other evidence
The fudonent must, therefore, be affirmed.
AYPINVED «
Arinheto dod oft to Dade’ ao heaettco —yioaempre mm bevkenes
ave so denfuro'teh ade Bue nts m 7 -ooreteh a edwadt Jace
wt? .Eatod ate ak foto aew daddy Loe awe —E—
Gieott ot vaxeteb 2 abing at aeroe dont itt howohro weomlioes
=es «£ ehowt socite att Ap tw not· odenros suk. crotant sites aa
god tecthehea ove etd dae aotteamms of ylefog ge eameb
sohtvo taiie to te%te wie yt hetnomedgque Jf oov Oe gipmomks
»Boorwirts of ,eto etal! damn dremel ett
« CRUATEA
~
\
598 «\20036,
LER ond JACOR MULLER, 7
Appellants
parm wy
ERROR TO
MURICICAL COURT
OF SHICAUOQs,
P98 TN tea
ie tt
Mit, JUBTICK GOODWIN delivered the opinion ef the court,
Appellanta, hereinafter referred to as plaine
tiffs, brought suit against the appellees, hervinafter
referred to ae defendants, to recover damages for the
Gefencantet failure to terminate certain leases then in
existence, by giving the proper sixtyeday notice ge that
the right te possesrion ef seid prowiees would acerue to
Plaintisfe under the terme of a Lease frou the dufendants
— — — —
to plaintatte, | in the lease sued on, dated | April 25, ‘1910,
the defendants deaised to plaintiffs two steres fren May
7, 1910, to April 30, 1920, ‘The tenth oleuse of the lease
provided that "It in further covenanted and agreed by the
parties ef the first part that the partics ef the second
pert shell have said domived premises free of any rent te
July 2, 1916, but said parties of the seaend part agree te
Poy assume ali responsibility of eviction, if neceasary, the
= prosent lessees of uuid deuised premises, but partics of
the firet part agroe to serve as witnesses should their
testimony be required."
Aba. Manna’ had a |
— Apon the firet trial of this cause, J
etruck the Plaintiffs? atatement of clad from the files on
4 _ the ground that it did not state a cause of action, rae
eM — NM
bia
Of AOuAA
TAUOD TJACLOIVUM
eODADIHS “F
1 Maa bos WE
090 Li0GGA ; 7 ne “a
J
SB fo
«Pian et? Yo motmion ode hervovl ion —— wirac it *
stinig an of bowxs tor rod toutorod .ataatiogga —— Mie
TSHlaniored ,aveLLegyus wid Faniayn tive suo vernee —
ott 20% seyamad teveoox of swangtnrn bod an OF vor ler ie
ai aedd geeael niatroo au areas ad onmh sot tetainorod : *
fads oa vohs on qwheysate aaqong wd: gaivhs seomasebaen | tii
ef swiees biveow esakwerg bian’ te fo Laveswag od sight oat a te
atusinetsd ef west — Lidl penintiadll od Maniata a
.O£0L ,Ga Lixgs bedeb no boun onant oad wi \ wTRivoiate of cg
Wik Kost poxoss Os BTILIGLesy Of beRiNed eomadne ton a —
Sasol ori? to wewalo dined ol! ORCL ,OE Linga of ,OLOL To Oy
od ws heorgs bus betuaneyge xocitau't of 9I" omit bobivong
baeove erie te welding ost taxis ttag | sont aah to wottiag
‘\ oo tat Ya to sett sondasse Sou kevin bine evant, — —
⸗⸗ oerye sing bathnn mie To —8 phon tee es ft yl
welt ,ytaawooen 22 sitodtodvo te Wi Liddenogena fe causes
Yo eoktcag sud, eSennneey Apaten, sea re — * ——
Pare ee utale ‘te —— *
Se ee .
— — —
— — —
he »-
f
on ae
ne wes
appeal te this court c. et ab Ye Bemetein, st al,
183 111. App. 154.) it was held that the tenth section
of the leawe pinced the duty of terminating the pricsr leases
by aay Ey. upon the defendentes and reer. iz. Juntice
Grown, apeaking fur the cure waid, ai pe LOT; —
@ te the plaintiffs sijuaes & covenant for
enjoy
place the
t, but did not imply or express covenant to
\
\
om. That is, it daplied
f the tier part had the legal right te
give and the pertios
comd party in poss
that the partis
the second part the legal right te
enforce pateesaion of the promises for the term reserved,
left to the second party the burden
Days PO NAB orate i: eer
a
The clause in
question as we construe it did nething more then make an
@xpresa statement of the situation which the law made
without it."
* ak, Offend α—
Upon the second
dal the unicipal Court ade
mittes testimony offera: for the purpose of showing that
the intention of the parties was te place the burden of
terminating the leane on the plaintiffs «nd lessees, and
on the evidence so offered the court held that the plaine
tiffs wore charged with that duty, and ‘0 entered Judgment:
fer the defendante, · Aa there was no thing ‘ambiguous in the
—
Language ef the lease, it could not be varied by any exe
traunsic evidence, The onee of Graves Ve Boge, 246 lil
80, cited by defendente in suppert of their contention
that evidence may be received for the purpose of showing
whe
142 22 smiotortes ok 4 22 satu) dusdo, ohid ot famgqe Ey
molgooe dine? edd suid Bort waw Sh (OGL .amh itl BL
aonsel «cixg edt guttustuned to wah odd wonky sanel orld Bo
‘oolseul .ch 8 .ateades — ainobasteb edt? meow J Bacar xd *
—ret ag tH phan —— edd 10? gokiogs “caw
* — 202 guemever « bediqng wtRidmialta ond os
} oF Inanevoo aeouges xo ylgmd tem bib dud fi
| | | |
ied Srigkt Lane ont diag buoose nate asking ons baa orig
sdbovisaet ened eit mo? 20m q odd ko acteabam ep te tae
—— — odd — — om Ameen paid ot 4 * See
— — —
gi gaualw owe —E
ae oven mule vis uted aah $s wondanon ow wa nolteoup
obam wal one dodde moitawd ia ed? %o Sucmoate auergxe
* a4 orls dw.
we ver ; |
8 arn es dya —— AEBS 1
wha seve) Lagke tne ett te bwesea ond mogl- .
fade giiwoda to evogtag ads te? soxeTRe yrowivoss aoteia |
te sobbed wit ovale of sew avidaiag ode to goltaedal of? 4
bas ,woenued gon OVRGwioly wl oo oamel ot goksankerced M
eink; 009 dui? dknd twae edd boxe vo eonvhtve old mo |
fnomghut, borer ov hee «ysuh sad aake hegre omew sTBse
ortt — — porn ae onedt A X — — aut —
exe yin yd boiuav ad tan plyoo 22 ,enwet out te epaugaat
oi tl S08 .989i 2% Sayeed to sano ont eeOnoktve elenats
noldnegnoo atest lo stoqqve ai agaahsoted wh bedtp ,08.
paiweda to oncqung oie sot bevloows od yan seanbeve tadd
* x — 4* A Re
wine eee
¥
es
Se
that the language, when applied $» the facts, was really
ambiguous, was a case invelving the question ef latent
mabiguities in wille, and has no application here,
, Upon the admitted facts plaintiffa were excluded
— Prom the poseeasgion of the premises demised, by reason of
/ the defenduntet failure to perform their implied cevenant
for quiet enjoyment, and as this court has already held in
Buller ve Bornstein, supry, plaintiffs were entitled te
\ Fecever on account of that default, The question then is
es to the aseunt which they are entitled te recover, Plaine
tiffs’ claim the right to recover the value of the use of
the desised premises from May 7 to Auguet 31, the day they
obtained powsession, inclusive, We are of the opinion,
however, that aftex slaintiffs had learned that the leases
: of those in possession had not been terminated, they oould,
by the service of timay notices, have terainated the leases -
by July 31, and that the preper measure of their danages
+—4e the value of the use of the prenises fron Kay 7, when
| under the terms of the lease they were entitled to peseespion ,
te that date, The undisputed evidence offered in the court
below shows that the value of the use of the premises during
that period was $500 a month, which is the rental reserved
in the lease, ‘hic wan not contradicted by any evidence
offered by the defendants, and no exception was preserved
by the plaintiffs te a findipg by the court baced on
that valuation, In this state ef the recerd we must
hold that the value of the use ef the premises is conclusivee
ly shown to be tho swe ef $300 2 month, It therefore appears
that by reasm of the defendants’ failure te perform the
implied covenant of their Lease for quiet enjoyment during
4
VWlaor aaw ,etoat odd ot bedicgs avdw soyamyied add dacs
sretet te moliesup edd guiviovnal oawn « tow ,anengidim
Sted coktmotings on sad bes .ofliwth aohtinytdes
te Bate ~ was g ‘
bebuloxe ov8w ettisniadg atnat boss tbe walt ‘went iy
to nusset yi bee tome —ER eng te noimeesnon ot owt
snanevoo hetlqms tdesti meted ee emit Padstabes Yon ong
ai bLoxi ybsoxla Feet) fxwe0 aids aa bas sdreange oe faanp w
Ot belsitne evew wt tigudmte xe amberenees ay vehi /
ak cond motieowy ant o# Sunteb Bld ta FuvoHgs OS LOVOSeT -
wield »xeveoes of bo tt kins ons ‘wnt tis ach⸗ favors wit of ea
to ony erly ‘te eutav oft teveoou of trigix of@ mhafo *e?tle
“edt ymb off {2 teuquwa of VY yall mov? eenieeag boekued ad? |
sHeimiqn af? to ose OW ,ovinwlomt yaoleseseog benkagdo
aoeeel ont tadg hbontact bad ottitaialy «zetia saad etovewou
shined yout ,betanimane mood fon bed sotampagod ni goad? Te
<eeaael sit botandonss veut. ,o90 ton ele ads te coivxen alt yf
Begnnad tiodt Te ovis covong out Sats ibae (16 yh Wl
now 4V yal wont eveioore ary to een aed ko outev one ab
molsesresg of boliif~aws ot w whit seeel se To exmtet of? tobe
éxyoo ent mi hou ito sonohive betugeibou of? .etwb Saas of
Milivh sorkmetq ate te gow off to ewhav ot? Sacks awade woled.
hoveeans Iatnen oid ai doidy .aémom a OOS2 saw bodseqg Jadd
eonnbive wis wh bevolhartnco too gar ost ,ommed add as
beyrseex¢ ams coitgnein om tema .ednmoan oh oft yt bone Tre
oo doused gre of¢ yS ghkbatt « at attisulety ods yl
duum ow buepot wily To atate eidt at .otsceuday dadt
eeviaulonoo ef avalmerq wed Yo any oo to aulov ene fast biod
BtH9 qe oroToress FL sideem 2 OOCF Do swa ee od of gwede yL
Ord MtOtiog oF OTUList fatmadan ind ett to manne yt Pade
Qitltwh Iopayotne salup «cot esaol «sheds To —
athe —
the time demised, the plaintiff were unlawfully deprived
L ef tine premises from Yay 7, 1910, to July 31, 1910, and
are entitled te recever the value of the premises fer
that period, which ic shown te be $830. The judgment
of the Municipal Court will, therefore, be reversed and
jvéguent entered here for that sum,
REVERSED AND JUDGMENT HERE,
ohe
bevixqed yilvtwalaw or0ow dtivainic ef? ,Sealmeb eaie ode
bro ,OL@L ,f8 ylub of ,OL0L .v wt wort evadaneg oat YO
10? seaimotq edd to sulav oft twveoet af bateline ote
dnompout od .O8AG ad of swore of ciptcw bokeeq sass
bas beatover od ,sr6teted? ,ikie fuvot Laytodae of Te
me Sarit 10? wrod boredMe daroengbas
<3 TEMA, CRA Cm
898 « 20006.
PETER MULLER an@ JACOR NULLTR,
Appellants ,
APPRAL YROW
TH»
f RURICIPAL count
ABRANAW BREMOTEIN and HeNRY
WOLF » OF CHIGAGS
Appellees.
198 I.A. 104
ADDITIONAL OPINIONS FILED O% PETITION ror RereaRree.
UR JUSTICK GOODWIN deliverca tho following opinion. |
; The appellees haye filed a retition for ra-
hearing in whieh they urge, (1) that oral evidense
; ie, wae competent because objection was wafwod: (0) thet
\ om the evidence the judpment of the court below wae
va . Clearly right: (2) that the court orred in cone teuin ge
‘ the lease; and (4) that the appellants could not pos-
—* sibly be entitled to rere thar fa0.
im tn support of thelr eentention that the |
i court erred in the construction of the lease, counsel |
J for the retitioners contend that the opinion of tr.
i Justice Prom in the former appeal 441d net atterpe to
F vy constrte the lease in question, but rather (if we wuder-
a a stand counsel correctly! pleeced « tentative construet ion
upen an instrument whieh he hirself soneiderod doubtful,
and that consequently, ite moaning ray be determined by
——- Pemerting to pared evidence. upon careful conetdera~
ten of counsel's argment, we remain firely of the
i a opinion thet the Appelinte Court An the former case
‘Conatrued the instrument in question: that that eon-
struction ts binding on us new — —
nen nt least, correct.
M8 = BO
(«seins sk ee ne
pb 1" os abit
WA ARPES Ff
4 + a
maven sanronE —— * ry 7
ADADTND TO — en ee
LOL 4.1 ee! — *
Sra ate eer P I ob nar sentry Lion
* —3*
«tO berber artnotton auttd henewhton HULA ara J
———— wontons ‘pete —— i he
enerehivs Lorn dade OF) cee yout olneaty ee met —*8
fads aevan aie mekésotde anudtatet smatmemibdy ‘ake ie
ae weled deron ef to goo det ott conte odd me
gtivetane ot het mend oft dadt (9) fatyley eee
AaW7 Sony otee⸗ ctant fetes: ott Owetd fh) him camel “a 6 i
OPO! ped Cte CO WER ae eit J
td smi? wottentren etedd 4 drone wT
fname .ocasl od Ww sokomentatso ode a? bewas dee
lat MO coketCo okt Seat fede onemmks tie edd toe
of dreadse fo Nib Leoggn week Hr RE eet wottaet
amatnts ow tt} wetier ted notimeny th onmet og eoeteman
mold — — — ,o——————
kirhaction’ horebtanes Sembee dent paadlbnsan® we meee 4
yd homthoerar ou qn patane nit De
aanpbinno Setter « st hemakhine Riiay st ymtbeee 9 ty
aly te chon atone ver .crememgin a Leman ye oomte ———
—E——— immed ae Y dg
to tact Snel vaeeltiAunany ee eto amt ect Seem Bei
a “pve a) anakiorte ‘at
a
mi naatoermy ate Heonek Rawk ibeahartwt Ot ,
Dis mort Mestie of seed x M6 wi Reelkate oad oF tel j
pivataawe 0 eer great — ie — A SON ' oom: ‘in
___*etion on the part of the defendants.
Hiding lease which gould be terminated by svitable
aa
D — hee ET ae
F eT ee ba Ax sass — a — a for outlast en f
} yb ee = *
M and while the lessers ai4 not imp Mealy Ainier=
take to ovit — tenantea in ponneestony oy aia. by
¥ their act of aentoliig~the proniages “coven: mt that they
hod the legal right te — the parties of the see
se legal rich}to enforce, oot
tems for the Ser reserved, art Lett to Phepe
partion “2 bumlen of enfereing thot richt.
Qe Lon of the oro-
the question that arese in this ease war as te
whether the 19th amd lith elauses, when reed together,
| crested « different situation. The 16th glavae previded
t the leesors showid have the device’ rremisen free
of any rent ta July 1, 1910, ert enld varties of the
‘geeond part (plairtiffe) agreed te anewre *.11 reopon~
eibility of eviction, if necessary, the prenent leasesr
of said Goemised premieas, but the parties of the firet
part agroe te serve ao witnesses, should their testireny
be required." wvy
PSGa CF evict the present leseeer, If nesearary
et ic to Aioponsese, pursuant to juttolal ascred,
Ss unlawfully in poeveseion, a4 the resporsl-
in Sther rortt, the particg
iy withheld it.
mi “eviction” to
Joa e *, (oven 9 gontontion ie direatly controry tothe]
. the m baied Sevtavion,* sot is — br }
t
—B
efdarien ct dotentord od bia doidw ooael gobi
—— ————— atagheateh ete to faq wiht re tee Se
“eine tefun soto <test>
| ~nohai NEB eroeant ald oktete Bet ajfretipely
| et «hte cite. robe cocemmep ech eanaines ap ttvn ae vac
\ vat? sodd Sorocraeed vaqqhenen ehd-Brtetams to FOR scout |
il ald be ew kintarr tt nee” Fou o¢ deg tt Lepel oo Bad
~wury off Yo moloagavSa . com ine ot deg Be Ray ak eet aan
| hones ee Fel Sw , horeeeet aaa, aki ot see :
bs ofese n>) -din tt ¢gte grhowiee IW —E aint, a9!
tens, ,; S27 Bae. eda : we — tor —
y Bs Sow Onna gids cl eaarva Jods woh au muun ot
~tatferod Ancor cade ,acaueto Matt fare si if ony —
*
*
hohtumey gaunt ent off .aofdoutin soowetehh » Sedsens -
sert seatmorw Geaatoe! off weet Sigede aunetet ad@ tastd,
, ote Mh wet Haag —22 tert a me whut nit reg Ue 29
wan oy Cfo" aovecs oF Soorma (VERS hate) — E
— —— freon artd : (tnaveeor If .cokeetve 30. webbie,
gauft e4% % eeoketar att ford sombnotg hoalneh biee %0
qroviteas siet? Wyotde -senncnehy Om OFERe oe oot stay
\wumesos: +2 .weecsel troweme att doers |
sporonh Tatoltut * deca caret , oaperacnegs 8D ot es wi *\
~balr qaex odd bite ner oe OMY ub, Ch dete Len rnorg SS)
bow bere inaolo — wet gagetr % .
a tome o£ vd 30 sud eo
.#? Dloddatw wl riage tne oem vf
aod of “notiotes” nats abrcue dah 99 Aveo wear ke tialt
: mal it eee ote anos att tte cuo leroy
’ ont *
arty 4 vt adoro Ltnedth af mak sor auoe 0 RET Ss
tod Serltaper at Bae * sattotyo® 8 ode ‘te
itepessod mi vi
2 teetze, end att yothsamborped qifexealt to ese
“tuny Bolide ——— —E —
cae toh to —
se
—
=a — tentinony ve, —
—⏑⏑——— — —— mye timer
the lecmore suve the loweoes the vrizht te remodel the
putiding, and agreed te pay therm S8OO "to aprly on the
teteal cont of eafd altercntions and ioprevenents.” hile
it wae agreed that the alterations and iowrevements should
coat at leant that amount.
ar vpraran err that the parties
| second part should heve the prewiaen tre any
rant te Syly, 1910, wae eiven tx considera stéin for they
uming the™ ~ of ovieting the terants, and tr cover
)
|
op time that | it ‘ypuld take to ay it then, ts without \
im efit. The lense wa oe i terms the naimtere |
; y to remodel” “the, — 7* ama — then, amd the
4 mente vere tsa Great at gant Cane, tf anything
oy Aa fe be detuerd trem thin otate’s
J Pigte, 18 in that t
penien 23 — te uly 1, 1°19,
th iy “ot time that the plaintitts . 1 wed,
of any “prod wetive vee of the vrenteos by te of Ane foot
hab~ me _being renoleled an. Silbadivaded . 4
aa The Pongo Tor the insertipn yr the phrase”
Wy of eviotion is megs —R | de gud he |
OL aOe » the ae mddate “soren *
alone
Frat Sahmotaee” Fane “avert orn sk igh
As ato ont)" nnget geek sro B tone) arene oct | sana
—— ome trition: ius woentiaes — J
oon of lien: — “ —D abs see aah
cauals Ader ott xt Lest ae etek 2
it? febumey of tiky off eoddanl ef? vant weeral od? -
att mo 4fere oo" O00 cect? var od heotme — nt tee
efit ” aéromeyenpe? hus anteliieretic Aten wo fete tetot
‘Biwede asrermpargpst Dens enakiawes Lu, mid dart? bentye saw ae
Hey mene ay ee oY « dotnes tas tomel te faee
— out tit ro Fam RUIN — | |
; vers & ager spt Beno neey weft avert Brnvent — Eg
| atone 0% aks sok ture at crow aay ll 4
| so-v02 o¢ San —R ots gattative * se aio & Racor
9 Samet be ef aarti Fiery as etad tae rn rt) oaks .
—34 ath titel ed? rorcos: PB "eo nw waded coe sat ¢
at? feo _mocts ohivt btn ten tote off Tatoo —
*
* — *
_poidteyre 22 «0008 Seay Pe Oy 8.0.
cast} farts wt a) azo 7 ae etnte | hts oor ;
i al s Peet, ot —** Ae. :
—E
to — goose oo oben |
— ad —* Antoatata acto sods aie te
fo: " ott 20 oo⸗ oa · yé perinesy acd to mat? wit gerth
\A nat khedin ore he tobeoreny t_gethe sam
—Q wt gps ee oid oO? promaet ont
Ce + vores see -Sechuanied ond TH ae . a ae (a :
: hump ot) eran went di son ave 0. —* ce on I | a y
2* q : J
ee woe? apn «etna TORE | <P i,
he at) Dhan ged atti tebe oat * ag 4
. ron) t te ‘Sely V O10. | "hey may \
me Stuming alone, might
=
the leneeve, y oS f
If thia * ge 24 a then, 1t ean |
Hh ober words, the rule which
Ft il
ee ooo ist Pegard to a comrsrsation with the ig
Aefordont Hornstein in regard to the service of the eixty-
day netice upon the tenants. ernstain tertifies air⸗otay
contrary to Selmer, and tn adiitios related an alleged
oomversation with Selvor in which they diseusced the |
Length of time it would take to get the tenants out, and
| as tn sttovanee of sixty days on that xesount. To re-
| . ee rennet te Wettneny oF 4,
terial point of what had boon so14-with
f
Jee get’ OFS of Ulut of & p
tite vanele gakherote enteror ;
plied aAtentata gatt ¥ J
a Lerten ovat» i
f AL
3 / * 1
<n in fe $f oben speete wimp om ; siti R
vorta —— ak usemorns Oe | J
aN -asanaek od hte oan | a
mao 2 «eoutt “ee po ef * ele 2. dy ‘ i 7 “ ‘
bio fem add od aol — XR— eG
—— J
——
abtvs nt Sevbeoes tke aor bas Sotabta XF i
ake — ——— *
eort vd sowehtve ts oe t
outa edd % enkvten ads od Bumper wi aby dccuv⸗ —2 9
‘toonth Selttioos mlesameh .admams au⸗ none ⸗atto yah ; fi
benelie mn hetated ep h et ive ok Bene crag ten od Tseutaes (ar AP
eal boouoath vet dott ot togteo détw sektenwemme
Bren «Se nd mnetod ———— ie J
or os Srimaeen tadtt mo aesh wixte Yo comawoltn te of kA
‘To yworkiued odd bestberroats a
ee eS ae ae ee ee ae ee my Y
we ere i i A os oe *
ian A's, ee
i Pant : ry aL,
ore A, Ths
’
— sree *
a —
ba
veforenmse te the netices having been served, Ceiger etated
: on rebuttal, in chief, that there wae nothing said by
Bernstein or himeeif with referonc@ to the Lemeth of time
; whieh would be rocuired tc met out the terunte. "e alten
gaia. "Ye disevexed the leneth «° time 14 would take to
put in the reraive, on vermetein agrooed te aller eixty
days, ana in addition to thit, he wae te allow 960 fer
the ieprevemente:" thet the vullere expected te export
— _ | twe or three thousand doliare, and thet it would teke oon-
wT pidershlie time befers they could cacupy the premises, ant
iy «that Sermetein had not said thet he did not bnew whether
au so mot the motiees had been legally served. Platntirts |
a ‘ had properly intreduesd evidence in regari to what had been —
F * paid with reference to notteve having been served, cinee
—9 | the fadlure properly te serve notices and terninate the
A
ss | Komaney was & material iseue in the pace. chen, therefore,
yeas fefendents introduced evidence contradicting this testi-
mony, amd went inte details tr regard te whet they elatmod
‘had actually been oald, tt was preper for the pleintites
to regall their vitnesn amt gentraiiet thoes statementar
a ‘ not to have done eo would have been an implicd contession
that statommts had boon mate which were utterly at var-
Phe D with plaintiffs’ witnors! original testimeny. Thie
: m ny aua not in any my constitute « waiver of the
3 Len } made to Sernetein’s testimony. The rest of
: of Colgar quoted in vlainti¢fs' petition
ge vas breocht out on crosr-oxaminstion. and
Atte ware not reeponeibie. ie the conten-
| aamunt of the oe Soe “
uy
*
—
heteta vente Sorte: seed aniva oe) ton mt? ——
ed Staa go Rittore ome wots get? «tele m2 «latiudet ae
omits to tinal ofS os ghmetetet dite hewta 46 sRoreteh
oats 2 «ndetovoe? att tag tes ae honetarnmer nad atute ag kee
of ofa bh frame cE oaks ‘o d#nsel of ¥ bevanenth of?
yikes vot fx oo heowte rio own a Mehorern alt o2 gery
opt O94 wets o$ one of ,derld of cde tivbn of Bow -ayek
hanes af tad ooeptw orred tiv etd pads * s adnwenyonuped grit
oo otad Bicow ¢t toad Me qa fob Soeenvede ooetig mp ond
* oon Reeser: aaté eee hidwe very enovbed esis efderebta
crariseds won! fort ODS af suet? Biteo ton Bak ekednere@e pads
svebindal! bowser vk Lonel meee Rast aeohtow ey Sher wo
moot tui det of Mee at comebtes Beowkoraad eieeqon bad | _
ganic ,howten coed weitvad wedtten of sanwerhen ete bhao
et? edadtwiss Soe aeobton vite of choegomy st dath ott
ewroteceds ect Lonee oth mt somal £atrtan roriac⸗
~trard fee geitistbeviase oaaehive Sesubeasal asnabero toh, |
bomftalo veds tare ot Dagan nt afiaded off Jnew bere 9 Grront
attiiniate: ed? rm sates cow 2! ,biae weed ultteutos bed
tatvemetota swod) igtosamve Sao auentin thed? Eieooe of
mluastroe botfant wa seed overt Bieter o9 ore evad o& Son
-tnv te tltesay otew cintde sho cee! Sat efewumedete tad?
mbit? «eroart Inod fantyt« ‘onaetie ‘ati ftietats détw eemal
ed? Io towtaw « eaadifanms ear gee af tor 826 ywrentkgeed
to foot afT .ymomttuod a'aietente? of ota aro bteavt do
moksitod ‘ettheatale wf eta wegted to qrombiued eft
baa rolsanbuare-cnete 1 fue dfn ot cee sebpaedet de?
-mdnoe of? 2% .oldlamornan tow otow ort tietele feds aot
ote new oot fowolle towrmtatt aff To tomer ey Sale moke
eostoiive forse: sort mraxd aeoterfomte seqtr howd at euonnot
ot ¢t ,hostiaks yfaoqoeret (ood overt of Med oven oe detde
thaow tueddiv esata
TvTe OMIRATHAR
; .
MR, JUSTICE OfCONNOR, specially concurring:
I eenour in the final conelurcion that the petie
tion for rehearing should be denied, but not im all the
reasoning of the foregoing epinion. I am of the epinion
that the quevtion herve raileod, as to the construction of
the lease, was determined on a former appeal to this court,
im an opinion by Br. Justice Brown (Muller vs Bernotein,
183 {11. App. 157). The sane case is presented on thie
appeal a8 was presented on the formar appeal, and the
parties are the some. The law as announced in the opinion
ef this court on the former appeal is, therefore, the lew
ef this case, and the construction of the loase is not
now an open question.
tyaivawenos yiietoegs foi 'S AOLRAUY ohh
ektog of cade mtlewlemos Lonit edt més “Hongo 1
omg fin at gon gud ,Rolawbh od bliveda pte ceoitong 202 apis
aeiniqe of7 to mal .mokniqo gniegiiet elt to a8 Loa aos
‘to moitowtsacco ott OF om ,beelox exod moliwenp only tans
sftvao aids of Lavgga tewre% « no beniereded saw .eamet ent
MEOTONIOE oN BOLL) mword wodtonl wa YS volMiyo mm me
Gidd ao boduemwig ni came om eet «(VOL .qyr .cEE COL
ots hne ,fawaqe dearet edd wo bosnesstg saw a6 Loogqa
seisiqge ed? ai boonvenss ac wel off .omme off O84 —XE
wat off ,otelouss ,ai Ioeugea usscet oat ae games whe vn
«FON ab onal odd Le weitowtdamon ond bee poeen eh Yo
Hol Faeap HOES 18 wor
BLGLT « Ree
PEOELE OF FHS race oF iEeLrpoxs,
Defendant in
Vile TC THE MUNICIPAL COUNT,
SMIL scRuure, ° | OF GHIcace,
Maintiss n Error,
198 1.A.108
\
a@livered the opinion ef the courts
WRIT OF ERROR,
4
*
BAe JUSTIC®’ Goon,
thin writ of exrer was sued out te reverse a
dudguent agninet the plaintifrc in evror, based on an informe
{ tion which charged that he wrongfully and unlawfully abandoned
| his wife Matilda SGheutes
OE EEN AWN ih ERS RD Ro Sa lt OT ö— ÿ ö
At the hearing it apseared that the plaintiff in
Orrex had previously been married te one Iva Hay Siny era, who
Was pranted « givorce from bin June &, 1966, in the Superior
@ourt of Cook coumty, and that ne married the compl ad malvag
witeens in this case Apral Bay 1906 at Grown Point, indlange
Tt de Gloarty the law of this Btate that, after
duly 1, 1905, whom the act of Say 23, 1965 concerning the
tarriage of @ivereed persona went inte effect, no party te
& divorce, granted for aay Of the ouutes contained in seation
4 of the divoras aet, could sontract o volid marriage (exeept
& Peamurriage to the other party to the divorce) within a
year from the date of the diverge deoree, even though that
deoree tmd been entered price to the time when the act of
ꝛoces took effect. leon, County Gherk v~ Roope, gx xe2_
Buenger, 2) gh, 229 111. 403 Wileom va Sook, 266 Ill. 460,
Prom thie it clearly follows thet, umiar the facte
disclesed, the eomplaining witness wan not the wife of plaim
tiff in error and, Gonsequently, hie eonvietion, under the
infornation in thie case, exnuot be GUS tolnoue
TUDGRENY KEVERGRD,
Aonnn UO TLAW
«MOO TAVLOLRI THT OF
Press tel Ind » 4D ;
i eters mA Thidaia
-80L AI ser
{fu oo oft te Molniqe sit bexpvilos
@ sereTos o2 tvo bowe ean towns to diuw Gint
ommotai na 19 boot ,~toxte af Tiitalalg of Gem Lae Enongguah Py AS
—RXX vite twalie bee YListyrow of fadd boguade doce ookd 9
"LCi ee a LIne dainty ea
mh ttitalaly oft tact? bowasqee 22 goiseurt off JA
Ow gereyet yak evt amo OF bokriae mood ylevotvesy bast wee
qwhroqua od? wk ,80CL .o enwt wd wort woxewlh « besanry aan
a gainiolquon oft bobruom ont dmlt bnew .ytmwer tooo te v0 —
eta tion d aba o’ salah —* o⸗ An LGA aaa De ts nt eaons av de
rode y tats eset atid Ye wak wis “fsaoko wh bi J 5 4 ba
eae aniewonon G@00L , a2 eK Yo fom ext? monty 8085 af — 5
at y¥suaq on ,foeTin ofmd sinew oxeatog Seoxevih te ogedtian J Ar i
moitoon tt baniatnos anew od? te yor Tot bediatg seoxovdl ee
‘dapexe) enehiion bile a fowndaw blow gow eoworab ait wt n —9*
a adels Au (woxevde ort o& yrumg tetdo erie of ogakrisa=% a |
He taut Sysols wove ,eoroed as aar LS eae Yo stab eee most ce
deo fom weld portw oud? OMe of wOleG boxndme nowt aut —
At, 22, .BL00% a¥ Aves elewed .aoade amet pe ‘
oO LAT das wad Ax MomsAN 298 6 SUT Oss ee | is
; uae odd “ob ,tact awollo? yiewelo a2 oka
tafq to etiw off ton sow svonthw yalaltatqaos itt
: ose sohny ,wohtolvnooe etd o vidnonpsencs shee 4
Sontataue ed’ Sonus yoann wkdd ak
.
Oi, i
J 9
CCA TERRY, aes
G47 «© 20985
2
PwTIR Lani
‘ Appellee, ;
% APPRAL FRCH
SUPMRIOR COURT,
COOK COUNTY.
TO weg.’ 198 1.4. 109
BR, JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the courts
This in an action on the case brought by
appellee against appellant, to recover for personal ine
juries, A judgaent was entered for #2000 in faver of the
appellee against the appellant. The partis will be
designated plaintiff and defendant as in the court —
X ασ
_ The facte are theses; April 19, 1910, at about il ot clock
at a a fee
in the forenoon, plaintiff was riding east in Washingten
boulevard, Chicago, on hie bioyele., Washington boulevard
runs @ast and west and is intersected at right angles by
California avenue, As plaintiff reached the intersection
of California avenue, a funeral procession ,consiating of
about thirty carriages was moving north in the center ef
@aid avenue, Plaintiff dismounted from his wheel, waiting
for the procession to pass, and steed near the southwest
corner of the intersection of said boulevard and avenue.
At the time the funeral precession wee passing, @ twoehorse
team belonging to the defendant, with driver and empty wagon,
was going west in Lake street, which rune parallel with
and is two blocks north of Washington boulevard, When the
team reached California avenue, the funeral procesgion was
”
_ MOY TARGA
Jani _ —@ THUG HOLANSUG
oYTHUO % W009
801 -A.I 8 er
wt tiguotd sass ens mo Molson Ha at eist — ee
ont fsncaxeg 19% xoovꝛ oy Ins Lioggn gan ious sottouge hes
ons to L2VaT rie oo⸗aa 40% bor “oa0 al dermal A 09 tH 4 |
od Sikw aoksiag ont —R ald tan tone an * —*
gee gama aatd cdl cry — — baw niaaiata basa r
—— ak sane iin a Mutainse soonen0% nutd a. TS
“brsweiuod 1 —— — in okt ae p00 bet vera an J we
—* aclgns tight ta befooaresné ak bea deou onus ——
« fodso@atedai sis beriones vritatete * —R
J to aiittateson noLensvony Lawoastt e seco pant
to tesa ad? wa stoson griven eaw aogaltise yrakoe
anition footw cid soxt detavonud viubsmtass = J—
anowa⸗auos ents — boots ars | yamog of wo seouo1g ads
sOxmeVE bite brave tuo b dna v0 pektpoaratns nit 1
- @ntodeows o ae tanad enw ears ora paw
‘iqme bas xewtad sgiw 1 Inabaeeb ‘odd of gn
“hw foLtoneg amwe slodste oowite vial ai bem
eae
Dees TNA
we hen
passing north across Lake etreet in said avenue, The
driver, to avoid delay and not being able te pase threugh
the funeral precession, turned south in Califernia avenue
mand drove along the east side of said avenue, the funernd
procession proceeding north about the center of the same.
The evidence tends to thow that ag the team approached
the north side of Yashington boulevard, the last carriage
in the funeral procession was nearing tne south aide ef
@aid boulevard, <A the last carriage approached Yarhington
boulevard, plaintiff meunted hio wheel intending to crese
the avenue and proceed east on Yashington boulevard, He
turned towarde the south to go around the rear of the
last carringe, and then turned east or northemet,. As
he cume around the rear of the lest carriage, de fondant's
team, which was "going south on a fast trot* as one witness
put it, turned to the southwest so as te get on the wert
side of the street, and collided with the plaintiff,
Neither the driver of the team nor the slaintiff knew bf the
approach of the other until they were but a few feet apart.
Both the @river and the plaintiff tried to avoid the
Collision, wut were unmble te de se, The pole of the
wagon wtvuck the plaintiff’ in the jaw and he was thrown
to the pavewent; sustaining an oblique fracture of the
left lower jaw bone, a fracture of the right clavicle,
and he wae otherwise bruised and injured, The driver
stepped the team and asuiated the plaintiff to a doetor's
office in the vieoinity, Plaintiff was in the hospital
for, two: weeks. After the injury he wae unable to work for
about thirteen weeks, When he returned to work he was
unable te properly do hie work on acoount of the injuries.
4
gd Yd weet Thitniely ead ten awed odd to tovlab ot? wottion —
| it li)
pi
/
‘,
J
ane
oct .oxcovn biga vt fears etal eeotee aeven goleang
igeorts eam Oo sive gaiew son bas ywelob biova of ,seviab
auaeve Sintotiied mi dgnoe bewtws ,noivessong Iexenut ot
ieronut off ,ouneve Siow to obta teas oft grote eveth baa
omen edt To tefte odd tvade Gren gatbooootg sotucooong a i
besioaotqgs mae? of3 ae jaid wore of abet sonedtve oft — a
egelitse joal oft ,huaveliwed notgaisdaak To obia dton edt aM “ae \
te obke ddvoe off gihtaen gaw molLenountg fwnnowt ont mk
motgnideaY bedeaoiggs sysitiss dael ous ae —
eeqro of atbrascat Loodtw eid besauom Ttitalwle sbneve ivod 1 ke
oe .biaveinod sotgeides® ae Same beopotg bas eumeve ond a a
.on9 TO teot ec? hawota op oF Mision on? sbiswot bons — See
oA ,cemedreon 1O few bowrtud wed? One ,opakuieo saak q
atsnabaote> .egabiise geal ade Yo tase wd? bayota ems ort
annend fw ore a⸗a "sort goat » mo dives geiog” eaw se hate ,omned tee : :
gaew of? xo tom of om o& daowrsuoR on? OF — ath Jog — mee
etTtisnianfe acd ddie hebiiles bie dowite ead To obie- |
sttaqa teqtowet a gud evee wot (itew wedte od? to dosorqge
| od? blovs of hekud Tritmiato act tae rovers odd M20m
ens to efog eT .0e ob of ofiianw oxow td ~mohekifoen —
mwoudd wow of bes wat oat oi Vildmiols ont dowtee angen
oft to otwtostt supkido an geinistaue pemonsveg wit of 9
selotvals tdylx ens to onmdont?t o eno?! wa, sowed gor |
— GeviTh of? bonus bine bomturd seterorito naw vel bas
a*xoseeh ® of ITitntaly on? boeselaan ben nan ot geet
Satiqson edt at aaw YViktalelt .ybtmlody oii? wb oott 7*
“0t dxow of oldany aew oil wearin oie 109TtA ow fee ayy |
anw od Siow of bowiwter od mode — ihe ,
— *
ee
aa
9
y
cyan? ER
: * at a i
a Ni
easixutai 03 ‘to taweooe no a10¥ alt ob ets y obi mas —
eg be J mh
oSe
Pricr to the acchdent plaintiff was employed as a night
) watchman, doing janiter work and eweeping up the floors
| avound a factory. He earned $12 per week. The case
wae tried before the court and jury, and a judgment
for 92000 war entered in faver of the plaintiff. An
appeal was taken to this court, where the judgment was
j reversed and the cause remanded fet errors of law.
' (164 111, App.38). On a second trial a verdict was
: returned and a judgment entered for the same amount
a q 4g in Saver of the plaintiff to reverse whick this |
appeal in prosecuted,
— — — —
a Se
Defendant contends that the plaintiff did not
exercise due care and caution for his own safety; that
the evidence tends “to show thatthe plaintiff was injured
ag a result of his own negligent conduct." ‘this eo ntene
tion raises the question as to whether the plaintiff was
\} guilty of contributory negligence. This is generally a
question of fact for the jury. (Patterson vy, Ghiseve City
Byun Son. No. 21017, Appellate Court, First District;
Sevbert vs Stirling Bs & Ha Rvs Soo, 157 111. App. 573;
J Ghicnge Union Traction Go, x. Jacobson, 217 11). 404).
J But when the inference of negligence necessarily results
q from the evidence, it becomes a question of law for the’
q court. (Smith vy. . So., 46 111. App, 643;
Ege Ya Ghiouge Sity Bye don, 127 111. App. 510: Jancloie ve
Ghhenge city Ry. Gon, 142 111. App. 439; Retterson ve.
Ghisage Sity By. Goes gupree)- Under all the facts in the
case at bay as disclosed by the evidence, which was cone
flieting, we are of the opinion thet whether plaintiff
) was guilty of o ntributery negligence wae a question of
4
aol) as
tight 4 a6 heyetum® amv TRidniaks smikoom edt of tole
‘exoort ott ay gertqvews bres tow coddnnt, yoseb teenie $0
Sone off ,thew “oq 226 betrede off eetadwist a Manette
tooepbuy|, o aro Yt) ome dtaroe og J 1 7
ak .ttséniale ocd to govel a2 Soustne saw 290Ks oh
sew Trompoul, oft every ,dtv0o ekdt ot meet naw teogge —
‘wai To ete7te TO hedbriames Senn Bis 2
sew gulenov a faked proven « 2 = .{8b.qqA hk sees
imme ome ost 10} Loreto Iosmgdyt e brn. dorus on
Bin? doidw guaeves 06 Tilsmiclg ais covet ad
son HLb Tikdatale edt salt abrodeon Strbro eG
ted pytetws awd aid tek ookteke baw ova oud eolorexe
Sowsbai saw Tbdn tate add date works ag* abned ovanbive *
nation aid *,touhnon tovaitgen mwo ald ‘to tudor
naw Vhiduiely edd tortverw oF am moidaenp eas acntes noid
2 yLinnenyy af aks? .oomeghigon yrotudhatnoe Yo —
— sued oF sono tess) Cowl oid 19% goat Yo 0 ra op
tdedudeda PenkX .dendd takings .WHER cet aoee ce
1008 wag KT ae sith —22 Be ae
o(2O ,1cE VES 42 cubiomtl apa Sn wos |
et Lunes UlLieuror0n oomoy.t Eyes te mescuorco tint od * *
‘edt wot wel Yo noltseup 6 wemosed Sh \esineb2ve oe
580 .qGA . £1 88 4.90 sas a tua) a
aX wholamad 2088 .qqa .1f2 eae radial dal ® «
aK HORTPEIOS [COD .qGA fit Las oa «
eat mk afoat vAd tle tobe. ( gerpauy a) —*
ene Gan se ksh .wemehiite ett vd bemetsakd ox
TRteninsy coded todd moinie ot } te * =
7 * to motzaoup » sine somoytigan | ‘
Am
——— nk
ofe
fact to be determined by the jury (Lang vy. Chis ‘
iis San, 291 [11. App. 664; Sbiergo Union Traction So. ve
Jaocbsen, supra; Batterson Ys Chdeaue Sity By. Gos. guprme)
Defendant further centende that there was no
evidence tending to show any negligence on the part of
the defendant, and that the court, therefore, should have
pereuptorily instructed the jury at the clese of all the
evidence to find in favor of the defendant. The rule as
to when such an instruction ehould be given is clearly
Btated in the couse of bibby, Bgleil) & tibby ve Cook, 222
ill. 20608212, where it is waid; "If there is no evidence,
or but a seintilla of evidence, tending to preve the
Material averments of the declaration, the jury should be
directed to return a verdict for the defendunt. if,
however, there is in the record any evidence from which if
it stood alone, the jury could, ‘without acting unreasonably
in the eye eof the law,’ find that all the material avere
ments of the declaration had been preven, then the cause
should be subsaitted to the jury." In the case at bar the
evidence tends to ehow that, at and prior te the time
of the injury, the team was being driven on a fast trot
and was not under proper control, and it wae conceded by
the defendant that the tean and weson were on the “wrong
Blakleslee's Express Co.v.
wide of the street", In the caue —
— 21% I11, 250, it was held that, while the co wt
would not say that the failure of the defendant to keep
om the right side of the street was negligence per ge,
yet it wae a circumstance which tended to prove negligence.
We “think that under all the circumstances shown by the
evidence and in the light of the above rule, the case
a0 lion
A cased oy aounl) ww oat ud domtozeted od oF tank
aM +90 sotsoast meial gamed) 1960 -quA «ft2 MBE vali Nl
—E— «aid α CETTE Cs schiud amondonal
on aaw oxds tadt ahmetnon doddivt Inabne tod
to ttaq odd so sonegilyeorn yaa words of gatkond —
ovadi b Luoeis ,oietereds ,faveo ot dads be dnabne ted wat Ne
adt Ife to eeoin of ta vuwt odd hotouutant ylinetqueteq
ae elwi edt etnabarstob of? te vovat wi dak? a? comebive
q¢itaeio al mavig ed bisode noddowedatt aa cove nodw oF
S88 ,woo? «¥ te ons add od besada. ‘i
,somebive on ai ovpdd TM sdlen ot 24 @xottw .RLRODOR .LLT
ont ovetq of anibuet ,oomobive to siliguion # tud 70 — cs ‘
of Sivore wat, vc? tot oiakoos out to atemeneve Laktogem =
etl seinabmeteh malt yot toibxov o xxix oo bosooukb J
ti dodde cork goaebive ye broped ond ad ah oral s2ovowort ,
Uidanoceaorny gatvoa suodsint ,biveo yin, sad ,onolas boote a2 «
wtove Laliotow ont Lhe dectd pect? ‘wal et? To oy old ak
gaueo ode aont ,sevoung aeed bait mokdaanioeab ony 29 anon Mig 7
ed? tad da eeao oF nl * yee, ons of bods teewe od bivente a
ots odd of toixg Das to yard ware od abaes eomebive
sors dest o so onviab golod aaw meee ad? ,wurlak ort re i
qi babsonoo sow $4 oem .Londneo seqeny tebaw ton saw bmw
yy
. ‘dl
a
—* east off al — att to ois o i
| 222 AQG COM YLIQon saw sowtsa oct? to obs days ots =
_ ePomegt igen evoXg at bobmwt sto kot sonntamyorko a wow a F
9— —— J
——— ie ts baa’ poneb ave
As ae a, .
a! ¥ : ria 5 i a) : 4 J
oe Sam
was @ proper one to submit to the jury.
A further contention is made that the testimony
of br. Roach, a witness for the plaintiff, was inadmissible,
for the reagon that it appeared from the doctor's testinony
that he first sew the plaintiff on the day of the trial;
that he then made an @¢xXamination of him for the purpone
of testifying; that he never knew anything about the
gape until he mode the examination; that “his opinion was
based upon subjective examination, notwithstanding the
doctor's ¢laim that it was based eltegether upon an
Objective examination,” and that the testimony should
have been stricken cut becaues based upon a subjective
Oxanination, The testinony of the dector clearly shows
that his opinion was based upon objective symptoms, He
made « digital examination and found anong other things
a “depression in front of the angle of the left lower jaw
bone," and a "false joint® in the clavicle. it is further
urged that what was said between the doctor and plaintiff
during the emamination was inudmissible., An examination
of the record shows that this was brought eut by the
defendant cn cresveexanination, The dector's teatiaony
wae properly admitted, ity of Ghicage ve 227
Ili. 143 Groinke ye Ghicaco City By. Go. 234 111. 564,
The defendant also sontende that the court
improperly limited the ¢roeseexamination of the plaintiff,
the complaint being ae shown hy the record: "Mx, Behans
How many chdldyen have you? A i got three Livings
— Qe Want are the ages of the children who are living?
The Court; 2 don't see why you should go into that.
: wie
yromisues ois tact eban of nottaeswon — —— — —— ae i vie
_sidieaimbant asw ,2Lisnlaly edt 16% aswntiw o Hoaok *
yroulseos atzofoob ed mort betaeqqa 4 — rosa out *
giaits oft To yd on? mo Thhtmlela ot? wan etsy od ot
snoqiug one xO? min Yo molsaniaaxe oa Shae eat * tat
od? dueds gaididyne weed seven ed tact gauiykivaeg te —
aaw noinkqo eid" $edd gnoitanimexe of3 ebam oii —
odd gribaotadsivion ,nolianinexs evivoetdus aoqs boaad it :
nn wocw tentepotia beaed eaw th jad? mialo atneseeh— |
J biueda yromttee? eft Jal? one % M0 Lins Lome —— F
¥ evisooldve # moqy beead eeunood Jue motiotate aeed yee fey:
—* swore yitaclo rosooh ed Yo ymamktaee ont 9h an ks ih a
esuotgaya ovisoetde moqs bewad saw 2OREED rs sade “J i
agnids sedio goomm bawet dna mo lianimame tod bgkh ae Aas
wat, towel Sto ox? Yo efgns eds te Saoxt af cotunecgen? *
xodtust oh $1 snlotvede oie of "Qatol ealat” ban
Ttisnialq bus weteeb ons neowied bisa aaw daviw ⸗⸗na⸗
foktanimaxe aA -pitiwedmbend ean noLtoniname ot au
J co on hg nt ae en ae a
viontdade afxotecd edt .nokvarinaxomnsoxe a ——
TSS XIAO o¥ Mane lus Be wise canes —
oh02 4ST PES 2D sill WEAR Onan dde aX sulatemD get <7
a4
siu00 odd tad? ebmotneo oala — Bey.
q%thtaialy eit to mols an! mexneesorD ote bovanat % —*3
imate .cM" ghidees on@ yd owore os —R phe =a
egitvil seri? fon l A tay erat wre it
Tgalvil exw ow sexbLics ett Yo sone *
eta ofmi oy bivorte wy 7 re iva
age —
J
‘ae
.
oy
—
—9— }
UA
0 Oe
Six. Behan: If oaunsel will admit they are not mincre ««
I would like te have the records show there are no
children dependent upon Mr. Larson for supoort,." The
eourt wefuaed te perwit further erouseqxanination and
was clearjy correct in so doing,
The gontention in aleo made that the oourt
erred in giving inetructiom “os. 6 and 9, on behalf ef the
plaintiff, Instruction We. 6 consiated of three paragraphn.
It defined *ordinary care” and *negligence® os used in
the inetructions, ani told the Jury that if they believed
from the evidence that the plaintiff was injured and
sustained damages ap alleged in the declaration or seme
count thereof, “while in the exercise of ordinary care*
4¢ wae their duty te find a verdict. in faver of the \plaine
tiff, The objection is that the instruetion "limita the
exereiog of ordinary care om the part of the plaintiff
to the exact. time thet the collision occurred," ‘The
first paragram of the inetruction defined “ordinary care"
as that dagree of care which a rengonably prudent or eave
tious person before and at the time in question weuld take
to avoid the injury under like clreumetances." Similar
language was uned in two different paragraphs of intrude
tion Re. 7, 9— 4t appears thet the jury were instructed
that, before the plaintiff could recover, the evidence must
phew that before ang at the time of the injury complained, of
plaintiff was using ordinary care for his own safety.
Furthermore the objection urged to the language “while in the
use of ordinary cere” ic untenable. St. Louje Met. Stock
Yards ¥. Godfrey, 198 111, 298; 2. SA. Re Be Go Me Lisher,
141 11. 614; Pupeter’ ys Guicego Gity By. Gon, 146 Ill. App.
bow
mle
oo gions Sow ote yorld Simbe (fiw foomyeo TL goede .1zt
on etn oie? wore abiene: od ovat of ett bivow I
ext ",tteqqve «ot weetal oc noqw drebaeqeb aeghEido
sna soivanionxeesness verti? tineeg o¢ Seagtex Peweo
+yhob on wh goowxes Yfianip saw
Pan ode tac? gban cain &h medsantnce off
on? to Bhacted se 0 See 8 .e0" @Qoltourdend gaivag a2 boete
arigatyeted vei? to hodekenoe @ .cF modgoustenk 4 Ttitaialg
ai boaw as Yeokegtioon® ban “exes yiniethre® homkteb st
bevoiled yeds bi foolt yout ec? bLot ono ,amolsouusant eds
bow betwtat ao Yekdeiale ons tele edaobhes ott mott -
enoe <0 aolivataines 402 «i beyetic as seganeh boniaveue
organ vamyibto to eaiorone of? wi oLisw” , tenredd Sanco
tieig, ait te rove? ai tobbtsv a bai? oF web tiede omer.
edt athounl® notdoursemt ot? faded ed oo idoe pao wet™~ .tRld
Tiitnial; ot ta ding of) wo step yReeibie te eedowexe |
edt “.~betswone metniiles wis tents eats stoump elt of |
ereo gtanibie” bonttss notterideani oag to myatyomeg ged?
uso TO tnebyig yYldwnoanet » cokdw ota Yo oryeb tal? an
. ailag bivew nelfeeup wi exit o@ ca tae oxeted woaveq awoke
talint®s “esenetaavotin offi vibe yhebed one piowa os|
eouxsank Lo aiqacyerag trewwTith owe at poow now spawpret
hotowtieri ecew yw eds soc? araeqqe df oe Ff of molt
foum somebive ond ,teyeosy dices thiimieala eft oroted ads .
to besielamon waetint odd Yo omit odd da poo oreted tony wedg>>
“\soton nwe ald Ot oxen yaantbro gotten gow Videlale
Pen sonnet oe —
#2012 «toh alu Ge .okdanerw of “wus0 yeankore to eam
RUA aX +O +A -A -AS -Q 1008 «S11 BCL sy ReOR ox abzat
GA Aft O84 ax Septeny (ete eR
SS a
ao "Pas
$78, The samc lenguage wee used in an inotruction
6mG the seme contenticon was made in each of the above
easen anc in gach ¢f them it wae hcid that the lancuage
wan not subject te the chjeetion now meade,
ineiruction Se. 9, givan aa behelf of the
Plaintiff, #o far as material, was ae follows; "The
gourt instruats the jury that the statute lew of tie
State of ULilneis provider that whenever any persone
traveling with carriages onall meet om any turmeike,
road or any public nighway in this ctate, the persens
a6 meeting hall «henever practiccble, e¢nseonstly turn
their saxyringes te the right of the beaten treck, 20 ae
te persit each Gerriage io pass without interfering er
interrupting.* thie is wubsteantially in the Language
.— of the statute, whieh in designated as the "Law of the
Road" 5 3, & Ay Statutes, Chappe 101, fee. 77, PHe H7F5LW 30054.
The objection urged fe thet the instruction is ae: applicable
te the facte ef the case, “eoneeding that the instruction is
Vvbad, yet it is well established that met every erroneous
instruction wiil constitute reversible error. If the inetruce
tion tended to mislead the jury, tue errer im giving it is
reversible; but, if, upon axamination of the entire regerd, the
Peviewing cours can gee from ith¢ nature of the sase that it had
ho such tendeney, though improperiy given, it will afferd me
ground of reveraal, United States Belling utosk lo.y. Zilder,
116 Iii, 100; Zontacue vy. People, 141 Til, 76. The facts
in the ease as disclosed by tne evidence were not complicated,
but wore simple, and we ore of the opinion thet the inetruce
=
nokgouriuml a of bee sow Opevgaed oe oft =6.OTU
oroda edt te ring, at shaw mew cobtmedmoo gases old baa
oneigral of? tacts ind aav 3h cord To soae AA oom eoeRO |
ethan war solesetwo off of toe gue bes aoe
ast ‘te tieded sa gevky .8 .o% coktounéunl
oxiT® rawefiet ae ear ,Lobregen an tet ou , TRagekadg
ot to wal o¢etate ond fade yumi one efewstand Piveo
Siuntey yu wevenods tact anbiverg siomiifl To aiers
pwilmeinye yrs wo fpr con atiqo at dw wet Lo vernd
erway, oh yeeots cht ch youetpal ohiduq ye go baer
veut gidanceaos ,oldmeivoaug tevaneds [hedw geek Pent oa -
ae on ,aosrrd cedesd ofa Ye delger wee of ey ccd ude
t¢ weirs tisded poaediw anag oJ eyabrina Aone thors as
egampind att mt ‘elinbinetadun ad aap? % yds queen ded
oft 30 wal" orld am hotwayiaen et cde iebw ,odudatea oad To ~~,
edoedTaLETE oq TT oot , 200 gash aniuiegs ab ak a *baon
eideotiagn ‘on ci motiountean. off fot si boguy moltootdo aut?
al moktosndoni odd todd yeihanmal oon ost Ye afoul es of
auoonoTs® yteTe fon Jace vedeifdetes Liew at #h doy had
eoursont eff TX teres ofdbexovet
eh Si getteiy mt ts oxne wis oe ont baxe Sedo os pobre nots
ae ,buapes sxiies ons Yo wo heated SO gas oti ted yodd baxovos
ak th gold ono ot Yo eran ost awed een ant ftean: wikweives
on ixette Liv th ,aaweg WHiagengelt damost , your ond down on
sTODLIT +X.) ApadE welded geaeds Werke) sInerevor te bavory
‘Aton? ont ah Li EME .edageS ox guamtaae 190% +14 OEE
sbetsoliquee ton stow sonebhve ead yt boaetsath as Senn ont oon
eoutdant edt Jos melmigo od? 16 ote ow baw ,oiquie otew gud
8
a0 Gon
tion did not tend to wislead the jurye
The defendant further contends that the court
erred in refusing te give instruction Ho. 15, requested
on behalf of the defendant. That instruction told the
jury that the preponderance did not Lie ealely in the
greater number of witnesses, but that the greater number
of srediblie witnesses on the one side er the other on any
disputed point was proper te be cofsidered in determining
the question ef preponderance, that in determining the
question, the jury might also take into cuntideration the
position cf the witnesses at the time ef the ueeident and
*everything which appeala te your Judguent as affecting
the value and reliability of their testimony," In our
opinion this instruction wae sroserly refused, for the
reason that it was minleading. It enumerated cortein
things proper to ve considered by the jury in determining
the matter of the preponderance of the evidence, but did
mot lenve the jury free to consider all the evidence intro=
dugedg and 11 the facts and circumetancen in evidence, in
determining where the preponderance or greater weignt ef
the evidence lies, (guicaze Union Izsction go. Ye Huspe,
R223 fll. S473; Brisch ve Soicuro City Bye Soas 176 Jil. Apps
341; Biers veo Bullies Go., 176 Tl]. App. 49; Smith vy, James,
263 iil. App. S02.) ‘The objeeticn to the inetruction in the
Gage at bar, which we have discussed, seems not to have been
made in the case of Ghicage Gity By. So. Me Seborme, 105
Till. Appe 468, cited by defendant.
The defendant mext contends that the dumages
ave excestive, The evidence tenis te show thet the plain»
wile
yal ed? Booleku at bees fon béb mols
t1wo0o edt teat ahaeteos wwaleawt smabeiw tod oat
botaeupet , Ql .of moktdomseant evig of geek tort nk orien
ont blot nolsowrtant tac? .tanhweteh ent Ye Baded mo
ens ni yietor wit fon bib o comeaehneqeny salt tau⸗ owt
tide wetacny eff fart Jad ,weneond le to eedtiues —R
yts GO corte exe 4a abin ono odd GO aunri bw wldhbern ‘to |
wiinincedeh at bexwiiagon ed of TayoT saw dutou oeduqate
orid ailaleroson a tate? goomsrobrogerg to aottaoup ona
ecit J “6 iplomoo ofat exled cote Fog ton gust ont s1oidaswp
bene Jae 7— @ de to amt) off ta seenentiw add Yo noid taog
yuidoe't ta: oT) Sermmpiint 12% of efavage dodiiw wird yore"
two nl ",utositgaed tiocs Yo Yiilidesler win utay ould
and? tot ,hventor yiueunne @ak ackdiowtdams was to keediyo
niesieo betoreoine 71 -otibse leben ‘aa oi jak? monsox
qgoinimiseteb al wut oat yi boushbisnos ed ef 1wqorg eyaias
bid Lud ,wonebive aS te eonmrebmeqesy o49 Bo tessan oz
#t3ni oousbive oft Ife webianson of got? ysal of? oveel ton
mi ,eocehive ak sounstemupzic bee ato st of ifs bas gbooub
to diglow rwsaexy 79 eonntobmeqer¢ cag exochy gottaderseseb
25063 aX QD aehtoens mosel gusn kip) «ankt vomobivn edit
eGGA +iit SVL sy9D oM ULAD ouenddd oe Mestad gVOe . 140 Ose
HOGG oY dike 7@> .qoA . fl ORL gogh ameey ytbs
odd mi mottowzdamt edt of molifoetde oft (.£98 wgqd stern bak
Novud svat of son sueos ,hbeonupelh sveci ow Moldw ,tad Fa eean
Sof ,ggzoda® 2¥ »22 svi ats) SameddD to eenp od md aban
otrabastes yf Besto O95 saga oLII
acganah of? tads shosdnoo txen Inabiotoh out
etiafg oft stadt wos of abies consbive edt ,evieunoxe ot
*
Sue
tiff sueteined a fracture of the left lower Jew, a
fracture of the oollar tone, several bruises on different
parte-of the bedy, was sbeut ten days in th: howpitel,
and was umier treatment for two ox three montha,. At the
time of the second trial (more than feur yeers after the
aosident) neither the collar bone nor the eLavicle had
unitec, Plaintiffs face in diefigured, aud the doctor
testified that in hie opimien the condition of the jaw
bone and the claviele iu permanent. The care has been
gubnitted te tre Juries and a verdict for 82,000 was
rendered each time in favor of the plaintiff, These
verdicte have been appreved by the trisl judger, and in
eur opinion @eubstantial juetice han been done, The
judguent of the Guperior Court will therefore be affirmed.
AVPIREEE
an ow
& swat towel Piel oa? to wuctoos? o bemiatawn Ths
soewws tie ao sevined! fevewen ,enod sallen ade Bo Nu daru⁊
intiqued esd at eyed seg tucds saw ,ybod end Tocedtag
odd $A ,ectron send? co owe to? Seenturts “oma saw baa
ocd xodtn etmey ano? cade otom) Lect buvope ett te oaks
bad sivtvags odi) con onod tallow ont sadtion (anmbhoom
Sofeeb ett oan ,betgtieth at eoat afftivatal ood how
wat, of TO molgkbmon od? matmiqu eid oh dmelt boRRhtaed |
aged nad sean att —teenmmiag af ekokvado oat baa saod
now OO-,84 tot sokkvoy « ins sokuet owt af bots hotun
orem? .tthentals off to tevat at amhd doa bore bHet uy Ms
si bae ,woghyt fstu¢ odd yt bevesqqe sped owed atolouer
ad .enoh cawnd eat opidant, Jai¢natadua moigiqo er)
— od eretoredt Lhkw gawol tokueque old Io sSromydet,
eM SOTA
ee ee
115 = 210389
OWEN EB. VAUGHN,
Plaintiff Error,
RRKOR TC
CLRGUIT COURT,
GOOK couNTY,
GitY cF cH
t in Error,
198 L.A. F14
MA, JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinien ef the courts:
The writ of errer in this case seekn to review
the judgment of the Cireuit Court ef Seok County in suse
taining a demurrer to a petition for a writ of mandamus,
and dismissing the petition at plaintiff in error's costes,
The parties will be designated as petitioner and respondent
ag in the court below,
The petition alleges, in substance, that respone
dent is a municipal sorperation; that on April 18, 1881, its
@ity ceuneil passed an ordinance “which ereanted an executive
cdepartnent, * * * knewn as the police department which
eubraced and created * * * positions or employment of patrole
men «nd Other employees as may be provided by ordinence;* .
that owing to the grewth of the respondent it became necessary
to employ carpenters te rencdel and buila police stations,
ete.; that each year the oity counei), passed on annual
—— ——— Ordinance, appropriating meney with which
te i ile to be employed in the police department;
that the position or eaployment of carpenter in the police
tort Teel
OF ROBE
eTHUOD TIVOALO
o¥?THVOS 4900
eto ol Soe
ATT AT 2er
ttm oo ons to moimise ots bonews Lob goo" * ae
—
— *—
—V—— * ne
woetves of mivonw aaao aint td —X ‘te dice te ae
———— te thew a Wt moldivey @ at — a.
»8FG00 —— nt ——“ ten — * hae ken
smoqeey Jans .onnagadun a , sounds — ott 4 a ; ‘
Gtk ,206L ,8L LargA mo test gembdorogze. —— rs
sviguesxe an dpteere soldw" gunsmiove co beste: **
flo Siw trend xngod en inn ene an avon & ey
wlortag to smemyotune 40 anoitiacg —* von
'*{oonaniiue yd bebivesg ad ———
(sacaonen ovine! yi ink: sane siied ods to...
(— pmatxayed eotiog odd at = ein
Wo hiog ost au — a
doles a whe
Aan La —
© — ty ; “aah —53 a
Hen J Moy hay ‘ ee ae
Sie) i : ibs — OB a
lle
Gepartuent was regularly calesified by the Civil
Service Commission; that for more than two years section
1908 of The Chicago Code of 1911 was in ferce and effect
in the Gity of Chicago; that “said section created various
offices of the police department,* * * and oreated such
other employees as the city council in ite annual approprinae
tion ordinances hereinafter provide for;" that by
ordinances the council appropriated money for the payment
of six carpenters; that the petitioner took the eivil
service examination for carpenter of the police department,
duly passed and qualified for such position, and entered
upon his duties as such, June 20, 1896; thet in 1914,
the petitioner sued the respondent in the Municipal Court
of Chicage for salary or wages due and ewing to him prior
to November 28, 1913, setting up the foregoing facts; that
said court "adjudicated that petitioner * * * was entitled
to recover because of the emistence of said facts as heree
to fore alleged herein and respondent herein is by the
eeic judgment of the Municipal Court as aferesaid estopped
from denying of disputing the foregoing facte;* that
petitioner has not violated any lew or ordinance prescribed
by respondent or by the civil service act; that Noveuber
15, 1915, the superintendent of police filed charges against
the petitioner with the Civil Service Commission; that said
Charges were set for hearing November 26, 1913, before
"the police trial board, which trial board consisted of
civil service commissionera, Flynn and Lower, and one Herman
¥. Schuettler, First Deputy Superintendent of Police;" that
said board was constituted in accordance with the rulee and
regulations of the Jommigseions; that the petitioner and his
Counsel were present at the time and place mentioned for paid
hearing, and thereupon the matter was continued until Seveuber
| soy i
oie
Livi odd val Doktaeuleo yYltaluaet aew Jnemiaaqed
neigoes sieey owed nadd wron wot fare pooteadamd op ive’
toette bra ore? mi enw L1@f To shoo onan tad oo? Ye B0@L
ayoltay befteor soigsea blaa” sadt payesidd To writ ent as
down Segacyo bas * * *,Juomstageh eoiiog add Te annktte.
esisqotags Lounwe atk at Lioawoe Yio on? en nooyelqne tanto
ed Jatt? "gi0t obivexsq 19ftaniessd osonenkbre mokd
inenyaq ods 10) yonom bedaliqorggs Ltonmyoe orld asogen lero
Livto ed dood temeisixzaqg ont tact potesneqisn kha to
einemiageh sokfeg eff te tefasqran sot woldanimexs selvace
botetne Sre ,woidievq dowa wot Solktiiasip baa boawag Yue G
ePL@L ma tari? 72ORL OR onwh ,Mowe os avkewh add moqe
faved Laginioun! ode ai embaoqe2ot sift bawe s8em0lsthieg edt
soitq mii of gnivo bae ob eogew to Ytakee 10? ogsoddd to.
sacs jafost gaiogetol ens qu gaitvoe ,€£@L . 88 sedmevol et
belii¢ne aew *® © * veneisited tads botaotbyyba® Moo bhaa
ered aa afost bias to eonetaine ocd? le sauaoed tevenes of
ons ui ei nhowwd Snebmogest. bas mivtesl bogelia ero ot
beqqoses blazoicta sa give0 Lagioluus eff to tmompbel Sine
tant “sed0at gukogerot oft guidugeih 20 gabyed mort
bedizogerq voasnibie 10 wal wre bedaLoiv fon enti xemoksiseg
awodueved Sais zaoa eotvies Livio of) yi to savbaogest vw
Santana aegtado bait scitog to guebmetaiuoque odd ,O£0L ,€L
bisa Jadt gnoltagiomod oy ivxe? — od Aghw tenoitigeq ed?
oteted ,EL@f ,a% todmever yxtiaed vot sou tow ——⸗
—— ont
name eno baa ,tewod dua sury,f% ,Gr9mo dee kowioe ovivrsa fivio
fant "soollow to — onesnsregue yong | saris — to {agourtod x
baa avine odd tiw somabtooss wt betas tganco ow irnaed ‘Shen
add ben sonolsizog ad tact pao Loe Limarot outs * * *
<ot benoisaom ooslg bas omts odd 38 nasty osow & a
ua hemes Bene bee he Pre aren Pa |
Ln, ie Ral
«Se
28, 1915, at which time petitioner and his attorney
again appeared before the beard; that commissioners
Flynn and Lower were presenta the beginning of the trial;
that esid Schuettler avpeared before ail the evidence
was heard and gat as a part cf the bomrd vmtil the end
of the trial; thot after the hearing wae concluded, the
board tock the onpe under advirement; “that sald trial
board has not yet made any findings ox reported ite findings
to the Civil Service Sommienionj;® that the minutes of the
Comuisesicn cf November 23, 1913, state that the charges
were heara by the Civil Service Commission on that date,
and thet tae Comulesion found tne petitioner guilty and
Ordered that he be removed from the service of the city;
that such order was void in that the case was heurd by
the trial board; “that the Civil Service Comminsica as
a commission, did not hear the chargea;" that the petie
tioner made demand for reinstatement which was refused;
that *ne ordinance was ever paased by the respondent
which in exact words creates the peasition or euployment
of carpenter.* The petition was afterwards amended, A
demurrer wae sustained, and tse petition as anended was
Gismiesed at petitioner's costs. This writ of error
followed,
The petitioner contends that (1) he has shown
by his petition the legal existence of the office or
position of carpenter of the police departuent; that he is
entitled thereto, ap he was ill¢gally discharged by the
Civil Service Commission, the argument being that se the
ease was heard before the police trial board, that board
should have reported te the Civil Service Commission befere
said Comaiesion eould legally enter an order discharging him;
te |
worsosta eid hao tmoivideg emis aoitw sa (ESOL 08 *
eterelagionos jam pghised wis oaobed bechogus miaye
pieict of? To yrinaiged of? mameso1g orew sewo.l one yee
somebive ead Lis »xetad bereeqqe xoLdeudiod bina tate
hoe edd fitaw buaod’ ef? Bo veg A te tan baw bucad tow :
di ,bebuloweo wow geitwed wild vad ha twit pSakea ont to | i :
fait bina sacs” ;Soemeaivbs t8bmw somo ont done ‘praed ——
egribalt ati begisvgss co apribaii yas ebam dey dont aan bined |
ott to aosunie pas sadd “yaoleetamoe? ovivae® Livkd 4d of |
aoyrtaiy at? tasid Giada ,€101 ,dS awdmevell Ye notmakmmod
eeead fads av to Lan tneedieeleces LiwiQ @alg ee aiaed oxew i ‘ 2
re Ying Xoarisitog ond bavvd ho baa Laskot ened Sauls bas” fu Ls
syio off Lo seivuss ou⸗ Moth devas ed od tadd borekto a
WW dived caw Seno ont Jods Mh BLev sew iebt0 Mowe stadt |
86 colawieiod soivasd Lived ont Sarit* poiwod Laird ont ;
ekiey ens ind? "geeqtads ene aod Jon bIb —
jhsavtox aew holiw Iunmedadentet 10% based obam tone |
frebmoqast odd yd beasuy Tee mae eonenthee on? — Rei
inenyolqm to volstkeoy edt sateen abvew doawe ob * at
A ,bobnoae shrewrotie eow apividog onT * redamqenn Io ‘
aw pobnome am acidlisow ond San ,benlet sue saw orb —9
tors» to siaw ula? .atoon attenstsisey ta boeelnelh —
—X amt ov (£) sass abten an on romolsitog ot |
6 eo dhe pats to sosedaixe Lagel oud ——— J i
ai oe tant geneatiaqed eekiog one Yo Tesueqias To ꝓag
oxit xd begtadouth Yllege ti, sew ‘ast aa sotonanit b
edd an aan⸗ gaied snamugta oid » fod wa — okvee dive
ao⸗ said ,braod Labi? eodLog ad sxot0d bised sew 9200
7 exeted wo tan deanod sotvnad Livi ost 08 besroger vm ‘wo
gust witgtadonth tobe ma x9dme yLLayet biuoo 3
and (2) the judgment entered by the Municipal Court,
wherein he was awarded his salary or wages ox carponter
is res adjudicate of the legal exinatenoe of the office
or pesition und his right: therets.
A perseu seeking reinstatement by a writ of
mandamus must show the legal existence of the office er
position, hic slear right te the effice, and the cuty
on the pert of the respondents to perform the act sought
to be enforced. Boom We Mayer, 214 11, 405 Bullis v.
Gity af Chicano, 235 111. 472 gerseh vy. City ef Shicaxo,
250 111, 551; Hicklane ¥. City of Chicago, No. 20699,
Appellate Court, First Diet.; Flynn ve City sf Chicago.
Bo. 20641, id. ALi allegations in the petition thet
— are well pleaded are admitted by the demurrer, ere
ce @onclusions of the pleader, hawever, are not so admitted,
} The p@tition avers that the city council passed an ordinance
| “which created an executive department * « * known as the
police department" and which ereated such other peritions
or cupleyment "as may be provided by erdinance,” The
yespondent contends that the office or position to which
he seeks reinstatement is created by ordinance, and as it
Wat necestary to establish the legal existence of the office
Or position, this could be dene only by pleading the ordie
nances relied upon. Whether such ordinances ereated the
office or position was a question of law, ‘Yhe petitioner
did mot set up the provisions of the erdinances nor the
L- substance thereof, but simply hie conclusions that the
effice or position was eetablished by the ordinances, The
L petition was clearly demurrable, guinn ve City of Chicage,
178 Til. App, 115; City of Ghicagovs, Gray, 210 ili, 84;
wd Laqlotaull odd wl beredne dnemgbul, way (s) Bae
tH HOQtso Bs Boge To Yindae ald bebvewe aos of aterode pe)
#okTie od) ‘io ocnednixe fegel off Be — Lee Bee ek me
Laroredd udigix ote oo motehaeg 16
poe J
to tiaw “ yd sgeomedetenion priiiiees gorieq A
<9 eostie ont To someteixe Lagel edd woiie Jamn @iaunbme
Yew erit here ook? te edd oF clata wae de aha nett haog
thguee fom of? mtotireq of afaobeoqgess 45 To ta⸗g oes no
Oa ge . fit Ds ARM aX Boas sboorotne od of -
songets® 2o UZ ok dommes STP 4151 88S .ppaad> de xekD
CQBOK OK .Ananks Lo veto we Qowdiod (02 .Lfr 08s - *
PASS EL gedakG sarki , duo etek Seqak —
dads mois*keon oi? of saokdmaptia f2A 4 £0008 ot 9—
eh ,tentumd eff vet badeimba wie pobsetq Liow *
—QERRR on son one stevewsn ,weheetg os * attod |
woman ta OOS Rant —XRX yiko oaz $ aud — — 2**
ett belaors oomentbe to un xoska oe effOqu wea 3 mor) a
tenolsigog oAv wind be so a aaw — “ —* —XXX
OHS Sor! anoiewtowoo okt yLqamia dud —
———— yd boda tidades av mbt keoq <0 t
eons) 20 WED a sake .efderwemd Yuneto aaw molted
ꝛꝛ8. LT OLS . Kad evguend Yo whe 18 .¢ |
abe
Kenneally ve. Gity of Ghisage, 220 111. 485.
/ The petitioner ecaitende that the order removing
him from the service of the city is void, the argument
being that the evidence te sustain the sharges Tiled
against him before the Civil Service Commineicn wap heard
by a triel beard consisting of three meuhere, two of whom
were Givil service comuiesioncrs, but thst in the hearing
of eaid evidence, the three were sitting as a tricl board,
and none ef them wos sitting as commissioner, Practically
this same gontention was made in the case of Hbifeldt ve
Sity of Ghicaco, 199 111. App. 610, where it wee held thet
the contention wae opposed to both reason and authority;
that the civil service act was not intended to bea intere
preted in eny such narrow fashion. Also the civil service
act provides, See. 1, that twe ef the civil service come
miseioners shall constitute o quorum; Sec. 12 of the tame
act provides that noetfieer or exploye in the elassified
eivil service shell be discharged except upon written
charges after hearing; that eaid charges shall be investie
gated by the Civil Service Gomsission, or some other officer
@r beard appointed by the Comuisesion; that tie finding or
decision of the civil service commissioner or investigating
board, when approved by the Commiesion, shall be certified te
the appointing officer. In the case at bar, two members of
the trial board were civil service commisnioners, and it would
be an absurdity to say that they should report te themselves.
Bhlfelet yy City ef Ghicase, supra; Lhomes vy. Citizens
Horse Hy. So., 104 11, 462; Lawrense ve Xranex, 156 f1l.
474, The contention of the petitiorer isuntenable.
44
20D LL ORR SLAB Sama am
guivenss site oft tadt abuetwo coneitioeg oat —
swenmyin of ,biew wi Yoho aie to go dyaes ont oat mbit i
beLit esytade odd Bingaue of evarhive oid Yael gecko thet)
dimen saw 034 an Laatob wolvae8 Livkn odd oxohod seb senlene
wore 20 ows ywtedima aerdd Ye yuitatenco buaed Lalst = yd
gtiawed sid a2 dod dud ,etpmalsetomen we ivree ikvap omnw
edisod isix? » aa gniitie svew aowt att OOK Dae bias ‘te
senators ontiselawom am gritein saw oedt to enon bes
aX abisVine to anso ou⸗ at sban saw soldmeseoo ona re
fend Sind oow tt ornate .OID sqGk .cET B8e some ide as ebb *
{Witetsvn bas measen fed of aoaocee aay noLsnesaon odd —
satni ov at bebnetnt Tom aaw fom aniwvera Livio at sats ‘
soivier iivio wait oats olmnt woman doo vam ad bosorg a ‘
wisn eolvine Livio ect te ows tasty A — X ios 7 oh
enas of to BL .oeo purrony a adutizance IfLede atonelenin pe
boltianaie odd mi ayoigew 10 TeokTIe wn Fads asbivesg 30% an:
asdiluw noqe dyooxe hegtaincib od Liada solveon tivke —
eisnoval ed [fats eogtads diee tot zweit Ahre tod%s aogrtads —*
ro Auäο todso enon 10 ,modewtamed eoivied LivkD ond yt botay
TO QALBALT oid Jacks proinmtomed odt yd bedalogga duaed 16 i *
guitayisaewni 10 iancianiowon voivasa Livio ag? te noletood — a
ef boltivieo ed Iisda ,wotauimem? ost ye bevonggus morte —
BOORALAD oV mama? iaugue An vid J re)
2441 OSL . yom, ay semua ghdd . ff BOL , co)
-2idaneinual t0lsi¢eoq odd te ——— ¢ ‘J rh
6
The further ¢ontention of the potiticoner that the
judgment entered in his faver by the “wnicipal Court for
salary prior to November 25, 1913, is ges adjudicate of
the ies] existence of the effice er pow ition he is now
setking and his right therete, cannot be maintained,
Yor aught that appears from the petition, the judgaent
in that oase may have been rendered upon the ground that
the petitioner had performed the services for which he
was seeking pay. Yurthermore, we have thio day reverged said
judgment of the Municipal Court. We have carefully examined
the record and are ef the opinion that the demurrer was
preperly sustained, and the petition as amended dismissed,
The judgwent of the Circuit Court of cook
Gounty will, therefore, be affirncd.
APTIAEND.
wn dw
oi Sait sonoitiveg oad t¢ molinegnos soreiut ont
“0% dxwod Laqiotowi edt yd tovet aid ai botetas sInompbel
to afeotoutbs sox ek , GAG , 88 sodwevel ot coltq yretae
won ef of moldleog te aollie efs te sonetaime faped ont
ehoniodnian od Jone ,ofoir)ed? digix aid bee gateiege
ireaghwt edd ,nxotviteq dt sort exaeqgn tatt figua tot
fedd bawxotg ocd moqy boxwbaet aged even Yau ouse date mk
en doldw sot wooivaes exit boarretceg bart ono La tavsa oud
bias hbestever yYeb oidteval ow ,oremediael . yey goddewa aa
bomimane yiluietse evad eo tied Laygioinsl edt to Jnoopbul,
aaw contend odd tai? ooiniqo edd to ote bem Dkeves adit
eheantswih behaama as noltiteq of bme ,honwtatame yfireqorq
ave! te diwed sheowk ott to Sooaghyl, ot
ehoushtts ef ,oreteveds ,ilte wau0d
|
oO TTA
}
246 = 21227
PETER Ey and VINCENT
DI CICCO, for use of Peter
Christofano,
Defendants in — dA ERROR TO
F
3 ) MUNICIPAL couRT
vs. 5 )
% ) OF CHICAGO,
% a
WILLIAM ANTON and JAMES ANTOM — | & 1
4 . irr | 198 1.A. 1 >)
Plaintiffs in #rror,
%
%
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICK GRIDLEY DELIVERED THS OPINION OF THR COURT.
This writ of error was sued out by James Anton to
reverse a judgment for $158.85 entered by the Municipal Court
of Chicago against him and William Anton. On March 11, 1915,
on motion of defendants in error (plaintiffs), the statement
of facts contained in the transcript of the record was stricken
therefrom, and the alleged grounds for reversal are based upon
the common law record,
The action in the Municipal Court was against
William, Nick and James Anton, doing business as Anton Bros.,
defendants, and only William Anton and James Anton were served
with process, Plaintiffs’ claim was for the sum of $158.85
upon an account stated and for merchandise sold and delivered,
It appears from the summons that the defendants were directed
to appear in the Municipal Court on a certain named day to
answer unto "Peter Christofano." James Anton entered his
appearance and filed an affidavit of merits in which he denied
that he, individually or jointly with his co-defendants, had
ever purchased any merchandise from plaintiffs, or had ever
stated an account with plaintiffs. William Anton did not
appear and was defaulted. The court found the issues in favor
of plaintiffs, assessed plaintiffs' damages at the sum of
$158.85, and entered judgment against William Anton and James
rests · des : 4
THAOUTV bas OWATOTSIAO AaTEE
reted to say tot ,OODIO Id
( A⸗t J
OT HOsisH \TOTT at etnabme'ted * a
THUOD IAGLOTMUN ; |
— rt av - ‘7
sODADIHD YW | |
\ ?
fel AI Ber} WOTHA SSMAL bos YOTHA MALLIZW
— X0 ak eTtigniels
fHU00 RHY YO WMOLNTHO ANT GUMAVIGUGC YEUCIAD BOTTEUL oMTaTeana . AM
ot ncinA vsomd yd tuo beve esw torte to sia eLAT is
siv0oS LaeqioinnuM odd yd bexvetme ¢&,801% stot inompgbyt, — server
e8LOL LL Morail m0 .motnA mstlity bao mis tenisye ogaotad to
tnemetasa ont ,(a@ttitnielq¢) torve mi atnsbasteb to notsom so
nedioiite asw broset vad to tqitoeneit edt ak benked noo etoet Yo
fous beasd sis Isetevet 16t showorg begelia edt bus ,motteteds
-brooet wel mommoo ent
Seniayes usw tivo) Leqtotnut aAt oat mottos ext
¢-8010 modmA ee aeeniaud gniob ,notmA seme bas Asti ,matiLiw
heviees stew notmA somal bas notmA meliliW yino bas ,atmabseteb
86,821§ to muse oct 10% sav méslo *eITiiniwls .aeecoTg iitiw
shewevifeb bas bina entbauioxe: 16% baw habate tamden me meg)
botoe1rlbh stew stneinetob of! tand anommye od mort eiseqgs II
ot ysh boman nisties o no tive Laqtoitawm sont ot wegge ot
aint beretne nofmA comet “,onatoteirdS tested" odnw towana
betned si rioidw mt atitem to tivebktts os belit bra so nstasggs
bad ,etashasteb-oo eid dtiw yLinio, to yilawbivibni ,ed sodt
Teve bari 10 ,ettisaielg mort selbusdoisem yon beesdotyg t9vo *
ton Sib soca wmeilltw etticaielq dtiw woooa ity bodate
sovet mt asweat edt bhavot gisoo edt .betivateb saw bre useqqs
*
200 owe ect te eoyomad 'ettitnteaig hosneses seMidabatg Yo
oe bos moda maiiiw gentege tmemgbyt, bettas bas
= 20
Anton on the finding.
Some of the points relied upon for a reversal of
the judgment by counsel for James Anton are, in our opinion,
hypercritical and without merit, The trial court certainly
had a right to enter judgment against the two defendants,
William and James Anton, notwithstanding the fact that their
co-defendant, Nick Anton, was not served with process, (Sec,
14 Practice Act.) It is urged that there is a variance
between the statement of claim and the summons, in that it
appears from the former that the plaintiffs were ‘Peter
Cristofano and Vincent Di Cicco, for use of Peter Christofano,"
whilst in the latter the defendants were directed to apvear and
answer unto “peter Christofano," James Anton is in no
position to complain of this. He did not raise the point in
an appropriate manner in the trial court. He appesred and
filed an affidavit of merits. After the finding he could not
take advantage of the variance, if such there was, on a motion
in arrest of judgment (Toledo, W. & WW. Ry. Co. v. McLaughlin,
63 Ill. 369, 391); nor can he on a writ of error (Cruikshank
v. Brown, 5 Gilm. 75, 77). The judgment is affirmed,
AFVIRMED.
to {[setsvet s xot noqs beifer atuiog eit to eso
penne tuo mi ,8%s motmA semsl 10% Loonvoo ww dnemabut on
YLnistreo divoo Leitd oAT throm tuodtiw ba fapts2x07e
,etnabno'tob ows edd tanioys suomybut, ted ne ot digit —
tisdt tedt gost ont yoibostadtinwten , sodas asasl dns mob lew R
0 .ansootg détw bevise ton aaw ,notdmA Ai Sum 2eba00 yi
eonsitsevy s ek eres tandt begm ef 32 (. doa soktonrt — ae
ti sect mi ,enoemme edt bos mielo to tnemetate end meowtes uh
voted" etew ettltalelq ont stadt. tomt0e2 offs mott — J
ae a
Nilay
4 sa es
J
* onstotealti) teted to sus tol ,oosid id dmeoms V fies ons totes
bas tsecgs of botootibh siv68# at nebno teh ent tettel odd mk te.
on at at modi somal "ons totairdo teteq" od mis towene
ni tniog edt eaks1 dom bib si Jakdt to mialqmoo o⸗ —8*
ee
base berseqqs eH .diweo Isiit oft ak tonnam etaizqon |
ton bi{uoo eff gaibait od wet ta Bt itom to tivabitte Cus b.
| noitom s no ,aaw otends dowe ts .S9haitey eit To ogad nevbs — * : ;
Hiidnuetlow .v .0D .¥i . 2 +R .obelot) tnemybs; 29 dort RS Via
Ansdativi)) torte te gitw s no of meso ton (i (£0e 4@Be . £41 68 Ae
-bomtitta ek snompbut edt . (TT , ay .m£eo @ canes
- CHMAL EA
q
if ‘
‘ —9
— —9
7 eens
i
}
p
H
i
‘
i
;
257 =< 212359
NATE H. EHRLICH,
Defendant in Erroy,
ERROR TO
MUNICIPAL COURT
vs,
OF CHICAGO,
LAKHSIDE FISH da OYSTER
COMPANY,
}
)
:
Plaimtiff inf Brror, i 9 8 IAM. 1 5 2
WR. PRESIDING JUSTIC# GRIDLEY DELIVERH#D THES OPINION OF THE COURT,
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the sum
of $375,02 for two consignments of fish. sold and delivered to
—
defendant in December, 1913, At the beginning of the trial
the “the attorney f for. ‘defendant ‘admitted that defendant had received
the fish and that the number of pounds charged for was correct,
and stated in substance that the only question in the case was
whether plaintiff was the vendor of the fish or plaintiff's
parents, M. “hrlich and Fannie Hhriich; in other words, whether
immediately prior to the sale and delivery plaintiff was the
owner thereof or plaintiff's parents.Thereupon the court
suggested that this issue had better be determined by a jury,
the hearing—of-the-evidence the-court charged the jury orally,
~in-part as follows:
_"tre~pieintiff-in- his’ statement of claim. in.-this,
uit is asking-for_ 375, the fish shipped on two consignments,
e defendant denies “that. the fish was bought from this \
laintiff. The question for-you to decide is whether or not
der the evidence the fish belonged to the plaintiff, or was
he plaintiff acting as the agent for his parents and the ~
itle of the fish was in the parents and notin this young
» * * eee though the fish might be his, nevertheless
fh esented that the fish belonged to the father or the
pasene ene under that phase of the case if Ri should find
“you would-have’ to find for..the defendants"
4%—the._conclusion of. the charge, i ‘response —te—the
quiry, the attorney for defendant stated that ne had
i
J
minh
escrs + res f
7 y — ie
‘ 9 ta J
amin WH BTA
Lae orn ak doehne ted 4
OF ROAR 4
THUOD IACLOT WUE
sODASINHO FO
Sal. A.l gen:
AOD
—
A 4
THVIOD CHP TO MOLMIGD J CHAR I at ee » sorsem) onan euag
ose ext tovoney od moiton rer be 9 mrertmo 9 *
odl auw Tot begiasdo ebswoc to veda orld dent pte
@ew oaa0 ony aE moitenup yine ead tans eonstadse ak be
a’ttitnistlg vo felt oft to wobhnew edd wow VU miele
tertorw ,abtow ‘todo at joist iu efane® bas Hod Late, of ,
ent saw Tiitateliq yievitoh bne sige edt ot vokeg 1
&tdd aii malo to ¢oometmha etiont— ss
snd pomgt eame ows co bagqide delt odd ,a@Vé ae ni
aid? mort teiqguod eew Makt odd 44 b
pe to tofteriw ak ebtosh ot soy x6 **
ahw tO ,Ttidntaly ett of hegticlod datt eile ee
| elt bag atootaq ain tot snexa odd a sree ee
| gasoy aidt at dow bas atnots¢ end
eaelonttoven ,eid od tripim dakt ext sf
as to -reddot end ov: begnolod matt ong
t bivode 9X 32 vaso exlt Yo —52 eit iebam 4!
. r anogags | ifredo oft to moteulom
a —V Sty
Teas boftate Jnabro
ny to
” fe-ebseetion—to_the-vlulRe>> The jury returned a verdict in
favor of plaintiff and assessed his dumages at the sum of
$575.02, upon which verdict the court entsred judgment
iy creed the defendant,
Plaintiff testified in substance that he was 23
years of age and resided at La Crosse, Wisconsin, and was
engaged in the business of buying and selling fish and had
been for three years; that his father and mother, as partners,
were also engaged in the fish — but that he had had no
business connection with them for vv, years; that he was the
owner of the fish in question and sold them to defendant on
his own account and not as agent for his parents; that on
December 1, 1913, he called at the office of the defendant in
Chicago and had an interview with Benjamin Sacks, president
of defendant, and at that time Sacks oriered the fish to be
shipped; that subsequently he had another interview with
Sacks at which time it was determined that the value of the
fish received by defendant was 3375.02; that thereupon Sacks
said to him: "I will give you » check for $75.92; your father
owes me $500 and I am going to take it off"; that he (plaine
tiff) replied: "You cannot take off one cent from me, the fish
ware mine and I want my money"; that thereupon Sacks suggested
that the matter could only be settled by suit, and that he
(plaintiff) shortly thereafter com-enced the present action,
Pannie ithrlich, mother of plaintiff, testified that she and her
husband, Meyer Whrlich, were partners in the fish business and
that plaintiff had not been in their employ for three years.
For the defendant Sacks testified in substance that
on December 1, 1913, plaintiff called on him and said that
his parents had certain fish they wanted to sell and inquired
if defendant would buy them, and further stated that his
mother was then at Brownsville, Minnesota, where some of the
9
ke
an
nt tothiov s bender vast ont em afro eltod mottos tio-ek
=~
—*
to mua edt ¢& — haas PttiinieLlq¢ to tovet
| tnemgbuf, betetne tio ect solbtev fotdiw nogs ,S0.éTee
; — u2 sanisgs
ES sew ef fadt eoastedya nt bottigesd Ttitaiela ans eg
sew baa nbamooahe (880079 eI 3 bebizex bas eyes to ersey
bed bas deit gailioe bre gniyiid to caenteud ont mk bogsgne
~etentisq ce , tection bas tentset eis tans jatasy seems tot need
on bad bad ec Sods sud —— Heit oft nt begeygno oels etew
edt esw off Judd jarsey ee1ds rot meld tiw nottoennes asentaud
no ¢nebmotob o¢ mes Sloe bos sotdeeup ak ded? oft Yo teawo
no tan? jatnoisg eid tot troue es ten bos ¢evooos owo eli
=
ab ¢nsbnsteb sit Yo soitte eft ts helfso on ,éL@L .f£ r9dmeoed
tnshivoig ,e@dos nitatoe?d déiw weivrotnd me bar dns egsoind
ed of dait ent bexelto atoe® emt teat fa baw winebasteb to
tiikw wetyuodmt tottene bet en ¥ftmeupeedue tad pbseqkte
edt to oulav ont tndt bontmieteh eaw $f emits? doidw te eiosé
wfosi nogetedt tant ;8O. Ave eaw taebnetebh yd bevisost dekt
teddat mwoy ;80.2VG tot doors 2 voy owin {fiw I*® smkd ot bise
entalq) en tadt ;"tto tf Sst of uatoy ma I bap 006% om eowo
dett eft ,om mazt ¢me0 sao tto coxa tomnmo voy" sbeifqent (Its
betesxznua alos’ noquatedd tandt ;*venom ym tasw I bas enim s Tov
ed tsit bas ,giue yd bolitoe ef ¥fno bluoo asttenm edd Sadd
-mitos t$neaexq oft boone moo tes tsetedt yLtrone (TtLt+alelq)
tod bas ela tend bottigeot ,Titmisi¢ to tentom Aotfaid etnnst
buna seentaud deit edd nt ovant eq otew .doifud® teyoWw , basdenl
~8ta0y seult tot yolane stieds at moet ton bed Ytitnialq tant
tadt eongtedve ai bol'titaet efost tnmbhbneteb ond 10%
tadt bhaa bas mid ao boffeo Ttitmiale ,éLeL ,£ tedmesed mo
betiupnt bos {Lee ot bétaew yors del? niedtes bat vinetsq oe
eld tent betete reridiw? bas ,medt yoo bluow tnab
a. *
a
j
§
7
¥
232
fish were, and that he (Sacks) had better telephone her
end arrange with her as to price, ete.; that he (Secks)
on the seme day talked with Wre. Whrlich over the long
distance phone, and that subsequently the fish were received
by defendant; that at the time of the interview with plaintiff
defendant had in its possession two demand notes, each for
$150, signed by Fannie end Meyer Ehrlich end payable to
defendent, and go advised plaintiff; and thet he (Sacks) during
his leng distance telephone conversstion with Fannie \hrlich
told her that defendsnt would credit the value of the fish to be
shipped on said notes, Fannie -hrlich denied that while she was
at Browmsaville on Decevber lst she had any telephone conversa-
tion with Sacks, ‘The latter further testified that after the
fish had been received by defendant, plaintiff again called and |
demanded that payment for the fish be made to him, which demand
was refused, and that he fSacks) did not then tender to plaintiff
a check for $75.02, or for any emomt, in settlement. Meyer
Finder, treasurer of defendsnt, and Morris ‘eipe, bookkeeper for
defendant, also gave certain testimony on bchalf of defendant,
as did Henry Johnson, 2 dealer in fish in Chicego,
It is first contended by counsel for defendant that,
even upon the theory that plaintiff wes the owner of the fish,
plaintiff's evidence does net warrant a verdict and judgment in
excess of $44.72. We cannot agree with counsel, Under the
pleadings and the admissions made by the attorney for defendant
during the trial, the value of the fish (%375.02) received by
defendant was not in dispute, The sole issue presented to the
Jury was whether at the tine of the sale plaintiff was the owner
of the fish and sold them to defendant for his ow account, or
whether viaintiff's parents were the owners thereof and plaintiff
acted merely as agent for them in making the sale, "In the ~
trial of a cause the admissions of counsel, 28 to matters to be
ee
140i
tad snodgqeled tetted bat (atoee) ed sad’ bag ,etew dak?
(atos<) of tadt j.9%9 ,sottq o¢ as tod dtiw egnstis bas
anol eft tevoe doifulk& ,ei atiw Sexlat (sb omae oct a0
beviegoet stew daeit ens yiimsupoadue sanit bas .oneig vanedelb 7
TtLiaiely dsiiw weivisiat sit Yo emis edd ta stadt jtasbaeteb Vw
Tot dose ,sotan basmeb ows moleeoesog esi ni bed sashnoted—
of oldayaq bas Aoifuii toyow bos etanet yd bomate ,O8Lg
ant ⁊ub (ekost) of ttt bas {Tttsnis£a beatrbs os bas ,snsbnetob
soltiu stasset dtiw miteetevnoo saedaeled eonstalh anol aid
ed of deit on? to outay eit tkbevo bivow sashne tes teat ted SLod
eaw offe efisw tant beltoeh dokfad einsse= .estorn bias no begqise
— Snorigoiet yar bad ede tel redysest so ofLivenword ts
eft tots Jadt beltitees sedtivt tettel of? elves ddlw moked
base bolisas ni ays Stitmktale .2 ntabrs tab vc bavisoses ased bed dait
baemeb doidw. waid ot eham od deit ont tol tnemyagq seds boBnscob
Tiisatsla ot rohase nent ton bith (atone - tant bas deautot agw
‘Toyo .tnomefitea xt .dovome yas tot m ,SO0,e%% wt doedo s
tot teqeeXxood ,eqis’ eittoM bua ,tacshnetsb to tstweseis ,tebatT
,fnshaeteb Yo tLaod ao ynomitaes uiatteo svey avle .iaabaetob
| soyanidd mt sett ak tofaeb » ,sosniel yraell bib es
add tasbnstob 10% Leanuos ud bebnetnos task ak oi
,featt edt to teomwo sdt aaw Ttkintala tet yrosdt ont nocs neve
at ¢rempbyt, bua tolbtev a tastier tow asob ooqshive a Ttds atel
edt tohal! .feenvoo dtiw estys tonnss a JS. Dae to eeeoxe
tnabneteh tol yertotta ont yd sham snoleeinhs ont bie agaibselg
ud bevieos (80,2 PE8 ) Matt odt Yo eulsv ont Asta⸗ ents aet ⁊ub *
edt of betneaoiq sent efoe od? .otuqehd mt tom sow tashneteb
aenwo oft caw Ditsaltelg ofan edd to. omit ont ta stedteontw saw xm
7 to ,tooc08 awo aii tot daubneteb of madd bLos baa felt out to —
Ttitaisl(q brs ‘teeters eronwo oft stow asmotsq a!) titakeic xonsodw |
; odj mI" .efee ont ganiiam ni mont t9% dpogs se yLetem be 6
Ae)
ed oF atostam oF ea sLeenved to enotaaimos odd ocuao at .
aha
proved, are constantly received and acted upon. They may
dispense with proof of facts for which witnesses would
otherwise be called, They may limit the demand made or the
seteoff claimed. Indeed, any fact, bearing upon the issues
involved, admitted by counsel, may be the ground of the
court's procedure equally as if established by the clesrest
proof." (Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261, 263; Wilson
v. Spring, 64 Ili, 14; Mill Construction Co., v. Chicago
R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 174 I11. App. 600.)
And we cannot say after due consideratim of the
record before us that the verdict is contrary to the weight
of the evidence, as contended by counsel, on the question
whether or not plaintiff was the owmer of the fish st the
time of the sale,
It is further contended by counsel that the trial
7 court erred in refusing to admit in evidence the book accounts
of defemdant and certain entries made in defendant's books
relative to the sale in question. If certain entries in the
account books of defendant showed that the purchase of the fish
in question wes from plaintiff's parents or from Weyer Mhrlich,
rather than from plaintiff, said entries would not be competent
evidence against plaintiff. The defencxunt could not bind
/
| plaintiff by eny statements written in a book of account kept
\ by defendant. We think that the ruling of the court was a
proper one. (Sanford v, Miller, 19 Ill. App. 536; Summers v.
i{'Kim, 12 Serg. & Rawle Rep. (Pa.), 495, 411; Dailey v.
S_onnerborn, 55 Tex, 60, 62.) In the case last cited it is
said; “Perhaps the strongest reason why the purchaser's books
diditnre cantstes as against the seller, consists in the fact
that it would be en additional inducement to dishonesty and
fraud, which would thereby place the merchant, or seller, in
the power of his debtor."
Complaint is made of several other rulings of the
aha
yam yet? .coqy besos bas bovioost yitnedeanes ets ,bevetq
bLuow eosaontiw dothw tot atost to toote aviw eaneqakb
ext 10 ebam buemeb sit timi{l vam yout belleo od sakwiredto
aeyert ent noay gxiiaed ,tost yas ,beshal .bemislo Tteesea.
Nd to bavoty sat od yam ,fosmon yo bottinbe ,bevlovat
saetselfo edt yd bodaifdstas ti es yilssps eishseetq atixues
moeliv 7688 ,f88 .G .U GOL ,.00 Serta .v gmyapond) *. teo1g
ogsotdd ov ..00 soktorsterod LLt ht .ff1 bd ,gmiagé .v
(.008 .qqgA .LLT AVL . 29D .¥H 2S *
sit to mitsisbkanoo ovb t9tts yse tonnes ow bak .
tdgtew oft of yiestnoo ak tozbiev edt tedt ew stoled biroses
to itasup es mo ,fleanmvoo yd hbebeotnos se ,gonvbive ent To
eft ja deft oft to tonmwo odd asw Ttituiely fom 10 tend oxtw
-ofse odd to omit
{gins ext gait Loan0o yd bobastmoo vaestant ab df
adoveoos dood edt sonshive ai timbs ot anieuvter af bette —
ado od at dnubse ted mi ebsan seittooe niatveo bas tusbmeteb To
eit ai asinine nistroo tI .omiteoup at alee oft of evdialot
nett ect ko eisai add gant bowode tmahreteh te wload dimio 996
~foiical trays! mort ro adne'rsg a*t titnielso mort sew molitesup al
snetsgmos od tou bivow seittine bisa Thitnialg ott ads teodiert
haid son bluoo dashaeteb soil ,ttiintalg tenisnse sonebive
qo gavooo8 Yo Axcod a at nettivw etoematste yas yd Witatealq
& asw tiw09 ont to naiteox ent tant anisds ow .¢ nubmetob ve
eV atommuyg ;d82 .qqgA .fft OL ,tolLeM .v bxotane) .ene tego1g
| oV yotted :fib 08 ,(.8%) .qen olwal 2 . pret] GL ,min te
ek si botio tand eann ont at (.88 08 ,xeT 8 ,mvedronne 8
elood e'itssedouwg edt yew noesex teognorte ont — 9* :bise
teat edt ak atelanos ,telfoa oft taniega 2s bese enn ea Meio *
bas yteonodalbh of tnousouhnt Lenoitibbs ne ed bivow #2 cad
at ,relles 10 ,tnanoxrem oft eoslq ydetent bliiow doicdw ewe
. wotdeb ets to towed) end a
~5—
court on the admissibility of evidence, but we do not think
that any error prejudicial to the defendant was committed,
Finding no reversible error in the record the
judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
Maids toa eb ew sud ,sonebkve to ytilidieaiabs eis mo t1u09
bottiomoo asw tasboetebh edt oF Laetothutetq tomte yns tadt
| edz btooes ond ak torres eldiexevet os gndbnit
ebemxitita ek tue Laqtotawi ed? to Joempbsary,
« QEMAL TTA
211 © 21189
JAMES CLINE, doing business
as J. & D, CLINE,
Appellee,
APPHAL FROM
)
)
) SUPERIOR COURT,
COOK COUNTY.
!
198 1.A.163
MR, JUSTICE BARNES DELIVERED TH OPINION OF THE COURT,
Appellee recovered a judgment for damages to his
automobile-truck and the goods it contained resulting from
a collision with appellant's Locomotive engine at a public
— —
eross ing. The negligence charged in the declaration was
——— of said engine across said highway "without
causing a belli to be rung or a steam whistle to be whistled
at a distance of 30 rods from said crossing, and without
causing a bell to be kept ringing or a steam whistle to be
kept whistling, while said locomotive engine was approach-
ing said crossing from 80 rods therefrom until it had
reached the same,”
Appellant contends there should have been a
directed verdict in its favor on the grounds that the
evidence does not disclose the negligence charged and shows
contributory negligence,
At said crossing the railroad tracks are double
and its right of way is 100 feet wide, running about north
and south at right angles to the highway. At the time of
the collision the locomotive engine, drawing three others,
was northbound on the easterly track and appellee was going
east. The latter and his chauffeur who operated the auto-
mobile testified that though they looked they did not see
@6LiS = {£8
?
seenkaud grtob greg BEMAT ;
aMEED a re |
ee
—
eailaqqa
MONT JANA —
— —
⁊Moo AOLAWIVE v J
eYTHUOD HOOD
( 3h MEAUA annem:
YUAGHOD/ YAWIIAR —
€or .A.I 8er
THON HHT TO HOIMIGO WHT GRATVIGSC GAMA SOITGUL .AM
eid of acgemab to? tnemphut o betevooes selleqga 7
mort gaitiweex hbentainoo TL shooy off bas ound -oLkdomod ia 5
otiduq a ta saigae avitomovot e'tnelloqgs atin ———
aaw moiterelook edz mk baguscis oo negtigen od? _spntaaot9 '
fe aie
tuodtinw" yauwiaid blue esotse. satan biae ‘to —V ont
belteainw od of eltakdw masta os to pei od of Lied s gateuss
suoddiw bas .gniewors biae mox? ebox 08 to sonaterb a fo
ed ot elteidw mevtea @ t¢ gaigni2z tqed ‘od od Lied ra autewan
-foaoigqs esw oaiuas ovidemoost bise olidw ,yatiteldw tq ig
bat th Lito mov totes shot 08 mot? gitineor biae pak
*,omae ould bedoset .
s mosd svat bivode etedt abse¢nen Sapitegqa = —
ends dacſo abauovn ens mo tovat eti nt —— ———
awode bas boptasto ponogiigon edt suolosth ton avob sonpbive Bh
ooaont gon wrotwti at mee | F
elduoh ets aloat? hbeorLies edt gnieset> bine tA Abe: , 9
diton oda ant anua ,oblw fest OOL ak yaw te tdase, ast
to omit of? 2A .Yowelpid ost ot —* nk ta sauce | >: . ’
at0s180 ests gutwath ,ontyne evisomooo£ ols an i
gpniog saw oalleqgs brs toant vLust ens ould ae aa
-olum ost besareqo ostw <uet traite —* pen * ett
ee son bkb ved betook outs suo ds sedd beitle y LE
— fad hod tde0d »
I
=Qa
the locomotive until they were on the westerly tracks when
they jumped permitting it to continue under power and collide
with the engine, They also testified that they heard no
whistle or bell or gong.
The uncontroverted evidence as to the physical
conditions clearly shows, however, that had appellee looked
when the exercise of due care pS ee under such
circumstances manifestly required him to look he could have
seen the approaching train in time to avert a collision,
Nor did the weight of the evidence authorize a verdict on the
theory that no bell was rung nor whistle blown.
As to ability to see the approaching train the
evidence shows; At a distance of from 30 to 40 feet west of
the easterly track there was an unobstructed view of the
tracks south to beyond a curve estimated from one quarter
to one half a mile from the crossing. Judging from a photo-
graph in evidence it was nearer one half mile. At the south
west corner of the junction of the highway and appellant's
right of way on the lot of one Bleimehl, where there was a
Saloon, were bushes which for a distance along the approach
to the right of way obstructed a view of the track to the
south, The actual distance from the west line of the right
of way to the easterly track was 47 feet and 8 inches, Whether
or how much the bushes may have hung over the line does not
appear. Their estimated distance from the track was from 20
to 45 feet. Cline 'judged' about 20 feet and Bleimehl's
brother about 25, The chauffeur said he could not see the
track until within 10 fect of it. But their testimony does
not conform to a plat made to a scale and a photograph show-
ing actual conditions, as testified to by several witnesses,
The testimony of three witnesses who had lived there for
several years and crossed the tracks daily placed the distance
resi ekount yireteow ett oo stow youd LILinu evitomooolL el?
ebiilos bag tewoq tobaw eunidaoo of Fi gakttiorreg boqaw) yods
on bused yodst tant belttitcet ote yen? enkgne out stekw
: sanog ro LLod m0 oft alsw
feotaydq ot o¢ aa oonobive bedtevoti moon sdf J
bodool eelileaqqes bed tadt ,revewod ,awore yLiselo iso te kia
dove tebrus —— — aio ewh to salouexe ont no rw
ever blyuoo ef Aool o¢ mid betivupex yideotiaam eoonsdamyotto
-mofLaiilos # txeve oF emkt mk nist gaideenxaen oid moos
edt ne tolitev a ositondiue sonebive eft to toyiew elt bib 10m
-twold elteksdw tom art esw Led on tsilt aoog⸗
edt aiatt anidosoxrggqe 4 os s ot ytilids of BA
to taow toat Ob ot Of mort To —— sti eworle eonebive
eit ‘to weiv betowitiedonu aa asw etodt dostd yltedeas ont
qtettanp eno moctt botomiteas evi. # buoyed ot divoe etfoatt.
-otonq s mort gaigbsul .agntaeoto ot mort ofim a tad ono og
aguoe oft ta .otim ‘hae ene tetsen asw tk gonebive nai gory
a'enaifeqgs bus — edt to notte nwt, edt to temroo saew
& sew otordd otere ,Idomioli eno to toL£ oud no Yew to dag
fosotqgs ert gnolo sonatelh s to% Noidw aendeud stew «m0 0 Lae
end of dott ocd Yo woiv a hotouwxiedo yaw to sents ot od
‘Sright oft Yo oatl seew ot mort somsteth Lautos od twee |
tondtjenW ,asdont 8 bag test TS aaw dont yitetess ont ot Yew To
ton asob entl eit revo gowd oved yam soraud eng down —
OS mort asw dosit ot mort eonatalb bodamtd as tho? wvaa⸗
a'idemteld’ bas soet O8 auoda ‘begbut! entls .teet as ot
edt see ton bluoo of hiss quot taro edt =. as tuods rotors
ao0b Ynomisaed ttedd tua tt to toot Of eked kw LES ows foart
-wone dqatpotodg o bos elLace a ot oben tate a ot aroraoo ton
-eoesentiw Latoves yd of hortisned a6 ,anozstbn0o fautos amt
“ot evedt bevil bed onlw evsenndiw sony to — ———
sonatath eft bevalq yLleb ekoaxt oii boesoxo bas axesy, 4 reves
Ave ae
- oe
from 30 to 45 feet. One said "all of 30 feet,” the other two
55 to 40, Their testimony is consistent with every other part
of the record showing that within that distance there was an
unobstructed view of the tracks south for nearly if not quite
one half mile. ‘The chauffeur said he could have stopped the
truck within 10 feet. Hence, with such a view of an ap>roach-
(ine train there was apparently no necessity of a collision.
Entering into the situstion somewhat is the question of speed,
The truck was going from 7 to 10 miles an hour. As to the
speed of the train the testimony again varies. Bleimehl said
"40 or 50 miles per hour" and Cline "35 or 40," and the
engineer 12 or 14, Yhatever the speed it does not enter into
the question of negligence in this case nor affect materially
the question of timely opportunity to avoid the collision; for
if the train did not get in sight until after the truck had passed
the penhon/ES aneuestionshly could have gone over the 30 to 40
feet before the train got there, and if it was in sight then
it could have been seen in plenty of time to have stopped the
truck before reaching even the westerly track, ‘hatever its
speed the train was — — in sight when the truck
passed the bushes. Assuming it was going at the rate of speed
testified to by Cline - five times as fast as the truck, then it
had only 150 to 200 feet to go when plaintiff reached the point
30 to 40 feet away.
They knew they were aporoaching a railroad crossing
and of the danger. #ach said he was looking in both direce
tions. tach claimed he did not see the train until the truck
was on the western track, ‘The physical facts were such that
the train could have been seen after reaching a point 30 to
40 feet west of the point of collision. The truck could have
been stopped within 10 feet. Hence, we are driven to the con-
clusion reached in a similar case ( cc. P. & St. Le Ry. Co. V.
~be Freitas, 109 Ill. App. 104) that they “either looked
as they say they did and saw the train approach
ows asito odg “,Jo0% 06 to Lin" bisa onO0 tent ad of 0& mort
tteq teddo ytove ttiw saesalanoo afi yoomigaet tied? . ob ot a |
im eow eteds eoaatveakbh iad? aketiw sett gntwore brooet otit eo —
etinp ten tk yliaen sot dtuoe etonsd of to wekv bedoustadons —
edt beqqote eval Siuon of bksa iweltusio of? oftm tad eno
afosowcqs oa to welt so dowe ditw ,eomel .teot Of nksitiw Aout 3—
molLekifos a te Yirsaesen * elineteqas sew erent mart eat :
-beeqn to aolfteaup ont ck fariwemoe moiveuthe ont of mk pakted mil
edt of eA . aod me eotim OL o¢ F met? gnicoy saw Aoutt eft i
blea IdemielLi ,eelisv akage yoomisees ent niatt eft to beegqe
j edt ban "0b to 86" sail bus "aod toq selim O08 ro Ob"
ofnk wstne tom eeoh th booge eds tevetaiW bf rw6e SL TopRLANe
yvileitezam toettsa ton Sano wind ni aononiigen to soiteoup ot
tot j;moletifos off biova oF ytkawsetoqqe yYlemis to noltaeup ont
eang bat Aownd odd sodte LIttas tigte at toy tom bbb atewd odd Th
Od of OF att te¥e saoy oven bLsioo Littasnds nepal a — ont
nedd tdyta az anew ti Tt bom ,ovodd tog ataw ont etoted oun: \
edt beqqose ova of emis To yiooiq mk sea need overt bivoon dh ;
oe
efi tavesandt! Axsatd vires aew eat aeve patdone et0ted mate
youts anf nodw tote mk yidnovtteoupew enw atatd oft boo
beeqs to otat of? ta unton cow i unimvees aeciend off besesq
#2 ment loutt off wa sant co aemkt evit - oni yd of boltiseos ——
tatog esi¢ — tthintala merle og of tost SOf of O&L ¥Ln0 bat |
-vews to@t OD oF 0& F 9
aniceots bsotilta: # ynisosetygs etew yous werd yout
-oertth dtod ai antdeol waw of blae dost .tenned oct ‘to bas
dowd orld Livnw ntowt ect wea ton bib od bomiato Moai .enokt-
telly dove etow afoat Leoleyig efT .adtoatd mieteow off no —9—
ot O& takoq o gnidoset totte nose ooed ovat bivos atest ont
evad biuwoo toute of? .notati£os te sateg od Yo tuew soot o⸗ h
-Jost OL mat tw beqaos oT)
“moo eft of avvith eta ow ,90n0H
- bexood vodtie" yedt tadt (b0L vas od rr 0
aie
ing, and attempted to cross in front of it, or that they
did not look." In that case it was said also; "The law
will not tolerate the absurdity of aliowing a person to
testify that he looked but did not see the train when the
view was unobstructed and where if he had properly exercised
his sight he must have seen it." (106.) (See also, ©. & A.
R. RK. Co. v. Vreimeister, 112 Ill, App, 346; Kennedy v.
A. G. & St. L. tr. So., 180 id, 146.) In the language of
the last decision: "The uncontroverted facts carry us to
the inevitable conclusion to which all reasonable minds mst
arrive that the driver * * * by his conduct in attempting to
cross the tracks at the time and in the manner that he did
was guilty of negligence which contributed to the injury
complained of and the established rule of law operates as a
bar to any recovery in the case." (p. 149.)
ues ae to the negligence charged in the declaration
three witnesses on each side testified directly on the subject.
Those for plaintiff - himself, his chauffeur, and Bleimehl's
brother, said they heard no whistle or bell and none was sounded}
But the record discloses reasons why they would not have heard
awe
acorn
— — *— — —— A A
| One witness a block and a half west while doing his chores
was attracted to the truck's passing by its “terrible noise,"
them. One alone is sufficient to mention, - the noise made Py
F ted Clore OE wet
by the losded truck, I+ is xdmitted muffler was open.
Another whom it passed within a half block of the tracks
described its noise as unusual, “like an old threshing
machine." He however heard the train and its whistle though
he could not see the train, while stopping for the truck to
come up and pass him and was anticipating whether the truck
would stop, Under such conditions the negative testimony of
those on the truck and of Bleimehl, whom it passed while
engaged in sweepinz in front of the saloon, can not be taken
in preference to the affirmative testimony of three witnesses
yous Jodt to Jf Yo snort ak snore of botqmotio han ,ymt 5
wel eff*® ;oain bisa asw tk oeno tent at *.aeook tom bib 9
ot moetsg # yniwolle Yo ystbwweds edt atetelod son fLiw
ei? modw niatt eft esa ton bib sud hedoolt ef taunt yUsecs
hoatozexe yiseqorg had of Th ovorw bap bodowxt eden asw waty 3
2 ,oate o9&) (.30L) ",¢2 assn over teum on trigke elt
ov Ybomapk ;Oh2 .qqA .ca S£l «Zodatomboxy “v.00 sae
te egergast eds nl (.3hf .bé O8L ..00 af od £8 2 A
ry
fa
of ay Yttso edoxt bedxevettsoonu ent® :aoketooh tasl ont —
deum abeiten oldanosaex Lle doidw 02 moiewlonoo efdattvent eds 9*
of gaiiqmesia ai toubaoe sid yd. * * * tevish ont Judd ovkrns F
bib eff fant tennem oft mk baw emis ott ta eXonad orld —2
yurtak. edt of botudiatmmoe doidw oonegtigen to ytituy osw 4
& as sotstoge wel to olui bedetidetue edd bne to bontatqmos 4)
(,@af +) *,eano ont ai yxovesex Ytus ot 18d *
noise taloeh oft mk bogiads sonegiinen ent of BA
-d ootdue eft no yltosilh heltitees shie dose mo segeent iw eonutt \
basa pay son phew yods poy anesex seeoLoath brevet ond aie }
1 Oa. Ree se on ot - 9 fem Of tastoitiwe al emefe ond . non⸗
— E—⏑— ——⏑——o—— bots tnhs at $1 Aouad bebdsol edt yo —
as toro aha gitiohb < faew Lad a re Perry @ asentiw ono ‘
*,oakon oldiuzes* agi vd anteasq a'dowxs oft of betoartis vow :
wtoart oft % seehd tied 'a andiiw beuseq #f modw waroaa
anideesdt bio me oti L” ,tavewny an salon att bedrroned
dgvont elLteidw sd bam aiend ott biased tovewod of ",
ot Aounad ocff tot untageta olinw ,akatd off ena ton beveo ott |
douxt ent rvedtedw yaiteqiaitne saw bre med susq brs wu oo |
( 7 coos
aeaaentin seid to —“ u oa ot
7
aj
including the engineer that the whistle was blow. Sm
engineer testified that the fireman was comtinuously
ringing the bell from 89 rods south where he blew the
whistle and which he repeated within 400 feet of the
crossing. The fireman was not a witness being at the
time in the regular army in the East. But two other wit.
nesses ,—#ho _apparentiy—eould—aveno_special motive—in-so—
teatifying,if-not—trus, confirmed the engineer's testimony
as to the whistling. One was on the tracks 400 feet north
of the crossing going south, the other within one half
block of the tracks on the hichway coing east. Roth of them
also heard the gong at the crossing sounding, but cold not
Say whether the bell was ringing or not, | "The rule as laid
» down in ake — in m thin state ta that positive evidence
as to the fact that a bell was ringing or «a whistle sounded,
is entitled to more weight than negative evidence in relation
to said fact." (C. Rk. I. & BP. Ry. v. Jones, 135 Ill. App. 380
and enses cited p, 385; also Ry, £o. v. Byam, 80 112. 528;
Re RB. CO. v. Dicks, 88 id, 431; Re BR. fo. Vv. Robinson, 106
id. 145.) This rule must be giver, force whenever, as in this
case, the situation for hearing is less favorable to those
who testify on the negative side of the question, Presumably
‘if they could net hear the sharp whistle they could not hear
. the bell,
We think, therefore, that the verdict is clearly
against the weight of the evidenee beth on the question of
negligence and that of contributory negligence, and that
pursuant to a long line of decisions in similar cesen the
jucgment must be reversed with a finding of fact,
REV"RSED,.
La
alle
ety |. mold aaw oLiainw of) stadt teontgno edt gabbulont
vlavouniioos aaw namerit ot tedt bel titeodt —
ent wold end otendw deuce abot 08 mott Lled oft gatantt
edd Yo soot OO aksitiw besseget on dottw das eltaldw
ef} to gnted sesntiw so ton saw nemerxit of .pataeors |
-tiw tedte owt tu@& .taak edt at yas tnluget off ak omit
—ou at ovidom Jatoaga on ova biveo yitnotsqqe ode_,seacon |
ynomitest a'teenigoas oft bert tao eornt—ton- tt, palytisess i
gisn toet O08 atoast edd mo aow on nd Lt eielw ort ot es -
‘tat ono nisdtiw torte ond .tuoe gakop gateeots oft to
mots te Atsom .taap gniton yawdald oft oo afoat? ont Yo foots
ton biuco sud — ebano⁊d elt te gaoy ent buned oeks
biai es eLux oft” (ton To nkaale enw {fod edt rodterw yae
eonehbive evitieod tet ef otede wks mt —E ent yd nwob |
ehebmoa eftaisw so to gnkynit caw [Led # sari sont ostt ot en
notiaiot nt aprebive svisagon aad) tigtow otom of beltiine at
O8 .qqA .cx1 @8L ,aonot% .v .y ~T BL ofl 2) *.d00% bise of | .
zase .cxx OB —».mayl .v .90 .Y8 owla ;88E .¢ bedto epeso bas
aOL ,moantdosi .v .oD j Lbs bt 88 Mmetoke «Vv 9D “fH
eidd nk as ,tevonary aoxct? sovin ed dame oft aid? (anf bt 7
saont ot eldetovat sast sk gniised to? aoiiautin oft ,oa89 —
vyidamueotY .noltesup od to obte evisayon eft no vittees odw }
ase gon bLuoo yedt elsecete quasin edt weal ton bLuoo vous pd ee.
fod ot
vfisefo et sotbtev oft tad? ,o1isteted? ,Anid? of |
to noiteose edt no ted opnebive ont to seniow off tentage
tedt bne ,oonegiizgon yretudiatmoo Yo dad? bor oonegiigon — J
edt aonso talimte at snoietoeh to enti gnol # ot scala
.tos% Yo gmtbatt o sittw boaxover od tatm ——
AAvuß
«fe
211 -+ 21189
FINDING OF FACT.
we find that appellee, Chicago, Milwaukee
& St. Paul Railway Company, was not guilty ef negligence
as charged in the declaration, and thet appellant, James
Cline, was guilty of contributory negligence.
@6iis - 448
THAT TO DKIGUTT
voluewLiM ,opasidd ,scifseqe tad? batt ew
sonmenifgen to ytilwy fou caw ,yaoquod yewliah nel #8 &
eomat ,jnalisqgs stadt Sas ,ooitetaiooh odt ak boygtade eae
s9onpgi{gen yrotudiatiaes to ytlivg saw ,eak lo
225 = 212038
FRANK GIBIS,
Defendant in “rror,
SUPERIOR COURT,
)
)
ERROR TO
BOTT, et al4, COOK couNTY.
/ 198 1.A.167
UR. JUSTICE BRIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Defendant in error filed his bill of complaint
to wind up and dissolve a corporation, The Abvott Press,
under Section 25, Ch. 32 of the revised Statutes! A
| receiver was appointed to take perneenion of its assets
to whom the corporation, its officers, agents, ete,, were
directed to surrender them, The bill charged among other
things thet the 0'Donnell Bromley Co., a corporation, was
in possession of assets belonging to The Abbott Press, and
head acquired such possession through fraudulent transfers
without consideration, on which issue was taken by answer,
Later the receiver filed a report and petition
reiterating the charge and alleging a demand on and failure
| by said O'Donnell Bromley Co. and other defendants to turn
over such assets, and asked that they be directed so to do,
and in default thereof to show cause why they should not
be punished for contempt.
the matter coming on to be heard on said petition
and a joint answer thereto, and the sworn pleadings in the
case as evidence, the court entered an order finding that
The Abbott Press transferred all of its assets save its
franchise to said O'Donnell Bromley Co, through another
defendant, Jeremiah J. D'Donnell, without any — —
and also containing the following finding: “That it is
Sosig - &&& pai
tare A
To * aab aů 296 «(gene i i
on HORS |
THUOS AOEM GUE yn te wal
-FrWMJ0d 009 i Sai ateds —
—————
eTHUOD ERT TO WOLUTIW — v—⏑ Gor LOLTEUYL . Mit
toieLlomos to (Lid ath belt? TOT TD ‘a t nohne tod
* —R or? e042 aTOqTOY BR oviovelh bas a ‘baw ot
“|. aotutote beatver ont to SE 410 .@8 mo kt 008 obo
——9 avi te noigeoeaoq ovat of ped akowas lade aovisoet = o
etew ,.935 ,atnags 1Bt99L TIO ads a6isotOgTOo ond mote hoe , 9
pelo aeons bogusdo ifld sd? .morid Toehme rte ot badoosth
acw ,soldawgues 2 40 yedmorne [Lonneg'o ent tant —
bus ,aantd srodda eff of antgmofed ateaes 20 ma hengemed. Be.
ete tenet $ ne Labuan? dysords no tewoxood Howe betispos J
—E ud nwlat enw sinal dole 9 * Holt e79bs en tuo ta
aotfiieg brie trogqet 2 beth revieoet odd t03 at
ewitst bos no baemeb « giigelis brs eyuado ong aaivaresion
aut of efnabre'tod rerio bas .00 yolmonxt iLeanea'o *x Wis
.oS of Oe hetoetib ad yoxds tas hetes bea ,e@teuse soue —
ton biwone veds ydw ovuso wode of tootel? ¢iusteb mut bas
etqgmes no9 TOT hodeinug of
moisitoeg bios ao based ed of no yoimoo totvem acl ae’ 7 ,
ont of agai bao le niowe odd baw ,otereds tewans satel a me —
tadt antbalt tob10 ae betodae duueo oct ,oomobive as esa
atk ever eteves ati to lls bettelenext eaotd sttodda
soritons dgwoutd .0D ysilmox (Lomog'o bine ot
Hokietebkaros ye suns tw id te o% Hinkmo 9%
on 42 éuie*e seenthats + ate aii
o2e
for the best interest of all the parties to this suit
that the said assete should be taken into the custody of
this ceurt during the pendeney of this suit and preserved
until the fins) determination of the issues herein"; and
the order directed, that respondents turn over to the
receiver such eesets on traneferred as was in their
possession or under their control,
This writ of error is sued out to review such
order, A motion to dismiss the same on the around that
the order is not final and a writ will not therefore lie,
was without full consideration thereof reserved to the
hearing,
We can not agree with the contention ef
Plaintiff in error that the order is final or an adjudication
of the rights of the parties to the suit to the property in
question. On the contrary it merely contemplated, as the
language quoted therefrom indicates, the Placing of the
property in cuestodia 1 Legis until the issues raised, including
the right thereto, were finally determined in the regular
way.
It not being a final order, the writ was improvie
dently granted and must be dismissed,
WRIT DISMISSED,
fiua elect o¢ asisaeq eofd Lia to Juorvetak teed an? - ot
te yborans eft ofmk modes of binoste tease bias oft bat
beviseorqg bee then add to vorsbaec ed? peteub t1v09
bas i"akexon eoweat aft Yo nottantumsteh Lant't ant
afowtnms thetd tebe xo — — —
dows weivor ef tuo bore of t98Tm Yo sinw etd? —*
dat Sruoty ort mo omen eft solmeath of soisom A sxob70
,9lt oretszodd tom Liiw tic ao ban Lank® ton ak r9h<o ont
odd of hovrenss Tootsis AGL A otob Lane iLvt vwouo ke oon r :
to notined nes off déihw oetge ton nao Ov
nokteotbutbs me vo Leck? ef sobxo ont dna vowe mk Tttdnkel
mi ytueqotq alt of tive sit of seltusq oft To atdghe | t
odd an ,boislqausednes yLetem 32 yimti moo srt Pa) mo
att to gntoalg eft ,eetaothak motteted? botoup | oy
anibulsni ,beeiat aevoal aot Chtnw abyed skbotauy ai ,
tsiugot off mk boakuxesoh yLtontt ovew ,oteredt sdyta ont
sivotqns. sow tixw on? ,cobto Law? o anted gon #1
shbeeelmelkb od toum ban botany
oCHBEIMALG TL AY
244 ~ 21222 i
JAMES F. PORTER, jf
Defendant in il ab
\ /
\ i
% F
JOB COHN, BBO LIEBERMAN / and
TKROME STISFAL, doing business
as COHN, LISBERMAN & STIBFEL,
Lain tiffs in Srror, l O98
—*
—*
“A
RRROR 70
MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO,
—. — — —
PA. 169
UR, TuUSTIGEBE BARWES DELIVERED TH OPINION OF TH COURT,
Porter was the assignee of » written lease of
certain premises from one Pope to -in+ Crror, &
copartnership, bvout three months ofter its execution the
partnership was dissolved, and its business was seld to
Cohn & Levin Cloak and Suit Co,, which centinved the same
business in the same premises and paid the rent as it
accrued to Pope until the assignment to Perter and then te
the latter. The rent for the last two months of the term
remained unpaid, for which judgment by confession was
entered, bu Wan voupened fer trial hefore a jury. A
verdict was directed and the judgement confirmed, It 6 urged
thet the judgment is contrary to the law and the ovidenee,
the defense being that there was 3 surrenicr of the premises
by the lessses and acceptance thereof by tha lessor and that
the latter made a mew lease on the same torms to the “loak
Compeny under which he anc afterwerds Porter collected rent
es aforesaid. As thsre was a directed vordict the cuestion
arises whether there was any shies ate tending to establish
such. yn cael Z7, SDreowing the most ‘fkvorable inferences there ‘
_~ fron, as we“are required to ae (golf Co. v. Monarch
eratin (te 252 nae 491) we 4 2 think it ‘showed. -
\ , SSal8 = ES
: aetaog ot iin
J me tmabas tod
OY ROAR
THUOD MAGLOI wu
2ODADIHOS EC ‘
bra Haare
eaoniesd antoh 4 Z
HPT TO. 5 WAM =, mod oa
Col ALS 5G 4 — ne
TRIO GHT YO WOIMIGO JT CHARVIAS GXMRAR BOLTOUL . AM
——
>, ee — —
to sesol —A nm Ye sergiees oft saw tetto>
@ ,ToOree-nt—ots of se0T one mort soaime re nies 190 =
Ne
ols mottusoxe otf to#%9 ectoam oerdt tuods sakderongregoo. *
ot bfoe sew enontenwd atk bom ,bevlowath saw qiderentzeg
omen sit be uete noo fo ctw, ,.02 ¢ie? bas Sa0fd atvet & mito
tt as taov od? bing bee eseisera emee ont nek avondeud
of mort bos tedred of tnommmtees oxtt iiinau aqod of bowen
met eff to oildoon ewe Shel ant} to? toes edt tottaL ont
naw potaretneo yd $ rromp bas, sfo Lriw oe bieqny seibnein |
"A oUTmL 6 eteted Iniat 70% haneqeet oo orotme
begiy ab $2 3 bomti tne Frnemptut, ort bas kotortth aw sotbrey 8*
eons hive on⸗ bas wet ost ot chert ane ef dmompbet, ott tent t
eeutme<q edt ‘to tobnerare 6 enw oredt tant gated enue teh ont —9—
tert has tosaol oft yd toenail? “Dome goons ins —* ont ‘eat :
Aaol) odt of amrcd omse od mo esnsl von @ oben motes ond
* fad Pay
taet betooffon tedto% sbtawiet te fne om do bow tobe ca⸗caod
Wee
feiidstas of antbnet sonebtve vas enw. oxedt vouitendw sects
. P wat:
#9 Toads - ao sno to tert —* —
\ Taso .v «22 Me —
Mi Anket ——
9
noktaous eft totbtey bosostih a caw erent af. sbkacow da a ef We
a
=
ia
ale
% —⸗⸗ or a release ef finintiffs in error from their
ha @| thet tld eney if the
;
HI
a 8 hegeptancl of ‘rent from the Cloak lo, stood alone
miexbAsined vy\ other evidence,
foihity unger the original iease., _The aval ence might , / |
—* of a change is ponsenaiion
Negotiations for a nev icase were attemoted but
never cuonsumunted, These facts otal unaisonsed: that when
the Cloak Co, took ovey plaintiffs in error'a business one
Miltenberg, « broker, at the request of attorneys for
plaintiffs in error, asked one Yilson, the reali estate agent
of Pope, over the telephone whether the lease could be
asvigned to Cohn & Levin or whether a new ieuse would be
given, and received the reply 'to look them up and if they
were ail right to bring the matter before him’; that Wilson
(the oniy party show by the record te have been authorized
to ect for Pope) never had any other talk with reference te
the maiter nor negotiated any new lease; thet Hiltenberg who
was sbnown to have acted, nok as an agent for Pope but at
the request of piaintiffs in error, prepured a new lease
to Cohn & Levin, and ieft it and a duplicate unsigned with
Levin requesting him for references as to his financial
standing; that no references were ever furnished; but that
the rent was paid by the Cloak Co,, as aforesaid, in sums
and at times as provided for in the original 2 lease,
While Levin testified that he sent the new leases
te Miltenberg and they were subsequently returned bearing
the nemwe of Pepe and that he destroyed them, yet there was
no attempt to show that tac wignature was Yope's or ever
authorized by him, or that the document ever came to Levin
from an agent of Pope. The evidence showed nothing more than
an attempt to negotiate a new leave and payment of rent as
aforesaid,
tLosis mort toxne at ctitealel¢ lo orevint a 1 eas, i west &
| \ shtote » oan Eve eff, .oasot ipataner ould te
nokeneseog No ayrintsto » to atout ome tk Nese & aS dead
enots beern OU RaoLD as mon? Snes, to — We
mm
seonbbive ‘rag. ee geal
., sud betometi«a omw caget wou & set enoiseitonen
netw tans | :besuqetbou Meade avost 9eenT 2 oud scmmare oD rover
ano eeeniayd e'toxxe of attitnindg seve Eoud .o0 Asolo ons
_ SOT ayentolia Te ceenpex ooh ta ,redond & «Btedmos Lia
trags stasee Laet off ,moRii) ane betes .TOTTS ak ettts abate
ef bitos sesel oni wiltetw onocgqelod eit rsve ,sgeT to
*
ue
©,
ed blwow eausi wen s tedfetw 20 nivel & sod of homghuse
yout Th bas qu sect xool of! yYiqou ed beviooes bas ,wevig
moeliv dadt ,'min orotyd todiew of yakut oF Idgit Lig otew
besinodtua seed svad af diosa edt yd cwords yetaq yiao edt)
ot sonere ter piw ALed sedto Yaw sal teven (oged tot tos of
onw giodrsd lig gaskd joeaed won une betalsogen tom ted dam ous
ta ted eqod 10T dnegs oe en Jom ,botos avad oF moe haw
easel wen 2 boiegetg ,toIte ai et lis niaig ie Juenpert ody
tlw benyieat edaoiiquh « bis #2 tied bas ,akved 3 miley of
fatonant? abe od s@ nevtere'tes wot can —B bah ctl
tadt tud jbedataxwl rove erew Soneistet on tact iantbnade
amuya nt ,bissetots as ,.00 Aaold ond yo bkeq wow tmox od
oohaad Isutgite nid m& to? bobivera ax somit ta bas ia
asanol won oid toee on dunt beitisesd aivet elidv
gaitsed beirtiwWwet Yiineupsedye o1uew vert bme aitodaes Lie ot
asw oterit toy ,medt heyortesh ef teddy bom oaed to ont oxts
%IsvVS To s'egod saw sitwdanygia ond Jud wore oF #qmotia on
aivel of ems 19¥e taemuvod odd Sait 10 mae yd —
asit stom ariisdten bowoda sonobive efT .eqod to snopes a
es dnot to J comysq bas euseol won o etaitogen o¢
ae
The facts are very similar to those in Soarnes v,
rthern Trust Gov, 169 212, 112, shor estt Was held that the
wsee is not released from his express covenant J pay
nt unless the lenalord has accepted the surrender of the
seae and released him, ane that phe latter would not be
lieved Crom lishility under the/lease even though rent was
ceived trim another ¢encern in posession of the premises
ass there Wis aA wubs itution, of the new tenent in place
of) the original lenge, \end 9 a /clear intent te wmeke 2. new
lessee,
*
*
In Me absence “ot Legal proof of « néw lease er a
surrender of the ota one er an neceptanee thereof we think
a verdict was. peeper ly directed,
Complaint is made of the exclusion of certain
evidence, which was only cummtative in character. But if it
P been received it would not have ‘tupplicd any of the
necessary elements above — or have authorized a
submission of the case to the jury.
AFPIRMED»
oY #oncse mi suo? at sefimla ytov ove — ett
J eds ‘ko Note pag hotqesos auf
ad sou biLuow wogtal odd dant bem ,
\
aaw trex cguvods 2 eusol edt ae brew
; seaimerc odd ‘to Aokseeesog ah nusonot voMtona mett |
j , R
wen % of gt imetnz tmeolo a
\
ens ——— oc bim meikeasre
*
*
| 8 to oasel wea « ‘to tooxg Loget to
atad asd to roinutoxe ond ‘Yo ebam et tndation
$k ti dud = .tatouteds mt ov id Sanur vino aow okie
edt to ynn betiogve eved tom biuow of hevioees
8 bestrodius eved to badat sveda otremete 9 *
Yb o of gaan ont we -
m
oCOMETETA
= eee
— os
—
—"*
250 = 21232
PEOPLE OF THR STATE OF
ILLINOIS, ex rel. iimma
L. Parker, ERROR TO
Plaintiff in &
VSe
)
)
) SUPERIOR COURT,
| COOK COUNTY.
MRS. WILLIAM BRYSON,
De dant /in Urror. 9 8 1 A. 1 7 1
MR. JUSTICE BARNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CoURT,
é‘ o determine the right of custody to her child
relator, Mra. Parker, sugd out a writ of/habeas corpus
requir ing the rempenton » (defendant in/ error) y produce
the ehald in court oy ‘ vame cause of its detentipn. The
child was produced and without a roruai return to the writ
a hearing was had resulting in remanding the child to the
care and —⸗ of respondent.
— —mnu⸗ there was evidence of the mother's fitness
to have the care and custody of the child there was a
stipulation only as to respondent's fitness, and recognizing
as a fact the fitness of each, the court's order rested
whelly on findings that the mother had abandoned the child
on the date of its birth and that since that time it had
been in the care and custody of respondent,
was — eC lete nor t e interests
of the moth}r as fully presented a might be des red. put)
yt von the t ismay heard “4a not justify the
— order,
Mrs, Parker, was—born,-reared~and lived most” of
the-time in a country town in Fulton County, Illinois. Ghe
had been housekeeper for Dr. &. %. Parker of that town, the
father of the child, and about July 1, 1912, had come to
SRLS = 08S
"O WATS GET TO Maso
anni .for xe ,BLONT IIT
OT ARORA ~tottet ol
(Tote af Tit ateld
,THUOD AOTANBUE
eYTHUON MOOD ev
| Ga re es | 80 went a
-THUOD HHT WO WOIMIGO BHT GASNVEANC. SeMAR BOITAUL . AM
bifida tor of ybotane to tant \pa ontmuedob oT
esg30o esodad\to tinw a suo peue qexts% .
somho tg \oa (101"te \ad tnabnas teb) fnobaogeet od?
ott .misnesteb at to sein wore \bne truss mt bLE
sitw oft oF muiet —8* as fuodd iw hens hoowbotq eaw Libel
ent of bLide ant gaioneme: mk gute tears bed esw anbrnod a
ie —D
as bnogas ⁊ to ybos ens baw ots
aeentit e'zedtom oft to sornbive saw oxent otha
8 eaw etedt bLido etd to ybotano brs ota ent ovat ot i
geataingooet bas ,aeensit ae'tnohnogest of ve yLine nottatuqite % )
botact tebto atsxvon ont ,pee Yo aeenhkt asi fost 4 as , NN
bLino ont bemobnads hed todtom odd start epathatt no ¥Lloste xt -
bad st omtt sands conta dans bus stakd ati to otah edt no
| etnehnogast to ybotane Brie exsp ond at need
ftom otelquos as; ton saw @tivpat od? Neer |
\ye “Ther: aob od * bodns tony yilut aa , ent to.
orld eiitent tom blEv~bmendt ynomd ont | }
S Mi 10) j ; 4
Yotuom devil bae-botset—,wrod-sew ,TexteT . ayy 4. J
ont) .akonilll .ystmm0 notiet mt nwot * a ni vet |
Qe
OO ——————
Chicago pursuant to arrangements made by him for her
approaching accouchement. It was mantiesetty intended that
ES CC
her condition should be kept secret from their friends and
especially from his aged, invalid mother who lived with
him and to whom he had made the promise not to marry while
she lived. In view of relator's condition, however, he
married her secretly at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 24, 1912,
and though his mother died the following month the marriage
and subsequent birth of the child on November 12, 1912, at
ES — 6
the Polyclinic Hospital, Chicago, did not apparently become
q public until after his death in May, 1914, They never lived
( together after the marriage. ‘Te evidence 18" $60 meerre as
| fo his-attitude-towards -her-in” the-mean time; but he.seems to
‘have given her Aittle, if any, considcration. aside.from
the arrangements. for hospital..care, after she was in Chieago, —
wae
© Nave~ween left helpless and alone among
‘strangers and amid circumstances with which she was unfamiliar
and unable to cope. In such situation she made known to the
matron of the hospital and Dr. Bacon in charge that on account
of “conditions at home she could not reveal the marriage nor
arrange to care for the baby,” and wanted a good home for it
if she could not keep it. Accordingly pursuant to arrange-
ments (of which she was evidently not fully advised), the
child wes taken from her arms and the hospital on the day of
its birth and delivered to the respondent, Mrs. Bryson. She
did not know who had the child, end Dr. Bacon, alone, of all
her acquaintances did mow. She afterwards frequently esked
him about it but got no definite or satisfactory answer,
Thrown upon her own resources and counsel, and still feeling
bound to shield her husband and conceal the situation, she
remained in Chicago in respectable employment earning only —
sent rot mid yd ebam atnomegnetts of tanwotg ogaotdd
font bebnodakt ~Etewhkpes eow $2 , Stimmbaiauebnn: sutieneteis
bre abrotrtt rtLedd mott torsoe tqoXt eof bfLwverle noisibnoos ‘tort
dtiw bevit ow seddom bilevnt ,beps etd mort ylintoages
elidw yrtsm of ton vaimoxq oft sham ber of mow of baa ald *
of ,tovewod ,noltibnon e'aedgelor to wolv al ehevilt ore
~SLOL AS yiwt ,mtencoakW ,sotuawlin te yYLiexee ted beivism
egatrian ort dtnom gantwolLet ot bekb vedo abel tiguont bru
ga ,8L0L ,8£ tedmeven mo biido eit to Adiid dnoupeadua bas
euoood yitnetadqs ton bib ,opasidd ,latiqael olat Ioylog ond
bevit toven yen? ,bLOL eM ot déeeb ela todta Lid ows — E
a6 etnsen oot Uk oernebive- ert .esasitian elt ted te rodvoyod ;
of amecaod stud jomtd moem-orit at tert ebiawod obutitts-okd of
MO bike miterobhenea rd. 2b .ottebs. —— | ovad
pogsor ad it new eda setta ,9xeo- Ltetiqaond 1ol atagm
anoms endla bas eselqied ttef aoed-ovant of
ustlinetow asw ere dolcw dt¢iw esonatemmorio bima bra etoyaside
3
sat of swomdt obam one aoitaveie fous al .oqoo od oltnen haa
nyooos no Jal? eptento ai 09 wif tl brs istiqued eal to xottsm
ton eysiviem ot Laevet ton bivoo one otton oo. enoketbaoo” *
$i sot omnon boog & botnsew bua %,ydad stig rot sise of odas ras
-onnarts of tnesanug yluatbh rood wth good ton bikes ort th
t _(hendvba yifut fon yLinebive saw este Molde to) ed mem
to ysb edt om Letiqvod oft bas emra ten mor proakid Raw bLtedo
eff .noeyx .eth ,Jnshnoques ald of borevileab bias agautd ott
ffs to ,enola ,moosf .ai bas ,b{isdo ont bat odw worl tom bib
betes YLineupext abrewted ‘te edu worl bib aeqnadatasy oa ae
etowana ytotontelsas to ofintteb on tay 4 uoda abd
gnifest {[ftte bas ,foanvoo bane aeo1m)8Het ne ‘out rogue eons
aria ,notdautte ett Lesonoo bas baedeud tom biotite os, *
ae eee —
yino grintas tromyoLque ofdatoeqeor a one
ny er, *
ate
about enough for her ow suppert., After her husband's
death the matter became public, and learning for the first
time through the public press that Mrs, Bryson had her
ehild she immediately demanded possession of at, the refusal
el OS — ES REET!
—— — ——— ——
Tt is not difficult to understand how under such
circumstanges she pursugd the course she di Both she and
Dr. Parker/were respected ond had good . in the \
\
community fin which they} had always lived, he Game to |
Chicago at} his instigation to conceal the pete and —*
built hopes upon their sceret marriage, * afterwards heg-
lected and left in the jhands of strangers, d still cartying
the burden of a secret that had exiled her be home, ohe in
ignoranc@ and helplessness sought what under such circum tances
seemed best for her endaa, a temporary home for it at lehat,
hoping & Vague way for a favorable turn pf events, in
such a plight, under i stress of necessity and fear of
exposur¢, she may well: ‘be excused for eubad b tins passively
to Liacall uidance of sla sales and not pressing sal more
persistence the inquiries her maternal instinct prompted.
we do e think that . thereby forfeited the mother's |
i
vide r right to the stody of her own child, The law
4 n jealously upholds and protects thet right unless it has been
forfeited by absolute elinquishment or some course of conduct
ditions that render its assertion incémpatibdie wi th
fests. (co Cormnok
Vv. Marshall, 211 I11, (523; Wohiford v. Burekharat, 141 Il.
ental claim and the child's best inte
No such elements are presented in this recerd,
The mother is a woman of good character and ‘the child was
not obtained from her jin a way that precludes her from
asserting such right. As to her ability to care for the
child, it appears that her husband died intestate leaving an
e'ibasdavd ted tod tA «6. troqgque awe ton tot dguone tuods
faxi?t oft toT unioiael baa ,okiduq smaced ted¢tam oft oi aeb
ton bed noeyrh .otM ¢add aeorg ofldvg odd cyvowdts omts
isayter oft ,3h to noleeoznod bobmameb yLotetbemmk erle bLEro
emcimmnnnt RR Iott Atee mt betiueex Moitw evtg of
rove tohns wod bnaterobeus o¢ sivottUtd ton et 42 a
bas ee ASO .HLb octe satioo off Hpweteg one @ must amo tk 9 |
A ont mf asalenale boon bat baw bdsooqzes etow tettes , 20
| ot emso oi ebevil eyawia bwel outs foie of ytinwmnos
it mbbive bas eatost eft I[seonoo of noksopd ent eid |:
“308 ebiswtoits fui .eyelitiam teto08 *xiedy noqu
gay tes {Lite b ~Rtennettes to ebnast eat ai ttef
mk esta , sutort nox ted belixs hed sant) Jotooe a to
aso o aud dims 1k 9 four co br tadw taavoe eaenaaeigted bas ponstomgt
teas ta tk 20? jomont Yistognmet 2 ,h beto tod tot ta
i
Mt .atneve ta amt oldsrovat o tof yow ovasv 2 ark qost
’ ;
20 128% ban Ytiaaeoen to anoxte of robo ,dnnily a dows
Yfevivesg ants 4imdve tot heavoxe edj{flow yam ora ,
; \
j stom tty yateestq tom ben eatgrige to sonabi
4 y ;
» bos qmoug toukenas Lartetem ted asiitico mk edd 90 elatog
bat xontdom orig betie tro? ydotordts one Jont Ankd? som ob ev — ui
4 2 :
wel of? .bikdo awo sod to ybotaud off of tdytt tdkieque
nood wih ti weolgy srigix sont etootorg tna abLosiqn ¥L
en te oauoo
tw eldita
ato smry oD) .atee
«£41 IaL ,tb
noe xO Inomtalupnifog ofulouds yd bos
onk noitisees ate rotinet Jandy emoitthbaos 10
etnk teed ablido eft bas miale Ist no ont
ote
-V bro tidow J Lfl L£8 18M .¥
otnesetq ota atmemets| douse off (£88) «gaa ‘
bas tetostato hoog to| asmow @ af todtom edT
bufootg sands Yaw o ted mott bentadd ton 4
ot ytkiides tod of aA! .toytr dovs pnd roaoa
a a eee cer eee eee ree eee ae ee ee es ee ee Dr me ee
sbtpo0% eid mt
‘aaw bL{isdo ont
mort tol
etfs tot ots
*4
estate of sbevt 1800, whieh together with so proffered
home on her father's small farm are now available to her,
Compared with her natural rights the strain upon the |
feelings of the foster mother in parting with the child,
hard as it may be, can not be considered,
We therefore reverse the judgment and remand
the cause,
REVERSHD AND KGMANDEDs
betettorg » dtiw tentegot cote .998L% tueds Yo etatas
erod oF ofdslisvs won ots mist Llanm a'tedteat tend nao amos
| edt acquy mierttea oAt agdeir Levutan ced at tw he raqmo)
wbitdo ent dtiw gnitisg at sedtom tetee? edd to enniflost
ehotebtenoo od ton noo ,ed yam 32 an bied
buamet bois tmeermbet ont setevet oxo leteds a
senso ont
eCHUMAMUA CWA CBRE |
251 = 21233.
Ase J. BATS CUNPANY,
efenaant in “rror,
BAAOR TO
vs. MUNICIPAL COURT
—— ——s—
OF cUICAGO.
JO6SPH DI AUNZI
198 1.A.1783
Mi. JUSTICE BARNES DSLIVSHED THe OPINION OF THE COURT.
We are asked to review a judgment in am action
of replevin and trover on a verdict of guilty and
assessing damages in the sum of $77,10, upon assignments
of error relating to tne sufficiency cf the evidence, the
rulings thereon, the liwiting of cross examination, and
to given instructions, But piaintiff in error's brief
contains no reference to any place in the obstract where
we may discover any ruling of the Court ciaimed to be
erroneous. im such a ¢ase the court exn not be expected
to search through the abstract to find the rulings com=
plained of, (City of Lincoln v. {. & A. Re. Re CO., 262
Tll. 98; Town, etc. v. Loper, 185 Ill. App. 60.) Wurthere
more an examination of the abstract reveals the necessity
of an extended examination of the record itself te pages
intelligently upon the questions intended to be presented,
For instance the maker of the shstvact states in one part
ef it that questions upon certain matters were “asked” by
plaintiff and the court denied defendsnt's attorney "the
privilege of asking the witness questions along theee
lines.* Neither the ouestions nor evidenee appear in the
abstract, but turning to the page of the record referred to
we find that the court merely ruled that defendant's counsel
-SESL8 = L8S
Ae —X *
~TOtM af sasdnot ‘i
Of FORM
TAUOS JAQLOL wou
eODASTNS WO
evi .AI set
eTHUOD mer {O noi a ao vO Gas Vide GWAR KOLTENG + *
mottos me ak inomgbyt s woiver od boxes ots ow ——
bae ytLlluy to foLibiov s ao. tevosd bas akvelqos, ‘to.
atnsamtiaas aoqu ,OL.\T0 to mwa ect al aogated aateevesa :
otf ,ooasbive eft to yous toitiwe edt of gnidatlet OTS ‘to
bona ,meitentmaxe aso to anidimil ods « Mogrtosit egndlut
Yteiud atroiute ai Ptidatalg dust -smoldowrsent oevig ot
etetw gJoerjade eft mi soaig ye oF sonetetot on aris noo
ed og bemtato swod eft Ye yailut (ns tevooelh yam ew
betoeqxe od Jos ano Jtvoo eff geno a done af ,awoenotie
emoo opmtkisn esis ball of tdoatjuds oct dyuonlt dotese oF
SOS ,.09 off fi 2 ȴ slopes To yeid) . to benkslq
erodgmw! (.08 .cgA .fLT 264 ,egod .v wate ,owet g8e . LT
ott * .
— —
Yitaavoon eff alsevor Josiiede off To moltantmexs om etom
easy OF YLesti bavoer oss to apidentmaxe bobootxe ne to
ehetneserq ed of behmotimt snoisesup et noqu yLinegkllotas
txsq eno ak eetate Joaitese off to youlnm ons oonetent t0T
vd “boxes” otew atettem niattes neqw anolseenp veds tk to i
eft" yooroste a'inebre teh betaeh awoo edt bee Ttid akalg
eseds anole enoideoup seentiw edt yniden ‘te eyotivite
ent xk tHeqqs eomebive tom anotteexp edt venttioew * — *
of bertetet brooet sad Yo syaq ont of yakared tud toettede
foanos e'inabne'tebh tant belwr ylevem tuven oot Jedd bak |
. — 54 = whet
De
would not be permitted to go over the same subject for
the third time and that he insisted thut he had the
right to go over it “ten times to find if the witness
contradicts himself." Again he complains of an instruction,
the only one out of seventeen that is abstracted. Manifestly
an abstract that requires us to go through the record to
ascertain what were the actual rulings of the court and
what were the controliing features of the evidence and what
were the instructions to the jury does net meet the purposes
for which one is required, and we can not undertake such a
search. (People v. Stephens, 261 Ill. 121; Kelley v.
People's Fire Ins. Co., 181 Ill. App. 142.) We have
however read the abstract and from what it contains think
substantisl justice was done,
AFFIRMED.
10% toojdwe omee ody xovo og o¢ hottlorreg ad ton bivow
eft bad ed sad? bevaiant of talt bas omtt. brtdt odd
neontiw oot Th bnkt of somts oot" Si tevo oy of SHgit
: michoierct and ns to aentaflqmoo ed aiaga "“. tloamid efdokbatt noo
yLsestinst ,betosxteadsa ef tes asotmever to tuo ono yLmo ont
ot hroset odd cdguouit og of ow oetinper suns Soatteda mm
bns tusoo edt to ayaitux Lautos ot otow tary akatisoes
gadw bow esnsbive off to sexutaet pati tout me edt stew Jentw
seeogqing edt yoom ton aeoh yu, of oF enoitoutieni od stew
s dove otatiobays Jon coo ow bas yhoulupes et ome doidw tot
«¥ Yeslox pLSL .Lf£1 L108 ,smedgess .v gigoed) - wtotsen
eved ev (,SRL .qqa .ff0 £6f ,,00 wank otky atelgoed
Anid? entatnos ti tery mot? bas foatiads edgy baat toveworl
(ened 2ew ooktent Leitastedve —
oe CUMAL TA
Ney
509 = 20638.
NELLIE A, CROSS,
Plaintiff injgfrror,
ERROR TO
VS.
MUNICIPAL COURT
CITY OF CHICAGO,; OF CHICAGO.
ant in Error.
7 OQ J J yy
1 9 ay ae © Li We 1 ré 7
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE PAM delivered the opinion of the court:
f>— On October 6th, the -seconda-day-of the present ‘
; a) Ory tha oe ee
k
term of—this—eours, an ——— wes handed Gown affirming
— the judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago dismissing
| the cause of the plaintiff «= which was an action for ins
juries sustained by the plaintiff - because in her state
ment of claim it was not alleged that the statutory no-
tice of said injuries had been duly served upon the city.
2 22 Caw *
at
fi es
Since this opinion was filed, our ah eRe Bee
been called to the decision in Enberg v. City of Chicago,
271 Ill. 404, filed December 22, 1915, (advance sheets)
wherein it is expressly held that in fourth class cases
{and the action in the case at bar was of that character)
a statement of claim need not allege the giving of the
statutory notice, even though such averment is necessary
— — —
—
7 ans
in a common law declaration. / In view of this decision, the
rmer euiuied affiveing the judgment of the Municipal Court
of Chicago is nr and for the vas of the court in
diqmiseing the cause of action because pldintire's statement
of claim did not aver that the statutory notice had been
sexved upon the City of-Chicago, the judgmemt is hereby
reversed and the cause remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
86208 ~ 0d
,ea0HD .A FILM
ai ttitnisld
OT HONAS
TAU0D JALIOIWUM
eODADTHD TO «QOADINS PO YTIO
{ «30Tsa ak t
YI AT Ser
t¢twoo ont to notniqo eft beteviteb MAD HOLTAVL DuICLasgAt aM
— —
—
— ey yab—broose- ond ,atd tedoso0 0 ’
guimeitie, swol bebnad eew moinigo me .étwoo- skdt to 0ret
piteaimath ogsotdd) to tryed Ieqiotawl eis to tmemgbut edt
ei tot mottos na asw doidw « Ititnisaiq ext to eauso edt
eotata ted mt esusoed « Ttisaielq odd yd bentstaua eoltut
-on Yrotutsie oft sedd begetis som aew ti misio to inom
*Ytio sit moqy bevise yiub need bend selruimt bise to soit
a at + +.
SOW aD N
nek estate two ,belit asw molaiqo aint eomts
pogsoidd To ysED av prodn mi moteiood oft of beLLec meed
(atoede eonsvba) ,2fL@L .SS tedmesesd belit ,sOd {fT IVS
eeaso seaio Atiuvct at sat bled yLesatqxe eat it mliotedw i
(xetostsio ¢adt to ssw ted ta easo edt nit moitos oft bas)
ent to gnivin edt egeiis ton been mialo to tnemetata s
YIsaasoen et taoarrovs doue dgsodt meve, ,eokton yrotutsia
ont as (Ca errr to weiv at \ .noitexsifoob was ac MOMOD sat
t1iw0d Laqtotault eit te tremgbhy t anit yecure dts nolniqo ⁊sax⁊
tnemetate alttitniaig sevssed nolsvos To seyso srt
need bad eolion yrotutasa edt tant reve ton bib miefo {to —
ydoted at dmomgbhut ssid ogee EHD.-to ro ond nogs
-bebnamet eavso ont base
eCUCMAMEA CUA CUGARVEA .
437 = 21835 *
/
a corporation,
FRED MILLYR BREWING COMPANY,
Appellee, APPEAL FROM
j 4 MUNICIPAL COURT
vs e 4 : f
\ f OF CHICAGO.
G. HEILEMAN BREWING company,
‘wet! 498 7.A.178
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY
DELIVERED TH! OPINION OF THE coUnT,
In an action for the purchase price of saloon
fixtures, on trial by the court, plaintiff had judgment for
$1,500, from which defendant appeals, saying that its agent
whe contracted for the purchase of the fixtures had neo
authority te bind it in that respect,
Unde the evidence the court_properly_coult find
a thet Plaintiff was lessee of premises ‘No. 2109 Wabash avenug
and wge the owner of saloon and restaurant fixtures thereiny ,
thet dn Mareh, 1912, representatives of plaintiff had a
conversation with Yulter G. hueller, who was the manager of
the Chicago branch of the defendant company, whose main
office was in Wisconsin#, thet at thie time the saloon business
was not conducted in these premises because the saloon license
had been revoked;,that Quring this conversation it was agreed
between these representatives of the respective breweries that
the defendant would purchase from the plaintiff the fixtures
* furniture contained in the premises and also the lease,
which would be assigned to the defendant, but that the $1,500
purchase price would not be paid until Mr. Mueller was sure
the license would be restored, The lease was dated January
20, 1912, and ran to the plaintiff as lessee, and at this
*
x | p mH ;
\ «THAD DUTWaLAe —X cst
: — eS
MOR SARITA \ seelLouas 29
mito gagtormm { \ | A a Pi
: ; — i f(D oe ae
sODADIHOD FO , r
X oh ake Bie:
\ymawenD oulwana —— —
Lat! R Yale 5 J
J oO “\s © eS
BY I AL8er. Ny ao
; Joe 8) — :
YIEAVEOM UOLTOUL MTom
oTHUOD HHT TO HOLMIGO VHP CRMeVIdO
ae)
“noo kee to — ——— exit ‘t0% mitos ns ot by 44 —
Py ete Sap
— os qao⁊ dood at 3k bake ‘ot — ike
IT gy PNY er }
pinrevs dandew eore olf cosimong to oeanel enw vthtmio +
x $atotedt eormmsxdt inewatest bas moofse lo rorwo ont m
= bait — — to wovkdinene ges S60E J—
aorwtxi? ont tit mtalq ont mort oneusua bisow ti
.oenol ont oale bas voukmong ens rit bonkat nos
— Saale) 1. |
F 008, £8 edt sant sud tasbme eb ont og ‘bel teas pein
) ese cow teLfLowli . IM fie nw brag ‘ae ‘ton stuow
{ir
: “ Yisvnst betab aow oanel ont — od | 4
ni aids to bas wooaeet an rtd te t ont of
an 4 a Tae Ga 6 Pia, 7 i
ole
time, by apt words in writing, the lease was assigned from
plaintiff to defendant, the defendant signing "G. Heileman
Brewing Company (Seal), by Walter G. Mueller." The landlord
consented to this assignment. At the same time, by another
writing signed by the respective parties in the same manner,
it was egreed that the furniture in the saloon should be sold
by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant agreeing to
pay therefor the sum of @1,500 as soon as a saloon license
should issue from the City of Chicago for the operation of
a@ saloon on said premises, Later on this license was issued,
and on June 13, 1912, the saloon business was resumed,
Nefendant entered into possession of the premises
and efmtee furniture, and paid rent under the lease from and
including June, 1912, until the expiration of the lease on
April 30, 1915, It used the furniture in question during all
of this time, and never offered to return the same or to re-
assign the lease, after the license was issued request was
made of defendant to pay the $1,500, which was refused by the
ra defendant, _ De tage — — —
nataver may be said concerning HMueller's authority
in the ace tienen, defendant must be held to have ratified
this agreement entered into by Wueller, Defendant's officers
had knowledge of the agrechent, and while ‘they protested as to
the price they continued to hold possession of the fixtures and
ef the leased premises and, #0 far as tae. Record shows, never
offered to return the furniture to the plaintif?s- This emduct
amounted to a ratification of Mueller's agreement, and defendan
is obligated to vay the price named. This is in accordance wit
the decisions in many cases, among which are Connett v. City o:
chieage, 114 Ill. 233; Searing vy. Butler, 69 111. 575; and
‘Groliman v. Montgomery Ward & CO., 181 Ili. App. 598,
The judgment wes right and is effirmed.
; AFFIRMED.
moxt homines asw sesel oft ,gniginw ot abrow dqe yd ,omkt
nameLiel .O" aninnla taabaeted ot ,tasbaeteb of Ttisataltq —
Strofbael eAT “,w9ellow .D t9edieW yd ,(Leek) yoaquoD pettwoud oo
nenttons yd ,emts omaa oft $A ,tnomapiugs aiid o¢ bed meaneo
,tennan emee odd ak aetireaq evitosqeet od yd bomgia gabe tw .
bfLow ad bLuoda moolse oct mk oxtmdiectnt of taney beorgs eow th — ae
ot gatootas snsbnoteb oft ,tnabnstod edt of Trkinialg edt yo
eansolft moolsa s ag mooe ae 99@,f6 to muvee oft xo tetedsd wr J
te nolisteqo et tot ogsoid? to YWrd end moxt sunek buocts
beueci vow samoll aid? no teteatl ,evelmorg bias mo nookse a 9—
ebomyeot esw aaentaud moofae oft ,SL0L ,éL ons mo bas
sealmoexgq sit to molLageacog otmt botetmae SInabno ted i
bus mort gesel odd toby tmet biog brs ,otwdiowt othe bag
| mo gesol eit to anitatiqxe ont Litmes ,S10L ,onnt gukbutont i i
ifs gukuub moitaoup ai otwsiount eft heay gi ,éf£e@L ,0G — J
“9% ot 10 amsa od miutot of berette seven bas ,omit aids ‘to i
asw teeupes beweel aaw eanosoli als tostA .sanel ont agices pe
edt yd beavtexr asw doicdw ,000,f* ont ysaq ot Inebnetob to obam oy:
eae heey — . . we '
— — — eentamian
atooltto e'snebnetet! .teilemi yi odni batted xe $900 9198 elis * -
ot as betestorg coat olidw ban ,tassoetys ort to egboivom batt, 2 R
bas sextxit of? to noLesesaog blow ot bewnktnos yeas — ott f
‘toven ,ewore biooes- édt es tat on. »bna voukmoxg beesel. ont 20 A
foubnes ata? .Ttisatete odd of oumtimsw? odd awe of boretto
‘ptebneteb bas strompotgs @'toLLowtt ‘to nokgpokiden » of bes moms Lx
thhtw sonmabtooss nt el aldyT .beman ootrq ont yar oF batagtico al a
9 10 YILO ov ttonmoD orm doidw proms ,heaso Yyaam a enmoin oeb sit
| , 8ea GGA s4 £2 LOLs «OD yd toh .v Er ae
: ae A _ ebemiittes ef bre auois now Somgbut, eat hi
ie Lae rule
ary: eCUMALWIA ae may! *
477 © 21875
Le ——————
WALTER J. BRUKER,
q }
i Appellee, j
{ ) # APPBAL PROM MUNICIPAL couRT
4 ve, \ }
* OF CHICAGO.
SLiRVERT HULLESEM,
Appellant,
%
*
ae OS Lok. dae
ba Od
WR, PHRSIDING JUSTICE KeSUREZLY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff vroughet—eust allegéh that in January,
1913, defendant promised to pay him 2} per cent. commission
if plaintiff would procure purchasers itor certain real estate
belonging to defendant, at a price of $55,000; tat about
April 14, 1913, plaintiff did so, but defendant refused te
⸗
abide by his promise, aie Rag ul by > shah er al Cua a aid Roy
Jupgign — for —* andwat elm dy, giy S76, Mon widen adrenddnt
ey es
—
a %
The evidence tendM{ to how that in April, 1913,
defendant owned cegtmir troct Farce Wert of pevon avenue
rena east of Clark street, wien wyliRereinarterbe éesignated
as “the ball park,” and another picce of land nearby, which
VA — —
— called the Genreiber avenue strip, The
—— WAS used as z tii-park, with grand stand,
ticket offices end appurtenances, under « lease for a term of
eight years beginning April 1, 1909, A portion of the senreli-
ber avenue strip was also under lease for a term of three
years beginning October 1, i911, with privilege to the lessee
! of renewal for an additional period of three years, in the
ii latter part of 1912, or perhaps in January, 1915, plaintiff,
a real estate broker, asked defendant what price was wanted
® for the ball park and defendant gave him a price of $45,60C,
OVBIS = TT
os send ft) atta
| : obo Llagea — RST oN
THUOD LATIOTHUM MONT LARESA f " fh
f ; av i oe
Hoabruo to Id apie Cn a
\ «tan tloqaa /
oar AIT 8@r ie
YIENVGOM MOLTCUY OMIGLAT .au Ne iP hd aa
THUD aur TO aoꝛatao aur nvt aad
Ohm 4 : Ni
———
— dans —R J wre saya isataie =k ete —
noes imuoo, -tngo z9oqg $8 mid xag oF beelmory suabas toh eee
stiusee Inox aladioo i9t arenadomug stuporg b Lesow Visaialg uM
Juods THus WIUV0,8Eg To eoity w te stasbno teh as anignoted —
os heawlet Jaabueleb gud ,oe bib Tiitalaiq 16181 aot Ciagh
Rah bia a ‘cna all aauoo [Pes ve 4*⁊⸗ . SOMO RE aid yd ob ide |
sabbndees da Law ao'r't vey hy Lai alo guoenn oat tot meme sh, i
—
* 18S
cSLeL buch rd jas worlw os boot oonebive ‘ot
avaavea novel, To —* “band sows POD s bonwe ‘tnapaetob
betangiess od xsttnatont Te ioldw ,iestsa Areal to dene ban
slo dew Ydtaen onod Yo ego0ig tod) ons bern *, alteg tind ous" on
eit ,qinga Suneve xodiotdee ould bw Lime ae
ee
shana hasty dAtiw ,aeag- * ee dew ome aq ‘ted .
to wrod @ tot casei a robas —D — — Sia asorito toxoas
«letiiok odd ‘to noldi0q A .200L ff ALinga guicatyod ates y tdgie
sand to “19d @ 102 oamel tobay ela saw qixes ourova tod :
—R outs , OF eyotéving adiw Lie of xo do⸗ o — way ee -
ous Ti .a4sey vexid to hoitog Enrtoks Lbs itd x0 kawouox to ‘ é
PMugasn cg LOL ~Ytsuney ob eqadtivg 10 KLOL te tq * bey
badinay saw volag tasty sanbaetob boxen meted egazeo Bo 1 A
2000. 809 ‘to gohag 4 midst ora aabtid te: ban — fag oe ne ti \
9—
wa
i
Afterwards, in April, 1915, plaintiff told defendant that he
thought he hed a purehaser for the ball park provided the
fchreiber — strip could also be purchased, and upon ine
quiring as to the price of that was told that it could be
bought for $10,000, Later on plaintiff and defendant met
Henry ¢C, Bartling and Selma Gundsten, prespective purchasers
procured by plaintiff, sad «a written option sezreement was
drawn up and $1,060 deposited te be held in eserow pending
the exercise cf the option, This option gave the proppective
purchasers the privilege of purchasing on or before October
15, 1913, beth the ball park and the Schreiber avenue strip
at a price of YS5,000, * treat ee a fuetiver-prowiaion ‘that
the option contract should be void if the *leases on the
above premises are net remeved,* and thet in this event the
eserow money should be returned to the prospective pur-
ohasers, After the execution of this agreement attempts
were wade in divers waye to enncel the lerse on the ball park,
but without success. By Jume 25, 1913, all the parties ape-
parently being of the opinion that there was no prospect of
canceling or forfeiting the lesse, it was agreed by them that
the ojos i seooneee we @ canceled and the money re-
funded, bE “eed. =
enge-Title-* trust Compeny iid the option -sereoment- was then
and there-canceled_and_the-earnest Hiney-returmed—to thé ~
prespective-purcnesers>”
pefendant continued in his efforts to secoure the
cancellation of the lease on the ball park, and in August,
after negotiations wi tr efficersof- the basebait ‘ctu,
on eharin hen avnat“the (» Nebut.
terms were Perens anon which invelved « rewittance to the
Club of $1,000 of rent in sonsideration of which the lonse
was canceled by smtual agreement, Seeentime Pring the fol-
lowing month plaintiff went zo defendant and said he had
of Jadt tuabreteb bfot Mtitninty ,Sf@L ,fivgA al ,ehuawiedtA
‘ead boblvorg wraq (tad oe tot Tetectotuya BR bel od $efqurocts
oti moqu tis ,beeacore¢ ad cela db {yoo qhiée esnem “esdtondes
ad biyoy tt jadt bist easw tant to soir ed? oF ea “yaltiup
jam*3eabasteb bas Wiisalals a6 togAatr O00, OfF ‘ot ddguod
atoesdorg evisoagqeong .netesode antes bus goifsune owt n
sew droapatya tolsiqe net tiiue & bits .btivalet¢ yd betveot¢
gn ibaog worse wh bivsd od of betiaogeh 090,18 bas qu awetb
evivoeqaory eid ovey aoliqo efi? .moliae edd Yo Setotexe edt
tisdotoO stoted to no yntesdeise To equ liviag edd @tovadotug
qitze suneve tedierziitod b pas Arag ited off deed ,81eL aL
aden, Aamo pein tie <7
taaa io henbmong—tesibasile t- f ' 90, GE Yo ooltyg a sa
943 a0 geagscl* ait tt biov od ofueete Sonrtwes smoktqo ent |
edt sneve eds at sardt baa’ *,beveowr fon ot aestoetg evods
1 Svitoogeotq odt of hensuder oc bigerts yonon ——
eiguatin tnemeetgs t te seltuveexs ons vedttA .ereenio :
wtnq LIfLad ed xe sacel pat Loomes ot svew etsvib at obam stew
“(8 acliang elt (fe ,8L0f ,8& aml yh seeeoove Sensie dud
20 Tooqeorg on aew otedt tndt melaigqo odd Yo geted ¥linetad
salt wok ys howrgs- aan Jt ,sdedt ad? guistiotre? «o@ ymifeonso - |
“9% Yonom ot has — ams Cuoris —— — ont i.
- Lat Sito gol tto.aws. pho bast
Nod TRH IeomME RRA MOLT TO ets HEN YEO tees? eT opel
“Bid -od bacctuder-nONd Teves ond hma. boLonnao-ededd bap
.2 se mec TRY evitovqeotg
edt oxwoes oF atxotta sin ot beunttooo dnabaeted |
wJeegua of bas Ancqz (fad old no genet one to sotto theonns
Cris Linieesd ont -“te.ates
sad of gonets ioe: s —— *
sano oft Aoldw to noliatebianon oi dnet to — te: dulo ;
-fo% eat yrivdh omte-emes tasmeotas Laudum yd beteoaee aw J ¥
bat of bine bne jnabneted of gnov Yiitaiste déwan ehieeE”
heard tnat the lease had been canceled, — — — ine
formed that this was true, plaintiff aid that he would see
hie parties again, Afterwards he reported to defendant that
his parties wanted Sejewe time to get estimates on paving,
sewers, and other improvements, as it was contemploeted to
subdivide the ball park, i to-eierntam e Ber endak stated
that he would not sell the Schreiber avenue atrip at all,
Some weeks later plaintiff, with Bartling and gundsten,
called upon fF defendant and was told by him that he
would not sell the Schreiber avenue strip, end that his
price on the ball park was $50,000. This the parties re»
fused to pay, and no further negotiations between them wore
had .4—~
<5 ren Claims 2} per cent, commission on
$55,000, the price originally given bim by defendant for
all of the said real estate, | ——— —
is conceded by plaintiff that he has no
ciaim based upon procuring the option contract, and this
must necessarily be ac, for the performance of this con-
tract was conditioned upon the termination of the lease of
the ball elub, This condition failed, thua rendering nugatory
any obligations under the contract, and by consent of all
parties it was canceled, We are not impressed by the con-
tention that this cancellation was merely a pretended can-
Gellation to mislead the baseball club into believing that
the urgeney for canceling the lease had pnesed, The option
‘ eontract was in fact and in law canceled and abrogated,
Having told plaintiff in 1912, or January, 1913,
that he would sell the baseball park for $45,000, was dee
fendant bound to that price in the fall of 19137 ‘the
property had cost him at least $1,000 more by that time
Bay pak gated-wegr—bis ,befoonse aved bas sent odd tadd b
one — of gaus blas *rLIalsly | outs Baw ELSE Inds = i f
tad dnabasted os bedtoqger od ebtewtedtA .alays seistay of
6Bnived mo astemlisus tog of omits owmiPead bednsw asikiseg t
Os bedsiqnesaoo saw 3h as ,asnoamvorgml tedto ane som
;, | posure, pnabue ref Qos — -tiaq LLad od obivin
ila sa qitta suneve todis eid. {Lee ton biuow on 7
Metubowe bas gaiftuad dtiw ,Yisaials aeded. exoow 9 ot
ai-tadt mid yd bLod eae bax Snsbaeteh Wie aoqs bef
~a% wreva ead eli? 000,008 eaw atag thas ead a0 * x
ary
tot Snabuetes yd mid nevis UiLenigixe aointg out 4000, a ; e
nett is
“erie —— — odsiae davt bine ont vee ”
——— —
— re,
—
——
on eat ef Jaas Tillasaiq yd hobeonoo ad ;
| , aiut bus ,toatsinos neki qo ond giiisootg aoqu beesd |
soo etd Io sonsmxottey ois 10} ,om od YLiresssoen | au
. to easol os to notseniaues oad mogu bonoisibaos. saw 3
-UTosagun yiitobuert omit ,botiat aoidiaaoy ata? duke iad ¢
3 fia iG saseneo Yd baa ,soettaoa ait tobny enoisagiide ym 0.
J “noo sit Yd beaserqel son ots oF .baloonman amw ak ao 1
| “ad bobsasorg & Yiotsa saw aoldjalivousy alias sods noisaed \ if
tact goivetlod oini duis {Ladesad od baoiaka os noida: —
aoisqo sit ,bexseg ban sunel edd anileonss roꝛ⁊ ear au ie /
bs ba Te
ii
-bosagords bas. boleonss wal ai bos toat at *
eCLOL ,Ytoudstl 10 Biklinialq bios —— ude ‘
9b Baw .000,06% tot Arag iLndoasd eid Lf oe
oat — « RSLOL Yo itat ods aid ead cial * Ae
tik | ents tadd yd stom 000.L8 tenet basalts te *
in the rent remitted as consideration for canceling the
lease, ‘There may have been other resacns why defendant
thought the property was worth more, We know of no rule
that would obligate an owner for an indefinite period by
his verbal reply to an inquiry ‘a8 te the price of real
~ eatate, After the cancellation of the contract defendant
was wholly free to ask any price he pleased for nis property,
or to sell or not, as he wished, He had the right to ask
\
$50,000 for the bell park, and it is not cliaimed that plaine
ECO —
tiff ever procured a purcheser ready, wiliing and able to
buy at that price. Another consideration of importance is
the fact that et no time isc it made to appear that plain-
tiff procured purchasers willing and ready to buy the ball
park and the Schreiber avenue strip with a lease thereon
running to September, 1917. Even upon plaintiff's theory
that defendant was bound by his original price placed upon
the premises, plaintiff has not preduced purchasers ready to
buy et that price under existing conditions,
: We hold that plaintiff is not entitled to re-
cover, and the judgment is reversed and judgment of nil
gapint is entered in this court,
REVERSED AND JUDGMENT LENE.
odf gaiifeonss 19t soisatebienos sa bedsiaex Inst odd ai
J dishneTtsb viw enocwe x ralao need ovad yam orads ‘ame .
elsx on ‘to word of ,etom ditow eaw ydreqorg out —
wd boireg osinitebad as 107 tonwo an etani ive biuow lors
dnsbaeteb Jostines eit to molinlieoonss edd «ed%A odace
Ueto qotg eid. zo? bessef¢ ef seitg yas den od eet? yLllodw aon
wes oF digit odd bad of .berteiw of aw ,ton to Efos of x0 i 9
“nialg Jads bemialo tom si si bas ack ant tot 000, 08%
od ofca bas gniifiw ,ybaot Teesdoteq B beiwootg ‘teve vs J
af sonastogal to noitateblencs tedftona -9oitq stadt ta wed ix
/ -aiaiq Jadd tseqqs oJ sbam 3k al omis on da sand soot ak a
_ diad edt wid of ybuot bas guiiliw eresadoruq aemw00tq Ys ) bi
Hoeteis sasol a Aviv gqitsa ounove todbotavd ond one —
Ytosods a'Riisaialg aequ asvk TLL .todmes god os aakanis
; aoqu beoalg seitq Innigizto ald wd bawed eaw ⸗bae dod sade
od Ybse1 ateandorwy baoubotq tom aad Titalala 490 tang 9
-eneitibaoos anitetxs tebaw ooing saad tox
a -s1 oJ belsisne ton @i Viitalaig tads plod ey
fin Yo stnompbut baa boetevex af das agbhuy ons bas ae
-Stueo elds ai heteine ef gadgao of:
eid TH: TMOduUL GMA CRCRAVaH
516 = 21914
[ HIRAN GS. WARNER,
Appellee,
AFPHAL FROM SUPFRIOR COURT,
CUGK COUNTY,
PACIFIC COAST CASUALTY
COMPANY OF SAN BRANCISCO,
| v3,
|
| Appéliant.
198 1.4.183
KR, FRUSIDING JUSTICE BeSURELY
8
*
oe
| DELIVERED THK CFINION OF THE COURT,
{7 In @ suit for commissions claimed under an
ageney dontract, tried by the court, plaintiff had jddgment
J
|
for $10,067.91, from which defendant, SPPE Bd] Be icccmeeccicecenerenunoemmn
if ; — — — — —
Yhe contract sued on, dated February 1, 1906,
that plaintiff should have the
— —
—— right in the stote of Illinois tokinsurence bugle
— ——
‘burglary, pate giass and employers!
——
—
f is senpaunation to be 4c per oent. OF celia
on all policies issued within said territory, and a further
commission of 10 per cent, upon the net profits; instructions
in writing to the plsintiff from the home office (in San
Francisco) by the defendant to be construed to be part of
the contract; contract teruineble on Su days' written
notice —* ꝛe party, — | — öüöüöü— —
mieaeitea by defe — ——— co » the ai a
ors gon vend one be conaidere in tntee a xue first
the aifte ence Aietwet n 40 per cen uf ana 30 wer
naa a — Tae a
— pro eniums on Circa liability inoutance. | It He,
— “
Claimed that the detain compensation of 40 ‘per cent, was
reduced vy agreement to 30 per cent, On April 23, 1907, de-
‘ae fendant wrote plaintiff that it did not care for any ex-
ay
M
eae +
—
SURAT 2 eel
«oo Llouga
eTHUOD HOLARLUE MOAH TANGA
—
AITUuoo HOOD
Esl A.18 OL
YiNAUSOM ADITLUL DMLCLELAL , AM ‘a
-TAUOD BHT XO MOLMIGO RMT GHAMVIUKE
aa tebau hemislo ageiaetmace tot 3 @ 8 ol
tnemsbbl bad Tilsalisla «F100 edt yd beins — (on
— — — ROTTS: Sasbauateh dotiw mort L870)
.200L ,f yusutded beodab oat boeve sontsnes i ——
J eis svad buocta Ttktnlala sade
— ied
4, Gisud oonarwaat des elonilsy te ointa eats ab fugit o ®
in C1et0vo Lams bas — stadg Wralytud
— * —— * re od a —— ous
" tenititul & baa ,vrosinies blae aiutiw beveck oy
anolsouttani jad ttoxg ten si? negw Sage meq ot 1X
——
mae ak) esoktto emo eazy mens, TWisnialg ‘ost of
to dag ed of boutdenoo od F ana abeio teb aus we
fess hiw faved’ oé ne eidoutuses tontgaee ite
fe ots ô Û ÛÛ — —
6sw ,taso hae Ob te noLsaanaquon fnntgizo on
seb roer ,é8 LtxgA a0 dave t9q 08 of 19 m90
-x® YS tot siae ton bib ak sae 3 Lantate «
sud
‘.
tended line of this kind of business, that the business would
not stand a higher commission rate tnan 50 per cent, and it
oO
= would accept such insurance on thst basis only, and “if the
business cannot be written on this basis as general agent
BO,
( commission kin 3°. ado not write it." Pewxre-of-the* opinion
BM tert pois S agreed te by plaintiff, as shown both by his
5
ji \reply letter dated May 6, 1907, and his subsequent conduct
: ‘in deducting only 3 per cent, of preniuns in — re-
i ———— —
Be. ‘mittances. — —
— J—
ary ty" Tse; re--not... lapartant.
ere was 5 ayia indo the parties ren February »- = ad
der ich a, wer voring the terug Of en arfeare
Bub, saa see by. hen, vy . signing wae
not CORA PAAR give this
a _-___——-Is_this agreement to accept 30 per cent, binding
—
in lew? We hold that it ier Even on the theory that
a consideration tv iecessary, the acceptance by defendant of
| liab y insurance after its notice to plaintiff that it
| uld not accept this kind except on a 30 per cent, basis is
4
——
sufficient ſonertornn. (<) The agreement was executed
e/writin
ract ——
by the parties, hence iv Binding. A parel agreement to
modift _inatryument-—undt®’ acal, when executed is valid,
ow Vv. Griesheimer, 220 111, 106, where the court said:
donb
Sif the arte eave executed the contract — modified, 80
|
|
,
| that nothing ear to be done by either part is no
| 7
Longe: eeutery and the contract as executed will ret be
We hold that the court was in error in allow
f-this difference of 10 per cent. on liability
eee — —
—— — —
the econ’ — of — clain in “42° or 40
bivow seoniaud odd sad? ,saeniteud to batt eld? Yo ont bobnod nod
Pe it
$i bas .ta90 x0q O08 matt stax noiveetamoo todgid a bande tor
; of¢ 24° base ,vtao eised sedd no soneiwent douse dqeoon Stuow
i‘ Hogs faxenéy 68 wlesd aidd ao medsiaw od —— J
= ae
t “etd—te-otiww 6". ti otiaw Som ob YLbaix sotedtm
. xeinigo w pe :
eld yd dvod nwode sa «Tikiniely wd of booxrss @ 5
— -
soubnoo sneupsedua ais bas , TURE ,8 YS betad wdiot x.
; “9% goisean ad saw imor q to .J0®9 oq OE yLmo —R | an
— abel Bongte sen —E—— —— *
—— ————— —X X —
¢3 eVIsurdeT — —X — — anw f
——— ton v To antes omg | atsoa™ — youd tote
— ae dunte ot -me rd. vd benji elsnoupi dua 0
*
Vtilatiy fost: aids evig of
‘
«“Baibnid .tneo toq 0% sqe00e of snomestne elas ‘LP *
4
j tad) ytoods sit ne neva —— tans fed ow oth —
us to dnahueted yd sonetqeoom odd ,Vtaeeo0en ‘i I
si dant Yiltinielq 09 soliton aah tssta eoumiwant
£ eisad .tneo r9q Of # nO Sqbiiis bois a tits — ten b Ls Le
betuesxe asaw tnosieetya edt (8) J satebtenes Ine iv. te |
od snemeetgR Lotaq A -anioore oh —XR —— a
— a
-bilav ei besuoexe nodw , lace Yeon hte weanen' |
: bLos dtwoo edd otwitw ,80L LL ose —————
oe .belitibom aa - Joaitned od beduoexe oven
on uk tf Ht tag toisie yd enob od of |
od ton a botuoexs es soatI Ido ‘ond bas rod
; “wolfe mk’ Torte nt sew dru00 ond Senta bLod et
VSiLidail mo .tnoo 19q of to — — ele
— — — — — — —
ob oP SY aut aileto e'm1tvaterg to —* —
per cent, comission on linbility insurance written by the
firm of Burras & Goodbody in the years 1910 and 1911, Dee
fendant claims that in the latter part of 1910 it was agreed
by it and plaintiff that the business in Illinois was to be
5 divided so that the firm of Burras & Goodbody should be the
general agent for employers’ liability insurance instead of
plaintiff, who was to continue as agent in lines of plate
glass and burglary insurance only
a ‘gg ae ep SE
hent—ie-not-free from -diffieuity, “Nowéver,we-heve-arrived
at the conclusion that this agreesent was made and carried
‘ eut——some-of tHe Evidence influencing us is the testiweny
of the witnesses Green, Hurras and Goodboay; the correspondence
between plaintiff and defendant, with particular reference to
the letter from defendant dated wovexber 14, 1910, and plain-
tiff's reply dated November 21, 19);..ahae.. the manner in which
yPlaintift and Burras & Coodbody inverohanged business, . aes me.
ia, plaintiff brought all liability insurance business coming
to him to Burras & Goodbody, who paid plaintiff all the con-
mission thereon, while this firm gave plaintiff its burglary
and plate glass insurance business and received the commis-
gion, We- donot construe Ae letter from defendant dated
wevember 14, 1910,
treat, it A —7— threat to sever all relations
with plaintiff unless he observed strictly the agreement to
divide the business as bad been arranged, and in plaintiff's
reply of November 2lat he —2 resent any suggestion that
he had not strictly observed this agreement; éefendant ap-
perently accepted his statement of the fact and did not at
that time terminate his plate glass and burglary insurance
agency; this was subsequently done, in January, 1912,
ons yd nestinw Sonmtive ad yetitdars ag ao das Lume Anaoo 104
eo% .1ff@L baw OL0L eraoy odd ad Vbodhood &. anni te okt
bestge eaw $i OLLI to sxsq t9ttal ods ak Isis emia. —
od of ssw elonif{l at eventenud edt tant Midaielg baa af oy
ons od blucds ybodbood 4 astiusil to mitt odt sand oe bebivib
to baoseni eonatuent ve biddsts ‘etoyotqus to? _tieas foxesey
etal¢ to genil at sJoogn 6a onnlinos of eaw oitw sted ake lg
W* sanntuent vislgaud bas seats
OO TGR MBG DMR t0-dont-sntd—te—aol : te doh— BE
bevirtn~evesd ‘owe TTOVSWON” , yedtwed tip nor wort f9n-#2-daaB)\
boirtao ban wSam ssw Sooner ge elas darid Woleusouos out, $0 |
i J YAouisees edd al ay gnloneuttal ———
_ Sonebnoqgeottoo oft ;ybadbood bas asx ,ne91d Sescontinv ons Yo
i od eoterster ralsvelsiag tiw ,tusbaeted bas Na⸗ealata pai
: -nialy baa ,OfeL , bf ‘to dme voit bates susbasteb mort? —
— ——— ak Toataa | one ant. aWA@L .fS todmevol bedab vigex —
—— bouaaaousaauũ Yoodbood 4 saxxut baa Visas,
J giimeo aseniand conexant Viilidelt {La ddguord vi⸗aiata ae J
‘ 5 ae oid If tiisnialg blag odw ,ybodbood a watts oF ald. ot |
A Vtelyid ati ‘isan lg ovey mail eins oLidy Moe Teds | —
ae,
i 24200 ont baviesst bas seonleud eonsiweni eaaty —R ban
a
Po betab taabneteh moxt —8 a — sole a
Ya, eee |
OLeL pes Te . : i
N at ~~ eteaud J
ot snomeszas eis yisoluze bevisedo od —— —R ti
e'Tidaiatg mL bas ,beysatta ‘eed bad ea Beonland sag ebivib — .
Jad? agidacggue yas tapeo% —R od sas indaev ot to ver
"G8 snebaeted ,tneguserye elds bevieade Nidolsse. hail ie
#8 Jon bib bas soat odd to Jasaesate @ bit Sad Henne,
| Sone tAcL. Yislytad bas, aualy * a: ofenks
; -8L@L xeugat ab onob — ———— “aad yon
i eared ie ‘teven od taetad #
=p
3
|
— it was error to allow plaintiff anythang for
; (fe part of his claim, _ — — ——
Lt
fhe third part of plaintiff's claim ie for com-
A
missions on certain pixtejciese-ond—burgiary insurance written
py agencics in-somthern-ittimets amounting to $3,618.47, 049M
Lawned i
pg Drentent
exis sertain¢eonnta which appear to be credits given to dee
fendant by plaintiff in the vepy of account attached to his
the copy
gree with esas ne ha
As entered
— ——————— this ‘Court
Pr aa
Wit? against. the defendant in the sun of $3,318.47,
—— ⸗ F
REVERSED AND JUDGMENT HERR,
“ed. drome oye SE Tntt-nedstgo add to aaa,
ssonteud-eonsruent east gaibivib auci⸗ yd doatinos ar
eid 10% nolsytohLenos ods Jait bias od yam i btn ¥ a
—— 10 jex 10 va 400 elt nektaod on
bin 8 ats — x ee
ro dmovel al Soatiaos eff bodantotes oyds HG ‘dnabegt ont J
Bp aici
—4 sien bg eA 3 avent! yxely d
4
> fagol oft ,teAdiwt .ootol mi oat Romeo ty
seol
: miats e'ttiant {q to ¢uaq a8 Adao J aolssateb Jano
tat ewoues eonesdive syid —X an 6 dtaq aiid eldacllggs ol
«eat yd Sasivooxe ac anteak: ba a ,beduoexe aay 9m9 9138 a
-SigGNE —————— r wean sbedisteib od don £2) ———
— ——— Tildalaiqg wolla ot r0Tte Baw th gars DL
ie 4, ee -minto wkd to axa ebid
X 818,c% of gaisnvons — —R
——
eld oſ bedostia snuooos To vgoo silt? at ridmiaty ue tnabast
ssoisoratoob
— ————— —
—
—
aa Yqoo oy — “adas diiw setqefounas of |
*
sev in ao ta ara ioe ond |
ff \ } «
otetendT. ATS » EEL by asdf sons *¥ «Qe
Nf |
«ive at be —9 deur —— ous Yo sr ;
2 ! *
————— jo
ee
tnomabst of — oh Vib ale ed
8 te To-Jea bo daat oe sao —RE
fo ut ond to daw voit 19a xLo8 —
*
woo a tad ‘aE — ——
s9tob Jou saw eidT
.* «Vd, 8bg, cy
551 = 21949
WARY VON \DER BARLIA,
Appellant,
y APPSAL FROM
CIRCUIT COURT,
COOK COUNTY.
198 1.A.18%
MA. PRESIDING JUSTICN MeSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
BRELI£,
Appellee. #
On July 2, 1915, complainant filed her bill alleging
that the defendant on June 22, 1915, had abandoned her, leaving
her without means of support. Ghe asked that defendant be
enjoined from conveying, disposing of or encumbering his
property, and that he pay solicitor's fees and a sum for her
maintenance and support. By subsequent amendment complainant
further details the conduct of defendant, Yo this defendant
filed an answer denying misconduct on his part, denying that
they were living separate and apart, and containing animadvere
sions upon the conduct of his wife. Subsequently hearing was
had before the chancellor, who being of the opinion that the
equities were with the defendant ordered that complainant's
bill of complaint and the amendments thereto be dismissed for
went of equity. From this decree complainant has appealed.
The statute on separate maintenance, in force July 1,
1877, Hurd's Ill. Stat., Chap. 68, provides thot married women
“who, without their fault, now live or hereafter may live,
separate and apart from their huebenda,” may have remedy "for a
reasonable support and maintenance, while they so live or have
80 lived separate and apart." ve are of the opinion that the
complainant failed to prove thot she and her husband were
living separate and apart without her fault. We shall not
narrate the details of the frequent and unhappy ——
Lie =
: iv 5 5
4 we saan ean:
4 GC R —— —N 9 i
F co —— ¥ | J
MONT TAIT. 11
J ee 5 —
enuoo TIVORID
vruvod ance 9 A m0
{ Tiler —2
D ——
var AI Ber
YIAAUGOM HOLTAVL puLar eur .
eTHUOD UH TO MOLMIGO AKT GuAnvidaa
gntyolls {Lid son bolt? tnonislgmos 200k 8 — * Coe ey:
| aukvaet . tor bonobanda bad ,L0L ant ocurt mo aeba vd ‘ont fat
od fnabavted suit bexea exe .troqque Ye ensom $wosit bw mt —
eid deit ⁊ocam cus 10 to pabeogats at vovao⸗o mort one ; i
ey hiimsinainis tneupoadua eet .trocque bra oonanoaatan
$nabmoteh ake of etnsbasteh to toubaoso oa⸗ atbatob 1s ¥ !
tart gnkynob txsq ald a0 daub oatm antynh Tewans om boll
-tevbanins anintat noo baa ,t tse bun stetagve aehvad oy on.
aaw gitkisocl — — * 10 toub moe ost neque .
ont sarft noiniqo ons to antod octw tos Leonie salt —
ett nantsiqnes tastt betebz0 Enaboo rob outs agke oxen ⸗oia at f
10% beseimetb od oterens asi nembnoms 4 bra atalanoo w id
ebefeeqqes asd tnanialgnoo oxoob ekild m0 2% “Ww iupe to te
a yYLut sorot ak soonanied et am otaxnqe 0 odutate Rad
| nemow bottram tadt sobt voug .8a - audio ——— ft atbawil ,
( wvll yam wos ‘taered to evil won J Lunt atedt froatiin
, 8 Tot” ydbemort evad yom “",abnadaundt «rhedt more dung
i evant to evil os yors oLisw oociano⸗ nl an bag stoaque ¢
* eds aui⸗ mentee eit to sta ov * d18qe brs ote —*
a erow bnadeud tod bua ena sort Hobe of hoster 3
ton Lfatea oW .tLust ron diiortd tw — bas ofa 7
\ : , 4 > * + J 4 : . ) ¥ 1
berevetines yqqarnus bra ts ; oft to elLiasob
*
Qe
between the parties, in which neither side was free from
fault. We are inclined to believe, however, that if this
unfortunate couple had been left to themselves they would
have lived happily together. ‘he conduct of a son of the
complainant seems to have furnished considerable ground for
annoyence, while it is evident that the children of defendant
have been potent instrumentalities in causing irritation to
the complainant and unhappiness to the defendant.
Whatever may have been the cause of the discord,
the evidence clearly shows that the complainant, as she herself
has stated, has declined to live with the defendant unless he
—ghoula either convey to her some of his property or cancel a
certain lease which he has made for an extended period to a sone
elaw. Defendant had a lawful right to dispose of his property
as he saw fit, subject, of course, to the dower interest of
complainant, She may justly feel aggrieved by her husband's
conveyance of his property, but this does not give her legal
grounds for refusing to live with him; certainly while the husband
| offers to provide a home and to live with her, and she refuses
\ undess he disposes of his proverty as she wishes, she is not
\within the statutory conditions entitling her to separate
maintenance,
Wuch is said concerning the alleged desertion of his
wife by the husband, but in the light of the testimony we cannot
construe his temporary absence as amounting to a desertion,
vtinder the advice of a physician he left for a period of rest,
‘dmpelled thereto by the conduct of his wife,
The decree of the chancellor was right and is
affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
mort gett asw obile tondion dolmw at ,veldreq erlt neewdod
aisd %L tadd ,xovowod ,eveilod of benkiont ot oY .tisat —
hbiuow qeadt eoevioamend?d of Stef need bad oLlawon stanutro? ny —
ait to noa ws to soubnoo off ,terteoned yvliqaed bovilt even
so% bave ty eldstebiaences badelkmivt ovad of amoee tnantaLquoo
tnsbrotoh Yo mordLido od tact tnobive at $2 oLkcw ,sonsyonns
os nolseatinxa£ yoieauao ni soktilesnomutteni Inetoq aesd evant |
etnebreteb ont of aeentqqantas bas tnantelqmoo ont
yoxoonib of} To eevao off mood svar yam rovod asty . 2
Yfeated ode as tnenkeLqaon eit ted? ewore yYlrselo eonebive ont
of svolny smabnotob oft détw evil of bentLoeb nar botate end a
& Luonno to ysuegosq ald To emoae ted 02 xov moo xodtie bLuoda >
noe & oF heiteq bebnaetxo na tot ebam ean of dolkdw oagol akat109
Ydueqoaq ais to osogaib of silaix " Catwo L a bed $ nabste to walent ‘
te tuored nt tewoh edd of ,eaTuOD to ,toetdva ,tit wee of an \
a'bnadeud ted yd bevelxagsa Loot visent, yom off2 .d mantaLqmo:
fagel aod avin dom seob add Sud ,ysteqdciq ata to nonagevnss.
— orkt Lt siw vintatioo yatd détw svil of patewtet tot ad uo |
eeautot ofa bua , xot mtkhw evil o¢ baa ome x a sbiverg ot etetto |
gon ai ona ,aodeiw ade as YWtsee1q aid. to aeoogueb ed saotnm |
eisisase ot tod ankle tsoo anokiibaos. vro⸗ wd nde wt abst if
-voasmot atom
eid to noisteaebh bogella ant ere * el dow J
_tonaso ow ynomtteot ond Yo tdytl ods ak sud , busdawel ont ud etie
smoivxoseb s of gattoveoma en sonesds ytsteqmest abd ——
as to bolieq s rot steel of natotayda a. to colvie oc⸗ abi
o UMA OLA
¢ 1 1
a ee te Fr ( P J —9 Lh —
584 - 21982
RICHARD DEVINE, a minor, by
Mamie Lenihan, his next friend
Appellee,
APPEAL PROK CIRCUIT COURT,
v6,
} COOK COUNTY,
CHICAGO RALLWAYG. COMPANY, )
Appellan
)
1981.A. 188
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY
DELIVERED THE OF INION OF THE COURT.
Richard pevine, plaintiff, seven years seven
months old, was struck by a street car belonging tc defendant,
He was severely injured, He brought suit and had judgment
fer $12,560 from onder defendant appeals,
In the fall of 1912 plaintiff attended the Jex-
ton school, at the northeast corner of Yelle and ¥vendell
atreets in Chicago, Street cars run north and south on Wella
On September 26th avout 11:50 o'cleck in the morning plaintiff,
having been dismissed from school, started to cross velle street,
when he was struck by a southbound car, We stall not etate the
facts more in detail, for in our opinion the giving of an er-
roncous inatruction te the Jury necessitates another trial,
By one of the counta of the declaration it was
flleged that there was in force at the time of the accident
a certain ordinance of the city of Chicago which declared it
to be unlewful toe run a street car while within 250 feet of any
school house in tne city at a speed greater than five miles
an hour, between the hours of 11 o, m. and 1:45 p. m. of any
day during which school is in session in such school house,
and thet the — negligently end contrary to the ordi-
nance, ran ite cars on Welle street at a speed greater than
. five miles an hour within the preseribed distance and time,
PO . - : if
—2
— —— GAAHDIA
bneizt sxen eld ,nadioss ——
090 (Leqqa
,THUOD TIVOKTO MOAT IARTIA
.Y7THUOL WOOD
88. ATS 2eL
YIHAUded ZOLTEUL OMTAIeSAT . AM
eYHAGHOD /BYAS SLAM ODATTHD
aslleqqa . ——
Arnooo ANT TO MOIMI GO ENT CAREVIIEC : .
‘ 3 a Ne
Neves eiteov soves ,Tiliaialg ,enived biadolia wey *
-Snabroteb of anianoled tao Joetss = yd Aouren sew ,5fo exidnom
wnempybyi, bed baa 44us tdyuotd oH ebommtas yleteves saw on = |
.elaeqqa tunbaeted to hetw mott 00€ SLG ot y
-xol ois bobaottn BWisaialg S£@L Yo (fat ond al k
{fobnov bas eLfev to teat0o Seeeddton edd. 3a Toone ot —
aife¥ no ddvoa bas déton aut etao seomse ,ogsoldd at —
sTlidnintg yoiatom oad a4 Aolo'a Ob: LL suods AtbS tadmesqed ad .
-. i} wn uh
feexse alioy eeoto of bediasa ,Loodow mort beostapib neod and x 5
ihe :
oad esate ton Iisa ew ,1s0 bayodisuos # yd Aowsde sow a av w a
ote as to gaivig els Helniqa two ai rot ,liadob ai oxom ae J
,leinxd todtons eetndieasooss yiwl eds oF GoijouTtanl exon 9" : z
asw ti noijstafosb add to etawoo odd Yo amo Ys * —
tnobieos ed Yo omit odd ta aor0t ak eaw otods sant hoxetie
ti betafoeb doidw ogeoisid to ytlo odd to —“
Yas Io Jest OGS aidtiw elicw tao toortse 6 ava o7 —1 wit sit ‘
asfio evit asit tedsoxy beoqe s Ja ydio odd ab eauod fo oats
Yaa to .a 6g Chi f brs .m .e {Lf to emod ons noowdnd
nite
J ⸗⸗¶
sseuod Soodos nowa mi molaase at at cooaoe do daw pated J
lest a
3 “etb10 ont of Ytatsneo bas yidmegiigen ,saabasteb —— 5
‘ ue — .
isit totsety beeqe a dn Jeotsa alfow ao er “9 onet
«gems bae vonadath beditosetq odd a leid bw ae
; '
Tee Vs
by means whereof the accident occurred, It was sought to
introduce the ordinance in evidence, and while there was
irregularity in the manner of offering it, such irregulerity
Should not again eccur. There vas evideane tating to Bupe-
port the allegation of a violation of the ordinance,
At the request of plaintiff the court gave to
the jury instruction Yo, 9, which is somewhat long but may
be Summarized as telling the jury that if they believed
that between 11 a, m, and 1:45 pj m, the plaintiff was
struck by the street car while crossing Welle street within
250 feet of the school house, and taat the car was then bo-
ing opersted at a speed greater than five wiles per hour,
the plaintiff exercising due care for one of his age, ete,,
and that by reason of the violation of the ordinance the
Plaintiff was injured, then the defendant must be found
guilty, :
Contentions urged against the appearance of
the ordinance in the record, its existence, its validity, or
its applicability based on measurements from the school |
house, do not impress us as having substantial merit, Howerer,
> we are of the opinion that it was error te instruct the jury
that a violation of the ordinance as a gatter of law is neglie
gence per se, We are aware that the decisions are not wholly
harmonious on this point, but this court is convinced that
the better reasoning and greater weight of authority support
the view that the violation of an ordinance is prima facie
evidence of negligence from which the jury may infer negli-
gence, but such inference may be rebutted by evidence,
It is net difficult to imagine many exigencics,
such es sudden iliness of the motorman, inexplicable defect
in the machinery, or its deranzgewent through cellision, or
ot tdyuce aaw 31 ybettuo90 tnebtoon ad? Tossernw. snnom yd .-)
aeaw oteds osfidw baa ,sonebive ni eonanlbro sie soukortsnt ste |
(Udtalugetts doves ,Jt yairetio to tennsem add at vi tretuge tet nat
-que of naibnes sonebive aoe stent <anaep atene ton biuede ‘
.gousnibro et to matsatloiv s to molinyoetlia oud — ‘<a
ot ovey t2u00 ond Widataiq Yeo Tdqupor oud 2A i
yeu sud guol Jadwemos ah doluw ,@ ye ie ieenelilen Vist J
beveilod yeds tL dads vast os gallos BR bexitesnues od.
eaw tiisnisly of9 .m iq -Ga:f bos .m .a a noawsed sadt—
micid bw dnoute affoW galekxoty slidw ta0 soortsa. ods Ww tours
od mods sew itso add Jad? baw ,oswod foorne oid ‘to toot 08s a
mod teq eo fia evit maid — beoqa. a ts _besereqo. yok
1.930 ,9ne aid Yo eno 0? e180. oud gtielorexe Vitsiely ond.
odd sonaatbte odd to —— oa⸗ to aoann ue —
bauo ed toum Senbcio bob odd + nage borutaat em wVineadety
SS —— a
is
—*
£5
Boe
to sonetaeqqs odd teatass bewtu anolsansaod
1d .vdibifay ast Sonetelxe eat b10004 eit af gomankb10 —
foodos ans mort Bins2aTeeare ao beoad ys iLidwod fqqe aah
tora woll Jitom faltnadedua A carbines ee oe seotqaul gon ob oaisont
vw edt tourienmi of ‘qotts ase Sk Jadd noiaigo ont to —
eilfaon et wai to 193ism a 06 goneanlbio ons to Hoigeloly 4 dant
yilosdw son sin esnolefosh andi Ian? ⸗ↄtaua eta ow, 2S 320 Sony
gedt beomivaco ai s1u09 vekas sud ho ands ao euotnowied —
ditoqque yilsodtus To sitgiow r9dn0 Ty bas aniaceses, ‘tossed ont
eiost eamiaq ak éstidnibre nis to ite td BEOFY: oda taad wotv oad
eifgen tetnl ysm yrst edt de helw aoxt banca hteee Ye soaebive
~eonsbive yd hetsudex od Yam soneste tnt Mowe sud o0n9g
; 189 Lonagixe cnan onlyeat og SIuetItth” son, at at
tosteb sidaollqxeni apertotem ene. to easatit asboue ‘ee Hove x
<0 ——— — — asi to —— ahi
ver
slipperiness of the rail, which might cause the car to run faster
than five miles per hour, but manifestly the excess of speed of
itself should nct as a ustter of law constitute neglisence, with
opportunity for explanetion denied, The principle is the same
where the exculpatory circumstances are less obvious, the jury
should be permitted in determining negligence te consider ail
the circumstances of the occurrence, including the violation of
tne ordinance, Among the cases supporting this view are,
Knupfle, Aduwr., v. Knickerbocker lee Co., S4 J), Y. 456; Hanlon
Seuth Boston Horse Ky. Co., 129 hass, 510; Connor v, Electric
fraction Co., 173 ba, 602; Meek v, Lennsylvania Co., S& Ohio
Bt, G52; Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. ives, 144 U, 5, 406; Erie Bail-
Foad Co. v. Ferrell, 147 Fed, 220; Beck v. Lortland & V.
il
”
—*
ey
~
1
*
Co
i-
25 ore. 32; Kollica v. Mich. Gent. Rh. Co., 170 wich, 96;
nois Central Kk. Co. Vv. HWicher, 202 i111, 556; Illinois Central
R. Co. V. Aghline, 171 11. 515; Comsonwealth Zlectrie Uo. v.
Rowe, 214 111, 545; United States Brewing Co, v. Stoltenberg,
211 111. 651; True & True Co. v. Soda, 201 ill, 515; Heidenreéch
v. Bresiner, 260 111. 430; siniott on Hailrosds, 2nd #d., sec, 1095,
note 140,
Upon the record before us we are not disposed to
agree with the contention of counsel for defendant as to the
manifest preponderance of the evidence or as to the contributory
neglixence of plaintiff,
here was serious error in the rulings on tne
testimony of plaintiff's witness kre, Brown, She had testified
as to the speed of the car vased upon what ehe bad heard, The
‘ motion to strike out such testinony was overruled, ‘This was
we
— ‘he criticism of plaintiff's — is
mot well taken. It properly limits the loss of future earning ca-
pacity to the time after plaintiff shall have reached his majority,
@ reference ts the declaration could not have been misleading,
For the reasons above indicated the judement is ree
rsed and the cause remanded,
| REVERSED AND REMANDED,
vO 8 Te ae
togent mut of 129 ont eauno tdgim doldw ,Liat ect To seen!
if sig
Yo boowa to sasoxo sid yYiieotinew dud ,twod t0q no tia ovit a *
dtiw ,sonouiigen etusiganoo wel to todiam & Bs dan — path
emse odd et slqtoning si? .bolned nolséanslqxe 10%. —
yiui oct .apolydo eeasl e118 esonatsemvotio Yiotayivexe on
[is soblenos of gonogilgen yoiniateteh ai bot? kwroq od. :
to aoldvafoiv edd gnibutlont ,eometiyo90 ef) Ye counad eawor te 1
.0%8 wolv eins yonizgtoqqwa seanso ons AROMA +900
ofan (88) ,Y .li 8 ,.09 991 gexoodretoind .v —E a
olisoolA ,v xonmo9 ;OL€ ,aeed OSL ,.09 .Yh geztol —
— — ç tt — — — rat 2)
oid 8& ,.09 sinavivennel .v deed ;808 .ei EFL ,.00 He
-liai gins ;80) ,@ .U bet ,gevl .v .g9 .M auwttT bast prc
1
a —n
L .v aoe SSs .bat Val ——
I ;8@ ,dolm OVE ,.02 off .sned -doid .v soliton 486 ane
fatinoy sionii{l ;sé¢ {fi S08 “Zed Mott .Vv 129 wi dondao9 ab
-¥ .99 pittoely dd laewnoumod — * offi ivf 12ek Lag ee
‘pteduesfose .¥ 00 Qiiwe1d sosasa bot bet iy gad est ats
fodstnebioe: ;¢fe .1f1 £08 show .v æ ue 2 gue itee .
Geol .voe ,.be baS ,abeotlias® ae oie ꝛee⸗ «fil 08s
” es [
ot besogeib Jon ets ow au exerted btoeost edz nog ;
edd of ga snabngted 10% foeaveo to wotsaddnon oad a
YiIosudiztsnoo ed of 6H 10 SOoNSbivVe oid to sonarobaegsTg 4
| u⸗auata to 9
eat no agalinu« edd al torts sxolktes aaw oreat
Me
boitigess bax esa = ,nword OX aa c1ddw ettisaie ly *
eit ,btseu bad esle jssw mnogu bosad — odd. to
7m
aaw eta Selurteve saw wromidaos dose tuo
——
4 ee a'tiigatatg to natold ixo ort: ‘ "
9 guintse etusut to esol odd ettatl —— it. . 0 2 ne R
Wito(sn els beioges oved Ifate tiisniaiq totta emi re os
«sgtibsotelm need evad ton bivoo. notiatalook od? oF
7% bh snomibu, ead bodsotbal — —— —
pi THOMA OWA CHEPATVES ——— a WS ) tet I
599 = 21997
SPER HARDWARE COMPANY,
a corporation,
Appellee, APPEAL FROM
MUNICIPAL COURT
V5.
A
‘
¥ 4
% #£
CONSOLIDATED ADJUSTNENT f
COMPANY, a corporation,
v, 198 1.A.190
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY
)
}
)
, OF CHICAGO.
)
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
By this appeal defendant seeks to have reversed a
judgment against it of $2,881.82 upon a guaranty contained in
a contract entered into between it and the plaintiff whereby
def endant undertook to collect certain accounts for plaintiff.
Cases involving the contracts made by this defendant with its
customers have been before the Appellate Court of this district
ao frequently that we shall not again set forth the contract
in detail; they are very much alike and the general scheme in
all of them is the same, A partial list of these cases is,
Hinrichs v. Consolidated Adjustment Co,, 145 app. 8; Mound City
Distilling Co. v. Same, 152 App. 155; Standard Distilling Co. v,
Same, 157 App. 215; Barstow Stove Co. v. Same, 175 App. 449;
Pritz v. Same, 189 App. 287; Baltimore Trust Co. v. Jame, 190
App. 303 and Krause & Managan Lbr. Co. Vv. Same, 191 App. 582.
In the present case the defendent contends that the
accounts furnished by plaintiff to it for collection were not
of the kind and character contemplated by the contract. To
this it is sufficient to reply that from the evidence the trial
court properly could find that the accounts furnished were
selected and listed by defendant's own agent, and that the
contract was entered into with special reference to these ~
VOLS « 92a
sYHAUMOD SAAWGNAM AaEde
~wisstegqitoo #
MOMT SARITA .9elieqga J
7Mod Ad vuuvn ald
i 2eV .
eODADIND TO j * —
\ TUSMTOULCA CETACI.LOAWO
~wivasoqros s ,YHAGMOD
—
LODO BOO OL — ONL
oer -A.leel
YIUAUGoHu SDITOUL OULCI&EERS . iM Wh) ome
oTHUOD HHT {O MOLMIGO HAT Ca VIdad *—
& beetovet ovad of wloos susbnoteb Lasqqa alis ya —
>
nk bonisinos yinatavy # nogs 86,188,886 to ti sentega sooapbut
ee |
ydotodw Tiktnfalq ons bra 3i soowted ot mt hetedms gourd nod , text
ettitaiely 1¢% aftmvooos alattso ftoolloo ot Loos tobay + nebo tob
agi déiw tmabasteb aid? yd ebum agosttmen ont gatviovat eessdD
— eld? Yo sro etellequA oft etoted —
Soati noo eft ditot toe niaga son Liade ow test ylinoupett oe |
ni emecoe Lateney od? bas siifa dowm yrov ota yer? ;Liateb nt at
2k eseso sacdt to tail Latiasgq A .onwe ot ak mods to fis fa ahh
(tiO bewoll 78 .qqa GL ,.09 tnomtauhba betabiLoenod . | i
y 99 gabilftald bisbasta zaet .agqn aL Ooms .¥ — ™
i258 .aqa SVL ,omse .v 2.90 svosii wotamam ;8LS .qgA VOL ,gmel
O@L ,omec .v .oD sautt stomisial ;T6S .qqA OSL oma v agixg —
oS82 .qgh LCL . . · J megane 2 ⏑— baw 308 aga :
eds Sadd abnotnoo snabno'teh oft soso Sasacetq off al
J
‘ie.
son otow noltaolLoo tot dk of BPiitntslq yd berelmurt admooos
oT ,donttnoo oft yd hesalquetnoc retoetato ban bald ent wy!
fakxut ect eonebive oft mort sand viget of snotoittwe as a2 erat b
etew bedelmim?t afnvooosn off tadd batt bluoa ylroqorg tw09 F :
oft tact bun ,Jnogs mo attnsbasteb yd begat bus betoos
saont oF sonetetex Latooqe ntiw ogat hoxsdn sew
ole
accounts. Having selected the accounts upon which defendant
undertook to guarantee collection, it can not now be heard to
say thet plaintiff is in default as to the kind of accounts
to be furnished by it.
As to other contentions made by defendant, whot has
been said by Mr. Justice Duncan in Barstow Stove Co. v.
Consolidated Adjustment Co., 175 Ill. App. 449, is applicable
in many respects. We adopt what is there said as expressing
our view of the correct construction of the contract.
Under the evidence and the law the judgment was
correct and is affirmed,
AFPIRMED.
tnabneteh soinw noquy adauooos oft botooles — xä — Oo
ot braod od won tos nso 3k ,moltosilos set nataug of xe |
efnwoo0a to batt ot of as siveteh ak at vutnietg ¢ }
| oth vd boxtakew’ 0 bus
ast tonw ,tnahaotoh yt ebam snottnotnon tedde of BA } 7
eV 20D ovese wosexed al neonud ooltaut — bhae * —
oldacifaqs af ,@h& .qqA .ff1 GEL ,.99 snonpouts betabifo 2
noieseigxe os bise stedd at tart tqobe ew ——
esontinos ont to mois oust ano tooxres ont to w
601 = 21999
GALVUSTON SHOWS NAT COMPANY,
APPEAL PROX
Appellee,
WIN ICTPAL corn’?
VSe
CONSOLIDATED aDrust
COMPANY, @ corporat
198 1.A.191]1
WR. PRESIDEG FUSTICN MeSUR ALY
DELIVGRED THE OPINICT OF THE COUNT,
in this case plaintiff brought suit upon the
guaranty of defendant contained in a contract similar to
the contracts invoived in other suits against this defendant,
as noted in opinion in No, 21997 this day filed. In this
case, however, the court struck defendant's affidavit of
deYense from the Tiles anc entered judgment by default for
$1,871.45,
it is centended that by the contract it is expressly
provided that the terms of the guaranty shall not apply to
"bankrupt claima,’ "outlawed claims” and “lost debtor claims,"
and that many of the accounts furnished by plaintiff to
defendant were of this character, If we concede that the
contruct bears this construction - and it is not free from
doubt - yet we think defendant is prevented from now question-
ing the character of the claims by that provision of the contract
whereby defendant reserves “the right to cancel the contract,
refund said initial fee and surrender ali claims listed here
under at any time within six months from date." To give this
meaning, which we are bound to do if possible, it seema clear
that it is intended to fix a period of time within which
defeniant may investigate and ascertain the character of the
accounts submitted; and it must be held as a matter of law,
BOT TAMA
STOOD TASLOL KON
SODADIHD FH , \,
rer AT eer
YLUAVGOM MOITSUG OMTCICeAd . AM pate
eTHUCD PHT TO SRY CRAP VIAN
— — ——
— ry ——
eit noqu tine tquoxd rts kale eeas eldd ol
/
of tnfimte sostinos s ak benkssnos $uisbite%ob ‘te. sna * |
tasbaeteb akelt tenksas aviue — at ‘beviovnt at E—— q
eiodt al ,beLit yab enat VOOiS .on mk nolatgqe i boson e's
‘to tivabitte ‘at dmebasten Lounge dxu09 ort Aovsno —J
rot ¢iuatob vd asthe berted ae ona ooirt edt moc't oanoteb E
icone wes AN6 Ee
einnecqxe ak tt four noo osid od tous hebnodaoo ek $1 * sad
:
ot yigas gon fisde ytnetag ont ‘to anxod Silt tant be bi 0 | ne
“,omtalo zotdob taei” bas “antaio bewsiswe"* akan Hgirel fod s
of Yibtntale yt bedatatwt efmooos orld to Youwm sud be
—
elt tat ebsonoo ow YZ - rod oo east ekdd to eTow aeba ion
———— won mot betmeverg ab ‘dusbnoted winks ow toy ~ se rn
feattaes edt to nolatvorg sans yd entalo eit ta sesnatade wit gs
woatinos ond feonse ot silyta end” sevisset Jaubdno ted we
woren hotell emialo Lie rebneriwe bas 00% Lakd hot biaa be
eid? ovty oT ".otuh sort adtnom xe nbsittw emis vam ta 1
toslo emsen tt ,eidiunog tt ob ot Lendend e168 ow deksw ws x
i wal to tottom a es bLod ed —
* eal a Pees
o2e<e
sf after this period of time has elapsed, in which it will be
presumed such an investigation has been made, and defendant
does not elect to return the initial fee and the claims and
cancel the contract, that it is satisfied the claims are of a
kind upon which it can make ite guaranty good, ‘“e think the
general rule is applicable here, thet the law will net permit
& party having once elected, to change such election. Platt v.
Aetna Ins. Co., 155 111. 115; Van Viissingen v. Lenz, 171 111.
162,
We think, however, that defendant shold have been
permitted to go to trial for the reasm, as we have decided
in Prits v. Consolidated Adjustment Co 139 App. 287, that
defendant was entitled to a rensoneble time sfter the lapse
of three years within wiiich to collect the amount guaranteed
to be collected, and that there was no breach of the guaranty
until after the lapse of such reasonable time, As to whether
or not a reasonable time had elapsed after the expiration of
the contract in question, which was on September 9, 1913, was
a question of fact to be ascertained after consideration of
evidence, |
Plaintiff hag assigned as eresseerror the action
of the court in refusing to strike defendant's first affidavit
of defense from the files on the ground that it was not filed
in time. This is a matter pertaining to the practice in said
court, and we are not of the cpinion that « reversel of the
order permitting the affidavit to be filed is necessary te
prevent a failure of justice, [11,. Stat., Hurd, chap. 37,
Seq, S246
Por the resson indicated the judgment is reversed
and the cause remanded,
REVENSED AND REMANDED,
bos antefo ect bus eet Lattini edt ausiex of fosle ton eeob
a to oxe ominlo edd betteitce ef 22 sad? ,fomitaoo oslt foomes
ent Xntds oF ,boon Ytaetswy ati olan noo 22 dodedw aogu babs og
Starreq don ifiw wal ont tant ,stec eldasiivgs ai einer feron03 ,
eV tisfG .moitoola dove egnario of ,hetoeie sone gaivan wang 4
offI L9L ,snel .v mopmbesify may 76Lf ffl AL . 8D -2ok soto, 7
need even bivonkn tnaboetob fads ,rovewed ~inidée oW
bobloeh eved ew es ,nmoanor off tot Laits ef og of bods imxeg uM
tant ,TES .qqh C6L 1-09 — — — — .v.S989T at
eugal ett tetta emts eldsnovcset # oF beLtline caw i asbmetoh
bikevaarann tnvemsa off toolloo of doliiw oiddiw exs0y os ari⸗ —
xveno⁊aun si? Yo dosetd on auw otodd teal? bro shetovitos od of
Todigedw of SA omit eidanosie% foe to oeged edt tod te Lido
to soltertqxs oft todts beegele bes emt oldanouser « Jon T°
saw ,CI¢Ll .@ xedmgetqo’e mo enw doisiv . to LS aaup ni foatinoo ens *
to moltatabinnoo retts benistioons ed of tomt to mlsaeup P Habe:
| .eonobive ;
noiton es aorto-eeeto es bomyteas ond Piidnield a a
‘eduah htt tarit e'inebmo teh outate os gniavtex mi truco ost ro” —
belt? ton saw 32 ted? bowory eft so eoLtt ode wmox? sane tob —
Hina ni vokdostq ons of yataisdreg tottem s at aldtT ,omks ak ey!
—J
edd to Isetevort s tad? moinigo edt to gon 91m Ow baw ,s1u0d a
os Ytsnavoen Bik holt od of Sivabitts odd anttikacrog a9h70 a
SS .gadto ~bink ..és30 fff .soktaut to eislist a as vo aa
(bse 998
—
— J
beetovet el tnemybut, oft hetmolbal moasox ond TOT
J eCCMAMEH CHA CHORNVER
602 - 22000
TEXAS COMPANY, a corporation,
Appellee,
APPEAL PROM KUNICIPAL COURT
vs,
OF CRICAGC,
EOS: TA. 1 98
DELIVERED THE ops « oy THE COURT
This case is in every respect substantially
like the one in wid ob, we have this day filed an opinion, No.
21999, and what —E said in that opinion applicable here-
in is reaffirmed. Fer the reason indicated in that opinion
the judgment in this case is reversed and the cause remanded,
REVERSED ARD REMANDED,
stolseroqroo e ,YMAGUOO GAXAT
.2oLLogga 1
PWOO GATLOIMUM MOAT IASIA
»QBDASIHD TO
cer Areel
XdaAMEOM MOI TLUL Guides
.TOU9 MY YO Horuido aut
Ylisiiasdadue Jooqeot views al ok saao aid *
.of ,olaigqo as balit yab elds oved ew doliw ak emo ott outr 4
-oton oldaoiiqgs nmoliuiqe sand ai bias — taow boa s@C0L8 M @ .
noiniqe tass ai bodaolboi aceset off 10% .bomrittset et a
bebnamex seuso oct ban beetevet ef eaco vids ai Sm — ——— ont y —J
“é < = ue
CHCMAMEST CMA GXesirvant eke J ae
*
eo) ae
| J
a
4
—*
J
J
—
J
‘i
7 8} J
as,
— —
ee,
i 7
i va
Pin re
— rie a) 4
J | a
616 - 22016
C. L. GRAY LUMBER COMPANY,
a corvoration,
Appellee,
PPEAL PROM MUNICIPAL COURT
| vs, ;
. OF CHICAGO,
OTTO SCHARMER, ading as the ,
) SCHARNER COUSTRUGTION COMPANY, 4
ppellant. £
L198 IAL toe
MR, ERES1 NG JUSTICE KesURRLY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COUKT.
Plaintiff, a + an ed company of Misaissippl,
brought suit alleging an Geent by 4d, to furcieh, and by
RY gontractar, to take | wome BOO, OU i
of lumber: — refused to perform bis undertaiing,
0
to the damnge plaintiff, Upon tril by @ jury tho issues
Ny
‘ev’ weap phuintiee ane Gameges assessed at ¥750 upon
a
:
F AE ATR
- siteh-sytorest-was-etored, an
—
—
— — —
— —E
Zz — — — ö— —— —— —— —
3
J
— —
. ——— — SENTERO Se
Ge —setionin—tnert-tt-inr-toc-tmiefinite, | Yhere were several Z
ö— — Re ——— ——— ITE OA OMAL NER Se
letters between the perties leading up to the final order of
Qed Oy aediq. -
Mareh 27, 1913, whieh — follows;
a "Haroh 27th, 18135,
©. L, Gray Lumber Co.,
“« feridian, Misa.
“Gentlemen: «
“ve herewith place an order with you fer 300,000 Ft,
i> 3x6 at 21.50 per Kk. #.0.B. Cars Chicago, to be 12-14-16
~ feet long. This is for prospective work and we do not knew
the exact lengths in quantities we will need, This is to
be held subject for call within six months,
"OTTO SCHARRER,
“ Agreed
(Signed) CC. L. GRAY LUMBER CO,, per
“MG, L. GRAY,
“vote: Any slight difference in the amount of quantity (
were or less to be — —— bid ae above ——
a —— —— — ms A Rey oe
— res Atel
⸗ — —
) OF Gelivery sae ne OS
te Pa Oe ee eee
BLoS& ~ 81a
cYHAGMOO ANEMUL YARO ot F
Motatermo a
, soo lloqga
GRUOD KATIOLUM Bore TATEIA
wow
eit as yoiberd ,ANMHANDE OTTO
i alae | BOLTOUATGMOS AMMHANSG
edael sn oe) Oe
GSCI ASI sel \
eODADTHO TO
\ hi ——
xacauusu ROLTAUL onduragss —
— D——
idgqtealeati to Yusquoo 9 dint a Mata bs os
yd bas As fort og ph yd foam fa an aargotla disse ttguent
ak 000.908 ence {ones ot , toaertney ones l RN ees
—
Pes)
— elu wigtraq od bee tet Jnshaue ted Nads Ao daut 20
—V— ont yiut a yd falas ao qu — te — ony) oF
moey: * tA boadocan negentt ban — 6 -
mI PU NSP ee
“HAHA TGS YE
eeu sy aw —— “Jon soon “ate
· Lae ARLE R © drs RP Ae 6
Lateves weet eradt | — betes-
8 se snner SP ORE REE OE — — — — —
to tebxe Lani? odd of qu ‘ginkban ecistad est mesuted — 4—
OW Sew Af 4) She
rawollot® oa ge ine Ay as @ * me
; ,6L0L ,cd9S dove” |
i . a alii. aaa i id
3 -8uiM — 1
; ov
9% 000,008 cot woy atiw tobxo mA pon ta Ag iwe'tod . ane
BL-bL-SL ad of Ogsoliy B80 .8,0,0 eM Taq C8, L8G a —
wona gon ob sw one diow evitvequotg 4Ot ai olat J
‘ of ci sid? boon iftw ow soisidnnup ab ellfgnet —
Aalenon xic nidviw Lino xe% var ot
-ASMAAHOB OTTO” 2
TOE 4.09 UUs YARD a 2 —*
eYARS wt 49”
Wisnaup ‘to tavons odd me ** ste
ey
of sinterinis, Whatever might be somewhat indefinite in the
description of the materials to one not in the Lumber busie
ness, appears to have a definite character from the previous
letters of the parties and the testimony of witnesses en-
gaged in handling lumber. The meaning of trade terma used
dn letters or contracts may always be explained by men ex-
perienced in the business, It was an agreenent for practi-
eally a definite amount cf lumber, to be taken within siz
wonths, in such quantities as defendant might order, and this
coues within the rule laid down in Pinch v, senith Furnace
Go., 245 Ill, 586; Minnesota Lor. Co, v, Coal Co., 160 111.
66; and Kationsl Furnace Co. v. Keystone kfg. So., 110
tll. 427.
This is not a case of a contract to supply sine
ply the needs of the purcheser; hence cases discussing that
situation are not in point,
ete wy ahi tiel ink court -& refuse) to aide
oe
mit the evidence of Ucharwer's bookkeeper, Kiss Crane, as to
a conversation between Scharmer and Cray. ‘The alleged cone
versation is said to have taken place some two months after
- the contract was made. According to Scharmer, he only exe
pressed douht as to his ability to order lumber, as he was
32 Even if —R Crane had been permitted to
orroborate him this would not amount to any modification
or change in the contract or throw any light upon its cone
* . struction,
there ia no merit in the contention that the
judge before whom the case was tried was disqualified,
American bridge Co. v. Jena bark Improvement Assn,, 246
Ill, 589; Wesely ¥. Pribyl, App. Court Ho, 20854, opinion
oe — —6 Menage 1915, not yet reported,
he judgment was right and isa affizmed,
APPIRKED.
edd ak stinitebni dgadwomos ad Jagin tevetadW ,efaltedaum to
#~leud tedewit ed ai ton ome oF eisitedam eit to noitgitesed —
suoivexq et mort toJcetado oshatteb & oved of siseqgsa ,8een
me esasoniiw to yoomisteos of? bus ealtaisg odd to exedio£
hoeu amtot obats To gninasem eft .tedewl gnif{basd ai begag
-xe nem yd bealafqzs sd ayaw(s yam stoetiaco 19 esotdor at
etioatq tot Saemeetyn oa eaw SI) jwaentesud odd at beoaolteg
mia midéviw seated od oF ,todaul lo sauvomn ofinitebh a2 yilso
eisd baa ,tebto sdatm duesbnueteb es aelilinaup doves ol ,edinom
eosatsy deines .v doni® mi awob bisi ofwi eft aiddiw &9ma9
efi 004 ,,99 fog .¥ .0D adi zo a⸗ ——
OLfL ..99 .ghd onodayed ————— bas 508 *
Sb Lf
*
ents ylqque od Josténeo s to eaeo a son et eldt
gaus guieevoalb eegsao eoned j;t0esdorug eft to ehboen edt ylq
etaiog mi Jon a1 ——
“be 03 howut9: a fuuco ar ae ———
od es , one aul a Teqeentood o*tpmeaden Se pean ods Jim
#09 bexzefis ed? .ve70 bas temtadee nesvied meisaatevace a
totia antnom owt emoe sonlq noded oved of blae ai Hoitaotov
exo Vino of ,temraniol of anibtecaoA .ebam aay soatinoo ont
saw od a8 ,t9daul Tebro of ysilide eld of aw toyed beaaotq
ot bodtimiog nood bad onat) sali tL neve
molseoitibou yaa ot tavome ton biuow alld mts ——
“neo ati ogu Siglif yos words to Joatémoo ed ai syuado to »
smoisouwide ——
edt sacs noisnetaoo ons nt sixom on el oted?
-bottifsupelb eaw beitt asw vano of3 modw oneted sybuL
OOS 0884 snewovotaml Axed soi .v 190 epbéad neotroma —
molaiqo »de60S , o IxwoO .q4d LYGtTE .¥ Yhosow 7@8s ET
— 20x, don G10 .0L aedaovoil
homeidta Sk bas flake — —* 9
492 - 21890
APFBAL FROM SUPERIOR
COURT OF COOK COUNTY,
GHICAGG CITY BALIWAY COMPANY,
198 L.A. 290
UR. JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
In an action for personal injuries plaintiff
had judgment for $5860 against defendant, on the verdict of
a jury, and defendant prosecutes this appeal therefrom,
While thirty-three errors are assigned upon
the record and many of them are argued by defendant, in the
conclusion to which we have come it will be necessary for us
to advert to but one phase of the case; we shall therefore
rest our decision and judgment upon the fact as we find it -
that plaintiff was not, at the time end place of the accident,
in the exercise of due care for her own safety, but was, on
the contrary, guilty of negligence which was the proximate
enuse of the accident and the resulting injuries to her,
Hbefendant operated at the time of the accident
a line of electrically propelled street cars on South Halsted
street, Chicago, the tracks upon which the cars were run being
both north and south of Thirty-sixth atreet where it intersects
South Halsted etreet, Flaintiff at the time of the accident
intended to become & passenger upon & car of defendant running
south from Thirty-sixth street, and with that purpose in mind
atood, as she testified, about one foot west of the curb on the
southwest corner of limleted and Yhirty-sixth streets, laine
tiff claims that she was struck while she was standing on the
walk by the swaying, swerving or rocking ef a south-bound car,
Rhy
HOLREGUG MOAW LAAGTA
e¥ THUGS AQOD WO TiVO
008 Ate OT
.THUOD AUT WO HOIMIGO MKT GRANVIIMG MOGION HOLTSUL .AM
etastt aA
tiisgniala eelivtat Isaoetey tot molsos aa al
to solbtev od? no ,tusbueted fentege 9888§ cot snsagbut bad
-motteteds Ieeoqqo alds eetvooacry Snabastoeodh bus erie
nogw beagiaen o1m etotte seriseysrldd ofide
od? oi ,snabastob yd beugts ete aeds to yam cas pros9% out
ay tof YImeasoen od ILiw si emon svail ow Ao Law aa noiswLonos
eroteteds ilase ew jeeno oud Yo seadq ono dud of Stovbs os i
~ Jk balt ow ea Joet ods nogu tnemypbut, baa aoleioek IW9 s8ot
etieblioos oft to seaiq base emis edt ta ,ton saw Tiltaisiq dens
mo ,eaw gud ,ytolsas awe tod tol 9180 sub to osioroxe oct al
otenmixorq e437 saw sodow eonegifyon to vtitvw .Y¥textaoo odd
tod co? soitwtni gaisiuset eat ban Jnebioos end te sauna
inebioos oft to emis oft 3a bosaroqe Inabaeted )
bojaiash diueé ao e1rso Jootte belleqotq yliasitiontio To eall a
golod mut stew axeo edd Koldw noqu axoass of ,ogmetdd , teers
esoseteink 2i etodw tootds dixie~ydridt te dsyoe bam dtron déod
tnohloss edd Yo emis ont 2@ BWWitniali = .seeate bode lali meres
guianvt saabueteb Yo 169 & HOqu togneeuaq # omoned OF bebuedal
bulm at sxeqtuqg gadd dtiw bos ,jeorte déxie~ysaidT mot? Adwos
eds mo duwo st Jo Jaew 200% ono tuoda shboilisee’ ode as shoots
qnisli ,atootse déxie-ysiidt baa bedalall to r9Mt09 doowsdsuoe
TH i pat
oa⸗ a0 golibnsss aaw oe efidw dourte asw ode sant aniale —
O@GLR «+ Sed
YHAGMOD YAWUAR YTIO ooadi ad
', 18D Havod-Atuoe a to —R x0 anivrews sandvawe edt. w Mion eS
—
|
Me
*
q
}
s
At the time of the accident defendant was rehabilitating and
reconstructing its tracka on south Naleted street, This made
it necess,ry for defendant to construct a temporary track on
wnich te operate its cars during the period of reconstruction,
woich it did,
The south-bound temporary track, on which the
oar which struck plaintiff was running, was, according to the
greater weight of the evidence on the subjeet, constructed
about as follows: Ties were laid on the stone pavement about
eighteen inches apart, with tneir ends ten inches outside the
rail, and the rails were laid upon and spiked to eseh tie,
fhere was ballast between the ties auple for a tersiporary
track, Hardwood braces running from the west rail to the
west curbstone were located one at each trolley pole and one
or two in the spaces between the trolley poles, making the
braces between fifty and sixty feet apart, These trolley
poles were in the street near the curbstone, The west rail
of this temporary track was about three-quarters of an inch
higher than the east rail, which resulted from the placing of
planks under the west end of the tiles, During this recon-
struction men were detailed to wateh the temporary track for
the purpose of keeping it surfaced, lined and gauged and g01id
and firm, so that it would safely sustain the weight of the
cars as they passed along. The west rail was in the vicinity
of four feet from the curbstene, The temporary track being
placed upon the street, raised the rails perceptibly higher
than the surface of the roadbed; while in permanent construce-
tion the rails are generally on a level with the surface of
the street, To overcome this condition and to enable passen-
gers to alight from and board the cars readily and without ine
convenience, a temporary walk was laid down at the street in-
tersections which rar from the west rail to the west curbstone
,
'
”
4
hoe guisasifidadet ssw snabostebd dnobioos edd to walt edd SA \q
wham ais? ,fooxle bode fel duct wo afonzd aft yalsourtancoot MF
xo Asexs Yrei0qgme? sw Joutdenon of tusboo teh xo? (Eqaaeoea $2
stolvowtsanooet Yo holiwa oad gnituh exeg att osatsqo, at do keto a
obib tk Soin J
edd doldw ao ,xoaTs yxerteqmed bawod-dévoe oT *
eds of goibtooos ,asw ,gninnwt saw Tiliaialy dowtie doidw ee
botoutsunoo ,Joobdue ead mo oonebive odd to saighew rotseny
tueda tnomevaq enote edd no bial erew eolT rawolfot as suodn |
eit abladuo asitioni avd ebne abo sd athw ,etaqe ‘eedoat noediyte is
oid dome of boxlas baa noqu bial etew aiter edt hae ‘thes
YIATOYNe? s tot efque eels sat nsewsed sasLing enw oted?
ais of Liay saow oud mort aulonst esenmtd hoowhiall eat
one bus efoqg yeilord dose ta one botsool exow perenne %
eds gnivss ,eoloq yollous ond noowded geonge ous at —
Yolo veedy -ttoqe soot ysxia baw c*42 noswaod —R
fier seow oT ,enodadive edd t#9n Jeetie ait at o196 — a
Yo gaiosl¢ afd mort bediveas1 dokdw ,fiat Jene- edd madd J
-novex ekid qultwi .@ei¢ exif Yo boo doow ond tebaw ean
10% doats ytatoqmes o2 dosaw od beliasoh etew 19a Molsourse
bifoe baa bagteang bua bonif ,bevattys 3 yatqoed to —E edt
eid Io diyiow eds atadeue yfetea bLuow $i. auld oa ard ba
wWinioiv edd al sew Iter teow ait .artols bewasy yout aa” ai⸗
ganied Abaxe ytetoqees oat — es aioe? too ‘wet % J
todgid yYlditqeorsg aliat add hoalss Joetse ont noqu booty —
-ourttenod snsaawteg ak ofide ;bedbsaor edt Yo sostiwe odd mmnt 9—
eal Suodst tw bite yLtbeet eits0 odd Brsed bas mort —
enotudtu gaew onde on thee ‘dad! er shins
at the point where the accident to plaintiff occurred, it was
also proven that the everhang of the cars running on defendant's
track was from 22 to <4 inehes on each side, The evidence does
not suatain the contention of plaintiff that either the walk
or the track at the point where the accident occurred was in a
defective candition,
Plaintiff, a woman of mature years, a nurse in
the effice of a doctor at the southeast corner of Thirty-sixth
and Halsted streets, according to her own testimony left the
place of her employment at avout 5:45 in the evening on the
day of the accident, Sunday, October 29, 1911, and crossed
Halsted street to the southwest corner of that street and
Thirty-sixth street, with the purpose in mind of taking a
south-bound car of defendant, She stood, ss she testifies,
on this corner about a foot west of the curb and was so stande
ing when defendant's car came along and swayed and struck her,
inflicting serious and painful injuries, Jiaintiff had lived
at $601 South Halsted street for eleven years prior to the ace
cident and during that time had been in the habit of riding
on defendant's north-bound cars on week days and on its south-
bound cars on Sundays, it must therefore be assumed that she
wns fairly well informed as to the operation of the cars, the
condition of the roadway and the tracks of defendant at this
point, and of the further fact that the south-bound cars had
been running on a teeporary track for a month prior to the Sune
day she was hurt, —
If plaintiff stood, as she testifies she did, one
foot went of the curbstone, we think it clear from the distance
between the west curbstone and the temporary track, that it was
impossible, with due regard to the law of physics, for the car
to sway, swerve or rock to such an extent from its centre of
circumference an to atrike plaintiff and still remain upon
=
.
9
gow Ji ,betiwo90 Tiitaielg of snebives ond oxodw dntog ont a :
a! Suabias ted ag getbosurs aime edt to gaadTa vo out au⸗ ao vorg.
eoob souebive eat ob l⸗ duas ao apdoai bs ot gs mort a
ulaw edi —XR — Tisaiala to aokinetnes odd Aleta -
aol aw berruso0 dmebtoon ods exec sukog ond ts tours a
mOLsLbnOD |
ak oↄo auu # —E etustsm * AmwOwW 6 Masters
a gatins to bata nk aeoqisg ond tw Sverse ——
pees create elu Ba — ane .tonbae ted to —* bet od
-histe om saw bas dawo off Yo teow Joot a suoda —— atas ao
,ted dowtse bas beyawe bas yools sma 129 8! danbao te now 9 a
devil bai Vi⸗alati «eo tau tat futaiag bas euolteu gausone ; tak
-oa8 9d3 of t0ltg o188y neve lo ra ‘soore bose Lait aauos wh a be
sis
—* J —F
¥ Lie
goibiz to sided odd ot need bas omit dads yairub
eituoa efi ao bas eysh Aeew mo e109 auoa· aa ao ate rt
eda tant banwees od ototetedd teum ry —ES— a: — F
eat ,e1s0 ond To moltateqe ent of aa bearrotad chew | einen |
aids ta tusbaoted to exoatd od? bra Vaubacr wilt —— 0
bet ate9 bnvod=dduoe odd tacit ton’ —D ould Yo
“enwe ond of rolrg sénom 9 0? soak vetoed ® ne i n
| atlas pi 2 *
ono ,bib odo asiti¢ess oe os .boote ni⸗ auata — ay
. gonatalh ed mort tmoto ot Anti? ew souosedeus aad Yo. ee ra
a enw tk sade .doaxt Viaxoquos outs bas onosedawo : |
we
, 109 ont t0% ao keyia to wat odd of brumgoe ‘ou
1 a
Ph. otdneo est att dnodxe na owe of * *
i , ‘ re Ay
now niame% itite bos mias Lita © 4
———
the track, It is somewhat of a strain upon our credulity te
believe, notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, that the ace
Gident to plaintiff happened as she would have us believe it
happened, There is no escape from the conclusion, a5 an ultie
mate fuet, that plaintiff was not standing one foet west of
the curbstone, but must have been cast of it, and therefore
stood ao near the ear that it struck her in passing, If ner
account as to the spet where she was standing is true and the
car actually struck her, as sne testifies, then the car so to
do must have left the track + which neither party claims it
did, She was undoubtedly, as the proef strongly tends to
establish, struck by the front dashboard of the car and not
by the body of the car after the fore part of it had passed
her,
To stand so close to a moving car as to be struck
by it is negligence, Seidler v. Branshaw, 206 111, 425,
In this condition of the evidence it is the duty
of the reviewing court to reverse the judgment, (Siegmund v,
Strackbein, 140 Ili, App, 454) and where, as here, it is patent
that plaintiff cannot maintain the action, this court should
reverse with a finding of fact, Berg Vv.
162 iil, 348, ;
The injuries suffered by plaintiff resulted from
her own negligence, which was the proximate cause of the accident,
Such being the fact, the law inhibits a recovery, even though de-
fendsnt was guilty of negligence wuich in some way may have cone
tributed to bring about the accident,which could not have hape
pened but for plaintiff's negligence. C, B, & U. Rye Ry, Co, V.
heyy, 160 111, S85; W, Oo, 5, BR, Wt. Co. ve. Liderman, 187 ibid 463;
Seidler v. Branshaw, 200 ibid 4z5,
Yor the foregoing reasons the judgment of the gue
vertor Court ia reversed with a finding of fact.
a) Ge oe i J
irene
:
ot ysiiubers two moqu aistse a to dastwomoo at aie *
-o6 oi tad? ,vtwl ons to Joibiev ent artibnndend ween +9 —*
gk ove Lod as ovad bivow ona es bone qqed eanbsa ca one nob.
eitiv ae aa ,noleulonos ons nor? eqnoee on al oxxar of X
to gsew soot eno gaibaate fon saw Thidalely mcd afi - —
etotetedd boe ,¢i to tess meod evan Jaum dud ,enesta — id
son TL .ycleseq ak ted doutsa 3i saad t#0 oF tact 08 J Rene
edt bam outs ek galoouade eaw ote ot0eiw Joge ois od em 3 AVODRR
of os 289 ef? os? peoliisaes ens ea ,tod Agwise lense 7 |
ti amislo ysinq tedtien doidw - domid ont Stel ova teu
os shnet yignotte Tootq odd sa ,ylbotdwobay aaw ode 4b: b
gon bas teo ods to bracddanb snoxt edd yd dowrte ae a
becesq bai ti Yo dang O10 od iOsYs Yao Badd Yo yhod odd YO
Mowxte ad of an 180 goivom s of esoio oe baate oT |
3 6b .ff1 QOS ,wadenexd ,v tefblod .eomegiigen ek my
Ydub edt ai 34 sonobive edz Yo nos ihnoo aids ai get ——
.V bowamels) .tasapbyl, ont eexevex of #109 yulwolver @ ods Xe i
* a4
tootag ck $i ,eTed as ,eredw bus (ded ,qgA LT OL 40 — we
bivede suvoo sidt ,solsos oad aistatam sonnae — *
von⁊ Yo gatbatt o tidhw ¢
ta) .aeẽ ar
7 miott bet{weaor Btigaialq yd bere tive soltiwhat ost? i; J
,dasbioos of3 to osuan etamixorg odd saw coldw cocoons rt
-e0b dguodt neve ,yt9veoet @ atididnt wal edd ,toat od gat 4 a
e009 ovKd Yom Yow emos at dotaw eonegitgon to ve tAuw saw om
wqsd evad ton biveo doidw,sneblooa es sJuoda
ba -V £09 ofl afl of A oil 49 ssomogilgon — alg
+480 bidk VOL .gaueebhi .v .99 aM of ol 2. wn i208
88a bidt 08
ent to dnomgoul oad enounet alae tot odd x a
et Pe | iit, toast to mat be 44 —1— - at
492 - 21690 FINDING OF VaCT,
The court finds, as matter of fact, that the
plaintiff was not at the time of the accident set forth in her
declaration in the exercise of due care for her own safety,
but was, on the — guiley ef negligence which was the
proximate cause of the accident and the injuries resulting
therefrom, and that defendant was not guilty of the neglie-
gence charged against it in plaintiff's declaration,
oTOAT FO OMe e O8BLS + Sep
' a
S43 ted? Jon? to «ae¢30m 68 ,#bail dre sd?
ted ai det0t See Insdioosa ony to omid of? Se Son eaw —
sWioles awo t9M tot etes oud To o¢ Lotexe ost ad melee
e43 eae doldw somegligen to Viling .wiesdave eas xo + oaw
‘3
Suis iveot Belin edt bas taebiooa eid Yo eeuso atames
-iigen si? to ViLlisg Jon saw sambre ted sais brie —
— MOlsarsloob e'ttisaiela nk ai saaiaye bogtesdo acne.
525 = 21923
ANTON J, CEAMAK for the use
of Ce J. MoCARTY,
\ Appellee,
; APPRAL WHOM KUNICIPAL
v3.
GOURT OF CHICAGO,
UNDRY BACH
LUCKOW,
THE GUGGENHEIM
CO, and CHARLES
eee —
198 T.A. 202
WR, JUSTICK HOLDOM DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
__Bate-te-ar-notion-upor-a-reprevin~vend | din
bend defendants are principal and surety and the: penalty is
. boo. The merits of the replevin suit in which the bond
in suit was given were tried in the replevin action, the
title to the goods replevined found to be in plaintiff and
awrit of retorne habendo awarded.
his action was tried by the court, who rid
if
ages,
on defendanteeppeat, :
—
—
The evidence of plaintiff consisted of the record
and judgment in the replevin suit, including the affidavit in
faith of which the writ was issued, evidence of the reasonable
value of legal services necessarily rendered to plaintiff in
the defense of the replevin suit and the court costs paid by
plaintiff, The value of the goods replevined was sworn in
the affidavit for replevin to be $750, and this amount, to-
gether with §125 attorney's fees and §& costs disbursed by
plaintiff in the replevin suit, made up the damages assessed
by the trial Judge. “tee i teliv-da-not
in-dispute, Defendants reavAheir defense on the conten-
tions that, because the property replevined had not been
paid for, plaintiff was only entitled to recover oe
esems - ase
ae | 7
eay edt tot MAMAED .% MOTHA —
. YTAADOM +b 69 to
HOAM YHCMYs —E
—
IAILVIMVM MORK LASSIA
eODADIND YO THVOD
; odd .noitos naive £4o0% eid oi belts etew moviy saw — ab —
bas thidaietg mk od of bayct benivetges shoos oad os * *
is *
a , -bebrawa obue dad ouxeson * tin a
ee oe 7
onie lial oad ar bolas enw ‘noitos hay /- . |
5 \ b —R —— TNintalq "ot @awes
P negated Ea BF Nona tdeb Ba) bnod oA, To\ys Lansges ad 8
broocet ot to botsienoo dtisntela to enaebive “ae ee —
mt sivsbitis eqs gaibslont ,tive alvefyor esd wt doomgbut. ——
eldsnosser ods to sonebive ,bexeel asw sirw ade Ao dew te est
; al 2tisaiely of betebnet ¥Litesseoen eeoiviss Layet to oul * —
Yd blag etaoo sisoo oft baw Shue nive for ott to aenetod { —
at azowe saw bonivelqes aboog oid to eulay ‘out J as
4 “od “Pane elodt boa ,OdTe od of mivetqet 10} vabln⸗
yd boarvdets ajooo GY baa soet atyantosse eats lw 9
—
boesesas aegamad ot qu abam ,tina mivolqes ode ak mm 8:
A son-eb~enis TT 9aslT to — whe
“teinon oid no sensteb xhodasaiox ———————
=
,
:
ia “" : *
aood son bad benivetiex xaxodora end ↄouaso a ge !
a * y ch o@
— Tovoosx oF bets itco vine tar bay jou te «zen rot
Hy
on, i vale te Vek tee edad DY
fees and costs and nominal damages for the taking of the
property under the replevin writ; and, further, that the
Laundry Company offered to return the property, During
the trial defendants, by leave, filed a plea of set off
but before the conclusion of the trial withdrew it,
The ownership of the goods involved in Yee ves
plevin suit was settled in that proceeding, As between the
«parties that question was reg adjudicata and could not again
(-be raised on the trial of the suit upon the bond, Birma v,
Muir, 152 111, App, 505, The pleadings involved neither the
ownership of the replevined goods nor any indebtedness on
their or any other account, While defendants contend that a
settlement was negotiated with the attorney of plaintiff, all
they proved was merely an abortive attempt to make a settle-
ment, It was the duty of plaintiff in the replevin suit to
be the goods replevined in accordance with the judgment
in that suit, and it was not incumbent upon plaintiff to sue
} out a writ of retorno habendo ag a condition precedent to
. his right to bring an action upon tne replevin bond, beck
(Vv. Wilson, 22 111. 205, An offer to return the goods un-
——— by a tender is not a performance of the condi-
| tion of the replevin bond, a compliance with or satisfaction
of the judgement in the replevin suit.
4 The proofs of plaintiff conform to the procedure
aN down in Kellogg v. Boyden, 126 111. 378, Richardson v.
Gilbert, 155 111. App. 365, and other cases, Yhere is no
reversible error in this record,
— Ylaintiff has filed an additional abstract of
the record and asks that the expense of seme be taxed ag
; costs against defendants, We do not think this request
| should be granted, The abstract filed was sufficient for this
(
‘ 2
ay review and the additicnal abstract served no useful purpose,
; oid to guided edt tot eegamed Lantwon baa aseoo bra | ® —J
ond said ,tedgdimt ,bas j;tiaiw aivelyer edz reba —
gnimwd 8 ,ytweqotyg edd oxrudet ot betes tte wanqmod
tro dee to selq s beLlit ,oveot yd ,esuabueteh fata o
tt woxbidtiw Imitd git lo roLauloaoo oait euoted
sex ead at bavioval eboeo, oi? to qiiexeawa oat 9—
ens neewted BA -galbssoorg ted? ok bofdtee enw thue rola
nisye soa bLuoo bois sisoibyi bea got saw noisaeup sadt eoliaaq
Vv sarig ,brod sAd soqy tive edt to Laiad odd mo bor tex | od.
| eit todsien bevforvnl eynibselq atT .808@ .aqqA ffl Ser etre
mo sesnbeddabnl yne ton SbooR boulve {ger edd to —
2 tact basdaoo ———— olidw ,inwooon tendte yas ‘to theds
—s«sE Se .Ytlisalalq te yentotts edt dtiw betationon eaw some 13808 :
-elijesa se guam of tqmetia evisdioda ans yietsm ome boven veut | 4
os sive nivetqget eft of Thlinield te ysub ens eam at —
Sasmpbut, edd dtiw eonsbto098 ni boaivelqest ebooy odd *
ose of Thidgcislq nmoqu snedassont jou eaw di base ot iue dad aa " |
ot tnobeserq solsibnes a es ebaadad onze) 9x To $ how ai rie
Hook .bnod alvelyot ois noqs mottos aa gaiid os tate ‘ah
-au @boog of mister of tstto cA §6.808 . {LI 8S aed ;
: ~Lbneo eft to sonnarotisq os tom at tebued 2 yd boknaqmooen \
ss MOLSostatiag to dtiw eonsif{qaoo « ,bmod aivelyet orit ‘to n cal
tive atvelqert edd ai saommbut, oss 7 es
etsbeoorg edt oF arotnoo Tisatalg to etoorg oat |
+V moabrsiolh ,8TE .LLf OSL ,aebyod .v anollox ak ——
on ai oxacd .eoeao isilto bas ,f86 .qqA . 441 act of
-btooet elds al tort *
to Josigeds Lenoitibba an boLit ean Ttisalselt— Hy J—
ea boxat sd emse To eansgxe odd stadt aden baa | one t oud
‘ 7 “un J
Seouport ulds aAnkds tom ob oW catcabneee a y os os: ;
‘aba 10% tastoltive saw belt — —
@pacdctuc — 2 om bervan Vabaieteite A .-
⸗ should not be penalized for the diseretion of
(
\
\
their attorneys in putting into the abstract no mcre than
“was necessary for our review of the errors assigned and
argued,
The judgment of the Kunicipal Court is afe
firmed.
APFIREED,
tp
Yo motsexoath ont 101 bestianeg od son bL ea on |
i ae JT yi J
nad? exon on toatéade odd ofat anitoug at s *
bse bongiees w1o1te edt to wolver se me
ote ab ¢xuo09 Laqloinuit edt to —E
ook
1 _ {
he ms
aby
+ 9 3
F
i . J +) ;
, ‘ Lu, t NG wide
Me de
aa a
$53 « 21951
SOHN H. GAY,
Appellee,
WS.
APPMAL FROM
COMTY COURT
STATE BANK
IVGIANA, @
OY CAO couNtv,
1.918 2A) 205
HA, JUSTICE HOLDOM DRLIVERSD THE CPINIGN OF THE CCURT,
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant
to resever the amount of ao certificate of deposit, with
dnterest, issued by the defendsnt bank to Columbia Casualty
Company, of which certifieate plaintiff ciaimed te be the
nolde? and owner by cndorsement, The defenses pleaded by
defendant and ite affidavit of meritorious defense were on
motion of plaintiff stricken from the files and the court
proceeded, ag in cases of default, to assess damages and
mter Judgment. Y¥rem the judgment for 266.90 so entered
. @efendent presecutes this aspeal,
The errors assigned here are the same an those
assigned in Trevdwell v. State Bank ef Jest Lebanon, Indiena
case General Number 21950, opinion this day handed down, As
in the Treadwell cave supra, we hold that the errore are weil
aggigned, and for the reasons stated in that opinion the judge
ment of the County Court io reversed and the cause remanded for
® trial under the issues Joined before the striking of defende
ant? s defenses fxom the files,
REVERSED ANT? REMANDED.
gPellad aa J
MORE LAPT
THO] YT MUIOD
. oXTHUND MOOD TO
808 ALE ines
| Snebreteb gentayns nolgon akdd taynuorud aa mele . —9—
dtkw ,tluoqeb to etaoitizuse o Te Sryosa eed Soren ar
Yslaves> aldmsfod of Anad Snebneteb aclz ws —8 —
Uo behaclq eoanetoh eff — pdnemeanoben é —5
bh MO oxow euNToOh svolsocixwn to Sivahi tts ass bras. tn
$xuoo ot baa voli ong mort woxolasa ttidaiale si 3
bua aoyamsh eeoann of J Lustob to soeno af en ar *
bowetn ou 08,98° rot smomgiut ods wort “Sammmpbut *
elaeqga akdt aoduoeeorg J
ouods an omsa ont ote etond benglves stone oat wigs
anaibdal .ponado’ toov eo unm otase .v Afewhoows ab Dorptsen
BA gttwob bebned yah elds notnige ,O8CLS sodmuit — * *
ffew eis atotre ods tant blot ow ,gzqNS Sano ——
out orig oink go tent mt botata anoases ont 0% — 4
102 bobnamet anino ont bow hoaxeve ai $1009 wnw0d « — wait
shro'teb to yabitate ont exoted bonkot, seveak ont “baw
| soLkt sdf moxt
SCECKAMAN CCMA CARVES
t
in
vig 4 — uy
oy ha
; CAE ’
; ‘ — J 3
Fe ? V
my hake ah Gi PAR tes |
® Moya 4 A he 14
3 4— way i
554 = 21952
CHARLES BD. ALBRIGHT,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM
¥S. 4
ofimrry court oF
BANK OF
A, @
FARMERS & TRADERE
LA PAYETTS, INDIA
gorperatio,
COOK COUNTY.
Appel tant.
\_7 1981.A. 206
MA. JUSTICH MOLOOY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
In this couse a judgment was rendered upon the
assessment of damages by the court, as in cuses of default,
in the sum of $214.16, in favor of plaintiff and against
defendant, and defendant appeals,
The cause of action counted upon is a certificate
of deposit in the sum of $192, with interest, issued by the
éefendant bank to the Columbie Cusualty Company, title to
whieh plaintiff claims by endorsement,
befendent pleaded, among other defenses, the statutes
of the itate of Indiana governing negotiable instruments of
the nature of the foregoing certificate, and also filed an
affidavit of meritorious defense under said statutes and the
interpretation thereof by the courte of Indiana. ‘These defenses
were eliminated by the court on motion of plaintiff, and such
action of the ewrt is sasigned for error. Ye have held in
Treadwell v. Central Bank of Vest Lebanon, General Number 21950,
in an opinion this day handed dom, that euch error is well
aucigned, and for the reasons in that opinion stated the judge
ment of the County Court is reversed and the enune remanded for
a trial under the isoues joined before the striking of the
defenses of defendant from the files,
REVERSED AND REMANDID.
saerse - baad
eTHUIMGLIA 1G VELLA
olleqga
MORT
—
TW TAUOD YTHUAD
e¥THUOD AOOD
= Ag
2
Ae —
eTMIOD SHY CO WOLMIGO AIT ——— MOGION WORTOUG ot
“ett fogs betehnot usw ¢aeagbul 8 eames akg al i
tLunreb 20 agauo ai ws .tuseo aft yd aepamab to dromeeones
4J seniage bos Tlitnitalg ‘to toveat ak ,aL.ci12¢ toe mua ot re
| ,aleeqges tnabasteb bas june a
etaoitisieo a ek nog hetmuoo molitos te — om ” J
ent yd bawveel ,daor9edat dtiw ,SeLe Yo mve oft ak —XR Loh
od oltts Xena gn) yifevend aldswlod edd of lass Fandastod
ee | ot hone eto deuo ud amiolo This abeta doidw
aetutete edd ,soansteb tonto yooms ,bohaoia snabae ted * ‘
to atnsnwtt und eldaisoyon ard mievog snot bist te agate ont Yo
mo belt oaln has cSt no kT2i 199 ginkoyoto ont * ormitan a ont
M Hi
:
a;
;
:
f ed bis aetutata biaa tebaw sans ted ku ixes bx0m to 2
— “sono tdb eaodtT = .enstbhnl Yo atwoo edt yd tomers cottatvaarodat
aie fouw ban ,titintalg to noitem no dxus0 ef? vd bedontat Lo exe
: nk biet evad oY .toxrte TOT hanmgiros ek samo ond %o m0
— O8RLS rodent Law ned ,sonadel teoy to Xnot Saxtned.
J {iow at tonto Hove todd ,nwob bebnart yab oArl⸗ — **
enbut ent bogete notntco tei) ab ano ond tot baw hom
——
*
Tot bobnamax onuno ont hana hostevnr al sr0d vs miso 9 ott *⸗ J
ent to anbttrs a ots atotod hontot eevoet end sobaw L.
-80Lk? ott ‘mor? tnabooteb ‘te a
a
:
¥
a
z | ;
: | | CACHAN CHA CBSE GE
j
TOMASZ MNARKIRWICZ,
Appellee,
APPEAL CIRQUIT COURT OF
v3. %
% GOK COUNTY,
VALENTINE WACHOWRKG,
Appellant.
Post Ae fo
BR, JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED TAK OF LNION OF THE COURT,
This ense ia before the court for the second
time, The judgement of the trial court in favor of plaintiff
on & former trial was reversed for error in the admission in
evidence of & written document against the objection of de-
fendant, The decision on that appesl is reported in 183
Till. App. 518, to which decision we refer for a statement of
the material facts involved without here repeating them,
The record now before us is free from the error
for which we reversed the fonser judgment. The fact that de-
fendant breached his contract of sule with plaintiff, 211 the
evidence en this subject considered, ia euatained,
The remaining fact in controversy is as to the
value,at the time defendant defaulted on hia contract, of the
reui estate contracted to be sold by defendant to plaintiff,
While the evidence on this question is in sharp conflict, an
examination of it convinces ua that the jury might well find
from auch evidence that the plaintiff had suffered damage to
the funownt of their verdict and tat the real estate involved
in the contract was reasonably worth,at the time defendant ree
fused to carry out his contract with plaintiff, that much more
than the contract price, We cannot find from the evidence that
the verdict of the jury is contrary to ite weight,
The motion of defendant to instruct a verdict
q in hie favor was creoperly denied, as the questions raised by
ta
4O YANO TIUOATO AUTH. [,
ȴTUUOD 2009 X
£TS AT @ er
“proose sdf 10% dty0o odd Ototod wi oesd whit
Ytisgntala ‘to 10vet ak siw09 Labes eat ‘to trompbalt ‘ol,
ai notuainbs otf ni 1otxe 10% Deavevet daw tabs como.
“ob ‘eo noisovtdo ouis teniays Inemwooh meItinw & YO gor
€6L ai bedxoqex ef “Lasqqe tadd oo note ived at — ,tuaba
pey
Via
to snemodase a 10% ta let ow noiaioob ito Litw ‘ot Ble aah ree
Phe ="
omoris gnidaeqer ered duodtiw bevfovnl asoot ta.
LO%719 odd ‘mor? 927t ah oy ‘eteled wor prope edt
“oh reer sont en? Ine orgbut ‘coort 07 eid boa tevex tote
edt fis “(Misael itiw eine To foaténen o ke. boitodend
bontesaue wi ,betebienco go tdua’ —* aoe
odd of sa ak yexovotinos ni fost aninksmes ett oe
eid to .toatinos aid ao bedide'teb dimbsae'tob —
«ttkinialg of tnuabasteb yd blow od oF botonrtade | te
" an wollte qrade te at: nolfeoup ‘whas ne ver *
“padt Low duke Vent odd suds oe seonkvios 3— me,
sod eg nmah beteTtse bad TIkdalaly BAe sedd eondb
: beviovat siades inex ond dadt ban Sotbiroy sto —
“OT guabaetab omid ond da, ast tow ¢idancesex ‘aw 0% pe! ry @
etom dossm sass — — —— Ad bw tonteaes oid te sad oF
tens ovnebtvs odd mot? balk Soanao we —8
etdyiow ath oF ctwrdaoa ——
a: | tolbiey 2 avraaai of ——“ * t ——
yd boxter enotsa up ® » bot
La
te
the proofs were not of law for the court, but of fact for the
determination of the jury, Whetner the contract nad been pro-
cured by the misrepresentations of plaintiff, wus another one
of the questions which the jury, by their verdiet, decided ad-
versely to defendant's contention, a8 alue the claiu of plaine
tiff that he had made a tonder ef performance and stood ready
to carry out the terms of the contract on his part,
The contention of defendant regarding a represen-
tation by plaintiff that no broker had brought hie attention to
the property and consequently defendant was not liable for a
broker's comuission upon the sale, we think unimportant in view
of the fact thet plaintiff at all times stood ready to indemnify
defendant against any claim for commission,
we fail to find in the instructions of the court
to the jury any infirmity calling for a reversal of the judge
ment, Neither do we find that the conduct of counsel for
plaintiff at the trial is subject to criticism woich would
warrant a reversal, We tuink the ruling of the court on the
matters objected to was a sufficient curstive, Furthermore,
counsel for defendant fail to point out in their brief the
particular conduct of counsel about whieh they complain, wut
eefer the court for such particulars to the record, A court of
review will never go to the record to search for evicence not
specifically pointed cut or argued, for the purpose of reverse
ing the judgment of the trial court.
two juries, as well as two trial Judges, have
goncluded that plaintiff's claim is meritorious, and without
substantial and prejudicial error in procedure appearing. in the
record we would not be warranted in disturbing the judgment
from which this appeal is prosecuted,
We are satisfied that there is ne error in the re-
q * cial to the rights of defendant, and the judgment of
eprapreaves Court cn oben pe affirmed, — Mtoe
oid tot sont to dud ,suwoo odd 10% wal to ton oxow scien
“org need bed Joartnoo odd aentodW , yim, ods te ——
eno stasisorns saw ,ttlinialq to —— * bg!
,tteq sid oo sonidos att to antes —
“seestgey 8 yalbaanet gnabaeteh to mpnzannane oat
woiv ai dansicquiaw daidd ew ,ofas sad soqu nolesiomoo ar
— os Lanx bootu aomid Lis da Ptiemtat, send font
steLea tumoo x0% te fo “woe Janlege aned
satyoo edt to. enbisoursens ead. ot bait of Ltnt ov
waht ont to {ou tovet a to? ‘pakifes ya horde ve veut»
tot feensoo to soubmoo edt Jucdd batt oe ob ‘toddion
binow do kaw metote — ot toatduea ek Labas ens ta —*
eis no Siweos ont te gaiius add. —2 Ried faerovet # tom
(Stostedsiuy ,eviserme jnstoltiwe x uew of besee ide | :
eit Yoird tied ak tuo. tatog ot fied tanbasteb ror.
dud ,oiniquoo youd io kelw tuoda Leenueo te souaoo tuo)
to dtuoo A -broves oad of 8 ain ivoldtag Age 10% tr 1100 oad 1
tom aonshive tot Hotne6 od brevet odd of 0B “even Site won
-txovex to seoqruq edt tot sbexwyte to suo. besatog wAtnoith
Auoo Leind ot Ye Somat 2
oved ,#oghul Isixnd ows am Ilow aa seo taut owt by +)
tuodtiw bus ,evolsodixom et mie lo mirolota aoan d
ons mi. galtasgqe stuhos0t nt 70"Te. {ntotbulerg d
+ Frempbis, onl geit dxuos td al bedasttae bd gon * — roo⸗
| sbotuosacty wt Laogges ‘aha do 7
- todd ai torr of ak oAon⸗ tacit, — * - ae 1
udendes-rooek I ond bam aebg teh f a an
22 = 20528
OSCAR TRYBON, )
Defendant in E
ERROR TO
ns
X
\
AUGUST W. MILLER,
bag
MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO,
19% J—— 215
Error.
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT
This“a4ction was commenced in the Municipal Court of
Chicago on, Sanudry 26, 1914, by Oscar Trybon, plaintiff, to
revover for wages, overtime, and disbursements shal car fare
and ‘telephone e*⸗n⸗⸗ | Plaintiff w was ; hired by — are,
; about Ageit 4, 1915, to solicit consents for granite paving.
(He ceased working for defendant on November 23, 1913, The
\
cause was tried before the court without a jury resulting in
df,
4 | a finding in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $359.50. The
ft | court allowed plaintiff's claim for balance of wages due,
| $290.40, and his claim for car fare and telephone expenses,
$69.10, but did not allow his claim for $581.38 for overtime,
* Judgment was entered on tha finding,
It is here contended, by counsel for defendant that
the judgment should be buverned: * the cause remanded (1)
because the amount allowed by the trial court for balance
of wages due was excessive and agains t\the weight of the
evidence; (2) because the court should no’ have allowed plain-
tiff any sum for car fare and telephone Hs and (3)
because the court committed error in allowing plaintiff, over
the objection of defendant, to read from an account or
memorandyim book, which plaintiff kept, containing ite of
ra *
ey of wages received by him from time to time and of the
number of hours of extra work performed by him on certain days
4
3
F
88808 = S&
«WOEYAT HADEO
<to tm at tasbae tod
OT HOHE
THUOD JAITOIMUM |
f/f sav
eODADIHOD FO | A
: IM .W T@UDUA
petra ttLs abs lT
a r é
cre AL oe Ll —
THUOD FHT TO WOLMIGO AHT CHARVILEG YEICIAD AOITeUL ovICIesAd , AM
to g¢1009 fLaqiolmlM ont mt beonsmmoo agw noltog -eidT
ot ,ttidabelq ,nodyitT ts0a0 yd ,ALeL ,d8 —— ao oveo tyd
erst Iso webs eitnemeerudetb bas ,emistisvo —— 20% a9
* —— —
daabneteb ud borin Baw — Yibsatsld | .seaneqxe ‘enorigeLed
eaatvsg stinsty 16% atmoamoo ¢ioifoe ot ,éfel be, liadh duc tuods
say ,éLe@fL£ .éS redmevok no Jushbnastsb 10% gaixzow/beanes ok
ait gaiffyeot yust se tuoddiw siuoo oft etoted bests asw oansd
edt. .08,88E% to mue edt tot ttitaislq to — ni gntbait 3s
~oNb asgsw to sonslsd rot miso e'Titteta fq bewolls sxuoo |
<20enegxs snongsfesd bas erst 189 xo stato eis bos pOd. oaca
somitisvo tot 68,182} tot miaLo —— ton bib tud OL. 008
gatbat® Att mo hexed me —J —
tsXt tusbnoteb rot Leenuos vi Bebnod noo ‘etd et $1 Mths
(L£) bebasmet sevso oft bat beerevet ed bluots tmemabut edt
sonsled rot 109 Leixts edt vcd bewolis stnvoms oxft eeusoed
edt to tdytew ofd/tentags hrs evtaeseoxe asw eub eszaw To
wnislq bowolls evad Zon biuotea divoo oft seusoed (8) jeonobive |
(&) bres ;segdoaxe enodasfet bas sist ts. tot mue yas Ttit
19 VO (ltitnisda aniwol{s ni torts bettimmoo ti1n0o edt savuaced
‘tO Sion ig Mott beet of ,tnabmeteb to aditoes ido edt _
f
to emiesi anintad noo ,tgex VisateLg doidw loos mybustomem
4
|
}
j
;
;
z
22
and of the sis (>? amma made by him, and when made, for
okpensed,
‘ —— his amended statement of claim Plaintiff claimed
that he was entitled to receive as wages $80 for the month of
April, $65 for each of the months of May, June, July, August,
| S eptember and October and $65.40 for the month of November,
or a total of §655,40; that he received from defendant from
time to time during the months of April to September, inclusive,
aS wages, the total sum of $315, and that he also received from
defendant on January 12, 1914, the sum of $50, leaving a balance
due him of $290.40 for wages as distinguished from moneys due
him for overtime and disbursements, The defendant, in his second
amended affidavit of merits, admitted that plaintiff had earned
* wages said total sum of $655.40, but claimed that from time to
time up to and including January 12, 1914, he had paid plaintiff
the total sum of $531, leaving only a balance due plaintiff
— Sa —
for wages of $124, +40. |W While the~evidence’ is conflictite as
Ge —— made from pane to.time by defendant to plaintiff
on aceoul nt of ⸗ can not say, after a careful review of
8 record, that the ‘amount _allewed by the court as the balance
due plaintirr for wages is-egainst the weight of the evidence,
Re On the question as to the allowance of Plaintiff's
Claim for $69.10 for disbursements during the period ofmhis
employment for car fare and telephone expenses, defendant's
evidence was to the effect that he at no time made any agree~
ment with plaintiff to reimburse him for such expensés, While
Plaintiff testified thet during the month of April, 1913,
defendant gave him $2 for car fare and telephone expense, he
also testified thet he had no further conversation with defendant
relative to such expenses and that at no time during his
employment did he render any bill to defendant for such expenses,
AA ae eS “any” “ev Tdetree~vP-u-enprooe-peomive
—*—
107 ,ebsin nedw brs — yo sban ae nomoa audatd 9: Yo ‘
—
bemisfio ttitnitalq misflo to inemetste bebaems eid —
to démom sit tot O88 e@nsw as oviooet of belttine eaw of tants.
etauguA ,vyint .saut ,YyeM to edtnom edd to dose tot 23g ee
,tedmevou to Ainom ext 10% OS,208 bas tedotoO brs xedmetqs 8
mort ¢nsbnoteb mott beviesot on tudd :08,88a% to Ladot s 10
povieufoni ,toedmetqe2 ot Lk1iqA to eritnom eft gniiwh emit o¢ omit
moxt beviesoot oels eri test re .cLé% to mye LIstod sit ,2ene8w as
eonslad » antvest .08$ to mye edt ,AL@L Sf yramnst mo ¢nebneteb
exh aysmom mort bedetunnitelb es aszaw tot Of,0@8G to min owb
moose sid at ,tnsbnetebh sit ,atnemoatudealbh bua omiitevo tot —
bentse bs ttiinisiq tsdt bettimbs e ron to tivsbiits bobnems
t+ omit mort tent bemisio tud .05,2000§ to mye Ietot bkee asgsw as
Itlintela bisq bad of ALCL ,Sf yisunst goibstoni bas of qs omit
‘Titntalg oub eonsled # yLno antvael —J to mye Latot eit
— — —
as gitt#5titaoo ai’ ears bive~edd. aLtaw | +08. one to koysw tot
of ‘
Ttidnkelg o¢ “dnebns tob Yo omits Oo ames mon’ ebsm atnsmyegq 3
to wotvos Lute tse 6 tetts ,.yse ton via by seats dad ‘to dip os
eonesisd edt as tuvoo ent Yo hewolle aauone eat dat boos ⁊
,eonsbive oft to todgiow odt Fantugeel ae3ew 10% rE nisiq eub
e'ttitnisiq to eonswolls ent of as noitesup ort np) ai
aidinto botteq odd uatiub atnemeatudath tot OL, 0d¢ xe? mielo
atinsbhSasteb ,aseneqxe snodgeflet bus etst iso tot J mearyolqme
~Se tps yms obsam emis on ta of tact tootte edt ot eaw sonebive
efiaqw ,esansqxe dova tot mind serudmtet ot ttttntale dtiw tnom
LOL .[rxqA to Atnom odd antivh tse beoititest Ttitalelg¢
en ,seneqxe enodqsfst bas etst iso tot Sé mid eveg tmebnotedb
nebo toh dtiw misdsetevaco reddit om bad ed sedt bettivest oals
eld goitub emit on ts tedt bas asanogxes dove ot ovitalox
inh aati dove tot tasbas Tob os {iid Yas ‘tebaot elt bkb tnemen teak’
— CESTIET TIS” TO” ‘SORSHIVE™ YE SioosT ot nk bat of L202 08
ma © nl)
o3e
mn the part of defendant to reinburse plaintiff for dise
aes for car fere and telephone, and there is not
auf? cient evidence from which such » promise may be
implie In our opinion the court we not warranted in
——— finding and judgient the sum of $69.10
for car fare\and telephone —
*
As the cour® allowing plaintiff to read from
an account or mem andam book kept by him, we do not think
that, in view of ple tiff's evidence, any prejudicial error
Was committed An this régard, (Diamond Glue Co. v.
tzychowski, 227 Ill. 33
Seymour, /235 111. 319, 323. )}
i Our conclusion is that
547; Richardson Pueling Co. v.
the finding and judgment
are /oxeessive to the extent of $693)10,. If within ten days
dgfendant in error files a remittitur\in the sum of $69.10
Ane judgment of the Municipal Court will Re affirmed for the
sum of $290.40; otherwise the judgment will be reversed and
the cause remanded, |
APTIRMED ON REMITTITUR.
eaib tot Ttitntsl(q eaiudmte:r of snabneted to slat ‘ostt
fon af exons bas ,snodgelot bas otst isd Tot ada
ed Yon oaimotg eo dove dotiw mort sosebtye tnetoy)
ni bet aa titsw ton — siuvsoo edt notntgo two al bs
OL.858 to mua ent pnemakart bas gntbhatt eds
— E enotcelet bne oxet 129 > not J
moxtt beet of Itiinislq yatwolls ‘tryoo ent AS BA ——
‘\ vat
anicdt ton ob ow ,otid yd tgead Acod mubaayémem to timropo8 | me :
norte Lstoibutetq yne ,gonebive at ttis to woiv ai todd
| . .0D pulp boometd) .htagot eidt ab ———
€ 141 VSS Diewodovsseiy —
( ese ,0£8 .£17 G8S\,ayomven
sit ai mofeufonos wo 9 \ bi —*
aysh cet midtiw tl .OL¢@o% to tnetxe offs of oviaass x F iy
eV 0D natiovT goabuesio byl 17468
daAszbh Bae ganibakt edt
O£L,€3% to mua orld y EE s elit rote nk dnobae
ent 10% bomrttts og/ttte tus0d Lagioiaum odt to tromgbut ¢ 8
bus beareves od thtw $ neory bs f ong eaiwtedto con, oesg to ure a
· bo bresnte ⁊ aus ott
eAUTITTIMEN WO CEMAITIA ca ;
284 = 20612
THE RIENZI COMPANY
. APPEAL FROM
SUPERIOR COURT,
THE COMMISSION
PARK and CHARL
RS OF LINCOLN
EB, AFFELD,
COOK COUNTY,
O
On Appeal of CHARLES E, axis. 198 J 2 33
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is the separate appeal of Charles |}, Affeld
from the PE. oie of Cook County, entered
March 13,1914. For the reasons stated in the opinion in
case No, 20574, this day filed, said decree is reversed and
the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the cross-bill
of The Commissioners of Lincoln Park for want of equity and
to enter a decree in favor of The Rienzi Company, complainant,
in accordance with the prayer of its bill as amended.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS,
MORY IAmGIA |
THUD AOTALAVE \.
.YTMU0D 009 HIONMLE TO AA{HOLVBTNMOD 2
bLetta .ii sefiedd to I[seqqs etsisqea oft al eiAT
ror A Kounintt
betetns ,ysavod 4069 to 109 -totrequé-eais— Ro ty 4 oxtd.
ai nointgo sat ak beteatea anoaser oft tot ,&f¢
y {Lid-eaors oft eatmaib of anoigoetkb sie bobnamot oat i
bas ytiupes to tusw tot ait Loo mk to exenoteeinned * ,
osntslqmoo ,ynsqmod isneltxi edt to tovat ai æo⸗⸗ & » (
Ni * r
-boboems as Litd efi to teysetq ont diiw ¢
-AKWOLTONALG HTIW GHCMAMA GHA —E —
73 = 21042 ‘dl
CHARLES C. O'NEILL,
Defendant in Error,
J ERROR TO MUNICIPAL COURT
vs.
)
7 f) OF CHICAGO,
OSCAR METZ, \ f)
Plaintiff in Erroy. )
x 198 ee 23
*
WR, PRESIDING JUSTICE GRIDLEY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
¥ Ma ok (tuo ry Cnanrhig C. B'vratf pe —
paint |, court
| —
of—chieage against de rdant to recover bee balance due»
i
[ wed) $90, on the sale to defendant of one second hand
steam boiler and four second hand steam radiators at the
—— price of $100, of. ——— #20 had been yaa by de-
Frome Woe Lin Tt afi rs *
fendant. his affidavit of — databank set up a
defense that plaintiff expressly warranted that the goods
«= were “sound and fit for the purpose of using the same in
— — building," that defendant relied upon the war-
| ranty and paid plaintiff $10 as part of the purchase price,
and ‘et after tee delivery and installation ef--tmes@ends
i
in defendant's building they were found to be unsound and
i
unfit for said PASE BS and of no value to defendant. -#ke
Gauee Was ited beroretine-court- “Without “2: —— ——
in-e- Tinding~and judgment fer g96-against defendant,
— We have-examined the ee at are of the
LES ALT Ber / —
i
THU0D JATIOIMUM OT HORA
5 Ss |
82048 - &T
wLITGH4'O .9 GaIAAHO
~TOUTTH os tnebie tag
fi oF pe
X xau adso
.oDAoĩMO WO
( .gorra * —
VIAIIAOD AOITGSV OMIGIGAAI , Au
i .TAUOO GHT aJo MOLMIGO aar auaxviaac
Sana Ley RN aN'O 5D cade dd ——
Uren Darel plese ——
goub sonsisd Sab tovooet of tuebh aN Jentege — ——
bred brodoe eno to tuaebnetebh ot else ant no L006 (phir
— — —
edt ts eatotdslibat meete bued baoose xwwot bas teLfiod msote
2b yd bisg. ased bad OL dotdw te 10058 to solig beetgs
ee Oe aren — Lal dy v2 weeny ©
qu tee tnsbustsb etitem to tivabl?%s | eid a caabas
eboog os dedi betnsrrew Ylassigxe YItitnisl[q teds sane tab
ai omse odd gries to seogtug oft tot tit bas bawoe"® stow ~ '
~isw oid noqgu boifet snabnetes isdt ",aniblinud a'inebneteb =
.90itq sasdorug eid to tueq aes OL@ Ttitnisld bieq bas yénst
abosyeed—to noissiistant bas ytevileb emt rosie debe baa
bas bavoeny od ot bnwot etew youd anibitinud e'insbaeteb at
otf. .tasbasteb ot oulsv on to bas gaoqtug bua tot tito
— —— ret 8 Savonkd-bw ~d2w00- — ——— boind. Baw send ‘“
VERANO TOR FOLLY I~ OCG OF JSoonygbyt bas~gelgatt sae
edd to ors bas ‘Songbive ont beninexeoved eW _ sd vi: ‘a
-Sstnsitaw yYilfst otew ——— — goibait sat
tedt bos ,beilsr toebie teh doidw noquy ,sbhoog emt
; —
edt tebas boA .tnebnoteb o¢ eulav om to stow
-msf) .vyinstrew boilqmt on: od 189 stot bos o foaab
ming v. Caldwell, 45 Ill, App. 175, 179; Martin & Co. Vv.
Roehm, 92 111. App. 87.) And we do not think that the
court erred in his rulings on evidence. The judgment is
affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
7 a!
Fe
-V .00 & aitusM ;eTf ,affL .qqgA .ff1 Eb «ifewble) .v gotm —
oud Jedd aAnidd ton ob ew baA (,°%8 .qgA .1f S@ .mleon
CEMAT TTA
173 = 21150
MERRICK BUSH,
efendant in Error,
‘ ERROR TO MUNICIPAL COURT
vs,
OF CHICAGO,
FARRINGTON AUTOMOBILE COMP
a corporation),
—— in my
i
* oe oF
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRIDLEY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
In“tizi's™ case plaintiff’.s.claim was for c onittti s-
__Sions..due-hia-as-an-automodile™ gal eésnan “enployed by defend-
=r on. three- WEPETETe-weT es" oe wutomobiles o One of the sales
fay CR ANAS SANDE — TM — — POO
was to a man named Erncke on “which oe plaintiff claimed, and
ö—— — — — —
defendant admitted, a balance of $50 due plaintiff, Another
sale was to a man named blair on which sale plaintiff claimed
a commission of $127.50. The third sale was to a man named
Tydings on which sale plaintiff claimed that defendant agreed
to pay him "$100 if defendant should be able to enforce the
sale, or $50 if the deal did not go through,” The defend-
ant denied owing plaintiff anything on the Blair and Tydings
sales and claimed a set-off of $131.30 for the expense of
making repairs on a certain car which had been damaged because
eof the unskillful driving of the same by a prospective cus-
tomer, during a “demonstration" of the car, permitted by
plaintiff. The case was tried before a jury who returned a
verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $210, upon which verdict
judgment against the defendant was entered. Both counsel
agree that the jury in arriving at their verdict allowed
plaintiff $50 on the Erncke sale, $110 on the Blair sale and
$50 on the Tydings sale, and disallowed, in toto, defendant's
AS claim of set-off, Plaintiff was the only witness on his own
~
Ay
O&@LIS = SVL
‘ HEU aoranau
XOXXA ak tasbas
THUOO LAGI OIMUM OT HOHAL
_a¥
THATUOD ITAOMOTYA MOTOMIASAT
noitstoqgtoo s
( zores ai tigtaiels
a
-ODADTHD TO
YEICTAD AOLTTeUL OMLGITemAL , AM
-THUOD AHT 7O HOLMIZO GAAVIAIGC
~eimiSs tot esw alisio a'titiaisiq seso-e bie nl }
— <=
~bosteb ed boyotqus anes fee” ‘Sidonotus tS 88- ——
J —
—— nd a a I
= —— — —— ——— ——
bas ,bomislo Ttitnis{q s IA do kite Xo otonta Semen mem 8 ot esw
toisonA ,titt¢aialq exb OG% to sonsisd s ,betstimbs ——
bemisfo ttitais{q sfee dot mo tis{d bomen asm 8 ot Baw 9 {se
bemsna asw se ot esw else brids oT .O0C.TSLR To noiqe immo J—
beet3s tnsbneteb tedt bantesaſo tilé¢nisl{q efLee doldw ao egatbyT
edt gorotns ot olde od bivode tusbhbagtsh ti ootsa mis veq ot
-bneteb silt ",dgyotds og tom bib Iseb ode ti O&$ to ,ofea
agnibyT bas tis{i@ odd no gnidtyas Tiridnisiq aniwo beineb ins
to eensgxs off rot 06, [Ef to Tio-see s bomislo baa aslee
seausosd begsiush ased bed doldw tao nisttes s oo etisget goiten
-euo esvitosqeotq a yd smse oot to gaivirh Iwtif{idenu sdt to
yd bettimiog ,tso edt to "aoitsrttenoneb" a ↄa taub , Teilod
8 bontustet ow yIut & stoted beitsy esw gaso oT “Yidnieiq
toibtev doidw mnogu ,O{S% To awe ond oi Tiidaieslg tot sJoibtev
feenuos diod .betesug eaw dusbneteb edt teniage tnemabut
bewol{s soibtev tlent ts gnivixre ai Yiu aut tadt serge
bas ofse tisld ods mo OLLg — eionte st mo 08%, —
awo atid m0 aneusite yino odd esw dailies: oan bain
7 Bae ina 8 F — sd
*
behalf in making his case in chief. The principal witness
for defendant was William H, Farrington, president of de-
fendant, The testimony of these two witnesses was very
conflicting on material points, We-deem-it-wnnecessary,
_however,..to. discuss theirytestinony~in-detaid, A book-
keeper of defendant and an employe of defendant in its re-
pair department also testified for defendant, Plaintiff and
two other witnesses in his behalf gave testimony in rebuttal,
ry "Geunsei. tor defendant contend that the verdict
of the jury in allowing plaintiff any commissions on the
Blair and Tydings sales is against the weight of the evi-
dence, The repeated argument seems to be that plaintiff did
not have a preponderance of the evidence because his testi-
mony was overcome by the testimony of one witness for the
defendant on many material points, We cannot agree with the
contention or the argument, We cannot say after careful
consideration that the verdict is manifestly against the
weight of the evidence, It is not the law that if the num-
ber of witnesses on each side of an issue is equal the evi-
dence is therefore evenly balanced and that he who has the
affirmative of the issue must fail. (Henderson v. Blakesley,
186 Ill. App. 556.) And the mere fact that more witnesses
testified on one side than on the other does not, of itself,
determine the weight of the evidence. (Goodman v. Weinberger,
185 Ill. App. 167; Krasa v. Robbins, 186 111. App. 196;
Bishop v. Busse, 69 111. 403.)
And we cannot say that the verdict of the jury
in disallowing defendant's claim of set-off was unwarranted,
Counsel also contend that the court in his oral
charge to the jury committed error prejudicial to defendant,
we have examined the charge and are of the opinion that the
jury were fairly and correctly instructed, And we do not
think that the court erred in refusing to charge the jury as
“
(Yoteousl& .v goetebneH) List tawum oveei ont to ovidamtitiae ~—
<ZogtodnteW .v osmbood) .eonebive edd to tigiew ed oaimreteb
seentiw [sqionixg ofT .teido ni eeso eld goinam al tisded
-ob to tnebiesiq ,notynixitet , meil(liW esw snebasteb tot
YTV asw essesnsiw ows gaedst to ynomttdess oAT vtosbast |
(Visessooons-ti-meeb-ay)= jedaiog [eitetam mo yaitot{taoo
-Xood A ,biasteob-at-yromifest tent cause ot -,tevewod_
-9% edi oi tusbnsteb to syol{qus as bas sasbaeteb to teqoow
bas tiidais(I .tasbasteb rot boitisess cafe insadisqeb tleq
iettudet mi yoomitest sveg tlaned ald at- soasent iv xedteo owt
toibrev oy Ssdt baetaoo tnabcs teb tot ———
edit no anoleatmmos yas tiitnislq goiwolls ai yrut, oft To
~ive odd to tdgiew edt tenisgs el aofse agnibyT bas tisle
Sib ttkinislq tends od of amese tnemunts betasegqet siAT eoneb
-ivesot aid sausosd sonusbive ent to sonstshxogetg 8 eved ton
eit tot esasatiw sno to ynomitest edt yd smootevo asw ynom
ot diiw setgs tonnso eW .atniog feitstem ynsm mo tasbnsteb r
futestso testis yse tonnso sW ,énem3ts ont 10 noisassnoo
ent tgenisgs yitestinsm ei toibiev saz fast noitstebiemoo
-mum ofS Ti tsdd wel ot Jom ei FI .gomebive edt to sogiew
-ive odd {supe ai sueel ms to esiie doss no ssaesentiw to tod
> :
eit asi odw of tadt bos beonsisd yineve stotetedt ei soneb ‘
seseontiw sion ¢dsdt toast stem edd baa (.866 .qqgA .{fI d8L —
vitfeati to ,tom as0b tedio sat mo madd obia ome no beititest
iSe@L ,qgA .{{I 68f ,eniddoH .v sesxnx ;TSol .qgA .L{f1 @8l
(.cOD .{f1 C8 ,eeend .v godeta
Yiuf oft to toibtsv sat Stadt yee tonnso sw baa
DSotasittewiy saw Tto-tee Yo mislo e'tnebnsteb gniwol{setb ai
.
feto eid mi s¢uyoo oft tsdt bastmoo oels feanyvod
requested by defendant, or that the court committed any pre-
judicial error in his rulings on evidence,
Pinding no reversible error in the redord the
judgment of the Municipal Court will be affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
Ler hs ne Aen ce car
p ‘ J
J By:
i apug yas bottimmoo d1v09 odd tadd xo .fasbae 9b |
| ,eonebive mo egaitux eid att
edt brobs1t ent mi torte gldieresvet on aatbart .
\bomtitis ed {fiw ¢xueo Laqtodnuit oa
— CEMAL TTA
2 = 19492 —
KARL PUSWASKIS, )
Defendant in “rror, )
ERROR TO
vs. | MUNICIPAL COURT
\ i OF CHICAGO.
CONRAD SEEPP BREWING COMPANY,
a corporation, and MA KERSTING,
,, Plaintiffs in &rror, )
Me / 198 LA. 24%
WR. JUSTICE BARNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
a aaa brought to _Fecover $750,
sxageed to be money ‘had and received by ; agrendante without
co —“ The verdict for 641,67 yas — An- /
e ——— with any yegitinate theory 4 the ‘evidenge but
— “the weight ereof on the ques tion of joint debility,
$ “necessitating a ¥é Féversal_ of the judgment.
— —
It appeared that Kersting executed a —
of certain premises to Puswaskis to be used for saloon
purposes, it—wes dated Jan. 50, 1911 axethewes for a period
from Feb. 20, 1911 to April 30, 1916, at a rental of $100
per month, Attached thereto evidently as a part thereof
was a separate paper by which the lessee covenanted with
the lessor to use in and about said premises only such
draught beer as the lessor might designate, the price to be
$5 per barrel, On Feb. 8, 1911, Kersting (who was manager
of said Brewing Co.) on the company's writing paper contain-
ing its letter head, wrote Puswaskis, and referring to the
lease "between us" designated said Company's beer as the
beer te_ be used on the premises,” —— — —
letter..or the Lease thart 4s~anbiguous-as~to-the.contractual
relations..of. the parties..or” F e of- their..contract,
y ov. that-justifies-any. — than thet Kereving
ty
* gereg—8
—B SAAR
{ pTOTTA Ki Saabas tet
OT AOSAE i
THUOD TAILOL MUM \ av) —
.ODADIHD "HO , fo ee
YHAMMOD om vaag T9iwe GAMO
OMITEHEX HTAM bas ,moktereqios A
VYAM4 g hes 2 r anda nk Silene”?
4 ‘
— *
—
raod SH? TO WOLWL@O HHT GUAXVIGHC QNWAR SOLTAUL mM
O84 sevonag @ od siiguoid no Loe" nas wow ole
tubhid Dee. — ud ‘egrtennn baw bast weer. od of —
woe
| * —— 8 besyoexe > warn a salt a a —
soolsea tot ‘bees ed of atteawand ot sonimetg nistt99 to al
hoiteq s 10% apwebas tes ,O8 ae beteab onw-dt . anne |
OL Yo Lautner # ts ,2L@L ,O& Linge of LLOL OS .dot mont
tosterns tisq #2 es YLtnebive offered bodies 4 j dg com r0q
Atiw betasaeves esseel odd Moidw yd ⁊oqac stataqes 8 a5w
dove vino seaimetaq bisa iuoda base ak ean ot novset ont Le
ed of soitg ed ,odengiaeh diigim togael ant an toed digest | :
18 BSusm sew ow) galteru% ALeL 8 dot 8) -tovtsd 7 He
-sistnoos teqeq anitiuw e'ynaqmoo sdt ao {.09 ariwetst bisa to
eft ot nnitzretet fae aixeawant etetw ,baen wodtoL atl —
elt ea téod ea'yneqmoD bisa betengiaeb "au mented" —
—— — nl m0 6 boas ot ot 199d yi
{autoarti.noo..ondd--oF “aS error | sie.
PoC ss m0 otk et tone ty
ale
\_wesCon tat ting-tn-his~personak capacity.
ae
| On March 1, 1911, he again wrote Puswaskis a
. Rel wo ———2
letter, an wiich he refersdto said provision fixing the price
of the beer and to a verbal understanding that it might vary
with the revenue tax, and asked for —— of such
understanding. |
adeeb letter its
Pp ort J
plain Renery, fiat having exere ed his 9 right
* to designate ** beer should verfised, and
i
. ad that of the company of Haen he was
| m ager, hes ther oby ought/ in his capacity as such manager
| tp have —— contract’ between the company as seller
| d — — as purchaser the’ beer. No question arises
| re as “tothe price therefor.
The facts ape ‘material y as they affect the
anestio Crether there was a joint liability on the part of
defendants_f or. 4500 paid by Puswaskis to Kéxsting in addition
tp the rent-vaid under the lease, and for $25 aid the
7 ompany for a saloon license for a period
Puswisiis' occupation of the premises,
An arrangement for the lease was made on | Jens 23,
1911. <A memorandum of it, signed by Kersting and given to
Puswaskis, is to the effect that the latter was to pay the
former a bonus of $500 for said lease, and that he then
oid made a part payment of $150 thereon, and would pay the
balance in two installments, which were subsequently paid
to Kersting, There—is no ambiguity in—the—cemorandum,-and
: “nat the said sum was to be paid as a “bonus,” as stated
therein, was corroborated by Kersting and another witness!
account of the verval conversations at the time said receipt
—
or memorandum was given. Against steh interpretation it wae
— —— — wae — ö— — ⸗ñ7,— —
ae. ‘iene enoese—vtst ap PRON
— ———
a — atom misas of ,ff@L .f doi c⏑ va
* yo
gotiq eft gntxit arlietvoxrg bise osbateted of fot iw ng roddeL ;
a * ix! a a
Yisv tdgin #£ tadt gnibmatersbaw L[adisv 4s oF base 190d eats —* *
Aoua to moitemritaoo i9% betas bas .xat sunevet oa⸗ th
———— — — — — — ⸗ ete ae
x ord TO “Te ganaM as | sanbbasd oto bn
~ at tioqusg otk 19etts a, — nokey ———
Pits — aid A ordxe gia
\ lone
bis boar? ‘ed biyorn ‘teed ote —— 9 de i
Baw on J te YASqmMoo ‘auld ‘to fads ) ad 8 hiaob amy ives
geeiis noiteenwp olf dink’ walt
Te
edt tootte yedt ee ¥ Laliesem bas altos?
dat{ satolt, s saw ores noitosn
mnolitibba ai ane of atiaswerd yd blag 008.202
to tusq ect mo yt
ond biagOese tot bos ,easol eft rsbow —E
holisq # to% sancolt moolse a to% yneaquod Raby
___ -8onimexg ont to soitagsoo0 ‘wives
my ae nO “bas eaw ease L ons xot —— oA. pn
ot novig bas gnisetet yd bengie ,ti to mubnatomem A an
eit yaq of asw tetial edt jadt Soette st oF ai <ebleaweut J
mods of tsdt bas ,onsel blaa tot 008% to ewnod a remot F
edt yaq buou bus noo reds O@Le to Soeayeq ttaq « oban *
bieq ylineupeadva etow doidw ,atnomi latent ows nd oonatad 9
bra ovbostomes—-orit—al viiuetdns- on ef—etedT — 5 — * J
ue bedate aa *,aunod* a us bing od of new mue stew ons
—⁊ ‘eeentiw iusdtons has yntiared ww bessiodotz09 sow show ‘
5 bise emti of ta amt
; PEs et noitaterqiosat ‘deve! of
fay!
-3=
Ppuswaskis' evidence that the money was to pay for "bonds.
— evidence corroborative of his —
h
— —
fnecessary therefore to.consider the i
dvidence pertaining to the license money. But the record
REVERSED AND R#8MANDED,
et
ay
z ".ebaod" tot veq ot aaw yonom edt tarlt sonobive: ‘se i
en — —
—— eid to” — eonsbiv
ary rite ot toomvxt ent old of Vist neo. - |
figtew tee tingm elT -tHome_natts: oly gnuiee .
*
xy a Nd kw ‘sor
| to ytosdt odd santsage * ba Aas Ad at Joesib om
foiadw so —
anivetsl ot biaq_ new yonom edd tact 2
toward ert ofotciw ed ton 09 Lsnoa
>
—
— —
——* ate .ad as ⁊ Inomgbsl¢
edt tebb estos, PA s To texont yrseasoonthy co A
; broost ent Prd .Yonom sansollt ent oft gnink 4
& —*2 (eidete vooet etow tk dguodt ovo ‘i Bed
} oad eve of ataeqqs tk ax .to Yo res witteaben
<a
VFow-er-grteerex dont bas yymegnot
o CEC KAME A CMA GRGMAVEA
i
42 = 20807
WILLIAM A. NAVIGATO, for
use of Virgilio Cimino,
Defendant in irror, | ERROR TO
—
MUNICIPAL COURT
vs.
OF CHICAGO,
ALESSANDRO, MELON, ¥
ANGELA MELONE, \ /
- Plaintiffs in /rror.
)
oO TT AY fA
19S 1.A. 2
MR. STICK BARNES DELIVERED THI OPINION OF THE COURT.
This was a garnishment proceeding besed on an
indebtedness of $500 from Navigato to Cimino, the usee,
and a claim of indebtedness of $250 for an earned and
unpaid real estate commission due from the Nelones to
Navigato,
The case was tried before the court without a
jury. The judgment and finding were in favor of Navigato
for $250, and it is contended that they were contrary to
law and the evidence,
The transcript of the evidence is certified to
as a statement of the facts. Whether it be regarded as
the former or the latter it sufficiently indicates that a
commission of $250 was due and unpaid from the Melones to
Navigato. Apparently no evidence was offered to the
contrary, Defendants did not deny that they had agreed
to pay such a commission or claim that they had paid it,
but merely introduced a soecalled receipt signed by
Navigato, which reads "Received a commission of $250 to be
aid” etc, It is apparent from such paper and the
explanation of it by Alessandro Welone himself, the only
witness for defendants, that it was offered to show the
amount and not the payment of the commission agreed upon.
YOSOS = Se
tot ,OTADIVAM .A MATAITW
,ontbattD olf{tgutv to eau
~TOTTA mi —
OT onnu
7TMod AAIormwn
,OOADIHD TO |
| ‘KMOIEM ORCUASBSLA
K iS
ef ATeer
eTHUOD BHT WO WOIUIDO ANT GHANVIGMG GHWHAM HOLITEUL *
tort at at tats ld
ng no beasd gunthosooxg tromlakntoy @ sow Bist J
esas odd ,onimid of otsyivel mort 008% to eacnbesdebrt
bos besise me tot odsp %0 aaenbetdebnt to misfo a hei
ot senoloy ont mott eub noteeinmoo sfates Laat bieqny
-otspive
a tuontkw gio. edt stoted bekiat eaw oaso est?
otsyivel to tovet at stew anibnit bas tnomphut efT .yawt
ot yvistinoo sisw yedt tsdt bebmetmoo ai ¢i bona ,0888 t0t
eoonobive edt bas wat
MODI ALHDMA
ot beititxyss at sonebive ert to tgqitoeasit eAT . P
as bobtayet ed ti tedted’ .etoet off to tnemetata s es
8 edt setsolbnat yLinetoittwe ti tettal eAdv to temir0et ond
ot eonoflem st moat bhagny boas ovb esw O68) te sofeaimmoo
ert o¢ betetto suw eonebive on YLsinortaqqa -odagiven
beetas be yort tat yoob ton bib ednsbne ted \Vtett 109
ti bieqg bed yedt tedt misfo to mokaainmoo a dove yag ot
Xd bengie tqtecet bellso-o8 2 beovboxt ai yLoxem re
ed of O8S% to noLaztmmoo s bevieoed” ebast otdw votagtven
= Qu
The real question presented here is the right
of action in Navigato,. The commission was contracted to
be paid to Navigato and his partner. The letter assigned
his interest therein to the former. It is claimed that
the partner was a necessary party to the suit, and
decisions rendered before the passage of section 18 of
the Practice Act, are cited, Under that section, however,
Navigato as the assignee of the chose in action had the
right to sue thereon in his own name,
AFFIRMED»
digit edt ai eted hbetnesexq moltasup Iser any
og betoatinos aeaw noleetumoo eT eOvJagivet ni moitos to
bermgierss tottiel eff .ientisq eld bos otsziveli ot Bbisq ed
tat Seutefo ak $1 .temrret eft of ntetodt gaetedat eta
bas ,dive oft of ys1seq Ytseeelen 8 sew tentisgq ont
to 8f noitooe to syssesq edt stoted betebmet enotetoob
<tevewol ,soitooe tant tobnU .betto sts ,soA soktosxd oxtt
ot bad mottos ai seolo off Yo eonmgises att es otsatval
omen ewo ald of nootedt eve ot tints
4 CeMAT SLA
161 - 21138
x e ‘BEBRLY ,
|
}
|
|
|
|
| LEWIS RINAKER and GUSTAVE )
|
) Defendants in Error, “RROR ‘TO .
MUNICIPAL COURT
} vs.
| OF CHICAGO.
AMHRICAN BOND & MORTGAGE CO.,
Plaintiff in “rror aT on cpr
| r 9 3 Eons. 2 3) 2
MR JUSTICE BA! WES DELIV: RED ined OPINION OF THE ofa, OURT»
i — rR}
Defendants—in—error were employed by one Tiny .
Pree Rirne tte Boot t eor£ ws &
Johnson to prosecute a claim against plaintiffin—-errer,
One of them acting for his firm did considerable work to
effect a settlement of the claim before bringing suit
therefor, <A suit was finally commenced in which —* said he
‘on ey WO: rer eee Rabo ee ber
firm and another firm (the : attorneys ror pian thee im ‘io “Hees
cuege} appeared as attorneys of record, Most if not all *
the work connected with the litigation thereafter was
conducted by the latter firm resulting in # judgment
scainet a 2** for $2650,
After commencement of the suit and prior to
lo 3 AAT hates
the rendition of the judgment, ‘erxor served
— — ——
notiee in due form di Stein tier in eréor of their claim
to an attorney's lien under the statute for the services
they had performed and were to perform in the matter and
filed an intervening petition in said cause to enforce said
(avreteractattion Bd prnal berlegt By
lien. On the hearing thereof plaintiff—in-error was
* trtivnwive
ts—in-—error
ordered adjudged and directed to pay
$150.
ae There was ampke evidence that the services
~ Fendered by di ints r were worth that sum, ‘Tire
\ Ot rte Yor Lienbadirl
that the contract between
J ret? oe
yy a
BELLS + Lok
\
\
aVATEUD bas AOIAMIA
n XIAIu
si HO HHL ~ TOC ak ad ash ne tec
THUOD IAGLOT HE | :
sODADLHO TO - |
4-09 RDADTHOM & — HAOL
8 8 A it 8 e | * al Yitates4 |
{
o TAGOR aig 10 wort —— xs wraad ak WIAs worTaut
ont hed —
yaiT eno yd beyolqus etoew torte—mi~ataebseted
= 4 \F if At batingnd, —
wT wien abel Jenispe misio ~ eiuoeaotqd of noe mtot J
ot Arow efdsxobtamos bib mitt ald tot gntios meds ——— 7 ”
tive gninatid stoted mislo eft Yo snemtiteosa « teorte
bise atd doidw ad beonemmoo \ilaalt eaw tive A toterens
—R REA athe — ⸗⸗ —E — — aS “ohs)
tot ayentotis ) mrt tedtons bas kt
* iis ton tt tao .hxocet to syentosse ea betseqqa feage
saw isitaersdt moltegtsti£ ont ddtw botoennoo sow ext
tromgbul @ at gutdivest mitt rotsel edt yd hetoubmo
,082SS ror Ie *
—
J
ot sot bas tise ode to tnemsonemmos toc TA
eth, << . tah fe
beviees TOTts <n of rombut, eit to mokttbnot ont ry,
mislo tkodi to 198%se-fi— ‘ mot ewh af eoiton q
esotvisce ott tot etutata oct ssbaw aekl a’yemtotia naa ot
bos tottsm eft at mroiteq of stew bas bemsotieq badd yeont
bise_sorolme of savao bise nk nolttieog gninevtetnai as beitt
Sew et 4 hae A) trenmnderynd) .
asw pear iG ana toetedt gnitsed ont m0 okt
ow By BR v
10 1% —— ysq ot botosiib bas beghu lbs boreb10 tate
eeoivires ont tant sonsbive 4 om aew otedT —
ont! .mve tad¢ ditow orew 1 xd be
a neewted tostinoo ext sant nod moitaednoo- Leo ~be
De
r and said Johnson called for an entire
service, including prosecution of the suit, and that they
abandoned the contract and thereby lost all right to
compensation. This artees over the fact that /the other
legal firm was called in
the
to aid defendants in error about
time the suit was commenced and conducted the trial
without assistance from Butre
mot think such fact-defented-the-right—of-defendants—in
—Srror..to compensation for such-services as they had rendered
inthe -matter-or—eonstituted—proof—of—abamdonment- ~ oftheir
eon-tract,. Apparently the other firm was expected to conduct
the trial, so ‘Tate it Foo not appear that bea
im<error did not perform all the services their client
— of them,
18 TEGO OAPI Oe bine clas V V VVVV VV——
—
3 As\ the sy hae they rendéred were on accoupt) ef
ch claim d cause of detion they were puch as eXeerty -
fome within
p tey
he purview of _the statute gixing a lien there-
AFFIRMED,
% ‘
eritne ne rot belias noanteot bise brs ——
yous tadt bas ,tine aft to moituooectq gribufont ,eolvies
ot tdgix fle saol ydeteds bas toatinoo ents benobasds
aoddo odt\ tart sos? ont x8vo 3202. atdT .moitaemeqmos
guods torre ok admsbrotob bis ot ak belies saw met t feyel
fatxt ont betoubaco bre beonemsed saw ¢iwe odd omits old
wath:
ofy-ewe THT —— moxvt aonetekees stuodsiw
nt etrabas tot ‘te -dvintr- ods betas toh poet soue tatde sen
berebnrer bed Yous an sevotvie dove tol mold sare gms. ot rota |
aleris—to-tremnobnads to too1rg-bedustsenoe 10 totam onlt—ab
— o⸗ betoogxe esw mukt toto edt yiinetaqqA .testésee-
graced, geadt teeqas son hits, tk eter eNO plait ont
dnokfo ttedt aeoiviea oft Ile miotzeg vom bib torrent
-mody to ——
to /(Favooos no oTtaw beteb met yous gooivice odd (aA nig
Ylxsefo as dove otew youd rots to eeuso btw er How
-stont moil os gniviy etuseate snd to welvaig ont nidsiw emo
\
» CUMAT AIA
197 = 222474
JACOB HORVITZ,
D
ERROR TO
i a MUNICIPAL COURT
—
ec. OF CHICAGO,
NATHAN SHAN
——
IoSs I.A. 254
MR, JUSTICE BARNES DELIVERED THE. OPINION OF THE COURT,
: By
jo EER SEL Ie a eee” i"
Wy Noord Heerwrle, plant), ay aanel Ys mhareteld
This-wae~an Action of ‘forcible detainer, The
Court directed a verdict for plaintiff and gave judgment
“Ih. bthdacr Uns obriake.
for possession of the premises, (owt! Hem dtd of piaka
A ia ean ee Natl. AL hi~ Ub.
The lease under which defendant held the
premises was in writing and under seal, The rent was
payable monthly in advance and had been paid from time
of entry until November, 1914, Defendant refusing to pay
the rent for that month on demand therefor, a five days
notice was duly served, and on November 11, a suit for
= forcible detainer was begun in the Municipal Court of
> Chicago, and on account of failure to pay the December
| rent on demand tneref ox Sccenber 14, the suit at bar,
without further notice, was begun December 16, 1914, After
institution of and before judgment in the suit at bar plain-
tiff took a non-suit in the former. Defendant asked for
dismissal of the latter suit because the former was pending
when the suit at bar was begun, the motion was prdperly
a den ied ( Wright v . Keifer, 151 Tl. ABp. 298).
5 At the trial the grounds of defense were (1) that
defendant had not been given complete possession of the
premises leased, he claiming that a room of the basement
had been withheld from him and contained goods of the
Plaintiff which plaintiff on request had failed to remove;
AYES = VOL
ieee
(STIVHOH gooat
w-k-tesbneted
oT AOnA
(
(
(
| THU0D TAGIOI MUM |
sODADIHD TO Ne —
a he | HAHTAM
TOI mss, ;
AGS fat 8 Qe *8& Od ah
if .THUOD aur YO WOLMIGO ART az vided CHMAAM SOLTAUG . 5M
— — Caan ey seems ime a
peti Sane jes owl dasa pol
ost? yiemtadeb eidiotoe?t to Br eee
¢nempbut evay bas Ttisatalq tot tokbiev s betootib s1y0d —
deli * td ahh ‘
Coe pe Kand —Ih 1eSy — — ons to. nobewoase
edt bled tasbretob "aula te bmw ovssl ‘edt
x
esw tnox ofT ,Leee teobny bas unttixw ak esw aseinorg
amit mort bleq seed bad bas ooravbs mi vids com oldayeq
ysq of anteyter ¢nabneted ALCL ,teduevoll tIanu yatas %o
aysbh evit s ,totoxedt bnamed no std som tant x0t met ond,
tot tive a ,{f xodmevel no base bovrea Yiub esw cotton
to swod faqtotaul edt at ouned saw t9misteb efdtox0t
todmeost eft ysq of otulist to tnuooos mo bas OMe
~tad ts tive ont df rodnood go Yereds baemeb mo tao
T9tTA .ALOL .dL tedmesed nuged aaw ,eolvon reddit tuoat in
-nialq wed ds sive et mt tnemabut stoted bre to molded tent
Tot boxes suabmeteti .temrot eft ok tine~nom a toot vat
naiboeg acw temr0t edt seveoed give tettsl odd to favelmakh—
yitego%g eaw no Ldont ‘ont -turged asw tad ts tive ont nore
(BCS gH. LfT Set zearken win sone,
tant (£) etew oansteh to ebavoty ont Laiat odd SA ‘ans
fein Hae ae
edd to nolaesaasoq steLlqmoo nevis weed ton batt 2 ast eas
tromeasd edt to moot ws tant yaimtelo ext boesot —*
edt to aboog beniatnoo baa mid — Dosis bw 199d bai
7 J Raley i: ——
wile
and (2) that when he pnid the Oetober rent plaintiff made
& Verbal agrecient that he eould Stay and pay no more rent
unti} plaintiff gave him pessession of the basement J But
LY, hie first-defense- feild on-tidb~idmoden, tut berore. the auß
ve at bar was begun, plaintirr put a lock on the basement and
left the key with him, whieh he refused to take becuuse
plaintiff had net removed said goods therefrom, | In-view-of
gh delivery of th the key. to-the-veomund. suneantradietes
ce that defendant refused to permit the remove. of pe
refrom by plaintiff's agent sent there Ao remove
them, the defense of want of possession wae without foundption,
AB the other defense, not onlf was the agrectsent,
|
tf] mato, “without, any eonsiderntion te vapport it - a mexte
* pactun,* (cdadsborough v. — 140 Ill, 269) pug
"so long as the contryet contained An the lease under seq)
| ined executory, the\plain tif had the right to repudgate
the parol agreement and cheim he full amount of rent
tracted for," (Snow v. dpdesheimer, 220 id. 106),
As there was no o¥idence that warranted « fined g
of the issues of fact fox’ the ag endant the verdict was 7 operly
rected unless there was error atilaw., %e find none in jthe
ings of the eourt/and no instrueNions are eomplained (t
@ contention that the lease was ters ated by bringing) the
etion that wie/diamissed and that the ow suit would no}
ie until afer « notice to quit under th statute, ds np 7
|} the terms of the lease expresaly waive notice
wid, and hence mone was necessary, (Sepen et ald v.
The overruling of the oral motion for ne trial
Ciose of the case without allowing additional
ite presentation, deprived defendant of no richt—onk waa no
ebas Tikinialg tnet todeteO eft biagq est neclw Sade (S) doe
tnox exvom on you bus yate bivoe od stadt Jneometga Ladtev. a
suk — ott —S— mid oveg Tibtakalq {ifaw 4
2Aun odd oxoted sarlt nokendabe- abd—ne Liot vensteb sortt-atd \
bus Snemeand ocd “a dook » tuq Mtitakel¢ .auged saw asd ta B
eavuoed siat of heewtor of doldw ymid Adiw you ont Stel 4
woh al | -mox'to-to sis aboog hiae bovomes gon bad Tks abate a
———— —— —E Xow ed? to edt to yrevitob foe 7
erge end aow Ulno ton ,onuneteb teddo ett oF BA
mom we « &h rroway of nolfombiense yaa sys bw* ohant hall 3
wd (@08 ,ffk OBL A⸗al uoxoda fo * gwdoag sh =
ea tobays eaael ot — sogttmoo edd ae pred ¢ |
huqet of SHatx ond bad QVtitalala/ods .Yresimexe ber -
' gaet to Saveme Liu? off migts baa dnomeotge Loxeq oft a
(aos bk OSS ,tomkocloo ds ¥ wone) "20? botoatt ’ D a) 4
— i
: a
unmibait a bednetiaw Gadd sonpghive on anw ered? GA
yiteqouy eaw fokbtev odd Snabnepoh of3 Yo t soa % aouuad out
) acid nk enon balt of wat va Tost wa —X — —E
h boniaiqnos ste em Woutiant on bnayguwon ane % }
edtlantgatid yd hotnakitios sow oeaet oft Aedt woltaod noe 7
ow todd aotiog—
date Lito
on bivew giua wos ons $edit bas bevalmelb
is uk ,odutace Alt xobas tiup of oottow a
ee
kion eviaw YLawerqxe eesel of? Yo ammd orf?
ia go gogg!) .Vissesoem sow onom Somer bam «:
(80) LEE £62 onh |
* Laiad wor cot soliton inxo edt Ye yakfirstove —
f/Lonoltinos yukwolls sucdtiw sane edt Yo —*
on aoe — tstyi% On IO Saubsotod bevirgob ,notdute —
* —
J
⏑ ——
AUGUSTA ALBRECHT, e+ al,
Plaintiffs in urror, J
vs.
CIRCUIT comr,
JOSEPH PINGER, et
COOK COUNTY,
Defendants in
<ror,
GUAR i it unter — ——
— US 4 And hon h dhe
“vs Dramshop Act 1 — iat pind oh 7 —
verdict and judgment were for defendants, who-sre—defendants
in-er¥or here, Plaintiffs in error rely” Wholly on alleged
errors in-given_tnstewettons-to- the- - ; > ie
i Poe
The — c ainelne
of the trial judge as to what St¥e onde to prove, nor any-
— nor a ———
thing by which werean-determin we eee ee —— heen laity of the
—5—— —S
instructions complain — — ——
questions of Law,| whiei;= 6¥-6f “such... “neat
cord, we would not be justified in reviewing unless we hon
— cae
i
or instance, they Were epvarentiy too numerous and wer
umilative in character, and perhaps subject to condemation
r prolixity and resterstiof “and other respects. But withe
out knowledge of the quai ti ty or quadity of evidence relied
to sustain the gpfine of action, we con not say that the
errors complained of were reversible, For iG the
shows to the’ ‘contrary the court may have been justia d in
directing a verdict for defendants, In such a case...
would. be-immaterial what~the..instructions pend,
S0&8fS = ASS
Q gels to ,THOMMEIA ATSUOUA
Sy G g A. I © Q 2 TOT nt attitatels
OT AONAL
8V
.THUOD TIVOATO
eYTMIOD AOOD «ta fo on⸗ naccor
|
~TAUOD HHT "O MOLMIGO BHT CALVING BAMA HUITAUL. AM
writ te-@ “neatoee 79 ny POAT noe oe ;
pedals j Ae Va magev Nye — *
* og) 5 :
pel nt Ce oma. — beet ber tne 0 GA at OA a0 emis To *
etnabueteb- -9'ta- ow 18d nab noted x0% ome} —A bas toxbroy
bogelis no vLLoxtw viet sorts “mt — —
— sym orig Ra eek aero"
etsoltisixe9 s ton sonsbiv — brooet osfT —
— tom ,9vorg of hobnat Sais ae os eg spbsit Saist esid ‘to q r
edt to ysiitdestings age 2F,saodeh samen odd et gable 4
tonttadser tapaenqayedlt— ad Sktalqmoo anoitouztant ©
ade , mont ‘Gao tBalmo ous “To -wenee aor Aw pwnd to anotdaenp iE i
ro ow ase lay giiweiver nt holtitast ed fon bluow ew ,br09s Xj
| tts hue Warts) wobass avoiotv stew enoisouxdent ons tatf ya
joss move van o8 nso ew aniad gon ob eW agen amisotk
e oe ovad aneltesrntnih wat teniese amet Ken outt ‘to Yea
a bin ensvennta ood \ltnors¢as w yet ,senstent ro J
mite ebneo ot tse baus J ba ~Tetostedo mt evitelumub
eAgiw tut ,atooqae ‘tedto bas”, Se tassios bas ut ixtLorg
bebtas sonebkve to — <0 vats ip ent to egbelworml ts
eat pass Yer tos” uo ew soitos to — emt nistave of
_ bt009 ons segue 10% ,eldiaxever siow to > R atoyI9
mk b inttout need evant yam Siv0eo ent qunxd 100° <= of
beans s dove nl .atnabneteb rot solbiev se 2 too tb
Stow anoitowttent odt-tadw febred: c bee —
vaca nee ts : J io at
’ au
. 7 Pa
224
icetion * RB —— on the ground that they
5.
But we have exenined —— — of, and
fing no — *
materially deviate from a — etatement. ef- ‘Bbetract
Lam, or were nah if es tly progudicial on any theory or fobte
of | ae. — es ee Te otha, append ry — — *
— 6 —— tells the jury that in weighing
the evidence of pleintiffs they may take into consideration
their interest, but as there is nothing in the record to show
any defendant testified the instruction was not necessarily
discriminating or erroneous, Another is complained of because
it used the word "create" instead of the statutory word
“cause; * another, because it contained the alternative phrase
"or did not for any other —*— causé habitual intoxication";
another, because of a similer phrase and mere surplusage;
another, because it added unnecessarily to the statutory words
“in whole or in part", the words, “the immediate and proximate
cause or sustaining cause of such intoxication"; and others,
because they were argumentative, or did not Clearly and
concisely state the aE ee
See he “, — w—
“would pubserve 0 ‘upefur purpose to incorporate
in this opi ion for the purpose | ‘of criti@iom and more exact
alysis/ tiese humerous and rather lengthy instructions. I
8 enough te add that we can nat say that any of them is BO
parently, vieiou and erroneous that the pee wdu2d Ve
versed rardiake of any state of the record, It will
a. be affibmed,
~~ RORIRMAD
rm
a eel, — ne ay,
ASS — — ody pnd er Lash — ASC — — 4+ S859 ae to
28
8 — ii ie *— bonimsxe eved sv. dust
yest sade batsoxg edt 00 Léertevet a mut ee
tonzs acts” 70 tromedate 2081200 ‘4 mort otaived ylisixetem
atost to ytoeds yas so Latoibuiborrg Video Liste stew 10 ,wal
ganidgiew nt sarit at edt allat ——A— he
tient on ace
nolisxeblenos ofnmi sist yom yodd ettitatalg to eonebive sdf.
wore of bresor end nk aninton et eet es tud ,teerotat thet —
yfixnsasecen ton esw noisourtent oft beltitaes tnobasteb yrs
seyaoed to benialqmoo si atenftendA ,eveenotte to anitanimixoetb
biow yrosutsta end to bsetani “stseto”" brow ond boy th
sesiig evitantesin eld bontstnoo Ji sausosd tondtons *;eaugso* 1
j*noldsolxoini Leutidad eauso noeset tendo yas 10% Jon bkb to"
jogseulqive orem bis oaatiq islimta « to sayeoed ,redtons
ebiow yrotusete offs of yLiliseeooonny bebbs di oeusoed ,t9edsons
efamixerq bis etsibemni elt” ebrow oft ,"t1eq at to slow at*
<eteto bas ;"soltsolxosat dowe to eaveo gatntatase 10 seuss
Bans ylresfo Jon bib wo ,eviiainemuygizs siew Yedt eausoed
Pit ta. } _owal off state (lestonos
J—— ot snggsne Lutes on — bluee
_ toaxe stom brs matstvizo to exoqiva ont * moz
tz -anoitoutteni ydtgnel retises bad. B80 mY See i \eteyte
oa al meds to vas jedd yYse Jos Meo ow, * bbe Fate
od bLupw —9 ett tart ayoonorte * —
ithe $I ,btooes sdd to otate. ~~ to 6 —— boerov
bom itts ed stote
» CNS NA ~~
rs
—
—
HENRY Be STRASSHSIM and
ADOLPH 5S. BORRICKE, ss
fendants in -rre¢
ERROR TO
) MUNICIPAL COURT
vs. )
OF CHICAGO,
JOHN C. REUTTINGAR, f ) ie
Plaigtice in fre. J 9 8 1 a D!
» aCe 4
Ye at
—
MR. JUSTICE BARNES SLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
ws
f
j
J DST 6ndants in errox and plaintiff in error were
aintiffs and defendant respectively in a suit tried by
e@ court without a jury in which plaintiffs, as licensed
eal estate Re. eye a comission of $143.75 for
Mey
ae
urnishins a would-be pur chaser: with whom defendant entered
to a written contract to. Sell a certain lot .and recovered
udgment therefor, é ;
The recerd _pfesents no material gites tion for |
review other *— ‘ane ther the judgment and finding. of the
court accord ‘ri th the evidence, and no material question, of
flact Anedispute except fhether- “defendant. agread.to.pay: “\
pieinticts-asoMmtasioiy 7 \
— ——— denial of an agreement to
pay a commission is the testimony of plaintiff Strassheim
and his clerk or agent, who began the negotiations, and the
recognition in said written contract of the vendor 's obligation
to pay his broker a commission I 0On—that"ptint the-weight -of-
@efendant fixed his price at $3750
and agreed to pay a commission of 24 per cent, thereon
($93.75)y thet- Plaintifrs drew the contract and in it
eR
oT sosm
<1 ot ad nabaet
wHTIOD CAYLOT MUM
-ODADIND TO
cS -A.t eer
»THUOD WUT MO MOLMLTO aur ——* bawiag gsoLTOUt «A ae
ogrrunn 6D om Ma
aan nt Yakigte!d
— — — — —
eew ‘Tort TS a *titntel¢ baa torts “atk” staabas Tow
yd potas ‘Nise ® ak yLlevisooqaet daabaero® brs
heanootl Be — ———— ‘dotdw mk xxut vorls tw soo
ie ‘wot 8, J to not dante o 8 bomtss — *
porevoos7 bas. sof ator oo. s- 1 EBB Od doatd nos wei i a 0
20 totedt pte
tot ro i votip ‘Ishred om on ————— bupoes oat —
ot $nomo9713 ns to Lsineb ·—— teniagh
misdeastsi PIisdnialq to Yaomks sod ost ot —
eft brs enolaaiaeso a orig naged ont —— dri
O8TEs ts serie edit boxtt dricbno Te
nose J 99 19q * * loe Lame
af
24
designated the purchase price as $3800 with a mutual undere
standing between plaintiffs and defendent that the oxcess of
$50 was to ge to plaintiffs ee supposed that
$2600 wae the actual purchase pricey thet The contract
provided for a deposit of 8200 with plaintiffs as earnest
money to ve retained by defendant ag liquidated damages in
case the purchaser failed to perform, and if retained was
te be applied “first, to the payment of any expenses incurrad
for the vendor by hie agent in seid matter, and second te the
psyment of vendor's broker of a comniiosion of $143.75 for
Services in procuring this contract, rendering the overplus
to the vendor \p——anicthet Beonuse or the failure of d4efendant
to furnish an abstract in accordance with the terms of the
contract the purchsser demanded of and received from plaintiffs
the oe or said aarnen’t money.
— — eA
30 far as “the rscord shows the earnest money was
eption of the purghooer hows not aff¢et the querti
—“
( ¢e atidan t's Liabilite. |
3t is plain
—
pi intitts were gntita to a $50 only in case the contract
; {
f ;
ontane cont ‘phot purchase price of
{ie — ty,
case ye 8200/ was retuined as f
Properly returned, ond ha oe view it plaintiffs: —*
Wat under such state of fects
/
the “upon he — of either of such events ‘mlaintatts
might deduct out of the noney $50 for themselves in addition
to; their (comission or 393.75. ut neither event happening,
: ‘s Liability was Limit a * his agreement to ay
AS Judgment should mere been entered for the
——* of said commission, vine! $93.75, the judgment below
{
{
tnabnsteh to emulks? ot To anced data ttn, Teh aey ont ine”
ettiinisigq mort Tid bce ban %o bebnameb areeeoamg orf3 Sonim.
-: @
—
@-tebnau Lavtum a sitkw OOB8Ef am evoing easrio xg ont —
to easoxo oft tant tSoeabneteb bas etisinielg noowded pattanse
tandy hesoqque sacihisuio er lina ettiinieig of sp of A
Toartnes ot “made wens eauntoiug Lotion wid ean | J
gaontso ua ettid ntalg 3 bw KORG to dhengob « “tot bob 3
mt aagemah besabiupil gs tnsbnetob yd boniatet ad ot — J
saw bonistor ti bao ,mretisq of bolint toosdeteq aff eas.
bermont seaneqxe yom to taonysq edd oF ,Satkt” bokloqe od of
ods ot hbnoose ban ,totiem HSiea ot tnega old yd tbnev. odd r01
sot GT, Ea Le Yo m0 teatnmo 9 5 to teed atrohasy to tnomyaq
eulqrevo sft gatisbaez ,toertmos etd} antisoo1g 4 ape ae
ond to anmtst odd atiw sconsbhrooss ak ea te nek arurt —
Yo noau auocaus bise to resto
—5
* ont
tnetagqs ‘attitniaiq tf wotv of 8) as. brs Sense ot eh qo
to rsd voup only sehr torn st Test ng ond ro misery:
gay Yorost favmiae ‘ostd awoite unos ons an xat 08
——
Eh — — — alc
ntalg shite |
Latte oro avin ha
;
4
|
Jeera ae
—— ‘to otate rows “rob am és
tears eft eens «al tithe O88 o of
bid ooitg gaarlotug Jodi noo omssae
———
aa boniatet aaw oss okie easd int 0 hag ‘ene |
eaw honod rde a's nabno me Subexe eAT
ie a¢nave foe to ‘tort » to yin quad 4
noidibba ak agviseneds 10% O88 Yomom ort to due
o&V CCG ‘to ae las⸗ * roo «
£ pow Wika | |
este yqad taove xed bon ou
ws ot FHOMPS Ty etd of b $ ko
—*
wolod tnomabut ont av. ae
ote
will be reversed and judgment will be entered here for
thet smount, each party paying his own costs,
RLVSRSSD AND JUDGMENT ENTERED Ame FOR
#93.75 YOR DEFENDANTS IN WRROR *
to? sted hexetne od ILiw gnompbwt bose beutuvet of {Liw
-ataoo myo ald untyaq ytteq dose ,tnwome Saudt
MT TRA CAMITMH TUEMPCUL GHA TRexeVER
eHOHAG WV BTRACUUTEC HOT ET. E2%
295 - 21278
ALFRED 5. GRE
vs. IRCUIT COURT,
" COOK COUNTY.
PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY,
Appellant.
——— — —— — —
ẽ
-
eT A. 260
— 198 2-8
MR. JUSTICES BARNES IVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This appeal is from a judgment for 5900 rendered -
’ €or thecplaintirr, Geeiner, against the railroad company
on a —* for damages to plaintiff's automobile resulting
from a collision with defendant's train at a public crossing
in the State of Indiana. ‘he contention made is that the
finding end judgment are against the weight of the evidence,
Plaintiff charged negligence generally in operating
the train, and specifically (1) in disregarding his signal
of danger and (2) in maintaining a crossing of inadequate
width, The Court made a special finding against him on the
last ground, and there was no evidence of neglect except
such as tended to establish the specific charge of disre-
garding plaintiff's signal, and the finding of guilty must
have rested thereon, The question presented for review, \
therefore, is the sufficiency of the evidence to support |
the conclusion that the train could have been stopped in
time to prevent the collision after notice of danger given
by plaintiff's warning.
fhe main facts in dispute bearing on this ——
are the distance of the train from the crossing when the
notice or warning was given and the time when the train
engineer applied the brakes. Defendant's train was a so—
called fast train, running east on its south track at a rate
av & ae
)
Brsis = aes
EHD .8 CULL
,TAVOD TIVORT av
eXYTMUOD AOOD
‘ — bomen —E—
— F 8 O r \ ; Tae.
-THUOD SHYT YO HOLMIGO ANY Caimvided oxwiag ROITEUL «ae
hexshnex OOP re tesaomgbat « aot et Lacqqe eda? — ——
Ytegno) Dsowiéot off stanieqe—-;tendieso J
nolif{uest oLidomotua a'ttitnialq of eepameb tot mislo a n0- a ;
anterots ollfduq a ta ators a'énebaeteb Mtiw nolalifoo 8 mort ni
oig Jens at sbam noktinetnoo ef? .ansibal te efate ons mk
_seonebive eft to Jngiow oft tunings ers tnompbut bas gotbakt —
anitstege ni yilarene, soneatinon heytesto TES nals fits. el aR —
fengie ald ynkbisgeteth ai (L) yLisoltiosqe bas. mien edt
esisupsbeni ta aniesoto s ufioted a so mi ($) baa xoyaab 20!" a
J
eft mo mid Jenteys gnibait Laiooga « obam s1v0d. oA? std Baw Ag
tqeoxe toolgen te eonebive on saw etordd bre ,bavotg task ay
~sxetb to egrsdo oftioege eit detidstes ot bebns? ca, dove :
taum yilivg Yo gntbnit eat baa ,Langis a'tlisnieigq em,
*
[ «Wweivoz tot botmeze1q moitesup eT . mooted? beseet ovad "
| txoqque of eonobive oft Ye yonetotttwe edt at \stotereds — 4
mk beqcote need svad biuao niatt et tant noleulonns ——
aevig tognab to esiton toftea noleli£os end Snevetq — —
gnintaw e'ittdntele yd
V Vern
nottaeup eldd oo gutted otwqekbh mk ssost nlom edt Pet Lai
ont nedw yniamox eft mort aterd orlt to — ont —— — *
akety edt mow emit off baw neviy sew dal arss wo ood: ,
“08 @ esw nkatt a'toshnoted .eetnrd ost *
sae # te Xostt dduoa atk O Juse y gaknnt 2
= Qe
of speed, estimated at between 50 and 60 miles per hour,
It was after dark in June, Plaintiff had cressed the tracks
from the north and run his automobile a little off the
crossing to the west, into a ditch on the south side of
defendant's right of way. Being unable to move the car and
noticing thet its rear end extended over the south rail of
the south track, he detached the “tail light” of the car,
which gave a dim red light, ran westward on said track for
the distance in dispute and waved the light to the approache
ing train. The engineer applied the emergency brake, stopping
the train consisting of four Pullman cars and a combination
car, with its rear at a point estimated at from 50 to 250
feet or more from the crossing. He could stop it in a
distance of about 1000 feet,
About 400 feet west of the crossing was a semaphore,
showing a white light, the signal for a clear, unobstructed
course, and pursuant to the company's rules the engineer and
fireman called the signal “white” to one another when they
saw it. About 800 or 900 feet west of the crossing was
the “whistling post" where the whistle was given for the
eressing. Both the engineer and fireman testified that they
did not see plaintiff until just before he stepped from in
front of the train, which he seid was when it was about 30
feet away; that they were then about 500 or 600 feet from
the crossing. Plaintiff estimated the distance at 1200
feet, and one of his witnesses judged it was "in the neighbor-
hood of 1000 feet or a quarter of a mile,” and the other
at “about a quarter of a mile” but admitted that he 'did
not see how anybody could judge the distance at night to an
accurate point,.'
where distances are not actually measured but
era⸗ estimated, it is a weli imown fact that individual
. wo tog aslim 08 bas O8 mewied ts betamises beoas to
wlostd ext beveoxrs batt Tiisielt onl mt Ath t3tte saw tT 4
oil? tto efstil » eLidomotus std nui base diton *
bos tao oft ovem of eldany gated .yaw to tirlyit Ee 7
to List déwoa eat tz#vo bebnetxe bae teort afi taunt gatotton
~tao off Yo “SeglL Liat" ocd? beroatob of ,xoait dives em?
sot Moers bise no biawtsew sex ,¢ayil bet mkh #2 ovag rio —
— atiswoxggs odd 09 Sgt ond bevaw ban efuqakh mt sonstalh eft
aaiagesa ,statd yoneyiome ond betigas tovnigne off .atett gad |
migsntdmoo # bus etso namifuva awot to gaisvelenco atest od “a
O@S ot O8 mort da besamizese tatog «a ts tan9et ati dtiw m9
anak t2 qoga bfLuoo oH .anteaoto off mort e1om 10 soeT
-te9t COOOL tuoda to sonmtelh —
~otorgemea so unw yniseoto ot To gaew So0% 008 duodA. * *
betoursedons ,teslo a tot Langia edd ,tdgii etidw s zutworts |
baw toontans ody aoLut atyneqmoo eft of tnovetwg bag ,eam0.D a
vert oortw iedgens eno of “otiaw" Langia ont beliao nemo tht
saw yntasowm et to taow dost 00@ zo 008 tuodA .th wae %
elt tot sevig asw eltaldw ont oterle “taoq pakidabdw* ot
yoedt gadt bolttisfass namortt bas teemiys edt dow -galseoro 4
nt mort boqqeta ef etoted taut, Litnw VMiidntalg see tom bib-
0& tuods aaw tk no she vow biae ed doinw ,nkeatd off? To $n0xt
mort test 003 to 008 suoda made otew yor? tant yews Seatac
OOkL Js eonataib ofd betamties Ttiiatel spakeeots ot
-todidgien oft at" eaw tk bogbut aoeneatiw aid to ono * toot
ma ot toigin te eonmtaib oft enbstt, —— cadens —J— ry
——
tud borwsason Yilautos son ers Y tb ‘ton si x
fawbivibnt dedt tost amos itew aet rer
\
—
==
opinions greatly differ, depending on whether the jucgment
of the individual is good or bad, and without he is shown
to be specially qualified from either nicety of judgment
or special experience, there is no way in the absence of
comparison with some physical objects or known data by which
the superiority of the judgement of one witness of average
, intelligence over that of another can be determined, In
the case at bar there was no way of determining the precise
position of plaintiff when he waved his lamp, It was a
pure guess at best, The very form of the testimony so
indicates, and the very circumstances under which the
estimates were formed rendered them more or less uncertain.
Pleintiff wes naturally concerned with impending consequences
more than meaturements at the time, He was under some
excitement and running, as he said, one fifth as fast as
the trein and ran west of the semaphore, but did not deny
he was east of the whistling post nor deny that the distance
of the latter from the crossing was as testified to by the
engineer, That post and the semaphore were the only two
physical objects with which comperison was made, But their
distance from the crossing was also estimated, Plaintiff
said the semaphore, as he paced the distance, was under 500
feet from the crossing, and that he considered that he was
more then that distance west of it; the fireman said it was
about 400 feet. The engineer testified te the distance of
the whistling post, and said it was about 800 or 900 feet
west, and thet it was passed before the train reached
pleintiff. Plaintiff's witnesses had to judge of the dis-
tence by looking from the crossing which they had just
reached before the accident. Owing to the darlmess they
could not see plaintiff, but saw only his light, as one of -
⸗ them testified. An estimate of distance formed under such
tT
ete
fnomgbul edt velsedw no anibaegqeb ,TeItth yitae ty snoinigo
mwode aL oc duodtiw bass shad 10 hoog ak Laubivibat aris to Te
tnompout to ytootn w9dtia mort beilitaup yilaloege od of
to sonseds ont mi yew on ek etont ,sonslrocxe Latooge 4 ay
doinw yd ateh mromi to atootdo Laoiueydq omon Adiw noekragnod
eysieve to ssondiw ono to Snomgbut edt to yFlaolroqus ont |
ni .benimreseb ed neo rterigons to —J 70 vo ei.
selootg oft gninimieseb to Yew on aew stent usd ta geno ond
g saw $1 ,qmal eld bevaw of nedw Itiinieiq to noltisog .
os ynomitest ond To mrot yrov eT ,teed ts easy omg:
est doidw tobnu asonsienmuoulo ytev edt boa seoteotbat
—
cistiusony anel 10 stom meodt hbetebnes bem? otew sotemites
BOO NS pPeZnod ant bas git dtiw bonise9no9 (itarudan asw Vildatels
ema tobns eaw 9H ,omid ond ta atmemeiwaeem aedd otom
ag fest as d7tLi ono ,bise of aa ,gninnet bas $romes boxe \
yneb ton bith dud ,etodqamee oft to teow nat has alert edt
vonstatb eds sunt ymeh rom teoq gniltelsw ont 10 tase osw ont
eft yc oc boititess as eaw yniseoxo ont mort rossal ont Yo J
owt yino ot otew etoriqemen eff bas saogq tail .toentgne
tiedt sju@ .obam asw noatiaqmos Moidw Atiw atostde feotevsig :
Wkitniald .bedsmises cals asw gningor9 sds moTt eonetalh — :
906 tebm asw ,sonatatb ond beoag of aa ,etotiqgamse ent bise
asw off tad botebianos on todd bos ,aateeoto ssft mort toot
egw ti bisa — edt sok Yo saew sometaih dont mett otom
to sonstath edt of bettisact xeontyne ont .fo0% COB tuode
test 000 to 008 suode asw $i bine baa ,teoqg ant iteknw ont
bernoaet nikats rit oto tod hoseaq aaw tk sacdd bra teow ¥
-aib ond to ogbut, of bat avavendiw o'ithiniald .tthiakelg — i
seul bad yet doidw yatasoto oft mot? gnixool To seme »
yous sasmiuad oft of gntwO .inebloos ems o ⁊o ted —
to sno es ,tripll eid vino waa tud Mthdatel 608 fon aon
fovea ‘ebay bem10t eonatekb ‘to etamitas, eb
oda
circumstances with no fixed objects st definite distances
with which to make comparison does not afford a sound basis
upon which to base a verdict or finding when the burden of
< fixing the distance rests upon the party relying upen such
estimate and when it is contradicted by equally credible
evidence given by persons shown to be more fimiliar with
the locatiom and whose daily occupsetion requires them to
exercise knowledge of distances.
It appeared that the train could be stopped in a
distance of about 1000 feet, and we do not think that there
was a preponderance of evidence that it ran more than that
distance after defendant's servants had notice of the
danger, wr that the brakes were not put on as soon as they
received such notice, When we consider that it was dark,
that the speed of the train was nearly a mile a minute, that
the railroad signal was set for a clear way, that plaintiff's
lamp gave hut a dim light, which might well pass unobserved
as defendisnt's servants in the exercise of duty were watching
the important block and crossing signals under the engines
strong headlight, and that the distances in question are mere
estimates, a slight variation from which would change the
entire ground for the charge of negligence (provided the
brakes were promptly epplied) we regard the finding and judg-
ment contrary to the weight of the evidence. |
While plaintiff's witnesses tectified to circumstances
tending to show that the brakes did not appear to be set until
the time of the collision, we think the positive and circum-
stantial and corroborative evidence to the contrary is
entitled to greater weight.
The record shows that defendant's counsel said
he wanted to introduce in evidence an opinion of the
——— Supreme Court and was given leave so to de, but
aoonatath otinttoh te adootdo hexét on déiw asonntamuotto
alasd bavoe so brotts gen asob moekisqmos sxam af dotsde dtiw
to nebtud off merw gatbait «o doibtey « eand oe Lawteconsl Hoss
dove cogs gniylot yttaq oft moqu eteet sonatakh ons gabe
gidtbor yilaups yd bototbastmoo ei 2k nenty bas osamises
dtiw wekLims? o1om od of mwoda eavareg yd nevky eonebive
od mont seviuper moisaquvooo yYilsb seotw bas mitevsel edt
.eeonataib to snbeLwom ee
6 ni boqaote od bLuom ntaxt edd sadd bereeqqe #1 F
eredt todd Antels Jon ob ow ban ,teot COOOL simde to oonetelh .
tad nedd otom nar ti dads sonshive to sonatebaoqetq 2 aw :
ed? to solion bar atneviea atinabnaateb t38d ta sonatalb
yedt as noce as no tug ton stew astand odd tend 1: toga -
»ltab sew ti tans tebiemes ew node ,oolien dove bevieoet ‘i
gadt ,otunia so oLim a ylisen eaw nistt ort to boeqe edt sane. i
e'Ytitakselq ged? ,yew tselo « 10% tee aaw Inigia bnotlist end —
beviesdenu aeasq LLow toyia doide ,iegil wih « tud evan qmal -
giinotaw erow yswbh to eekotexe afd at adowvroe al tmebne teb an .
seninno eft tohas alangte gaiseor Sam Asold tuadtaogqmt odd
stem ots nolsacup mk eoomatalbh eft sant bow .sryilised yootte — .
/ edt bobivergy) conegifnen te ep ary off uo? basor, etitne
‘ -sonobive edt to tilytow off of Ytett aod tnom
Geonatamuortks of bettitaes asaventiw a'ltiiminke oLisd F
a
*
9 tud ,ob of o# ovael mevig aaw
5
it does not affirmatively appear that defendant availed
itself of the leave given and actually introduced the
opinion, But if it had been introduced we do not think
its omission from the record presents a case for indulging
the presumption that the omitted evidence would support the
judgment. It would really have presented a question of law
rather than one of fact.
The judgment will be reversed with a finding
of fact,
REVERSED.
|
:
)
|
a So ye —
beltave snsbaeteh tandd xe9eqqs — —* 3005
ant boouboutnt yLlautoa bre noviy evaol ott 0 7 *
Antels ton ob ow boowbortat need bal tt U uel *
patatiubnat tot saso 2 agneeerg btoset ont mou? ae
eff trogqua biuow sonebive bettimo oft sant +
wal to mokvaeup s botnenerq evad yfivet bLuow #1 Bae
- ,toat to ene ,
— gakbalt a dtke hoareder od tian saat dh ott ran
26
295 = 21278
FINDING OF FACT.
We find that the appellant, Pennsylvania Company,
wes not guilty of the negligence charged in the declaration,
and did not manage nor operate its locomotive engine and
cars negligently and did not negligently disregard the
Signals of plaintiff as alleged in the declaration,
ie
, bay
ee |
“ sTOAT TO DMICHTE
‘ XaAsquo) atnaviyanned jnatiness edt tedd bait oW
| .1oktstafoeb ot at begrsdo eonoegilgen oft to wit 3
bua satga ovisomovel att efsieqo ton eyenam ton bkb *
eit Driageteib yLinenitsen ton bib bows —
emoltexsioob oft nt begeifs as —— te
Os
601 - 20939
LYDIA EB. D ces, et al.,
ppellees,
va.
y AFYRAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT,
COOK COUNTY,
ROBEKT T. BRYDON,
Apkellant,
KR. JUSTICE McGOORTY DELIVERED THY OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal of Revert T. Brydon, indi-
vidually, from the decree of the Circuit Court of Cock
County, entered August 12, 1914.
Fer the reasons stated in the epinien in case
Neo, 20938, this day filed, the decree is reversed, and the
cause remanded with direetions to dismiss, (a) the bill, and
amended and supplemental bill of complaint of Lydia if, bDe-
frees, and (b) the respective cross bills of compiaint of
John F, Devine, as administrator ef the estate of Frances
B. Hill, deceased, and of Jehn i, Kitchen, as a@shittistrator
ef the estate of Mary Bradley Kitchen, deceased, appellees,
for want of equity.
REVERGED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS,
pat Date g mee Pe oS
.THUOO TIUDALD MOME JARETA
-YTHUOO aood
eve. ATeer
-ibat ,nobys& .T diesen to Isoaqe as si elat
1 Xoo Yo dined tluvorld eld Yo eetoeb edt mort vedi
JbL@L ,Sf seugua betosae 7 ta
7
e2so ai meinigo edt alt bedate enoeast oft t0t ‘
ead bus ,boetover ei setosb odd ,bolil yab akde 158008 « me
bas ,(ild odd (#) ,setmweib of enolioetib Asin bebasnot | ‘
“oi ,i aibyt Yo Inialqaoo to 446 intuemefqqua *
to gaisiqmoo to silkd eaore avisooquet ould (d) bas
aeonart te evades edd to 10serveininds es atree *
xotsiseiniabs es ae dod ae of nto toe bas -beanooeb —
LOK 0G
474 «= 20806.
GURDLAGH AMV GRTLOING Gulp
& COP DOPMLLOM,
AppeLioa,
APPMAL PROH
MUNICIPAL QOUNT
oY GHIGACO,
We Fe
a lerporation,
and 8, 7. ¥
ee —
Appellant.
198 I.A. 280
—— rus sei delivered the opinion ef the courte
\
Taye An an spoon from g /yasgn ror 2,000.00
an Kumd chad Cours ef oA ose An a
dings ‘ei ear nate — —— ify OO.
— —â ——â— —— ——
—— — — acetate
an V. #3, Haliem & Company, of which #. ¥. Hallam
| in president, as°a Florida copporation engaged in the
f businese of building, contracting, and in the swale of
* Florida lands, Gome time prior io January 23, i912, ome
| : B. J. Bhesiere, president of the Clageified Ad Company,
4 an advertising corporation having ite principal office in
Chiengo, Illinois, visited iie-taia liailam at Lakeland,
if Flerida for-tha_purpene-of aolichtigy advertising for his
company. In the negotiations between theae two men it
WAS Peprosentec thit the “lasoified Ad Company wa finungle
aliy veuponathiep’ that if yermitted to conduct an advertine
ang canpaign for the Hallem Company, the result would prove
ef great value to ite business, In these diccussiongs it
apptared that the Hallam Company would net be able to pay
in cosh the amount of money required to conduct thie came
— paign if entered into, and theplen of giving sotes for part
“wen ar i ae money was diseuesed, and in the course thereof at
886
*
mi
50808 « ova
WHOS OMIGL TER VA —X
—D———— TH *
seoliagga
ROH STARA
THIOD TATIO VI
aVbAULHD. {2
AL at of beta
sSnsilawca
oge Aléel
efisoo edt Yo ⸗ Sid bevewlieh MA EATS ut J Pha
f —8X
20.090, 9% to) dixon bart G ROTT Lyon ~ He of sg ay
t
a ne axa dyo tq #twod Lidgho truss wild ‘et pre. alaon San.
| ef foaqn at in de (worted MMasdelasy) © hin gad setter $i
j
*.f
.00 400208 — 2 Wa be 4 ag ire
— — adie Seattle act ame —— Mss
° caliek .% .¥ side ‘to o Werngarat. & watielt “ W weve : J
ie
ois i begagns setsexoggeo abitoLle a “ae —E ab
to olew of? mt bee sBALIoexsK0G omit bd Lis te —BV
emo 310% .8i winunat of telrxg sank 2 amg! — obnose, :
| e Virago ba HudTinwado it Do Jnsblaotq sexetenat ot 4 .
Mi woltio Laytoaisq ack yuivnd MoLdorcogtay Bhio stove an |
sbnalexal 26 meLiait bibd-oth botkery ,wimiss: , epee dtp
akd 9% onletsxevba tettiokion “Ye meoaug_ suit — abiroLt
ti wom owd suet? noowsod anoisaltogon e3 ol 4 UrMymoD
: ‘hone? Rar UiwemeD ha bo ktkcanto ond 2 aatd Solmeaekgor saw
eaisiovin ma foubsroo of hesttioieqg %2 stadt gosstsnoqeet elie
evotg bivew Siwerr os2 . ymagmod sae L.Llt ait xot tetany yas
#2 arvderupedd sued ty ohtontoucd ave Jot euler — to
| ene wkd toubaoe of bertuger’ wren 20 dawonin 9069 steno nk
⸗rea rot aston yarvdy to ubla bei bam samt boxnsae * —
a Terredd wate aie ta oss sboaswoase enw ‘Yona @
etalsaregTol @ 4.00 B/MALIAN .o. 7
WE of eLde et ton SLuow viernod aat Ett ote ‘tad, borangas a Me —9—
was taade Known the Classified Ac Company would undertake / ..
te negotiate there notes through one Benjamin F. Sage, of
Chiesg®. As & result «f.thene* wegetintiwm, 4 proposition
for this advertising caupaign was submitted to the Hallam
Gampany by the Classified Ad Company, in a letter weder
dateje? January 19, 1912 addresani to ¥. e, Hallam &
Company, Lakeland, Florida, signed by the Classified
Ad Company, per B. J. Bussiere, president, The Halles
Company signified ite acceptance thereto by wtating on
said letter that the prepesition conteined therein was
fully and irrevocably accepted. This letter was submitted
in person by Suesiere to the Hallam Company, and ali the
signatures affixed te said paper and the indorsenents thereon
were made at Lakeland, Plorida on January 19, 1912. Gaid
proposition provided that in consideration ef the Hallam
Gompany placing with the Classified Ad Company on advertise
ing sppropriation of $22,000,00, the Shasaified Ad Company
agreed te furnish in « thorcugh businesslike competent
manner, Gestetn aivertising in the best avaiiavle and
most valuable mediwas, ‘The Classified Ad So, war to
establish and maintain a well equipped correspondence
office in Chicago to advance the interests of the Hallam
Company in connection with the advertising gempaign, snd
to place in charge thereef a competent correspondent as
manager, the expense of which via. $1,000.00 was to he
paid by the Hallam Company. The Claseified Ad Company -
was further to prepare the literature required for
the suceessfub prosecution of the advertising caspaign
and to gupervise the publication of all euch literature,
the appropriation therefor ($2,000.00) alse to be paid
: as vy the Hallam Sompany · The Classified Ad Company ;
: «Se
\ — oaiichn bivew yxaquD SA bebtleass? ede mode wba ome
YO ,opeat .7 ahwataed eno dyuoutd apron saved stabs ogen on
: HOlsicagarg & .IttRdeNeteyer osete te. fkuGet @ oA wae
MALLS Of OF bed simdun aew malaga yatetevovba abd 2 9
Tere tetzol a nt Weteeuut) DA bok tineekd ont we waged — a ; '
7 A salink .f .W of hoasoubbe GEOL OL iawn, wapedad
i | bottinaas oH? yd bomgte ,abLaolt , bitaLosted —
Muliat oft ,tasblaciq ,stwheev@ .L .4 104 wun! ba
mo ath dete vt oteoted? sonetqoova ots be stieygte ng
ue —X —R Sonketneo moigia oguae mi? dng tester biew 4
besiiadtun aew — elit sbetqeoon “ld asovenss bate ie ie 9 ;
ont fin bitma: —R win L Lat ons OF etedaawl yd —DR ak —
nos rtati⸗ atasuoorebad out? bre toga bine of bexkt ts norutangte
El. bes veces OL Yeaumal co absvosy sbrunLortent 20 sham oxow
é matiall 9% Yo nolsarblenco m Sauls bebtvesq mold inogdag
| etiviovhs no yoaguot bA bet iienal® wf atiw wiioalg votagined
Yaaqmed BA boktinasd) ode ,00,005, 858 te Hoksaligorgqa oat
tnegequos eliiveentoud dyyotodt o n& dedi? of boouna
Sais oldalinvea tread oft at gréatdcovbe oor —R *
bai, OF aow .00 BA bokhtieantD agr eta Saw eidewLav taom *
9 Sonehtoqneties beqqtupes Liew » atatatam bas debidates
ms mealiat! add Io ataouwsend ant Sonavoa of oyandet ak oes to hae |
bie ,Kgleques yoleltiovba edd dtlw noltooanes al wrung mis
ao SHIhnagaeTtED SHeteqmee w Toornds oyiale of enaly on ua J
od OF saw 00,000, 48 .ekv dodsiw Yo eaneque os toyanam .
VWinqgaacot SA beltiewalo ex? .yreqwol mallet edgy Ww blag
40% Dexlepet oxwtatod hs ot ‘etaqezq of sonar uae
misquso yrkolsiovhs ott to Aolsuoamong Sw 2aao00u0 = *
i |
7) a'¥ fi
—R
yea
s*twtareeil dows tLe Yo — ode — ms
P mag. ag of oefa (00.900, 8¢) rotors Mond. : a .
bSuintiod bA bodthasald edt cvmegun baths
3
further agreed te submit proefe of exch piece of Literne
, ture for final approval. The compensation to be received
j by the Claseified Ad Company fox ite services in conducte
ing thic advertising campaign, to be a commission of 3}
} POE ceni.of the grew receipts reooulting from the advertise
ing campaign, either directly or indirectly.
im a geparate Letter of the same date, the Clagsie
fied Ad Company guaranteed that the Nallam Company would
receive und do $150,000.06 werth of business as a reeault
of the advertising appropriation of G12, 0000, 4% alse
guaranteed to supervise the piterature expenditure ef
$2,000.06 and the Chicago office expenditure ef GL GOS, 06,
This guarantee provided that if the Hellas Company should
fail to receive $150,006.00 worth of business within
one year from the date of entering inte the agreement
eforesaid, the “haeeified Ad Company would refund 75
BSE gent. of the total charge for seid service.
in agcordance with the agremeente entered into
Om this date, the Hallam Sonpany gave to the Claseified
Ad Company in full payment of moneys needed in the campaign,
including the expenditures, 26,006.00 in certificates of
deposit, and $9 000,00 in the form of notes. The note
4 — om we was one ¢7 thase motes and wie for the swa of
@2,000,00, payable on October 19, 1912, This note, as
well as ether notes, wae dated Januatyy 19,1912, payable
te W. F. Hallam & Jommany, at the First National Gank of
lnkeland, Florida, with interest from maturity at the
rate of 10 por sent par aumwe. They were signed by
¥, BP. Hallam & Company per @, F, Mallem, and indorred
Powe V. Hallam & Uditpany and by W. F. Hallan individually.
entedtt to voekg done to atoorg simdun oF bootge ae |
bevinges of of molsaeneqmmo peft -Lancereatge Leni? — out \ a
efoubaon mi asolviee eth «9% yoaqmod DA bostingal? a⸗ we F
$8 to cehaeimion s od of pty Lagu singe lexevbe ads aa
otidtcovba outs moe. wildineos atgivoss amety sel ends
ovitootsbat =o “itoonty Hada ke — eq wat
seual® od) ,otab euaa old Yo 1w9esek odasogee 2 wh Re iar 9
bivew vwiaqmol smlia® east gotf bvetaniawy eaquio® DA best | |
tiusss s ss wesaleud Te dicow 00,000, 00L6 ob bas evkeoe
Oefa 22 sb e000, GLP Bo molsaluqoryqu piielstovbes ods to Ki
‘he otwtibaogue orwdasesig orld ookveogua oF boos clarũ a p· —
.oo.ooo.xd to exwdibnogxe soitte eyapin® ent ome 09 4000485 ——
Siveda ynaguod malial eff Ti turis bebivony oosnecany alat
skidiw deonkeud to dtcow 90 4009 0686 evinses oF iis?
tromeotge od? otnk yairetao to stab. it mort m9, mie é J { #0
oa
SY hawtet Sivow yinquo> DA boltinead® edd sdigaotota —
wokviea phos wot — Lado —J poco a ff
oind boxedus asneagorye os Aa hW vomabroons wk |
beitieaaly add of eva yoaquet aecc Tat osta 4 ends ne
imiagua was oi bedoon eyeron 2O tnoayay ILut ae ‘Witengaod BA
To antanLtisros as 002090,38 ao ue Lame gas ont ge iby tome
tort ont oad On Xo moot welt md 09 4000608 baw sf hsaqees
to awa wuts 1081 axw bas odor satus ig to eno enw 00 howe
aa yeton wknt ~Sl2L ,e@L —XR rie sidayaq 400,000, 26
—— BLUE, OL 5 bedab ae⸗ neta wer * kiow
whe
Thin note game inte the pessession eof 7, T.
@andlach abeut September 20 oF 21, 19232, It was due
( Gateber 19, 1912. Befere ite santurity it wae taken over
by the plaintiff company anc “Fr. Gyméleach given sredit
therefor on the becke of the cumpany. It ——— at
maturity and thereupon suit was imetitated agninet the
Hallas Coppany and Mr, Hallam personally, hy the plaine
tiff sompany, in whidi the Judgaent was enterea from
which this appeal bes been prosecuted.
}
Theetatenent of cloim ehowed that it wae &
suit baeed “pen a promiseery note. Deferndenta, in their
afficevit cf merite, alleged: ~
— Mia * Chat the Gundlach Advertising
Company hat net bought anc doer net now orm the
note here sued Ong»
‘i: —
8 gond, Anat the plaintiff at the time ef
the pretended eseignment to it ef tear eaid rote
bowe—em-en hod notice -scdintesleet that the cone
taderetion fer esic acte bac foiled ane thet there
were good and eufficient defenses to said note as
hetweer the Claasified ad Compeny snc Rerjorin
RN. Page en the one side, anc these defendants on
the other.
—
—— Chat at the time of the pretenice
purchase of the note here-ruci-oa, the dundiach
Advertising Company enc its efficers ant agents
had such knowledge ef the facta and oireunstances
surreunding the giving of thie rote ane ite want
ef consideration as to taint the entire transaction
with fraud anc to wake the purchaaing of said im
strument by the Gundlach A@eeevietag Company an act,
— at the time of the pretended
purchase of tia note hers gued=en soy the Cundiach
become aware of the defense Claimed hy thewe dte
fendants ard otetmeefinet that the wneneereeee
eet oie. feat that toe
¢ had been secured from tree defendants by
fraudulent practices, and hed knowledge of such
ether facts and circumstances as to make the pure —
Gemeemy amount to an act of bad faith.”
me
ep Pa
+7 .X to colaemnseq sit otnt emae ston aldT eee i
ouh mow ¢X 4SL@L ,f{8 <0 OS tedmotees suede Hi Ces =.
S8VO mess! Bow 22 ytiuutan ah exotel .ShOL . GL aedosed J
sihete nerdy Moalhay Tit om p — — VWitniale ory J—
3 fact ty
$6 blag\gewr 30 eynageoo aft to ednod ont mo “@loxmedit ‘a
: edt fentaga betuii¢ent sew Shue mogueiods tem ya saute . a
eRisia off yt «ylfanonseq mallet .«k ote Yieqmo aaliLal
: fi a ——
HOET Soverne saw Saomybdul odd db iiw ak oysegmon WRF qa
obesuesneig awed mad faequyqe sind Aoldw ;
#2 oav $f Sond. bewous mialo to tment 2) SOR ms J
thos mt ,ateehasted eter yrenetwoty # noqu boned tm
cihene tis ,adtues Te fivebhtte
a — — —
BtivlstevhA -doslhoud ond tad D gd —
8 wo wen ter o90b bee tiywed ta wad Yunque | ae *
Come boua ered sa ee i:
Yo emit oct fa Wisuntelq ont sack 33*8 — Pie kag Od a
ator Dhew whe To tk of Susumgises bobs <q] odd ee
109 Of add SOW Rewekhatbo golton bad ork noms ee
St9dt ftott Sate balie? doa 279R Siea ret molterebae | a
ag Ston bise of avansteb tastoitive bag 500g otew s
rivetaot bose gneque! BA bestieaald ett seewdtod ae
HO asnabieteh eames one ,obhe ono oft — Se ry ‘ . —
bebarteny sit to onde eet a Mi
tgainawd otis otoG wie Ye seacioney 4.
- a3n7ge bax arecktts 23k boa wrest!) Q@iivttueyos ar
asonsienuotlo bun adcal odd Yo Sybelwomt dows bel “i
isew att Sam efor atds to gabvhs ect —— yt an
Hoktonatars orkian oft sntag of a9 Kolseveh mee — 8
Dts wii biaa — —— TAY, yp aes > wh ae r athe ee /
/ #98 m2 YLAKOD — Dt) ae hen 1 Sa
ac | — es a a:
; bshuatexg ott Yo ents ont ta ¢
Moaibras!) ost yh) sendbeepocad, econ fo
| sfeetuss shan ww fSoeryeq om ®
Wer TL ,eovreds vbom gow fm Wie aieted a
wit oatbmgd ott smowumcd? oban sve enw fo
bad asnene bre wtent — avi haa
=ah meme yal somketo weneteb sale ‘Xe gtmwe wmon
Kotter heaoo Jott Suiwinete bas e@:
elt dads Dabaeteh emu tee Renee se
WW atoahne — work WOR *
Aous Lo egbetwont bad baw sour sq
wig oct olen ot as aponadanuothe pte
* te 9 ——— Bey, ;
254
~
—s eg, ——
F
Hon the trial Sew plaintiff, upon offering in evidenee
the note and testimony that it wae umpaid, rested, The
evidence on behalf of defendants ehuwby showed ties
—— ee Se —
nh 0 breach of the covenants entered inte
by the Glansified Ad Company in consideration of which
the note in question, among others, wun executed and
delivereds that there hud been a breach of faith in the
negotiation of theve notee on the part of the GClnesifiod
Ad Company and that the title ef the anid “laweified Ad
Company to said instrument was defective) fone sardyzt
| ectpetaca, inder_aas,-69-0f-< rr Seyotiabire ——
het, \&. Sa, ch, 98, wma on the pantarr to pydve that
| 1% or soe holdex from whem it derived ite Aitle was 4
, Helder im die course, Under see. 52 of Aho aforsuent} ened
at, a holder he due course is requipéé te prove tha tne
imstruaent sued owas complete and reguhar on ite f. 0,
hot it became the hoder — before maturity, ape /
jithout notice that it mas previously dishonored, i] owen,
the fact, that it tod said note in good faith for
folue, and that at tHe time of ‘te negotiation it had ng
&
ne tice of any i. ria ty or defeat imthe title ef the
DEraon nego tint ing it. Whether or net phaintiffr wal a
solders in, fae course or had derived ite titlestrom |
ws ‘in due dourse, was an ivoue of fact vndes End
oT tit terernination ofthe Jurye”
AeA Sy Evidence on behalf of the
a a
Plaintiff Semy tended to shew that plaintiff, of which
&. T. Gundlach was president, was a corporation doing
a generml advertiging business in the city of Chicago;
that the P. P.. Company, of whi on! —— Sage WR
benolsnometeta oh to &6 .oee ted .eatuon 96h mk reblog
ony | todd evony ot
f
dou Wk ,botenodals yLavorvewy ag> th taut ootdon duod
<Ok Meiat booy ar oon bk ad tk gant ‘gdout pas:
or bd ti moltsitogon age ‘eo amke te tadd bos a
whew
conebive ci avitelte nroqu ,Tiiinialq whee Leits ait 20 ffP —* ig
ext? .beataert ,btegay anw $2 Jacks yromisoos bam atom ott
dort bewodia yeomme stanbretes to tiated ao eonebive
ofnt boxwwene sfeaneves oft to dosed « seeduapiepsod,
dotdw to moigexebtenoo @bh yraqued bA bo tileael> etd yd
bas betyoox® saw ,aterniso yom aektooup mi oton old
ont ai dttat to dosoid » mood bad euede Sads ghoteviled
bottlers fD odd Yo stag ste mo seton eeods to moisgaiszogen
BA boktiasnlO bias oft Yo ef223 ond Sods baa yraqued bA
Revisorten sow dneswisent bias of yragmed
⸗ — ——
ö— — ————— —
trotwitanl sidabbeyett mete ed Lg DATOS TPES
at} evoaq Of Tiddninta ond no waw .B0 ilo 08 “HOA
auaw elgii ath boyitob 31 morw mort sebLod gdice to 7
~enihe ai ewutnoo enh ¢ ‘cab Loa a of,
(e90h st ack no artis bus otelqueo aaw to howe ir .
\ bien etireten stotod 20d a3 ‘308 ii on? omaood 24 9
oft Yo 9042 ong AE tootob 40 ys dares qn to wks Or
a dow Tikinigde: ton to t93dtedW 22 gndd ; Oyen Hoa tog
more e [3 kf ast bovixod bed to eatweD wath ,
| i. zohan font 20 ovcok te Caw ,9atv0d aub &
RX oth -ertd to * ee ait
ait to Yared no ‘oonobavd Sg osmee
pein tA ‘
Hokitw to ,Ytlénial sadd wora ot obey start lantate
gaiob nolseroqrao a aaw sttoblaetq abv doafbaud .T =
—— te —— oft at otontoud gabeievovbe —
sae @ * ‘ite rte to o WEAGMOD ARES howl
‘3
ee —
ae ‘ ‘4 ce
6
president, had hak considerable tusineau dealings witha
the plaimtizg?’ CSaoupany, that vage amd duadlach had been
frienia for aany yeorms that Page had weoeme indebted
te Gundiaeh personally te the extent of B14 ,GO0, 00 or
$16,000.00; that pert of this inasbivdness —E
due en er shout September 20; that some time in August
My. Gundlach departed for u trip te Seuth Anerios to be
gene indefinitely, and entrusted his persenal affairs te
J. ¥. Matteson, vice president of the plaintiff company,
with power to attend to all kis tustWdene during his
ebeense, including the soourlng of paywent from Page
for the amount maturing in Sepieuber, ++-furtie® ape
eared fren tine er bans tite Avout September 20, 1912,
Page oaliad upon Mattesen and informed him that he was
unable to ony Oundlaeh in gash, bul tendered the note
OTe Gaede upon in payne 0 part of the indebtedness;
severe Pt the time thie effer waa made he exhibited a
atatement ae to the financial aondition of the "allan
RRM cre or ‘informed Matteson that if the
neie wae — paid he would pay it himoel Og sehet Phe
mete was acaepgted by Hatteson on behalf of Oundlach
and eredit given for the prooeeda, view, $1985,00, whisk
repreeented the fuce af the note lesa six per sent. discount
for the time 4% e¢412 hed to Pung, inert Snertly vefore it
matured it wae transferred by Yatteson on behalf of dundlach,
#0 the plaintiff company, and Gundlach was given erecit
on the booke of the company therefor,
tu behalf of the plaimtirf, beta Gundlach ond
Matteson testified that they knew nothing of any trang
actions between the det erment Ga herein and the Classified
wie
bosdvbni omooyd bak ogodt sasit —E rate 0,
x0 00,000,048 te snodxe oct of UtLanowteg — —
gk pie ausnbeddebm: abide to s1mq tect oo · ooo. dit
duuguA mi weds onen dade ;OR rodmedged syods to ae om a
af oF acixesA. ddved of gird s x0 betiaged iia Lom pray fi a
ot axiatia fanowxeg afd botautza0 bas — ine toon. — 9
siagmoo Thitwiale et? Yo tarshlieory soty ,noeetia¥ «Et ft pe ;
aun paboul somites. std {Le of — —— — abe
os on ody betebined duct eigen 4 sow Lora) | yao oe :
saeonbotdvbnt edd Ya stag Jie snecgee: ah: MOGs bove ee
8 dodidinxe wf -eban. gar teTto shld emtd ale —
matLatl eit te noitkonee fatonans® ont oF om tem
odd th Sade moaediall begets 3 7 pf
tio bitw 00 eeete .okV saboso ong ond rot — pi
dnuooets .gneo tq xis eaet afon ont te oon ont be * 2
th exoted etnouih ee eure as bat ite th mult
don ibm to Ufasted no Keass tae we — wow an
thbero } mov naw doatbau uns æ
ae
Em ic aye | nS Ae
AY
+0"? we
ioe Rettig of ony cone
ictnte between these peoples
ry
Ad Covspany end tie thet ieee
trawt
eed TYRESE Mh that they had ne knowledge ef the fail-
ure on the bart of the Classified Ad Company to perform
the conditions in the agreement entered inte with the
defendants in consideration of which these notes had been
executed, Upon crosg-exnmination ef theae two witnenees
and On direct exanination
CRS AOE SI defendants endewroxed te prove
their defense os set forth in their affidavit of merits,
4 cerefal-exeninaxtion of tie —
Petantantt” dayenace almost entirely for tasir defense on
the wridenee vhowing breach of faith on tie part of the
Classified Ad Company and Page, amd the claim that plainue
tiff had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence |
the fast that it was itself @ holder in due course or |
derived its title through a paolder in due course who
was not himself a party to any freud or duress or ile
legality affeoting the instrument.
A. Or that there was no defect an —* Wr; 2
—
a —— ie — —
— See ont — we gE Nae — at
* P uf ey aE Ay weit
— is
thet Page was indebted
* — 7—
cawe Qn the part of plaintiff,
in a gum Goneiderably lerger than the omount of the note
war question; that at the time it was turned ever te Gunde
#
-ioo \ne ‘to gitnden Wei qe tune pgenet bores —X bA
peiqoey eavds coewtod otat Leredne noe Tmbmibeteadd fuente.
«List of2 te onbo tw oct ow Sod yous sads ——
srxotireq oF yaaquod DA bobtiesaly oad to fray ads, od om —
ei? dtiw ofai boredae snamootse oud ad emoks lhaoe ⸗a⸗
eed had sefon sect? doise to foliassblenos ak ‘dnabwe tab |
ecenontiv ows owas to notdentunxd=60%0 noqu “ boauooxe
Reg? oEMit E020 tule voit solsanlasxe sees "0 bus
' ove1y of Sevevesbae afaabae tod SR ee
-6fivom to divabitia tied? a2 sidrot jee ea oane tab abot ;
THI IOeL VAs HOeiovdh-bt09—T TUF hq-nottaninacetvtenset
he asceateb sleds tot ylorwlias —R ——— — —*
esd Yo Ging edt ae dtied o donoad aaiwods soaobive oul
Py
exjelq Jads winds odd faa ona drum ynnqmo? bs hot ttwanto
J — —— eds to sonatebnoqety s vd ao vora ton bea mus
| %9 serwoo ob at rob Lod a toudh saw ab tosis font ‘oat
“Oaks ocauoo oubh at eb fod —XE ofoaa oak bovizeb
—* 10 esetubh xo buet? que of Ytusq « Voeamtd ton —
| stnomaudect ord salvos 2a we Lingel
‘wae (Oh ome 2A
A SBS BYOEG ao
io bea ,culay
Sis wd ch too tob on
———— — ah npr ral
besdebal eaw — * —2* —4 2 oman 4
ston oad to damon ‘oui aau⸗ — Viderebtonae we * 1
eu
Na lack pars of this account Was ue and wapmdds peta.
aN Decors Reems thot Natteron testified that he
;
accepted said note in payment of part of the indebtede
mean due from mer te Gund ach,
—
az that the
YA
wd tas e Gl wi thow
y in the note, or — dofect
MAr ox
HOt wali SGA lL wes
efendants particulary nppaada ‘thensales to the
on thet plaintart ad faites to show taut at rua
‘, becance tase a
hey
beat was mo exprese agrees: mt to
—
wae taken a8 aeeuri ty ) fer a presaxisting debts
showed that olgthes er
security asi ~ auch faut
7 om
Bm. ’
4
bee
—J ete Bots ibꝛaauu hog oub saw Sauaven —* Led ot —
od sete Bokthtacd monodsau J 0
ebesdo ont aid Ye fing te tnemyag mk tou bine ——
— — — — — — —
— — 7 Jon
woyawost.rinababa. fo Coe ot saad mort *
| ott gant? dak Lad ® FR —B00 “H
wodgiw baa , pat bra — ak 3
fontos ys t9 ,8fen oft at
augue yait
nid goat
eas tadg &
evianetxs gnedic 16 2
padit buayes se sutt
geivixis
ett lintalg ort?
te#blancs of
tod? begga yilehsmesous od 2
bien cf ¢
a bad tk woste t
; eonehive on jeaw on⸗ — —
OF sr: oegorga ‘silent ort oan °
pine pttaisraorg s 10% (Ys
? mi⸗niaa tat owodte %
sont owed aid bus whose
ta Lente, xo — 79 | a Tibdaielg ¢
aS 4 vm 4
7 * chs »
=D
Page to aolliest the mete and epply the Preoceed@a on the
PYe~szlating debt. ef ondante, in urging this contention,
* Place great reliaase on the rule of law announced in
— —
severest New York decisions, The evidence ghows that when theae
notes were given by the alia Company to the Clinseivied
4c Company, it was sntenieg that they should be negotiated,
the preeecde, however, to be devated to securing funde for
Cacrying on the advertioing campaign in question, Horeover,
the ovidence shows that defendants knew that the Chaeeified
Ad Company would negotiate these notes through Page. By
*
their act taay mace it possible for Page te come in poe —
annan Of these neies and negotiste sane. While they exe
Bected thet the procouds thereet would be applied te ~
purpose intended, yet there was mo evidonse that plaintirr
knew th€. purpose fer which the notes were given or that Lt
hed knowledge of the breach of faith or the failure of the
conpideration the said nOteB, at the time Page nege tiated
the ons im question, Under Such facte and chrouns tances,
the ceahention ef tie tefendants, that in the absence or
Sh Rapress agreenent that the note Wat tacen ae seourd ty
for a debt, ox a manOranwua Ghowing that eredit was civen
Page Lor the BHO URE » Plaintaty failed to prove that it took
the uote for value anid without notice, iz without moxht.
While porhapa such contention Riny have been suéceasfully
urged under the Sew York decisions, yet our own Courts
heave applied a different Principle of law, Thie was first
ieic cown in apni, ve Uethure, 36 I11, 490, whore, under
facts much eimilar te these in the case at bar, the court
held, p. 469;
edt Ho moon ong asid — bein — out soniton od wie .
sholinetavc okelt Bae yh nt sBFMBbay Ted stdob PALselxeworg
ai beonwonns walt te otis ly oo s0peilor taong — i ‘i
—* mona 2 mils awosie ottobive ait eenoiutoo’ ud welt facoven J
boltioas ld nit? of Vinquuod —XRXR vit wt osaw aster
) begat? open od bivede would tat beometal aaw 2k —— ba
40% abast yaitwoon of botoveb od of ,tvvewed ,abowvetq odd
.tovoo rol oktaoup ak stykaques guiaidtevba sstt ao deintxxiavo
___ bGkMaaelo- ott Fads worl atmabaotod — * avons somebive alt |
“a8 . eget aAnuca⸗ aes on eaene ofarsagen bivow ceased bA :
emo mk 9m of oye x0? efdinaog $4 obs bot doa vhost
one yond SLi ened stalsogen bus aden wands bo, notecon * |
F wis of botiqua ed bivow tosveds ansoning wits —* botong } ne
“Tikemiale tautt ROMeDEVS oO BE Awal⸗ Joy sbobuosas — | if
fi tac? 10 aoviy wtew geson wie do kiuw 20% asoqnan yas veut J
—9 —8 Se } J.
orl? to otuList ods 10 Mtist to doscw ait 2o obo Loom bati
betnisoges eget ould of? ta 0899 et biaw ‘HE cotsaxebinage 4
{a00nstemvertéo bao fost iious tetiat snokdaaup at emo od
to sonsade aft mi stadt bonnie eh wid to nolenngnen exit iq
yt btw090 an neces eaw oson ait tert dnonmenge. seotgan ae |
nevis saw tibeto salt gniwede muhnetouem m vo etdod. a. sor
ood th tad evoxq of beLiat Tritaialy _inwomm ots cet syat |
od ircon tuodsiw af ,eolgon, suodtlw bas sehev «0% —R ond
YLkstaneodus mood svat yam noidwetnon dows. agadicog — 3
etivoo mwe vo doy ,acto e toreh waoY welt we vom bowrr ie ;
futt? caw slat wwal Yo oLgiomky q tnevettid a. bei iggs ved Fi
“wo heis — sane LLE 08 ——⸗ eve bat 4
——
=
*
1 Ge
*Wo are led, then, by what we consider
the equities between the partica, and by the
acknowledged policy of giving stability to
negetiable paper, to hold thet the indora¢e
of euch paper, before itu uxturity, taking it
as payment er seaurity for a preexisting debt,
and without any express agreemout, shall ber
deemes a holder for « valuable consideration,
in the ord inary course of trade, and shali hold
it free from latent defenses on the part of the
makex. “
Thie role of law was reaffirmed and adhered te
in Mix ye Hntiongl Bank, 91 111, 20, ond Zodlmen ys Jackson
Sayings Bank, 238 111, 296.
the jury by theixy verdiog eetermined tie tee
ee to whetha plaintiff was a heider in due course or
renelived said note from a holder in due course, in faver
of the plaintiff, ani we eannet, after a esrefui review
of the evidence, sey that such verdict iv clhearhy and
cenifentiy aguinet the weight of the evidonce.
Defendants also aouplain that the eeurt erred
| in its rulings on the admiosibllity of evidaunces cffered
. on behalf of the defendants, it iu true, the court,
| when Kr. Gundiach and Ur, Matteson were calied as wiaturcces
under section 33, gupxa, did sustain many objesiisons to
22 2. s 6b eee eee
questions meked them by counsel for defendants. Technically,
these rulings were correct beczuse at tont time dofencante
had not shown failure of consideration for the mote cr brench
of faith in itw negotintion, Later when defendants had ine
}
‘a
treduced eufficient proof to cast wpon the plaintiff’ the
burden of showing that it wae a holder ia dua course,
defendantst counsel had the opportunity of again going into
thie matter’ on crosseexamination of Mr. Gundlach and lr.
tatteaon, both of whom wore celled an witnesten by plaintiff,
0 k«
a 4
cebleneo ow tatw yd ,medd , bel wan of"
ndt yt bao ,wokttag od? mewded, cost inpe oe
of ysilidata grivig to yolloy —
vonrabet edt gadd boct of ,teqag *hinks
ti potted ,ytiavead ati oxotled ,teqaq dou
etdoey paisalxoong @ <Ot YilivoeR TO In0. aan
wed Lincs ,Tnesse1ge aeotqze you Juvoutdiw baa
enolitarebisno eLdagiey a «6% tebled a Samak
blod [Lede bes ,ebatd to setveo ytaml xo oss ak ed
edt Yo fiaq ad? mo soanetebd dnogat mont 22 4
—V — Fae
ot hotedba bag beartkTtaet aaw wal ‘to a ahd? |
fomiom’ a, Mamtfos bus ,08 .f£1 £0 aloo Jenghtel ae ak at
0008 ofl BBR rau uaa ve
| evaal evs beniseies golouev tied? yd ytat oat |
<¢ pa1uod sub ak todLor! Si saw ttisnialg widedw of oa
<ovet aL ,oeives sub al «edLod w wort e¢eon diag ‘pov ieoot
weivex iu‘letet 2 tetta of osirsne ow bie otthintesy od? to
bas yfiaelo ok fotoxev down sadt yao —R& out hoe
sdonbkvo ect to siylow axils contane viteetinen
. berio gtuco elt Sadd ———— onLe esaehne ted
douetto oomvdive to ytdlidteaiads af ao “mame ugh at
eftu09 ots ons ak 3K eatnabnoe teh ols te haste ao “a
eecendiw ca belise exw genedtall . ti dei⸗ —E oo ee ;
a anolivetdo yum miesvave bib .gxape 186 moltooe xobay
elas inscoeT .adnabne'ted ret Leanwen yd aeit been anoktseup 3
atasbhtrretos guid acig sa sauaned soeTLO0 wim agnifus ements fy oe ‘i é
Monerd <9 dos sig tot notiarsh tence te Auer won 40m ba ; oe
ei kel atasbnueieb neste se tmi snoltarsogen wat ad athat to J
edt Bris whatg ads nog seas of Toor, saelol twa beoube i J
aq eoerwoD oub nh sobLod 6 sow tk fusit gaiwode Bad ovat 4
——— piltoy alaga te yinsdtoagqo ode bot Loanwsoo Vase —J 4
* (Tl has dostbawd sx to woltanimaxeessoto —* ae
‘sieve Wf anaccntin aa bofiac ex0w mow to tod
—
iia 9
it, me ; ee He * —F 4
He
wil=
to Bhaw that it was a holder in due @ourneg It remained
for defendants te avail themesives of this opolortunity.
Defendants also complained that the court
gid not correctly instruct the jury as to the law applicable
to the facts and cireuustances in evidence, The charge Le
the juzy was an cYral oné@. if it contained anything ¢@¢rroneous
or objectionable or omitted anything esreential, it was the
duty of counsel for the defendants to bring the matter
te the attention ef the court. But the reeord is barren
of any objection er suggestion with reference to the
instructions given, and defendants cannot now complain
of any errer in the court's instruetions te the jurye
Defendunt& finelly complain of the clo@ing
remarke of counsel fox plaintiff, They refer te two
partioular instances; in the ene the court susteined
objection therete and in theo thex the cart stated that
eouncel had the right to ogive his version of the evidentte
While we agree that the remarks in both instances were
improper and unwarranted, yet we eannet view these remaxke
ag being so prejudicial ae to have influenced the jury
in arriving at their verdict.
VYinding “o reversible error, the juagsent of
the Municipal Court of Chicage will be affirmed,
APFRRATDe
wLle«
J —
‘a
boatones tk Seuxwes eub nt sobLod » enw ai sash wore oo
*Udinustocqo ald? 0 sevfeamed? Lieve o¢ aaadas ted 3—
*
Siveo off gads hentslguos onla. atiabne ted — ard
‘eldaodlaqs wal oft of aa youl ods soundons \Lsooxrxen pai
oe Cyrano wT ,voONMbive gh asonad umverto baia ato? ont |
auoenorre ytkityne bentedmon 32 YL cane fan as eae mul, |
ont aew $2 efeitnooas gridéyim bottkoo <0 oltandisootd .
tedium ott yalad of atnadno'tob ott cor Lento to wud pe a
; settad ef bieoes off tye eftuoo ola te notgnersa ont od
ods OF sonoreter dete molsaeggue to molsontés aa
tialoon won Jone stasdaeteb bee sHov dy eu od sours on
f — ote OF aNeitouttant atgqwoo ont ek Lorre ea hi
NY R agg A
, gitnoto eit to miaLmos “i Lani'? —E
ows of totox Pvc ethitaiale 10% Sonenses: we |
tad? botats fume ett. Tsk ops ak bes ofertas aoasetae
evomehive ed? I9 molaxvey ald oviny OF dilyax oats —
i, wow avonntamt dtod mt — oud tatt aan he
‘ices coeds weky tonnas ow toy, .botmoxtenme bea ad
Vist ods heoneulink evei ef oa fate ibuterg on ea
stolbver thos fa .
to Inougbyt ant eTOI%9 gidteusves on patba
p shomktha of LLiw Oywel® to dawoD £
oD RA
$88 « £1041
WOLP, SAYER &, MLLER,
Appellant APPEAL FROM
| SLRCUIT COURT,
COOK COUNTY»
q ? és € Q
. — — — 4
it — ⸗ %) 4
¢ is
Q P /
; fr Seam } : RAAB o ‘mnie he a fy read troy on
v rdntered Bepteuber 4. 1914 a4 tk neing appeldant ts ‘onube
of, ation on — appolkioe. — od
we Pre SUETTTT PAU AELT gored the weintow ef the courts
4. Q. ORR, |
— WO, on Tuly 17 entered his appearance. Un teptem
ber 4, 1924, upen motion of appetites and notice thereof, the
eourt diawigeed the suit and ordered a return of the property
July i i. 1913 a writ of replevin was served on
tuken wader the ——
The record before —E —— — — Gertara od
to be complete) consistadof; — the affidavit
for vepleving the writ of repleving the replevin bondg th
appearance of the deFendamty . thie motion t© diemian the anuse
and the ordexy of diemiegal, Although the cause waa pending
for more than a year at the time i¢ was diamioceed, no declarae
tion waa over filed, ‘The record in-the-cese-mtebar conte ina
no bil) ef exceptions, stanegraphi¢ report or stateannt ef
faate pn fucty theres acting in the record reaord te inaiente +
hy the—eoune-oF Gation was dividtaeea-on-mppelleets motion.
LOX Re. WR MIE ..RROMIG kh pie inept Rates AL... ee dx
APP IRM»
» ye , ne or rh a
Ber eh ; Say
LOM @ PYAR \uow
ott dawoqtod —
taaliogga
‘ MOME TARUtA
.THVOD TIVOATO o8v i
eYTHUOD ROO
@ge .A.1 ee L~
al yor? Laois aa. me ot abdt ee
AT
‘> ‘a saat tous pate tom tb oreL > sedun qa —
~~ ed sooliegqe t Agom 20 GOksoR\IO — a
— angrt
poten. ont torrointaye Sit” SeteTIIOE UK
fo hovien aay nivetget to titw oa ELCL " £ hue —— Le
stietgel nO .eonetaogge ald botedae VE whats aa! , ote —— aq 7
ot .tooreds oobton bain ocrtboqge— to solsom moqss 6404 o> ted 3 ia
i “a a
Xt gorg oi? to mudot a bowwbto bane sive malt bea Lusi kb xuoo —*
Fe Sata outs ꝛo heu⸗ noted a
u —— — raro rsonot ont a Bie , a 7
tivebtita ode tapiwetietous tohbtatonon (neo Lense od of ie
a3, gouod nivolqon old, jatvelgon To tho ond, gatvedgor TOT
Roaus0 ort aakmekh of sokgom arid, gdmabare toh sud Yo sonwEeDgGe
pitt basg new paren ond dyvodtlA «nee dowdh to: 19bt8 aed ban
aia loob on ,boostomth enw $k outd od te taey @ neue tone 10k as
Lent atnoo Tata east nald—at axoava ont ebolr? neve aaw molt ag
| 2 tremasase h Itoget —— —— hod ifthe 6 oe
he tbak of brooo4 (oat AIS roe ' ’
" OLS Con vines ee ee anw moldoe
fd $1100 nbd RO Soktom-octd- dace
ensneuaaueteel — sow notton
al ald
Bb klalde
\
LOULS Ae, LABCKT,
befendant inj®
ERHOR TO
MUNICIPAL COURT
; OF CHICAGO.
\ Plaintstts in sti | O
S L.A. 294
— —— n action of. are
— — RNR RN NRE
— Fi
: ontry ami detainer brought by defendant in ervor
below) against plaintiffs in errer (doréndonte
low,) unders@lause 6 of section 2 of the Foraivle aw
Detuiner Act, Ry S., chap. 57, which provides that puch
twhen lends or tanenmts have been
nveyed by any granter > goneosaion ** * and the groptox
Mi poxeoesion * * * rofuses or “neglects ty gurtender pobsen-
ton thereof after aeuana din wri tig b by the person entitled
erete, or bis agente ‘Upon thie trial eelew, the jury \nder
instructions from the court, found the defeidants guilty’
of unlawfully —* posseszion of the prontood
deseribed An plaintiff's complaint and that the rhet to |
{
1
|
|
\
i
—
possebsion ef said premines woe in the plaintiff, Spon
Verdict the court entered the judgwent te reverae whkoh
nh eastoksc_worsos-2at doktvered-the opimien ef the sowmit.
A A P 7
oe i‘
— — — ——
‘thin t defencanta were in pogsension ef the premises in quege
tion at the tine of the demand for possession and the brings
ang sil eas action; thet :' John Schultz was on the
OT HOMME.
TAUOS JALIOLMUM
eODADINO TO
nes felt
et iolsos sa—-od- ata eg Mtnh THY o-ramrATe
eee ni souabretoh yd anmnona wentaden boats yet
horn od3 bine *# * 9 roknavasoy ti rodney yo we
Niece
enpadog rebne Te ot adooiaon a evasion * « * wolsneanog
ss ba kekine moateq oid * — bw ab tao sosts Lost9dd a
; ro bou yal ods ren: fakus ond —, —X oan «0 2% —
i. Nyaa — ** ond bewot stuoo ot * mobs
ane “tq od to Hokeaousog gat Lor
oF spigia ond todd bre saislqmoo atvrurniese’e
noqt” Aanuato od ot anv asa tuozg base te cote
phot. — ad Smouphasl, salt betodee i ast {
; etonke te
baworia
ae
Ny — ia — det⸗ te ꝓae-rs at oo a
en a ee ee ee ae
— —
oe
f snveen's at the time of the execution of the deed cone
|
}
Veying senc,. Thore was <P introduced in evidence a
quitelaim deed from John Schultz and Mary Schultz, his
wife (defendants) to the plaintiff, and the dewend for
possesnion served by viaintiff upen the defencante.
On behalf of the defendants there wae an offer
to gbow that at the time thie quitclaim deed was given
te the plaintiff, the defendants were threatened with
@ personel injury sult; that this conveyances was made
at the suggestion of plaintiff, who suid he could settle
the case for little money; that he weuld hold the property
as security for woneys advanced in settlement and not
place the dead of records that the property was to be
deeded back when the personal injury cuit had been dise
posed of and the plaintiff reisburned for advances made,
if anyg that the deed was given with the understonding that
it should not in any way disturb the pesaseceion of defends
ente; that nothing was ever paid by Lenekiy that rhen dee
fendants dewanded the deed back, plaintiff discharged John
Sehults from hin employ and started on eation in fereible
detainer. After thio offer wae wade counsel for defen
dants stated: “I offer to shew by the witness that in
fact the title to the property in question is involved
in this eult, and ask to have the court pase upen that.
issue.* This offer was rejected and exeeption taken
he,
t
thereto. ‘There was alee an offer to show that in & former
action of forcible entry and detainer plaintiff bad testie
fied that John Schults was to rewain in poeseceion as a
tenant of the plaintiff, which offer was aleo refused.
In waking thie offer, defendants contended that the relae
tdenship of landlord and tenant did not exinte
7 43
J
on00 heeb od? To moltueexe off Yo okt wad de ——
a sombive ct beoubottal Maks wow one someon antyor he
aid ,RPiuiiot Yun doe xe fwclo’ malo mort boos maton: Bic
<ot buenwoh ef bua ,Tiksatale els of (atnavsn tod) ste | La
-ttughoeteb eff aoqy Tikinialy yd bovesa —
TOTIO heceaw oxox at nabas teh outed to YLasted no |
rovky ax boob ks Lod Lup ald ents ont ta sag —E —*
Adkw benetsotts ot9ew adnubacred ott i⸗uuata ont os
; eban saw pomeyevnoe ald Init st hue estan Lomont9g a
efstee bivoo od Dkee onfw ,ttitnialy te solsaoggua ous eG ;
- ytreqorg etd blot biuow of tadd 2 ero: olssis rot esac oat a wie
ton ban Soomeltiea mi beonavha ayenon ‘tot Uhwooe a 1S
od of saw ysroqorq od Salt ghrovon to boob ont veal
a e8ih geet bed fiom yurtek Lanonteg eit aane ond oeb a i
" obam aoonavia xot boaxudmtes. Mitnialg edt bre ‘be bonog is
fast ari bnadetebens odd sitiw aevwig au baob elt desis no tk
ebaoin’ to meiasonaoy os Cuntath yew yom ak tou biuedta oe
sob nedw ged? {2olonot yl atöa ‘ove auu yatidton sant itn
mae hoyteionth Ttntele ylord boob ond Leone ascabeo?
editors? ni nottos ne betiate bre Yokes adel cont — —
| eo ioh xo? Leave ebaa Sax AVTto gtd Besta — ston ieded | ie
Al dat aaonsiw ods yd wedd of t9%20 LY sbhedade —— i :
‘ bevlovat af moisgaoup ak yireqore eds of oliht edt sont a
teil? oqM eaaq S1y00 ot over ot das bow —* * hell
—* pe ce
dilly os Ly aaw xoTto — Parmar
kos writ tari? bobrodnow stnahanton
%
—
wWilen which Plaintiff batnd
anil that it was intendsd ws
‘ : ⸗
foe defendanta, and that a wth a den®
grpntes, Defendaita, in support of their con
@ebtion of the Peroibie @ntry & Detainer Act a6 the coke
Se
Before the close of the cute pleintiff’ offered
in ovidence 3 deeres entero’ in the Girsuit Court of Ocok
County in the case of Mary Sehults, one of the defendants
herein, against plaintiff and John Schultz, the other da-
fendant, te ¢e% smite the deed (shich was the deed offered
i evidenca In the esse at bar) given by hor husband and
herself to the plaintiff; he alee offered in av idence
the bill of complainant snd hie (Henekite) anawer thereto.
That Suit eas based apen preeticaliy the same facts aa dare
fendants effared to prove 25 matters of Asfenae in the ae-
tion at bar. Obdection was made om wohalf of John Sehults,
on the ground that he wae not a party to the sotion. It
appeared, hewever, that hoe attended as a sitnuksa for the
CouPplainast in that setion.
rie-atate of ths Feeerd, defendants emtend
hat thdgcurt erred in directing a verdict for the flain-
“iff. They first contend that the o court ——
ng the evidence\effered on behalf of defendants fer mf
mee would have Bh off that the dnga
hie title Man in fact 4 mortgage
Feaem that said sev
aly ag Beourity for the pay-
At of a debt to be incurred Areas om of making advances
in law and in equity
is jregarded ae & mortgage, and thet upé
a forcible detainer a@tion camet be maindsined by the
, Buch a ¢ Qveyance
Perit i Gn»
eibe Yast y. Prederiok, 62 111, 191, and durner epee
“206 111. 44. 808, wiioh wore cases vrowht under tie Game
X
\eat, In the former case cited $¢ wae aduitted on —*
— ne Pplaint iff that ¢ he dost wat-teken-morely
aoe
hesetto titeteia eae ef? to etelo off oxote®
#000 te grwod fivowtd edt mE horetne estoeb & worebl vo emt r
&tneh rel ab oa? Yo om gutinvdoR yrs to easo edt at ytawedD Ae 5
web toddo ont .stludo® mt bas Yktatsle sontage yahored a
herelto heh edt asw Kobe) Boob out obtme gos of tasbae® |
bre bandard rod yd sevty (ued te auso edt at eomebtve mt i
eoneht ve ot KevetYo oafa od Wtheatalg odd oF toeoxe d .
OFeraA de Teron (ath dees) ald bon dreakalqmos To Lfhd oft
“ab m atom? awov odd Yflowktoary news beard mew tins ga/?.
woe odd mt eagoteh to axedttom as oweq of beret atacheet
eativio® not Io Miaded om ebsan saw nol foatdd tad ta coke
aT «6oneisvos eft oF yYiueq 2 ton Saw ait toc? Lavorn ef? £0 are
edt +rot s@omie « Of bebootte of Sedd c TEveR® f cbhorwegts F
———
Baer o ‘udnabnoleb (bi 0ek CaF Io-w ath —
—D— wt — gattoarts at berre fru o/ $4 teat
tone Mh hovte twos edt tact bette fankx eb? 3
A¢ vO atrwBasled Te iladed a heretie — ont ‘ae
beeh odd tact he coved bivow songtl ve biee ted? me.
—R g tool nt aah ofett ard peGod ‘ills dokew soft
“vst ont tot — yLotven Lebaetmt enw a2. Pade ne
woo naybs gotkom ko om Sep7 berwont ed of deb 2 Yo dhe ,
ysivpe ak bas wel at Soeb 2 t ® tailt bas .asnsinereh $02
ponsyevin 6 ¢ dove goqy todd bon .egegtvem 2 we bebrayet| at
ott yd kent dtoatem oof tonsse woltta ronteteb eldtox) 2s
grote wo wedt Io trogges at tthe yavtet ‘ rs
«poral t — bos gi@t Skt G8 .kokvobott tie
_ Onn wit: nobny t¢gvotd Geass erew cot de BOR QA eID
* ety de toh tent etal B yrtat efdhoret eft > —
“po hostinbe we ot berko caso remwt eit nk redfee
ylorom nedet-eaw” Beeb. —X teat wasematy ap Ie Tis
at Le
ni
hve
ao e@eurity for an indebtednesea, and that plaintiff
had agreed tp reconvey the property upon repayment of
the loan, In the case of Aurmor VV. Bierce, supra.
4t appeared from the evidence that the property had been
aomveyed te plaintiff merely ae eecurity for a loan,
aaa Turthermore, that the desd conveying the proverty
wae met from a grantor in possession, Therefere, these
Gasen are not ot Rihapplicable to the facte in the case
at bare Morcover, counsel admittcad that thie offer
ef evidencs was for the purpese of putting im iseue the
title of plaintiff, and further, that in an action of
forcible eutry and detainer the title of the pleintiff
ia not triable, By these admiseions defendants practice
ally concede the correctness of the Judgment for the
plaintiff.
F Yao law umder which this aatioe wae brought,
fs is Dlain, that if olaintif? shews he has « dee@ from the
granter in posseasion and has made s demand for possession,
followed by « refusal and continuance in poereasiog, the
action will Lie. Petern ¥. Balke, 170 TL. B66. In
sugh action the question ef title botwaen plaintiff? and
defendant or anyone else cannot be tried, anc the right
to pooetasion in the plaintiff de not dependent upon
his title but usem the existence of partieular facts
specified im clause 6, section 2 of cur Poreible Mntry
& Detainer Act, supra. Beture Ye Buies. guanma: Zietwch Ye
Eigtnch, 152 Ill. App. 665, ‘Theses fests did appear in the
case at bar, Vise; a quitelaim deci te the plaintiff from
the grantor, and a continuance in possession by the granter
aftex a writton dewand for possession, the evidence offered
Tisntolg dacs dee ,aasmbosdebni as tot yitees ae
To dnamyaqet moqa yYiteqot@® edz xevnooo7 Qt beortgs badd Ris
SIGH »QVtOLS s¥ ApaWA to nn ed? nt sane odd +
nood bal yrragerq odd tats oomedive et mor? i ;
Aso a <9 yYtinvoea as yfor8em Tlisnielq of boone
YItdy VLG oni giiyevnon deeb ot Salt? ,ouxasrteddiut bee
M
of i
:)
deeds ,orolered? ,wolaacwsoy al tos¢aaty & wort Jon ‘in 9
aso odd mi atont add of ofdeoiique MA ta tom ots seca
tOTTO welds taus doddinbe Loanwoo yteyoots «tad ta
eds oveai ak guivtuq to eaogtugq off 10Tt aan oonobive to
te nolfes na al todd ,teritust bae ,titsdaialq Yo olga
Tilinialg od To wits odd xomlatod baa yen ofdioxet
eptsoaig atuabietobh anolsalmba seed? i soidn bes ton ah
edt 208 ——— ale te ssemtootien off odeonos i
tives
‘ y
fr 7
stiguord saw cottons wksis fit ketw seo bees wet omf | aps — * a
ed? moxt Sooh « an on eworle Tehentele Tk sasit witoke, ah
molaseaaoy tot Sremeb a ebow aad bia nolerenaog ak — 7
oly ,holoseneog si saaauniiaoe Dee Lagswtet o vt bewolkot Ari,
SL OO .ffT OVE .pXhfot oy sueeot wht Eftw wolton e
bas Thivelele mowied effi to nokteonp ont sotdon Howe - ot
Siigit od hee ,bekst of tommeo ont enoyna x0 dashes rod ee
foqu snolneqes son ak Vidsnkalg ott mb noteaeavog J— i \ 7
atost taivolisag to opanteixe odd moqu tud ofete i
r YIsM offers two to & sotgvoos ,8 seunto mt —— i
, Meadors istsun tal oy szousd argus ofa 4
ous ak targus bib efeet oaentt 4808 .qqA efit —E
mort TMitslelg ett of book mbelos Lup % foc pe ao
— ents ya wesbananes nk oor lanob a bua os |
— eonebive ont — taaonsog ror | * ba ' baw
ee) yi Pet Th iy nee Cor
. Fo! 1 te ies
* Sa 2 re,
a n Ta
abe
on behalf of the defendantn was not competent, because
thereby it wae seught te put in issue the title of the
pleintiff and net the facts preven by the plaintiff.
While defendente further contend that the court erred in
admitting the deed in evidence,yet in Beters vy. Balke, supra,
the court expresely held that the introduction of a deed
Was necepaaxy in connection with the faet ef possession,
to whow that there wae a granter who conveyed and a
Grantee te whom the sonveyance wae made.
Defendants further complain that the court ime
properly admitted in evidence the ¥111 and answer and the
deeree in the case of Kary Schults against the plaintifr,
heretofore referred to, There was no objection made te
this evidenos on behelf of the defendant, Mary Schults,
aad when 4% is considered thet tt other defendant, John
Sehultsz, on whoes bekalf the objeetion wan made, wes a
witness in the chancery proceeding on Debalf cf the cone
plainant, the court did net err in tie admifsicn ef thin
evidence. At best, this evidence wea only cwmlative, and
dmasmach ag the court in thie case inetructed the jury
te find for ihe plaintiff, its adminsion cannet be considered
haraful to the defendants,
Defendants finally contend thet the courterred in
rejecting the offer of evidence on behalf of the defendants
that plaintiff had testified in a previous trial in forcible
entry and detainer that defendant, John Sehults, wes a tenant.
In Evans ve Evans, 165 11i. Roepe 205, the court belc that
where a tenant in an aetion for pesseseion by the landlord
aeserts an adverse right and denies the relntionship ef
landlerd and tenant, he is estopped from afterwards claime
edu
saunoed ,tastequoo jou Baw adinabenteb ond Yo thaded no —*
ett to of2le of ovsal at tuq of eguwe eaw th werent — oa
ettiiniala ad? yd sevorg atost od Joe une vhadnlelg
ni borvte f4voo olf tat bnodmon vertiu't atnabmo ted olay
ue ASAE oY, aaotod at soy, eombsve Hh book ott
boab « to moffouboudnt add seit? bled yLonerqxe —XR ong
— 9
stolLesenaog to sont eft ddiw moltioonnes al yiaenooen baw ee
8 bes boyeynoe odw tofmexg 2 aaw etodt dads wore of
Ohad egw eonayevaen eg mow of oednaty |
eomk tuugo enf tad alalquoo teddtul staabmel od
edt bre teowane bus L{i¢ odd somebive mt beds Lobe Vreqerq
ettiznialy oft taslaye st fuilon yial to eee offs mt sotoed
ot obam moitoetdéo on oaw ored? 208 bovestee oreresored,
set Lusind Yet ,Inobastod ov? Yo Iated so eonebive
Riob .tnabaeted resise wis tat borsbsanoo at th wostw —
@ aay ,ohne daw nolgootde oft YLadad seontw mo eet Lvriot
enn att to tindead ao wiibsooong yreonnio oud ab weond hw *
nid? to noleaimbe orld ak tie Jon bLb seven off Suanialg i
ban ,evisslwews yino asw eomebiye all? ytaed 2A seonobkve ——
yt oft hetomttant saze elf? mi dawoo od ea — ee
‘ebhkanoc of Sonnas nolasinba ag ,Ttteniaig one sed bat? oe
ssinabaeteh edd o¢ Sy'‘tercad:
he) => J
ye 1
12 bewtetayoo eat tatt baetnoo yliankt adaabnoted Fie
jnabaetes oi3 to thated so sonobive to tette edd mauseler ne
tdiox0%. mi fat? euotvexq s wt boltidand bad Ytktalale 3: rs a
ad & sow ,Rtliuried nal ,taabmotoh dade ‘won ateb baa tne
tant bLod dxveo odd BOS qu .L11 bad sao AF anal 6
brochauſ ait yt motaapagog Tot molsou mm ma —9 — ro⸗ re
ot, eee
J
9 to qintamolttafon oft as derob bam tilgie hi o 8 x04
— abaawva in moxt aeaqosas ak auf , } baa brefbe:
6
ing thet such relationship existe, and the Gourt theret'ere
preperly rejected testimony by which it wee sought te show
puch relationship.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of
the Buniocigal Gouri ¢f Chiaage will he affiroed.
APPLINEND,
— —
2
etetoreds Juuso off baw sateixe qitinnolvalonr douse Sasid gat
wode oF siiywoe anw 3) dokdw yd Wioukstao? bosooterx ‘liogorg
eGistanoijalon sown
te tnommbyt, ef? ,toxrre eidketeves on salibalt
hoonitia of fiiw oyectd® Fo sxyed Seqko iss exit
CRUG TTA
Appellee,
AVPRAL WROM
Vee
SUPERIOR COURT,
HERRY C. REESE, ¥ / sock couNTY,
198 1.A. 298 |
’ ia ee This ie an appeal
from an order engered in tne Superior Court Sook /)
16, 1915, a0 hitting — ant (appe}i-
* WAR uklty ¢ of contenoh er
t
viod of six months.
fos ‘Decenber #1, 1914 a rule woes entered upon
“ea fa shew cause why attachment should not issue
—T hie failure to pay teupcorary alimony during the pree
q wa ceding five weeks, Defendant filed a sworn answer wherein
f pn he etated that he had no uem=y with which te pay the alie
mony te the complainant (apysiee), and set forth in detad
his income, expenditures and liabilities; aleo thut he was
taken sick on Hovember 21, and since December 2 had been
gonfined to his bed, and that for a great part of the time
he was under the care of a physician, his ailment being
wleer of the stomach, Attached thereto was an affidavit
of his physician under date of Deceuber 21, stating that
sinee December 2 defendant had been under his care; that he
MOAT TARSTA
eTHUOD HOLES
our
eYTHUOS AOOO
Bes AT Ber
TAKA 6D WN
i —
Leoqga am wk ald? |, 2 tn “ T ATL
ek xoot x oe 1048 3 me nt ae soho ie west
Lmao ytaw
of edge) tnabretob gabes ip B£eL 08S
. SLosta oct Li
x0 me to vi Lly gow tnhabmeteh pid fon 10
bewoxe of Fou «wal Yo aseootg oub yd aselox od
seisnom xke 29 hokwoly/ ostd
noqu hoxedoo acw olvt ow OLGL ,L8 aodeao oth o Pa ae
quant Jou bluode tnomions$a wiv one wore “ah Sa
eorg odd goituh yiomifs yretoqued wg of wawkia? etd x0?
Kieren towens sow o bolit tnabneted .ateew ovet yatheo
ifaw od yaq of doliw dtiw yorom an had of tend bedada ort
Ratoh at ditot tou dae ~{eokEange) tnantalquoe odd oF yom
wow of font onle yaokstilfidail ban eorwdskiaogep ,emoont aid.
Aeod bat & updumeed oonin bua .f8 xodmevell ao dole mesed
out? odd To tog Soom # 10 Jord daw ,bod att of bonttave
utied Jnenite eit ymatoioyts # to oxen edd robay gow ed
- thyabio%e na enw ofoxedt bedoattA sdtoamoga edt to t00ke
todd gaivatea fh gdusoet to ofah tebaw madoleydg ald to
od gad? jors9 etd xobaw noad had — #8 ‘iedmeved wonks
oo hae
Ye was suffering from wlcor of the gtomgh and wae unable
to works
Oe-dgmy eT, LL ‘Ene matter was referred te
a master in chancery te determing whether defendant wan in
contempt of court for failure te pay ali oy any part of
the alimony due unde the order of the aowrt theretofore
entered, the master to make hic yeport within 48 hourg. on
January 14 the matter filed hie report, wherein he made
eertain findings from which he concluded that defendant
was in conteapt of court, and recomsended that defendant
—
be scumitted until he shall properly comply with the rule
in relation thereto, Said report contained the teptinony
taken before him on the reference, (n heer LE Prt
—
Januasy tho master subsitted « supplemental repert wherein
it wan stated thet the objections filed to said report by
defendant were duly argued and overruled, and whervin he
further vertified that a stenographer wan necessarily
eupleyed to transoribe the testimony; thet a copy of euch
toutimony certified by the master and attached to his
report wae made by the stenographer; that a reasonable
fee for such stenographic services wan §15650, and that
enid master's fee therein wae 625.00, making & total of
438.80. It mae ordered that defendant's ebjections
filed thereto stand as exceptions, On January 18 the court
approved the smeter's report and feund that defendant was
ble te pay the alimony due under the order theretofore
entered, and that defendant wilfully refused to pay said
alimony; that there remained due and unpaid to the cole
pleimant the wu of $45.00 an plinony on the order there=
tofore entered by the court; allewed and appreved the
we
ne
siden asw bie deamota odd Yo cooly moxt gutie? twee saw \
ottow oF
Ot boTKDIOX naw aodton odd BLeL, — pcan en}
‘ak saw tuobero ted xodsodw ontimeded of yroometo at todenn 2
to fteq yum to fle yaq of oxwliat tot gxwom te Iqmotnoo
Setotototed aauoo odt to t9b10e oft whnw oub yomkla eld
8 ,wiwodl 8d mhitdiw Sxogext ald oan of qodnam ots bores ao
chem sr nhexvede .fioqer eld DeLi? toddanm odd AL yraunal
favheetods tad? hobuloace od Moistw moxt agntbmtt atadtes
txohaoteh taodt Sebtrommesot daa ydavon to Squesneo ai saw
oLwe al? dow — Axrageng {fade ed Lidge bess Lrapiog od
Wowmisess ols Lontetnoo gxoget btad .odenesds solsalon aa
TO“GUISAISL-esit 22 .voMote'lor od wo wkd oxoted netad
fiioterw sxogex Lagnemelqque « hostiodua tetean oad enum
W stoget bisa of boLlt amotioatdo odd gadd betata waver 32
od aici bie ~beLusieve ben bougee Yuh oxew tasbaetsd
Ylliusmeven now tedgexgonote @ fad? bottdsion r8dswy?
fioue Yo yroo o dadt gysomhtaod off odkapanest ot ho volqee
eid of botoatia baa regan ante yd botitixo wisndsacs
oldonoeset a desta {tedqasponeda oly yl chum aaw troqet
font dera ,de6L¢ aaw asolvesa oldgatgonese dows «ot est
to Lado? om grivan .00.08¢ anw mievends oe? a’tozagm bisa |
anostooLso attnahowtod tatt borobse aaw #1 er te “
dauoo ol? BL yreunal 20 sanaliquoexs on baate osetds boli? ©
saw Inabaeton tals bawot bas ssogen ateednaw out⸗ bovoagcza
—— Tobie oft iebnw auh rcuud Ce ond ya ot ohda
bisv you of bouw'tes WAinitiw suotaeted sade baw sbototne
woo ws ot bd aacqura⸗ bate ovb honlanox pxedd sadg sWoak Le
—XX “obra vela mo wrons Le 68 0080S Lo sme ond dmantee
edt boverqqe baa bowolLa — ‘ad 9 xd aes ;
Gee
master's charge of $38.50 and ordered that defendant
"be committed te the County Jail of this County, until
h@ shall have complied with said order of this Court,
and shall have paid all of said amount of Yortyefive ($45.00)
Dollars, as alimony due, and the additional sum of Thirty~
eight and 50/100 ($358.50) Dollare, os Muster's charges,
o*r until released by due procens, not to exceed the period
ef six monthe however, *
— — — row —— — ——— ———— — —— ————— 1a
BR. presipia SUSTICN PAM — the opiaton
or the court.
—— contends that under the evidence taken
by the nasted and undexy the affidavit tiled ‘by the defene
dant, the court\yas mofwarranted in finding that the dte
fendant was able te pay the alimony gue under the order
theretofore entered; \and furthers. tnat even though defene
dant was in contempt Sor hie fediure te comply therewith,
the court was without onlthord ty to include in said order
the item of $38,506 saster ty oo
There ie no Auestion that defendant wre in dow
fault with respect * the paymwant of alimony, Whether or
not defendant was dbie to pay su h BLiwony » presented a
Slear issue of thet, This desue the court referred to the
smater, whese Fever whows that he wae attended by counsel
for both partier and that testimony way heard on behalf of
both parties and that an affidavit of defendant himeelf,
by exhibits, was presented to \ se master. While
expressed some doubt ae to his nent te receive
affidevite under the order of reference, he, however, reve
saoavsa that deubt in favor of the defendant. \ the master",
found that the amount of alimony due was $456.00, and
: aad, ow
dnabue toh Sale bovehso ban 08,864 to eguaio —R
Litany ,ysnued abit to Liel ywausod odd of bess kumon oun “
eAmwod slit to seokuo bisa atiw beliqnos evad Shosie oa J
(00,898) oviteyexoe to tevomn dios Yo Lhe blag oved Lada bas wv
— eyPtddT To mua Lanotetoae odd due ,ovb gambia as ewes i toa —
waograde stzegeck a9 yetaftod (08,00) OOs\08 ban sdyke
holteq oiit boooxe o¢ som ,eaeneng enh yf bonanfer Litas to
* xovewost acide nie to
r —— —— —— — — —— — — panties ena
—
wolmkgo ostf —A— MAS — moxraut puxarenat fe Be
—— tail A \ j
— vonsbaye odd rwobew Jad? ebnotmuo ansbnon
waptob dywedt seve jaad Aoaruun wan ths exotesereds
\ stitiwoxedt ylqmon of on She a et * tqmoetnoo al aaw toad —
—* Johro biae @2 ehulenk of yd keane sued iw eaw fw08 ot x
ath — —B wer* 00.886 to amok enid
f 4 1
} * ti 4
ob mt amw trsbmotob) gads — oct aa Loa
ae codiow ymeutia to tasangng 8 ond a Jonquers —*2* hue 9—
Mi ® botapaetq yywontia foun yoq of of aan snobee tab son 4 oi
wath od borre'tes, tue oft aumek afit | »to0 to ova ‘woto } f
| feanseo yd bobuotis al ont Sauls awonle Itog 2 oaonw *
te Maded mo bused * Yioutsaos tole baw ae Kan dios ot
i i sThoomis tuabaeyob to shvebitte ma sant baw aoa a
eau oto ds asain i of hosnoagtg naw ved hd Loic wh
- S¥lvoor oF —
ated et an tduob wom poaaosaxe rob —
et —— Aes sPonOTHTEy To —R ou “ean eth a
inet * ha} ata yo
i Weed kan ort / »druaincs'ton edt to sovm't ———
— rh we —9— —3 Mime
ih
pa ,00 5808 @aw oub wromtte to ¢
then
that defendant was able to pay game, It alwo get forth
eertain other findings, from ell of which the master
goncluded that defendant was in contempt of court, and
regumended that he be committed until he should propere
ly comply with the rule 4n relation thereto. This report
wes approved by the court, and the only question is
whether or not the master wae warranted in arriving at
his findings and conclusions. Unless we are ef the opinion
that said findings and cenclusions of the master, concurred.
in and by the chanmesllor, are clearly and manifestly agains’
the weight of the evidence, they must be affirmed, This
we are unable to omy.
Defendant alse compleaina that the court erred in -
ineluding in the amount due from the defendant, the oaster's
charges. Me ineists that “the aourt haa mo authority te
enforce the payment ef coote awarded in a chancery suit in
eny other manner than by execution, and that payment of
guch corte cannot be enforced by punishment ae for # cone
teupt of court.” In this case, however, the master's chare
gen were not the erdinary coste in « chareery suit. They
were incurred by reae m of defendant's failure to comply
with a previous erder of the court, which led to the cone
teapt proceedings, Defendant hinwelf was reapensible fox the
costs, and our dourte have always been upheld in assessing
the costes of a contenpt proceeding against the defendant if
found guilty, the payment of which was » condition precedent
to a discharge from any order of cowmitment entered because
of the contempt. FBeople ve Diedrich, 141 T1Ll. 665; Hake vo
Beophe, 230 Ill. Li4,
¥inding mo reversible error, the order of the
Superior Court of Cook Coumty will be affirmed,
Peat a APP THUUDs
dgiot ten ona 1 .omee yao of olda aaw taobaeteb sade
roses ot doldw Yo Ifa mort yepatbni? tedto nkasueo
baa gttvoo To tqymednos ol aaw dnsbnoteb sari bebufones
' ewsogexq bivote en Ltgny besilioson od ert sands Sebrsm 0ox
#toges eld? .osoted? aoitelox mi oluit eft doiw yiqnes wv ;
ok toiseoup yiao ost bnew ,siv0o oft yi bovotaqa enw a ,
ge yaivicis al besaetisw ane teteam of Son 20 ‘weedsoste |
“moinsge edt to ots ow seola .enoleulonom baw age tbatt ots Pi:
bevtwonso ,tetaan off To anolewionos baw aynibalt bias ted
tentage (Lsaotinau bas yfinels erm ,tolfoonmin edt yd dae ak ia
aint ,bearritia od feum yods ,oonvbive ong te Siiglow ong ‘ or
“au of oidanw eta ow ng
- ml bette Fiv0o oft Jatt amialtqmos onls tnabao ted 7 i Ri i if
e'xetaas off ,Inabaetob aly mort oub $ reasons one mak yeibutons - - 7
ey yiitodiue om ast Piuweo eft" sat? adatoms ek sagt a 4
mi Slua yreouade a af bobtewa afeon To sremyaq on? —2 J
to Snooryeq tadt bow .aoiducexe we messed Tenia ‘todzo wa i
enon 4 701 se Soperiaioug @ beorotee od tomnne atsoo Koum
wtaio u'toseun eff ,tovowo! ,oean uke mk *.Jis0o I¢ sques
| yee? «diva yrookade a oi as a ovu Yranibue out som erst 20g 4
auod oF oruLto? attanbaeted to manor YW bovmuRt ore
‘ enos ant of bel do ine afiwos edz to —X swotvorg # délw p —*—
x 10% efdtancqeot saw Wound tnebxoted .eyntbeocorg Iqued
Sttieasena oi biedge aeed ayawls evad ‘agan0o wwe bane <staeo —
ut tnabae'ted on? tans aun du tbosdorq —— to asaco ost
“ne Hoitionos o maw shots 20 tnivesyag ett —R vuer
sausoed boxretno tromtinmes to cobro ytta aort oytaiine th * J—
$800 LIT LOL iokabodd ay gigoot otqen $00 al
—* 142 O88 pf
wid Yo mobxo Mit ,roxT9 oLdtaxever on 9
7 jboweh Yrs of Likw yhoo o
le PROM
CIRCUIT copRT,
coc gouNTY.
19% 1.A. 306
ii ER. TUSTION ° :OOD8TH delivered the opinion ef the sourt.
mn - This appeal was taker to reverse 2 judgment of
, Wee the CLrowit Court obtained by the arrellee, hereinafter
; referred te as plaintiff, ageiret the arrellant, herein-
Os after referred to os defendant, for (7500, for damagen
bi. _ Peeulting from plaintiff's fall from ons of defendant's
a | freight olevators, due, it wae clatwed, to nor?! “ange
oh ___on the part ef the defendant. Tt appears thifkne as ·
Uh ————— happened, Vay 15, 1911, while the plaintirr ms
truaiding a Load of empty boxes in the earning derarte
| eit et the defendarit's packing house. The plaintdte,
ss @& Lithuanian, hed, at the time of the seoldent, been
a im thic Country abut a your, ard had doen employed tn
— defendant's sarming department ac’ a comoon Laborer, truck.
| tng Dear bexes for showt cix or soven months. ‘There |
© Glopute in the evidence ne to whethor the plaintiart
“haa ever, before the time of the seeident, trucked empty.
a wee · ‘iia weru —
hie
or sorrcberated to some
or deremtant's —— —
\WWeos
| | a LLCOR = BYE
{ | .pnpsowrt wears
some LA ( epek£es 7 be
, Ton etuo;aco ay
Y7meD Toso | _SEAIMOD & ATOM,
i . — nr a ei :
F068 ATeer. Ny
eon od? to aa trbere et! hesevtfied wrod: HOLTA, . WM
te fromtat a enttoves od motns ane Laores elit
~ottantervert ,eelferca offs of bontasay Pwo? Jlwetdd ods .
«nstertet ,tnellerqs oft Sor kege Tr dtokate an of bornethes
aonanah rot .OO8TS wet , danberstob an of bewtetor: waste
a! drabew'tes to ato oxt fLa't a! Ye taetets mine gers fume
omgeren' 00s X ———— anew 3t ,oub ,wredavelo. fis tort
mat oct Ad oeaorqa $f stoabeoteb odd Yo dune orld ro
nav Ttisnlaly ot oltaw iter at east banoaasaa —
@fieteb autores oft ak eomod ytqme to bst e zrer— !
\Vitiniste ef? .onued gubtese at diahaoted odf to soem °
nopd .drobtooe oft to omtd odd do bet ¢rumbeaintent a
nf heretqns mecd tet fa ,taoy o tunfs yatauod aide gt
fours .rotedsl wom c'om Snomdcaqed gatana ot seabaated
wt etot? .adticom noveon 1 tie rapt “ot dened vyeed unt
“ttinkoia odf todtocde of na oottehtve ont? w2 edurels a
vidas befours , trabtoon off ‘to eat? seit oroted prove Bad
Beet rovor of poets ——— oi goomtoaed wwe ght: .coxed
todd teat od td ooryob omoa nd botarmdosroe at até? hrs
oliriw ,ter wf eneh. san oeoxad behaot an htowts tT deow ett
*o folter « TOY Scoor® ,atod vd hetour? etew semed yom
‘puon of Seow eltt of Bone omey oom nodw ows 49 démom o
— amon of bogatadotstve aster et on .donol Pa drotue
nmesttol? conn) tw a2 drabrroteh: to. enomkiené ectd' de —
sot totouers Tthinlalae meee over bat of fade tekthees? odw
ioe etinelisstsbes ,uottio .wexod Lit ¢roorw gertdayes
nt ent? of@ to teaq » seoowty Yo aa od pee
ero tate cnmgt — . Reokecorr WEA Pa bale secacter, wee DAF treat eens
\
se
Me _— twice a woek, maybe olx timer — Waybe once
—
thashetroet: Strick rene sppawentio. « bee thet plate
Siff's witness “ranz tewtifted Chat he trucked empty
ames nt times, and thet-usorowekt 414 the agme thine.
joeereful exarination of the retori; h-rever,diseledan
fat thre guestion. “Yow. Kuworewerd (14 the tare vind of
We sie and trusked ihe sare bint of boxes, didn*t you (he!
“While you were thors?" t?-ahich the witness anewered “tha,®
feally logatelly refers to the teweuing of fall boxe
feferrad te in tee lort 7 Preceding questions rd
answers, Detontant's vitmessce lnight ond "acmer tes-
tified thet they scmetines saw plainti¢t truckine empty
_ exes, without stating hew longs Telly vatd sometimes
twlos « week. Yarker. « ‘oy engaged in truckin: empty
bomes, snid, “Oh, we trucked (empty boxes) about two or
_ three times a weok, and them the other time we trugked
full bexes." fwiatkewski, the clevator operator, said
that plaintiff wae trucking ocmetines full. sometimen
@mpty boxes. Sullivan, the asetatent foreman, vad that
‘pladmtie? had been working in Me doverte nt about theese
_ te five months; that he caw him trucking empty boxes
— a gouple of months, ant twa * awpply truckers
— boxes to trusk empty teres. Plaintiff was,
ae
i]
i
*— cies
atte
what Yrstt eect * ans vevr DE ae ne
Coq cenlawnd wi dal ee ag
enokdld scan add BES btw ness! ¢erth. |
asnaloulh .taggeot- a hroger ond te —— Lutertne® «
to RalY omsa-wtt bLP Dtewrmet . wait” mbigose ont ae J
focth woy 2*nbtb .coxod to Berka, ones eds Datos oem 2 <r
ean berewane aaenihey eft dotds—as “Vana eter a tte ee
waxod Lint I gmtvqwad ont? of vetoes t Ladauot
tere aeoliaoup gretheoot] wi. susl.omt gh of
-a93 tomas! bee siptn” svacsed ty at ineheoted of
waste anifouns Tthtalele: wea evmbsemoa yous guctd. bointe
aentiemna Rine yffe% sgnol wort yobtote tuoctshw seed iby
Ysowe onltours at bon agero to! 4 ,tetust Aosn a wolet | 4
r⸗ Si0d0 (noxod vtque) hues? ew gO" ben Yeemed |”
fevowrs ow omits amilto edt sott hae yhoow o eomts cats
hiae .tofereqo wossvete eft .iMawediale? =». oe
aoattoms .Ifvt seatiome gukteun? saw Tittatale sate
to8d Bhae «mamote't tastatnes ott mawh tise, - - agmod <tqe
com! timde guusduereh eff mt gattvow rood bet Ttdakete
aerod ysante anttewst hd ves oct Sankt (addon ovtt of s
cose seteant <Meeivie yrontts che dienga vtoow a ogkwt edymer
grote wrew yots tad ,eoxed Yom hevawtt eyed fadt peewee |
aretomnt eter of fet fem adinon To afquay a wR aye Re
ase Wrkintslt seated ete stownt of nowod Cie weiteaes
wort Docyhew , Blo anaoy 08 .dmobtosa add te ante edd to ;
Seifert ok vodent T too? * enw Bre , SVL of OTL
olidte .hotsvoup mz trabtens ad? To Yoh eds mo
anv inet Lavan a6 qnoxed bobeel aatteuts wow Yhtaiaty F
of? %o ono o:let of Mea fount att mmeb tom ot bemeine a
ffut to? Bows otowss. of! ee ey: yf
«MOT aLoodwe sit ove tne oft ta toad a dbtw corthend
Sao Souw exfewts ont praise het bg
\ | Oi pce
trucking empty boxes were similar, oxeert that thelr
bagke were betweer tow or four and one-half foot
ese
high. ‘tho fleors of te trucks were thirteen Inohes
J shove the sroun!, making the top of the “ack of the
J truske frem five foot one inok to five feet seren
F inches high, When pinintiff had taken the empty truck
{ | ae direeted, and aprarently had put upon it whet he cone
f _ ti@ered 4 load, a foreman by the namo of Prank fullivan
: paid, "Can you enly prt so many bexer om your truekt*
Wy Then Cullivan, escording te plaintiff's toetimenr, cot
ae hola of the boxes end put ther on lengthwise and ores
wise witil they wero as high ac the top of the fingers
of his hom’ whon bic arm was stretched eut ful! nedghet + :
Then Sullivan teld him te take 1¢ from one room to :
—— qnether, and he tock the trust from the vlatform te the
ss @kevater. Sullivan domte€ thet he put the bexer om the
ss tusk, or eadd anything of the kind. The plaintiff tes-
J sified alse that the veren wore piled out om the handles
of the truek until they came within five inches of the
| ene of the handles, Plaintiff thon turned hie buck to
| * ‘truck, teek held of the handles, havled it on one
i elevetors of the canning department, ard then
4 around, facing bie lead, “he olevater iteslf was
a platters elevator, five fect eight inches wide, ant
m fact five inches long, and wae open at beth ends:
| we sk was five fext four and one-half inehes Leng:
jonsequentiy, when s truck wae vInead in tho oxast centor
P the . —— there would be « mrgin of dubstantially
r eagh emk and the sdge of the elevator.
a etoareree between the oleyator and the fleer
eter ef an imwh. ‘the elevater iteelf was
by ¶ ran stations in a little shanty on the
| ” 4 ad — elevator shaft. ‘The too
4 —*—
* —V oe On rs —* | ea
tleds Sat? tyooxo .tatiale evew sored ysqne gubigund
| foot Borman fee ao? tne apa ‘sented ont untond
_nedent ivodthi? oxew atouns oi to mwenokt ed? ⸗
of? to Yom’ eff ko qos ont? sek Lame «norm ents ovnda
mevea toot ovi? of eat eo too ovit wovt adoued
towns ysqne oft sotad dat Miinkale sted + tigi vasau
=s00 oct taciw $2 moc Sumy hast at aco ro co bern cdot gonkh ma
raya {fu tvaxt % oman odd td armel a nel r howedte
"tigers wey 0 used thom oa suey wlte woy man" <bhae
son iwromkined a tthiatals of galiviocoe Aaevt ttus naoetr
oo to bro ontndtamel wo meds $7 bas nome? eff to blod
7 waagr tt oft Yo qos att 240 ig id an over todd thie oakw
‘ett tod | ‘fut tye bedoteita env wis ate awtt⸗ acuct adet 20_
of moor ono moxt Sf ofes oF mid blog marek LEss°2 seat
ror ot meotials ols mort vend off foot of bra etd ons
of? mo acxod eff duq of faci? Qolwod ecavbety® sotavels
asd Yetimtels od? sbakt odd to qeckddyume bten 10) «towns
s thevast oct mo juve bella otew goxod odd Jadd opis bolttie
a? to sostont ovtt attgty omeo yodd Lhteuw towed oct to
of Yoad atst —** —J VibiateLt -cefbrted off to ebae
emo mo $f holvad gaotkaat eff to Mod doat atowss ots
mond fog ,teomieaqed gutanne oid % owotavels odd ko
new toad? aotavete on’ | ebool ald zatosn , kamerte boneess $
bere ~obhw cedont sry te soot ovkt ymdevele wnettale s
fabre died ta meqo any bese enol worlant evi? seat eves
tgnoef saderst Aaci⸗· oec La udꝛ feet evi? sav toes ois
—— oaxe of? ad beon!) sow fours 2 modw ,¢lorewpounce
efisttnngadue to mhyter o of Bivew etodt tosavele od? t0
etotavyele ef? to egbo ot boa tne ese neewted $009 a
vool? af? Bos tofavelo aff woowtod eonstoolo a eae ovedtT
anw floats? totavels ed? «stoet! a to avtettesp-9onts to
ed? 6 viata alssee a mt Horo ksada roe no ed bedateqo
003 off «9 Rarin “ndavete elt %o qed ortd te nookt *
—
ae
timony of the plaintiff is thet he Pang for the elevator,
and ao goon oe 1t reached the second floor, wheeled hig
true: aboard, turned around, and the clevater went right
wp. Beferdant contemis that plaintiff's testimony vas |
te the effect that he waited for the clevator te etart
after he get aboard, tut thie fe not berms cut by the
reeord, ‘The abstract dose quote the pletetif? ac say-
ing, "1 turned crouni faaing the bexes vesiting fer the
elevator to start, and the slevater went right up.”
hile thin correstly ahetracts the arawer given to one
question, @ earoful oxamineation of the record shew: that
plaintiff repeatedly etated that ao seem ac he turned
around facing the bexco, the elevator went un right
away. Likewlec, the otatoment that boetere the slewator
started up, "I was om long enough to ase that the truek
wae all right, amd 7 tumned around ‘racing the bexou,*
ghowe that this refers to the time that he woe arranging
the truek with reforeres te the rear of the plattorm, art
while he had held of the handles, with hia back to the
load. I doen not comtredict hic repeated statenent
thet ap acon so he turned sround focing the lead, the
elevator went right up. There io « conflict in the
evidence av to whether plaintiff eave the olevater
operates any afenal to etert. wo he! rung the bell for
the elevator, and he testifies that when be turned sreunt
facing the load, the clevator vent right up withent any
‘mignal from hin. ami that mo eipnal was nesoomary. be~
| Oltuse the operator knew thet empty boxer vont t the
| thin floor. While tho overator tostified that he 4d
ino that empty boxee wont to the thir floor, he toe-
tifier that pleineter fave his a sigeal to atart.
9 The testimony of beth sides chews that the he des
sti
‘a*otavelo art? a0 a on tags wt Yrhder bs hee edt to caoate
old beLaodtr rao kt Mooen ast horfecey st ae mone an Bren
dein ter troy xotevels oft bee ,hewote bommt brads torr
Gow Yoomttood a takietate tadt ndrosneo maat aren ps
finde of tolevole off WY Kostaw of dadt goats add of
oft yd tu0 ommod dom at atad ti? .treods toy od teste
-{A8 an Wattotory od? efovtp 20h soar ded out? + 18-09%
arts to? gots hove vexed of4 gateet fearors borrayd I” poed
“equ digit der tosevels of? hoe , stabs ag welavole
orm of movly teruns od? efont ata yisteoesros alts oftste
todd avosta frooet edt Io molsonkuems Lirtere « fat tsegp
heer) of ea mone ee dott hotata yfhataoret Yrltalale,
State qu drow tntevole oft .nexod off gritos? hawome
Tosavelo of9 ototed tnt tmemetate off ,calwatht .yaws
Hows? adt ⸗ocis ose of dguacrs “oof nO anv Po bodtata -
*“.ooxed ed¢ grlost tavots borrard T Baw <teints Its sar
aaignatma sav orf ſaci⸗ oats off of wtetet ald tedy oroda
bra ,aratiels ett Yo tneg odd oF somotetet dotw towed odd
ets os Lead aid ddlw oo Lhoed pat to bios had oe otiete
fromosnie betseqot ald totharime fom aeoh $f «beol
oft ~haol eft antec? Aeon board of ae noon om fade
eft nf sor fines os af ewod? egy stgte soon woteyole
“otevete oti oves Trlintale taddede o? sa samebive
sot (fed oft post ‘ed of sdtadea of Lamhe vee aededeqe
hemor hocratta of mtutw tad? wolttiags ed baa ,teteyele ef?
wie dnodttie au finite tuner sodeveto od aot ods gnteat
~od ,Ytemesoon waw Langte on fads tne ahd sovk Lenghe
of? ~+ tnow acne’ yique tad¢ went sosatege ef? espe
hth od tects Holthoeet tosaveqo oft oLROY veoert Habty
~209 ext etookt bata? otf of teow aoxod oque tadt wom
Stata of: ta Ria a utd even Witdtale sadd aolrts
atend of! tals aworls noble cigod &o yonomkiae? edfT |
ap aD
f ' of the trugke used 4m truekine eapty -exes clonted avay
ta from the bottom of the truek, so that Inmtend of being
} digveatiy perpendicular, the back af the truck elanted *
J out toward the edge of the platform: not more than feu ;
‘ or five inehes, socomiing to dcfomiant's witmessea: more 4
J than that, aesorling to plaintiff's. che effect of this
Plant wae, of course, te reduce the cloarange between he
: the onde of the truek and the edgece of the elevators
in other words, to reduce the mergin of safety, ont aleo
ip $% eameo the sop of the Lead to extend bhererml the edre ;
% of the clevater platform, even when the Wheels and the
bottom of the truck wight be entirely upon tho viatferm .
ima penition to slear.
ee Ghite the eleyater vac paseing from the soeend
ie ee’ the third Pleo, the tep of the lead etruek against a
a bean or Joist which aamo flieh with om’ ouprorted the
a —
eꝛraxra eaeer. Had the lead not projested tal some oxtent
«
i
7
;
were than three-quarters of an imsh beyond the odge ot %
F the elevator, it would have passed in eafety: when it
ware: the beam, the boxes were tmooked off against =
Ch ik pas ant aer oauming hie to fall from the clovater te the —
| Rotten of the shaft, o distange of shout % feet. :
Plaintiff's declarstion coneiated of four ori rine
nd five additional counts. ‘The court instructed the Bie
7 te find for the defomiant on all except the first
rig na, and the first and eapond additions? seunts.
Sertdnant eirst contends thit there was no
> mustain the charge of neglicense mite im the|
t count of the original declaration, hiv count =|
Ay in substance, 2 failure to construct walle or
nor englosure around the space cecupiod
R we —8 ae & matter of law, that
ware bodiinfa sexo’ Ytque omktowis af heaw stows wld Be. -
mrted to haotent duit oc .fewn? off Yo masgod gett mont
betneta toutt od? Fo fond odds —E reg Eldousth
mug? sedi atom don rouottaldq ed? to enbe adds fiawes Jum
ero tabecendiw o'gmabno wh of antinooos —XX evi 19°
a tris to govtte et? ot Ntantac ot oxtitooea , fastt sath
sgernd od forarnele oft washer of 1 O2I0R to , on. tnate ;
predave fe ad te aonhe off hea doves add tO abme ong
oele feo .edotes to akg oxtd aomhers of <airow veto mk
| on do nets barargod gnotee o¢ hawt oft, to qat eds oayme of
oad ten oleuct utd noch nove MORI Ley minvels od? te.
erry tSeL: ont adan qlettine od ‘ete ke fetid odd to modted
anelo of mokiheag a a2 oa
broass ott mort artkaneg as roLavaLo ata al lete .
B ramtaga tourta Deol off to cod ants 00? fret ents ov
wets Bodtorente feo detw deat? omay do lee satel, xe sged:.
tnetees eer von Nas boteutom tom Saol odd ben m002% bake
“9 om Be oct⸗ toyed Arcat m2 29 avatar p-oends tats ———
$t med :ytetan ot beaneg ovast hinow £ .sojewele oas
‘ganinne Yto boteost etew soxod ofd «maad ed7 —R
oↄed⸗ of sotevelo odd mort flat od nid ant haune sThidrtals
. edoe't BP guede to eonateth « «Steady e2 to madsod
enintts wot to Sedetattod motiatafooh a Prkgtielt
mt? Hodomrtant snes ef? .oteveo Lamabtits owl? tan La
Sank? add Jsqeoxs Ife mo JInaberetoh etd at ferty of yout
sademon farolt¢iiho baogoe bra fark? ods bern 5 Lam take
om anw ote? fot? obetetmoo fark? tnalseTot
aft 2 ofan gore Linen ⁊o egradto odd ntatemm of onmehtre
demon sti’ .mottetatooh Lantylve off to saueo genkt
‘qo flew sowrsanoo of ons ta? & ,oonatadog af _Sagnadto
bo toyseoo gence odd Beuote oweolore vo soksoodorq tedio
tort? ,ral to nedtan & an tee ow wad «aetayele edd of
etd —E of grterae vitlet sonmehive on sew etad?
‘Oe te
ss
chargeT (ere wos an cleyvater, «nen at beth ents, moed
by boys ant foreigmers seting ac cewten loberers in ale.
vating free one floor te another trugks whieh when rlaged
thereon hed a very narrow margin amd with leade slanting
out at an angle from the base tovnm the ed¢e of the plate
form, ard piled ec hicty*an this inetanes at locet, that
the trucker could mot see over the tep. Im this eonnes-
tion the defentant esye that the rleintiff bev failet te
‘effor any affirmative procf timt 1t wae uewel or customary
or practigable to conetrust «alle or other pretestion
» sia the epace cooupio? by the clevater. In eur orinion,
| hewever, i¢ was suffigiert for the plaintiff te show the
j | physical conditions eristine, om? 411 the teeta and oir-
| eunetanees ourrowding the operation ef the elevater, and
\ Leave the question of the practieabliity of pretesting the
elevator t« the jury. Tt wae not necsseary, ard vo Joubt
whether it wowld have bower proper in this «aes at lenet,
\ $0 eubedt to the fury plans ard specifications showin:
how @levaters eight cr covl4 have tern emeloged. All the
| material faete ani cirqumeteances were ghown, and it wae,
op opinion, the proper prevines of the fury te say
wether, in view of thisw facts ort olitumetances, the
fatlure to provide the elevater with valle or other pre-
tection or eralosure constituted noxliromae or the, part
(of the defendant, and an effirmative ceneluston in thet
Pager’ @euld not be oid te be tm any way mond tout Ly son-
— 2 to the woight of the eviderse. Vorrovir, come]
fer defendant apparently comtend that the question of
Pa ordinary sare in the matter of commtruction of this Mrd
es dopemts upen chat ts uetal. It is cbylous, of course,
/ tat what ie usually done eannet be the standart by which
the question of neslirenee is te bo tetermined. Tt te,
| — oeno⸗ſvadie that whet ts vevelly done in any
w
5
,
hess oho tio te wor ,7edavelo aa Sav OTe foatatip
-ofo st ewotedel soecase 26 gottes avon fow?. daa wrod vf
boools moctw cole eolewst godtoge of goolt eno ape? watiey
gaitneta abaot ashe Dees chy wo Caer a front meorodt 4
efalq ofd te og bo ott frewwed wand orl? OT? . fame ie $@ cuo | ui
tad? store! oo cpmatomt att? mf uoytd on hekty Bow amet | a
-comnes ois? mi god ofd tove gem fect Dives ‘nomad ot? J
of bolt ut —* Ntarttalg af dads avan Saabery Roh gate mots Kg
ee mogewo To Leway asi $? sats oor avt aaara tts Yea seTto
sottostoty todto wm alley somtanon of eldaghiaoey 2 -
welnico two ci .wotevele afd yd hotaweso seaeqe ang havens
ettd works 09 Yrbde Bale od ok srotetrura aew at yrevewad \ |
orto bea adoot off tLe bern enatdalxs amp kethaos Laategiig J
hee »todovets eis To moliotayqe adg ori Stomperrgata ooennd enn wt
ad? untipotgouq “to ett idnotiousrg of) YW reo ES qaup ott ovael |
ddua® ow Bro .ytwaneson fon vey gr cet, ott “f ‘otavele :
— te onan ald? mw? mederd : mood ovat bruger * rocks ote
nevis —J ntot baottts: qa Berw asta work edt of —— of
ents tra | sbesofone mod vind B! #o0 RO det, Em avotavete wort,
4 ma * ters .ttrtcig orew wepetat demro-cke ima aon tadlenities
vas oF eet ofd Yo serivou aeqoran od? aooheleyo wre ak)
ots ,nooradamietts ban ates eset te woly ak ,aectiente
—— wortte ae affar dete, wedevede of? eftwoa of ut te
iraq ects oo gore bt fhor hedtivttienoe oomefere to nottons |
tA
tet? ot aotavflarce ovitout tts ta Bes . teehee teh aft te \ ,
ae — —
oe, Se ee
“OO CL toot kere aw “ort ok of of Stoo ef dom bieee Dreger | ; ‘
fonming erryoote! eamubive odd 2o dighow wie od ered We
to crofinavp odd dete bare asa ® vfteotaqqes éeatee bel tet : r
beh! otto ko mottometamee to woltom oft at wae trenkire — F
comms B6\,atokvd> of $1 «Latent mt duty woqu ahneqob é:
ote cd fryramrate off od formas eid el faway al toc tate
4nb OT sRorkowedo® of of @f seein tf;ea te mobteaup edd
wre of ooh yifmueu al smitty “Sats ofdavts orn eosaree to
Pam
given particular may be dene with wWiat in lor ernounte
to a neglicent disregard of the safety of others: ao,
if the rule contended for were followed, no action could
\ ever be hed fer conduet, mo ratter how valpobly norlirant,
\ if it were usual cenerally. Proprens in thea protestion
of 2ife and limb has beer mode largely by disregarding
tke question of whet micht have been cvetomery, ard oon
‘siderins shethor, under all the oireumstances of the sage,
danger to life and Linh wae foresccable to o porsem of
ordinary prwionce ani caution. tn parsing on thin reint
in Seidler v« Sramishaw, "60 Til. 408, cur Susreme Court
eaid, st page 4°
“Some expert evidence wan tntreduesd
te ehow that auch construction was umval
in the eity of Chisagse. ‘The question te
te determined vas whether cr not the shart
EE ly te foe i ama vhether Iaeob.
beidier war mogliront in ‘mairtaining 16 in
that sonfition, and not hew elevators rere
usually constructed in the city of Chiearc.
(Shiesss, heek Islond an? Pueific Rail»
Geel of uxatiguase sumtainet’in the
| SeWSe Soy ted it
Tiaieration:®
At this point it may be anid thet if there ts
evidence wefficiont te surtwin the ection laid in any
one of the three courte, the refuual to give peremptory
instruetions «ith referense to the other two, even if
errencomt. gould not in law be the prourt of a reversal.
City Railvay y. Carpoli, 206 Til. Fit Seott vs
Qremtorre, 246 121. 4¢0.)
: _ BRefertiant next contents that the second additional
count should have been taker from the jury, “first, deeause
there was abeclutely no etidense tomiine in the romotest
Gegree to show that the clevater overster «am noglirent,
ani second, because in any event the clovater operator
on Oa
otmvann wel mt tele Cihw oneh of yom velwotiaag novky
¢%a twredto to vdetdo eff to Sragetath dneakigen a of
bitmo cokion or ,howollot orew ao? bebaetaoe of ede BP |
inesiftaon vtder!nd wot tetton on ,sowbroe tot bed ed wee |
weltestouwr «dt of avemmort = +. yflo terme tauu wtew ot Bk *
erego·ca th vd vfontal eben seod aad dull tue gtk Be -
«moo bes «Yromotaso seed overt Scher gore to moktesmp af?
ened ef? Yo sonmatvamnrotte ef? (fe tehaw .toctdottr ambepbha -
to mow a of eftaccnenet sor deth bee ohtl oF wganb
inter afd no gutecad wl smkgemmn hee coneteere gtantiee
jum exened? mo , Uh ffl 00% .watebeest «9 gefhtet af
10% ogey ga + hReo .
hequhorint ace eonobive —— ome" ——
Seveu aen motiourtdameo tout cade woda of . . '
od molsaoup oT cogaghsto to géto afd “
Stade off ton > toddedw savy Sonkbrteteh —
doont +etiody bas bedoursanoe yf om e
ai ¢f anioletatem al fmenligon sar tee —
wrow erodavele wod Jon Baa conte «than feet
a Ogeehdo to yeto ods ak stat doom ¥ Lowey
wf Bait pithess bee & Let 2
d erery of bobses — ẽ *
* oi beatae aao — pmo tg tt '
—2*
ot omdd tl tote blau of yor 22 duteq wits rh * 1
ys wt Bilal soften ott alataus oy jaetetvne esaehive \ \ | |
grosquoreg ovig of Laweter on? doe comme wit fo arte 3
2f meyo ows resto orf 9 eexoretor tthe anet tected ant §
‘fewcever a to bervorm od? of wal wt Son Sigee® . awooretTe
Ly 49002 18Le :L{T NO? ,Ltowmee -¥ yeoktet eet oawetamy) “1h
—
{. Ord + tar gat Sep ines)
rotsethia bauooee oft sands abrio teoe Sort win hero"het
shoo’ .iowlt” «cmt odt oor? notad moed ovad biwets ties
. daudoror od ort gethaod ovnebdite on ylostutoada aaw rteds
etron tine sew toteteqo todavele edt sade woe of norgeh
yotcxeto tolevele ats ireve ress tet oousoed eieroooa feta
se De BA
ate
aoné plaintiff were fellow cervarnte.” The arewer tc this
(te twoefeld: first, 1 fo oufticiont if there wan evt-
fereo to auetain any ceunt in the deoleration, aed aceon,
| the sourt rprcifiaaliy inotrusted che: Jury that the nlaine
tiff and the elevator operator wers fellow servante, sani
| that mo reoovyery could be had on account of the nerld senee,
Ch ae ony, of the latter. In view of the positive art per
oop ery sharacter of thie imatruction it war of no im
portange that the court failed te give « formal inetrue-
tion to find the defendant not guiity im « sount.where
* She mogiigense of ssid operater was oharert.
| 7 Defendant ala eomtermis that there wae ne cvri~
fouee upon which the ¢irst additional count conl¢ properly
heave been submitted te the fury. This count, ofter setting
out matters of iniuowment; ani that the nlaintirr wae a
common Laborer whose “uty it was to tronepert berse from
the leadine platform atjagent t: the packing hence, imto
the packing hevss, ard on an ele water by moans of a hande
teak, charges that 1t me the duty of the defendant to
furmieh plaintitf with « reavenably safe place to werk;
that the defontant aid not regur’ ite duty, but omered
} ané sormeanded the plaintiff te put an unveually larce
Be esbor of boxes on the trucks that he did as ordered:
* \ thet he woe unable to see over the top of them: that he
\ \ wae ordered ond ocmmanded to gonvery the trugh by mans of
zt | ontd @levater te the woper floor ef eaia masking veuse:
! i that in obediense to euch command the plainticr 414 then
ant there senvoy the truck frow the leading platfer with
| Ali dite care ont caution for hte om safety: thet by reason
i (at the hetent of the bores, he woes tnable ageurately to
the pealtion of the truck, and thereby the place
Mere platmtise war required to etand, while being roved
ne Ss Wye feck me well inwen to the
*
wilds of tewave ofT ‘ atmavaes wallet ae witietelta bao
«iva oww stort? t dnotel tie ot t! , dant? +Bloteow?s ab -
Rest ocn bea «mo hsgrte Lee’ od? at. 2 —X a ecta ot oooh
fale ef? fod? vnst add bosaretunt yi laatticeds dures et?
byw \esimvets wo llot wow "mo 2 orton “19 Seowndo ony hes hte
der on Ener elt ta demenos mo hawt of biven yrovoon” om gaits
eteg t<a ovktteaor etd to wely ot .tetdel odd. 0 qtam BE~
out on to sow ¢t mtsountant aft? Yo totemmde yeotque
aorta Leonet we wets og bolita doe ett dattd- OGMBETOT
corte der io 2 mt yoties for jnaheo%tes act? halt of rokt
oheatade eow totateqo Blea to soneghigen edz -
mys on wow overt? fed abmetmon cafe sembaeted |
Lpocro'ts bintes drman Tama hs Ebhs oeuky eff dokde soqu eoneb
Ritea wito yingeo vid .yumh oht of hod dteaton oped eves
a caw Wktntets of} todd dem cdoremowdet Io aetten sie
moxt nowsd ‘Sioqaany? of oa 3h gw ↄaou —E xoma·
o⸗e sonstod get btoa att of tropetho mentiats aotioot arty
= beract s 20 anacs vi noteyote re 80. big OR OS sebtoce até
OF gradserod ols to Usoh of? gow tt tad? aogtats toree
tixer of voalg ten Pidavouret aditw witietaty stabernst
horahes tot eetah ag? Oremey deer Rts seettestoh off saad.
anial yLtarntn «s toy od Trttebelq otf Potammtee baa
rhatehdo an BFh asf tnits tions wif wo gore! Yo cedmua
of gedd emeie Io qo⸗ ori? — oon cf offdurm avw ad Sette
30 aneom ys fours ott Terre 3 hohremicg ban dorohge gay
Fonte’ - qeebtoas Aine to oof xxv⸗ ot? of tetevele Dkarc
troctt hep Trtintale oft baste — ‘out oe const bode nt sad?
fain wrottale amt heot eid oor? tears? edt vores wrod Bon
net vd tacit 'ytotan swe ald tot soksuan here ene ouh the
of cledanrena ofdany acw or ysaxod ot? to &fpted si? Yo
“ponte att yetottd here ytorend of? Yo maktieog ot? ovxesds
hover prtod oftdw hitein of hetivpet sav Thidmlalg orertw
off of nwort [lew aew Joet dotdw .otannmy empood oftarqy
]
Rae F I * * —— oe Ww a i
‘ ‘. * \ ; 5
es J _ Dee
defemiant, but mot to the plaintiff. © think there ras
ample evidense te justify the court dp owlrlittdne the tecuss
| patood by thie count te the fury. Thera won evidence tond-
ing to chew that the mumbor of boxer piled om the trusk was,
Re to the plndntiff ot loast, wmeuls that they were eo
high thet ne could not seo over them ard Naico the exact
leeation of the truck, act consecuently the question of
whether these facts, in commection with all the other frets
| an evidencc, rowiersd the place uncafo, anil chether that
| fast wan knoen or should have beer known te the sefendant ,
were properly quections of feet for the jury'te fetersination,
° wn were properly submitted to it.
Defentant's gourse] rext conterui that plaintire
| aveuned the risk of the ‘anger which resulted in this ac-
ss @ident, as a matter of law. In Browne y- Sleecl, Cooper
& Gov» 192 121. 298, our Supreme Court hee vald that,
“The servant acewmes not only the a
omiinary risks tireitent te hie ererleyment, i
but aleo all whieh are obvious Gq
—9 — amt grraront ‘Fe he voluntarily enters ‘
hy inte or — * im the servies, knowing, q
or having the moane of tnoring, ite ——
he is deemed to have ancumed the ri :
to hawe woived 411 cleins oaradnet ng
master for fumages im case of personel | eo
injury. é
ve ‘a
- “Defendant's eounes] peint out the lenrth of 7
Me i tine plaintiff hed been em-loysd in this work and the fre~
Wan whth whieh he had ured the olevater, an! conclude in
5 ‘thet the dangers, if any, ard the specific hazard whieh =
9 eausoa the aecident, vere ac open and avparent "av wae the fi
physical eituation,” ani therefore plaintiff? ssuumed the
-y and cannot recovers J—
he Lew de that. while ordirartiy, of course, ~
he ¢ of whether the servant has acsumed the danger i
. ite h he encounters, or hao been guilty ef contributory
pogiigense, is one of fnet, yet, as in cther ensen, the
will becere one of law when but one coneluston
gia the evidence by all weasonoble —
/
ew ommdt avktd ov .Yeksahale ott of tom sud ydorabeoted|
duant odt yalssindve ot dame ott Rect of oomedtve etme |
~fret oomebive oaw erolt .weat ocit of tomoo afdd yd Bootes |
saw feet edt mo bolty aoxed to todaun eid fade wede of guk —
oo ome yodd Jatt pews tend ta Tehebalg odd of ee |.
toaze eft onbut tna edt seve com tom Bivos os Sadd thy bet He a
to sottoonn ond vfseospoano Bra, toed odg 0 —
agon't — odd Lin ditty aoliesemos at ,otoat —
todd ‘toctterty Ine .oteam: eoalq ed? doroderex <comebtve a
,dnabroteh eft of croml mood oved biwede “to meet ase be
okientwroted atymt od not tos? to anoktsonp —8 *
+t oe betsindue ylreqort te a |
Sttontate gut? hewtwoo trom Commes stinateted ©)” J
90 atit nt Bodivac: dolstw tenmat edt to fale edd Deewana i by
© geqoeo «fonek? -y onventl at wel to a0tsem a an mobo —
gga? Dew oot sae? omogqes wuo 40OF .£ET LO gegd 2
odd yee fon eomrece series actte* 4 mS en
aduemgotane ait of taebtonk yrs quant (a ae
attiotvds ete folde — O8le BGT ee
teste oe uiteasenloy on * énoterts: J
aR bworet qootvies * ed pl * *
ym ge afk «nettwort Io anwom ef? »
hoe alot ott ronuaga eved og Beageb) at ad
“ta ponies —— iia Bevilow oved CN
anosre¢ Do ean aoganch xe% (ae
; Sat
20 dimer odd to dented foanuos aiguabavted °° |. 4
08 odd hia trow Edd mh Seyoleme meod had wrbantate — 7
abun’ ee ytotevede ett Boat Bact od sotew shew y ray py
dotdr braved olttenga edt Bem oyna BE «ategrod odd Sads hae 4
Ott cow o8" ImoraqTa hes oqo Ge otow ,toehtons edd heaves
att honnmae VES otaly ovo'teneds fen Aita⸗ te — *&
cows 10 «yfbuartixo eftdy . tats ot wal at? J Ri
tonniah ets Sorat eS a
ysotudiasmoe to ytLtihy seed and wo yetotmmeme ed aetdy | }
orls coven rade ab ue «toy «font Yo ame ut «eemeahiyoet
— ono et mu val 0 ano esoeed fy mokiwomy ie J—
epaaie ofdaneanes Llp ud oombtve ods poets 4
ia
—9—
4 =
—X
The question, then, le. gan we any that the |
only conclusion which ean bo drawn frem tho evidense
by all reasonable winds te thet the epeeific hazard
whigh caused the aseident war open ant apparent? The
/Sactdent obviously happened becsuse the top of the lead
extemleod beyond the edre of the platforn. Are: re ablo
to say, as a matter of law, thet this havah4 was open
| ev apparent to the plaintiff?’ “he fast that the fury
must be taken to have fount, by ite verdict, thet the
| danger was known. or by the exercise of reavonable care
«| LA have been Imown, to the defeniant, does not negase
. sariiy compel the conclusion that it must aleo heve
| been Imown to the plaintiff. the ovidenes shows that
the defendant was « corporation ensaged tr the paslting |
¢ f business, having the plant in qwestion ard other planta :
| | tn connection therevith, anf in thear operation employed
—
—
forenen, superintendents ,,.architeate, ard vas ponmesned
of thetr lmowledre and threuch that rrovledree suet hove
boen fully aware of the construction ond operntion ef “
ite plant and factlitdes and the ¢ancer, 1¢ any, in- :
cident thereto. Plaintiff, on the other hand, wae a ;
| fereigner, unfaniiiar with the ‘nglish language, engaged —
mie at the better of the industrial seale as a gommen 1 ‘
The evidense shows that hic regular work wac that of ve
| trueking full bexes, 1m connection with whieh there was
obviously ne eugh danger as that from which the accident
my arese, wines such truck loads were only pilot te a
J — from two to two and one-half feet. “hore io
0 es Mongo im the record that the plaintitr over, \ |
| this neaident, trucked a ond oe high that he could not.
mY w ever the top of A, ant wpen the cunetion of hor|
Oh
and gost cot er oe at qnodd setscoup aft
ons dive ot war? onend od nite cater motautenog yino
Mraved ofttovge ot? taut! at uderter otaam ao tha we
| ont? — deromagqes ete steqo aa drohtooe ott ‘boawat dottie
boot ects tm qot od? eausoad honngead vEewokwte steer.
ofa or ond. sattotsate ef to endo ott Seoyed hohmwdee a,
mse aes! Beant arity. tastt «wok to wettan a an en ag - 1. i a
— ott tote Joat of? itatat⸗ odd o⸗ tro:oqae on
ort Soft? .foktrroy adt of .Dewo% ovat of modiad ot oe
RAD oldaneneet Bo vakeroxe odd yt x0 erwonet sae agent
aemart gor soo8 stiaticotot os og tvent seed ond Riven J——
oved ont gavm $2 tect motaufeaon edt Lequon Yitmaa
tend wrote odin di vo at Mentata ott ot waéent ood — ve
guttend ext? of Dopaaere Oks stoqnay * ew Srecbecoob: ods — oi
sinaiq toniso bra nokgaosp at gmake odd gatvad ,ve anoetbeard *
boqod rite nobtaneqe ahott ok bas «détvonodt —
honneskor aay bea — Mora, sadiobaoda toga
evacd tuum enbolwoat dart? here va⸗ han ex botweret ated
.~ nets orsqo Bren AAe eure’ arno ort to wean het a
ont cet St otenna® od? Bee eokstttost bre vale
oem .tuet mitte etd a0 ntoutata “vodeindt? — — — ie
—— —1 tatters’ etd dit tw aethtnntonr teats tenet a
prada! nommp 9 un ofan totes watford big % motte at ta
to jadd enw throw tekunor oft daelt svn oomhtve eT
usr — “ Kotdw (gin wobtoonime ob .cumed (et gations
frobtooa ort deliw mont dott oa rogmeh deve om ybewotwte
a od tote vine eto abot fount dave gente \waon
at oped? Soot Madaome na ond of ond nowt to sdgtod
cotod myo TRbIntale etd Jatt Brose ede at comohtys cm —
for bivoo af tort agit ow hoot «© beter ceobtoos atte | —9
korftatty Io noktweun odd woqu Baw th 2 qos add rev 800 ae
somos vies I hook w heteurd cove Webimata wt tom 48 J
vionte so⸗ off at *— ————
pats a
| ae. ae ey
Pe — /
In thie state of the recerd we are umsble te euy that
the manifest weight of the evidence shore efther that
the hazard eausing the accident wae, cr shovld hove been,
known to the plaintifr.
Bite |
: Hetermtant aloo contends thet the overrhelming |
a 9* weight ef the evidence shows that plaintiff woo emiity
a of contributery negifconce. fren a gareful review of
¥ ety @ll the evideree in the Gane, vO ore nadie to pay that
ae
’
M
plaintite 41a not exercive all the care vhich’Mte oir-
| qunstemass at and before the seoldent allowed. vhs i ‘
\ question, Like the cusetton of aesumet risk, we passed pS
7
f
as wreon bye fury properly an! fully instrveted ae to the
Law, and the motion far s now trial was considered ond
erxerruaoa by the prenidine qudive « in view of thene 4
| faote We are unable te dtmregard the verdict and the ;
J aetion of the trial court unlose we oan say that the.
2 vreratet ia contrary te the manifest welert of the evidence i
| ws | on weme eutential iseue involved, (North Chisago ft. 2. Re
x © Bee U Bqmpere, Of TLR. Apps S10? Ste Lovie Fationgl m
| Steer Yards ¥. Gestroy, 101 4d. 40; Chieage 4 Alton By.
82 · We Corson, 14. 115) Sleek y. Yarpte, 1a. Se7; onytor
ee Hela Me wey — * Petter, non ad. 4a;
wf fw
gontt vor of ofdeny ote ew bro90% ot ‘to tatu ated a
tects tilt to woode oommitve ot do dytow saettman ott
.food oved hiuwin w ,cew deohfoow odt wrkewne Duacad ett
Ntantæate ett od moet |
grttnteterevs etd toes shstnoo cola tuabestet 1
Willey aow Tektakalq toto woke combtve edd to ty tow
no volver Dvtouss o cov? soomsstnen cwogutiamie to
todd yom ot often ore O° goss orld at cousbive off Kha
wrth aides fete onan oft Ie oativsoxe sore nib wrratata
bomotta dmebtens. 9X9 owed tes —X
ads of ae — oy tte’ besa —— ome a went?
Hens berohiares aaw fnted. weer owt sot for! ont fer wat “
erodt ‘te woty at /sombet, getichwonr wt vee. Boltreneve
add hea tothrev od? Iemmaumtty of ota a ote er
oat dake yaa noo ww enotony 00 fates welt. to aotson
porehiyy add to arf tow aoꝛ ba aen out oe —2 ek. fotieoy
— gusotd: 320i) choviovert auusel fatimpane one *
Tanotipy atvg! «$8 191% ct ant oe grommet a4 —
— ————
motors rrod «BE satan + couta ute — cmgemed iv 08
| (RAR 4 DR ROL » settot «y moktey 1020 Rf qnontet ay
cAltd Drvre lo BID a BE VT Stauso — 20 natty a
oltamy ota aw tensor afore ote te efterse, = ergy. —9— i’
Micah’ ne digs ——— cn te ———— ra
sohtemon of wkeaaagon torr at ot tuahnoteb wit wt fouken — ity ;
[ftw sro but of? «Paks hake — borg tava aoe anor “ 9
: / ; . a J
Cal aed | —
a " : * ‘ ) ‘ ‘ on 9 *
Ql/3/
eon - O1261.
THER PROPLE OF THE STATY OF
ILLINOIS »
Deferfant in ©
joes CONTATN
OR Leer
POURTRER
DOZER RAGE
SHELL POG,
PEE PRO TAG?
Claimant, j
—J— fe ONTCAG,
)
)
)
ROROR TO
HUNICIPAL COURT
}
)
n Briers 198 L.A. 324
MR. MOTICN COMIN deoliverad the opinion of the court.
4
The facts in this case are cubdstartially
the same ae in No. 21371, Peorke of the State of Tliineis
-Y» Fatty Capes Conteining "9 Dezen gag mA More om Leas, of
Shell tees, Perfection igre Company, and in roverned by
. the decision in that case.
APFIREED »
f —1 eh
WO XTATS SAT a METI AMr
er mi dnatneted. pa
OP? AHANS
TANOO LATEST ais
eVGA OTH 9 10
——— ome ona add of etost ott |
«Bhomkitt to ofag? of? to gfrogl . £0Lto “ait at bas Ons tg
32 «age! 2 gre’ .fose mexnd oF aittnts sng’ ‘oan? eases ie
a ed Dorrroves uh, Ane SEawee? Ja8 NOLS cornet waa fede
—* Onan dats at ouratend ott id
7
AAmuran⸗
243 e 21224,
CHARLES MESSKE,
Appellee,
APPEAL PROM
MUNICIPAL GOURT
OF OMICAGO.
TOS TAL 325
HAviaintitrts horee ¥ was hitched to a Wigon undt-wan-etande-———
q JUSTICE OT OONNOR dx — ‘the opinion of thé courte
: Baal i a eee to recover damages alieged
have been sustained by the appellee (hereina? tery.
led the plaintiff) as a reeult of the mumiing
& team owned by appellant (her Anar tor ealled
the defendant), whereby pbatatictts horse and
were damaged, the. ceuse war wa tted te the conrt
without bane and there wae a fiedineane J gua
ane plaintit? f for $94.10, The facts are p thenes'»
ing on the north side of Madison street in the village
of Ferest Park, facing west. The team and wagon belohge
ing to the defendant, in churge of a driver, wae delivere
ing bread in seid village, and it being about noon, the
driver drove the team into a shed, which was in a yard
immediately adjoining Madison street. The shed was about
40 or 50 feet inside of the yard. The yard waz enc lesed
with a fenee, there being two entrances to the same.
The driver took the bridles off the horsen and hung them
en the hames, fed his team, and then went into (a restaue
Fant, which war situated neat the yard, to eat bie dinner,
About five aimutes thereafter, he looked cut and the tenn
TAO SATIDIWON
eODADIND BW
ess .A.T eet
edi 909 ont to sokato oid boxovileb Apo 'O ToLreuL of
—*
—
bolye La aoguuah teveosx of nottod — —
————— eeliongs edt vd bomiagoua ova
yan aribnears, add to dfiveer an (Tiisadasg mth bells
* tes tanec ion) dual toqge it v dorwe mes a
bum oacord ar rssatady Ydecendy . (Paabueted
sxH09 wie of boas Leite aow @ essay. lt +boyanah @
uoe ſadut. al gaibnet S Baw Oxon bas wR 8 vate
toaau⸗ ots agget off .OLl.d08 tot Tiiteiasy = zo
nance ee ose — ;
Oe ebtt a maw Di NOB TOF betot he maw wana —
eqeliiv ody mh toorta goatban to chloe utros ent no yk ~~
“piofod Koyew bus meet adv 86. saew galiont ,wiet seoxo% 20
“tovifoh eaw ,tovith « to egtaio mt efiabnetes oft of gat
ent Moon svoda pitied #i baw ,oyslfiv bise mt baewd yak
busy ant aaw dolow , bende « ofnt moot edt evotb teviah
sued saw honda ot? .toovle moatbatt gilntotha Vetedboams
beoroione saw btay ef? Stay edt to ebtant soot os xe oe
sOntam ot OF asonatins ows goied exedd ,oonet s aghw
mond yavel Soo neato elt Tre aetbixd ont Mood teviah oct
——
— —— 4) otmt gInow mds ona ,omod wad * seem nt m0
* eds due suo bicsdis’s pv — — —* ARES, 2°
ae
— “
aie
Was gon@. In come manner not disclesed by the evidence,
the team got out on Madison street and turned eaet, running
away. They ran into plaintiff's horse and wagonme Plaintiff's
horse was injured and parte of the wagon shafts broken. On am
count of the injuries the Plaintiff was unable te afterwards
vy use the horse, The value of the horve was placed by a
x witness whe-temteePet on behalf of the plaintiff to be from
$106 to $125, while » witness «. testivind on behalf of the
defendant that the horse was not worth te exceed $60. There
Was alec evidence as te other ites of damage incurred,
NSCLC ATAL IS A EOI aay IMLS ice abana — *
— -woutende- that: — ten faved varie
ange between the plaintiff's etatement of claim and the
proof, in tha * statement of claim averrad., that the
defencant's team ane wagon wore left “tinattended, unhitehed
sal ungerded® in Madison otrevt, while’ the evidence showed
that the team was Left unabtended ané unhdtened in the yard
eining Madison atreet, thie “action ie one of the fourth
clgen, where the plaintiftte alaim ‘heed not be set up with
as auch particularity #6 is required in’ e Seclaration,
“ee
mo eeontention is without merdt. me
f
epee was the fact of the team's running away reamed onde
he driver and with | the bridles fastened to the \
. This might cause some presumption of negligence,
eertainly dees not establish a case of negligence per ge
ex an | Qhlegation where the omy (ground of negligence is
ee Riana —
— Leaving ‘the team standing unattended in and Upon #®
\
*
%
J
ae woe J 4 ~*
;
cohen.
~eeneblve gis yd posedoats yon Aoatian oman nt vnon mw oe N
anmuri ,tese bord de foorse noatball m9 tuo 308 asot ont
'Ytitnials .nopew baa satord —RB — reat woe enn a f
smo texto af tala mogew of? to atiaq one borat aaw eored —9
abtawies te of mivann saw Riivatatg os ww beau tank oa⸗ ‘to sauoe ri.
a wl beoalg saw —X ode to outlay oft oron ult —* ome
| aort, od ot ttitnisiq edt Yo Yinded mo Beene d rte agen | “
edt to YLased no brstisany sy event iw a of idiw BBL of 00f8 nm
axedT .06§ beooxs of dtiow ton saw gaxorl oxtt and trabsgtod ’ 9
Sao wie F 7
— E — to amosti ueels o os ae oonobhve: nia —
$B re Rau Mol al een Ceara ee
ektav fadn? » ih senias david — — vbw
edt beia Mmiaic to Inomest ate attiisntatg outs 9 tod “0
ost tacit betseva mtalo ‘to saswegade edt ‘arts mh sto “4 Ay,
bento d Silt Soba s aa" rot otew Mogaw mand et gasoa0 ob .
bowora oonsblve ons ‘pA Law tovata sa 2ioatt me “bobtagmu ‘ :
| bray edt mb bodothieus ona bobs fom Stel sow naog edt 4
dyiwoct off To ono ak nottos” Aar stroxsa monkbait wake’ ;
atiw qu goa od ston boon ‘mhafo aMribeniaty ong execs ° i
eaoks etatond » ‘eh poxtuper of a. obit he cag
aie Leet) RR swede ak noisnodeao:
; om angered? stadt wbmetnos sxem Snahao Ws
edt Atnabaetod ot to ttaq oct mo eoneyttys
_ oidinaog yum To oomobive ylro edt said gale
ebm 23 acu” Yawa gutnras amet odd To Soet od saw ody
—* eid of bomotast aekbtad edt / dtiw ban tevksd o:
F s0orregiinon ‘te mol sqnussorG omos onan salty ian aia? as
2 32g eoneyilgon Yo ease a Antidesas tom aeob — E q '
be: ae eonogtfpon te ‘bawory vine “ond OF Dif 4 —
pa at bebned tenn w wala maod
weove &
ade
Waile some cases hold that negligence may not
be inferred fram the mere fact of a runaway (Zoller ys. Knox,
Supra.), there are a great many cases te the contrary.
See Kokoll y. Brows & B. Lumber Soy (NeJsle) Tl Atl. 120,
and other cases cited in note, 23 IeltsAs, 171. Yet the fact
of the runsawey, taken in connection with the other circune
stances attending the sane, tended to establish negligence,
even in the absenes of direct —— in
the case at bar we are of the opinion that there was suffie
cient evidence of negligence on the part ef the driver of
defendant’e team to sustain the finding and judgment.
The defendant further contemis that the court
erred in refusing te admit evidence offered by the defendant
ag te the gentle dicposition, ete. of the team, In this
contention we Gannet concur. Plaintiff’ was not claiming
that the horses were ether than gentle, but based his right
of recovery on the negligence of the defendant in the control
and management of the team,
Finding mo substantial error in the record, the
judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicage will be affirmed.
AVPIREED,
' 4 ; | We. ,
wlio a *
son yam comegiiven fads bLod avsan omoe olldw |
2 | aN zelfod) wrrans: « to Joat orem wiv sire bora Tet od
sUrstsneo edd of vena Yam Jaory 6 ote otett Sr ae
(OSE Eta ET (eta) ssa Ai Aah 8
gost odd Se¥ oLVL goAclied EX ,9t00 mi basin aeaan x0dde bas tad
eauotio «tte edt diiw aotioennce at welat ,yawansrt ond to
4bonegiigen delidasue of debued ,omau oslt palbaotia seonase
—X — foerth to sonmvada odd al novo
ektiue asw ovedd tenis molmico odd to eta ow ued da evan add
to tevin ont to gisq edt mo oomegtigen To eonebive dmeoto —J / ;
sinompbut bra gathett off mtegave of mmed ettasbneteb —
tiveo ot Judd alare d od gnaldrss? fnabse ted oft
tnabnstoh od? ys bortto gorobive thmbs ot pakas tos ml berms
aidd ol .mmot add To onto ,rold Loge dl okinny oud oo a8
gitmialo jon waw TTignlals, stwoKoS JONAAO ow woisnosnoo
Soya wid boaad gud ,oitney ast sori 0 oxaw woarad ot eet
Lotsinoo —* at Suabuered ont to oomsytigen odd ae yrevooot to
bh | —* ood anid Yo ¢aneo ganas ine
‘)
ost bteses out ak sowre laiinadedue oe yell | | and F
ghomrttta od LLiw ayao 2d to sawed Kou to tet ode te some eh
Prewit Se a #3
Aad du
THE BALT}MORE ARD GHIC CHICAGO
TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY,
Appellee, )
APPTAL PROM
MUNICIPAL COURT
OF SHICAGO,
oe 81. AOS om
BR. JUSTION O'CONNOR delivered the cpivion of the court.
——“‘Thitede-an appeal frem a judcment rendered by the
nicipsl court in favor of the plaintiff (appellee) and
gainst the defendant (appellant) for $1669.46.
—*
During the month of. August) 4922, the plaintiff
|
a company hauled for the defendant over ite raile
rend 156 earloads of brick from Blue Island 1ineis to
onb.eas, for which it charged $9 per car — ee. fi
—
— ani
nnn
— —
— —
—
— — —
It Snot disputed that the rate charged was
ibs ———~ reasonable and in compliance with the schedules filed
y gy egal Interstate Comnerce Comission and the Railroad
, and Warehouse Comaisesion of Illinois, and wan lees than
the max rate as fixed by the said Railroad and Waree
house Commission. * » that the
7
a
plaintiff during the month of August, 1911, hauled brick
from Chicago Heights, Illinois, to Chicago, a distance
of 30 miles, for $5.50 per carload, over the same track
as that on which it hauled the brick for the defendant
from Blue Island te Chicago, a distance of but 18 miles,
* fim ) ;
QODAOIHO O1HO GHA 2HOm
XUATMOD CAOMITAR
MOAY .LATSTA
THUOD JAGIOLWOM
eODADINO YO
TSS A SOT
edt yd Herohisex toemybyt « moth Leeqqa me ad ath? —
bre (wellegqa) Lilinialg ens te w6vat mk Prved Leyloka
89.@08L%. x02 (tuslloqge) suabae'tib oxtt taniays
ttitniely ont ,L£@L <dnurgub- Yo niteom. Ot york
eLiat att toeVve Stabe teh ads 0% bo tuad viaqmoo baoxt
ot stonkt1t «tna loi ould mort xo bad be ebaelzae eel beet
ote shaol iso tsq¢ @f begrads ti sto Rife. 10% 1 Oye0 kAD
aide — Ateva oas vag © * belist yetvadtaoins to
— ———
— —
asw Segtado eter said sans boduqath son ef #1
—ñ— ⸗ — at ö—r, — — —
holk? aeluhedoa ond at iw sonaligmon nt Sita sidenqunet——~.
baotlia oft bre coleatmmod oorenmnod ovataretnt ost *
a
my
ftadt oust aew brs yatonil sy Io ‘MOL aa Leno eavorleiaw (one
OTA bes beorLtar 1 bow, odts wd bextt ee stax —E —2—
ontt tate —— — tt +e ews notanimmod savor
Mo led ——— efL@L ,tauygwa to admom ods —R Tritniale
sonesatb & ,oyantdd of satonbi st sedrigtell or⸗o tio —
doers ems ert tove «baolxan 104 oa. at 10? — 08 dl
tnabnoreb e9 rot Akad saly deLuait a so kb a0 ° saat a
v ——— BL sud Yo — 8 yonavkaD ¢ y r
Ay Oe
ole
for which plaintiff charged the defendant $9 per carload;
that this was unjuet diserimination and contrary to law,
and that the defendant should not be required to pay more
than that charged by the railroad company for hauling from
Ghicage Heights e- $5.50 per carload, and that therefore
plaintiff's claim for $1447.34 is excesnive in the sum
of $4738,
—— —
— ———
— —, — —
——— — —
— =the tirfendant—oontends that when the evidence.
more
I it had been charged/for hauling a carload from
\baue lel <a to Chicago than was charged other payticn for
hauling the vene kind of a carload from | tnd ongd Heights
to Chicago, over the same track, it had entebl ished a
prima facie ease oF unjust discrimination, the argument
being that this evidenge showed a vioigtion hy the plaine
tate of sections 2 and Sef an Act te ‘Prevent Extortion
; and Unjust pisorimination, Murd's Revised Statutes, (1921),
a Pe 1835, and section 25 of tn nai road and Warehouse Come
"missioners Act, Hurd's Revis — —E (1911), p. 1854,
Said sec. 2 provides that if, ‘any railroad shall make any
unjust discrimination in ite rates fox freight or passenger
transportation, it waaay ‘be deemed guilty ef violating said
C act. Baid see. 3 provides that if any rablroad shall
charge for transportation of passengers or freight a
greater toll or compensation for any distance. ‘than is
charged for a greater distance for a like quantity of
freight over, the same line, in the same direction, ' @irectly,
or by means of any rebate, drawback, or other shift or
evasion, ‘auch act "shall be deemed and taken, against euch
⸗ railrond corporation, as prima facie evidence of the ungust
diasrininations prohibited by the previsions of this act." \
Sdid sec. 25 declared it to it to be unlawful for any common ~~
oS
shaoliay a9q 0% Insbnatoh eft hegrado Tiitntalg doldw tot
«wal of yietinos bie moijanimizegib tex aw aaw abit sontd
vom yay of betiupet od gor bivoda snabmotoh ond tacky bee
mort piiivad rot ynaqmoo baotliaxr edt yd boptasto dand comslt
exotetontt tadt bane ,baolise seq 04.0§ = atiylek oye £0
nue oft mt oviacooxe ak S8,TDOL6 rot miafo atttisnialg
8186 to
— ——— —— — — —
— ent nostw Jad? absstnos—inabaeteb-ontt——_
ST OM
mott Peo taso ® goifved tot\degtede meed bad st tastd
tot end tonto begtano eaw madd oyasind of fal oulg)
atigiek doad Litt mozt beoltao s to beid onae ont git Lu
8 borat tdatas bat Ji ,xostt omay “a —— ,opao ldo —
tasmupis sexi Ywotsanintroets auteu eae0
eniels edt yd uotbefoty a bewoda sotob ive aid tests ant
‘nolitogxl saeverS ‘et toA 16 ty é bas & anoitose to wu
(LLL) ,eetugass boeivel atbawit Molienimivoek@ taubav baa
~mol sevoreta¥ bas baotfinl adit to as noltosa bra .8e8L « ag
—
aost oy (LL0L) —EX atu ,$0A ovenolenta
ys eam {Leela baot Liar Ya tt Jedd aeblvoug & .o9e
tegnseeng xo tiytest gor ootet ath ai gokianinixoats say
bia gaitaloty to yi Liu bomasb od” Aine ek noksatrogenas
Ifesca baotsiax Ure Ra fads —R & .o%a blade toa >
* a tiybogt TO atognoresd ‘te nol⸗at roganan⸗ ae 9 eytaio
— ak madd adriad ath YA tot nosaunoqnos ao Ifot tod B07y :
: to yi itnaup eAll » sot sonstalh wa⸗rs & tot bagtesio ;
— E wMolfoorth esma edt ak yomtt oman od. rave ddglort |
30 Stine xeddo 10 ,dosdwath ,etadox yaa to nana yd p 70 ; 4
caus faniaysa ,nevias bos bemeeb od ffasta® tog rape
a⸗ | wna odt to oomobive etost amiag an —
—— alist to enolakvorg ont yd — de i a iy
: frommon. ya tot Lu'rwatnws od * ak rot as +9! ‘ab tae
ö—— ae tree
— a Ne a es
tance
ode
—— — — —
eharge OF vesrive any “Erenter—-conmpensntion
J ——— for a shorter fan for a longer dine }
er the game line, or to charge any greater
compensa ts as a tnvrough route than the aggregate of
the intermediate rates; and declared that said section
‘should not be construed as authorizing the carrier to)
i
Pal iw
@
jcharge or receive as wrt compensation for a worter as for
\@ Longer distance, Gaid vedtion previced, however, het
upon epplication of the carrier the commirnion might, vin
tpeoial Qases, after investigntion, permit the carrier
to charge less for longer than for shorter distences and
—* the extent to” Agni. oh the carrler ‘Show! d ve re
iievea from the proud bition against an equal oh greate
— for a shorter than a longer distance, Oke
i
{ the plaintiff's position is that the rates
6 — and that the reason for the
—
⸗ a here 7 ~ 7
fiers ti tie made for tie” Hauling of freigh
— — · — Moka N re PTET mrss
—
/ ie-thaf’En 1898 the railroad company entered into a written
contract with a land association of Chicage Heights shereby
the association eonveyed land to tne railroad company for
right cf way and for ether purposes, in consideration of
which the reilroad company agreed that its freight charges
for hauling carlond lets from Chicago Heights te Chicage
should, for a period of 99 years, be $5.50 per carloadg ,
test fn 1910, when it attempted to raise the freight charges
from Chicage Heights to Chicago, it was enjoined by the
Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District
of illinois, Mastern Division, from doing se, ——
injunetion is still in full foree and effect, the court holde
ü OIA
ing tomt said contract to be valid and — sings | —
whe
—
— — —— —
nolpaaneqmon—redsrrs Ui qe evierst—to
\ eaih —— & tot marist tedtosda 8 “tot ‘obagerays
te3se%m yis egtato of so ,onil emesa sie toy
}
to sispotngs sit maid esos yor BS 86 HOLi aan
fertoo⸗ bine Jedd borefoeh brie jsecet sfaibemrogis
(03 taltrnp edd yataiztodius as —*— od son b Luar
sot as otroa a 10% nolttaaneqmos — as svieosx to ——
toss ,tovewort ebobivorg noltsea bisd ,opantaih tegmol ¢
mb) , dy bes roluntemos wy ae odt Yo nokssotiqgs nog
be brtap ent thoveg ,moltegifeovai tettea ,acaan Leioog a ni '
bole aoonstalb xofxode tot etsiit aognol «ot asef eytario of er
* od piverte rolttse val⸗ —D— Atta xos oid edit
fetes 40 Leupe os tariage no ks kd borg ens mort eve
| ay eonstelb tognol # narid roditerte 2 t0%
ONY
eagtar orl? bait —J nottteog a'ititnia£y oft
*
edt tot moanet od Jaks baa ——— —
—— te i oi “Sue Yet wD: — * fig 7 —
pedsine odmt bexesne Wrage os —— — edt Beat ——
4
Ydotemeatigheal ogsoldd to nolialcosss bast # sitlkw toaxtnoo a é
sot ynaumos bsorliart of oF baal beyovaoa weitalsouns ott
to nottatobianco ak ,aesoqiug wa⸗o⸗ Tot bane yaw to gelak⁊
r aogiado fdydox't ett jas bootge —— bsotlles eat tio ictw “s
yao td oy addgiel oysoidd mort avel baoltas git k Luna sot
x ebsoltn r9q 08.88 od ,ertsey @¢ to bolxoq s tot ,bivoda
eogitads silgiert oft suiet of betquestta +k morte ,OLeL T⸗⸗a J
i edd yd bonictas asw ti ,oysolad of addgtol open Ltd mort
toltsaid nao⸗oun ould 10% eotase bosint os Yo ⸗auuod tivoxko
— ms ad ~98 yolgb mort gmoke ky sa etetant gehen ist i to :
sane ae ie
—* |
otras | santtens ona bkfay od 08 &
·4
of all the facts in this case, we are of the opinion that
defendant has not establiehed the defenses of unjust diseriml-
nation, and ae the rate charged the defendsnt waa legally
@atablieshed and reasonable, the action of the court in in-
structing the jury to find for the plaintiff wae serreot.
The defendent also sentenia that the court erred
in-allowing the plaintiff interest on the amount of ites
Claim; that interect 19 never allowable in the abeenes of an
agreement, except ae provided by statute. Thie ie undoubtedly
@ gorrect statement of the law. The atotute, #e0. 2, ohap.
74, Hurd's Revised Statutes, provides, inter alia, that in-
terest may be allowed "on money withheld by an unreseonable
and vexaticas delay of payment." In the case at bar, 211 of
the freight was hauled during the month of Auguet, 1911, and
pisaintiff£f's claim was then due and payable. Suit wae not
brought until Auguet 29, 1913. On the trial on the question
of the allowanse of interest, the revord Lo ae followa:
"WR. BARTON: I eloes my Gave and will ask the court
to instruct the jury to find a verdict fer the plaintiff for
the eum of #1669.46, being *1447.34 prinaipal mad #392,12
intersst.
"THE COURT: Ia there any dispute ae to the amount?
"WR, STRPUCKMANN: I preoume the somputetion is right
but I object to the inetruction to the jury and T could like
to te heard on that, on the legal proposition, before the
Court instructs the jury.
"MR. BARTON: You ean be heard on the motion for a
new trial.
"THE COURT: The jury will be instructed to bring in
7 @ verdict in favor of the plaintiff and againet the defendant
for 21669.46."
Prom thie it cleerly apreare that no objection waa -
geadi aolatqo edt 16 ere aw ,een0 etdt at etont ed? La Yo
-tuitoath soutas le sensteb edt hedulldetee tom aad am paeted
vilegel aew tnebhasieh edt bepinds atat edd oe baw aol an
-al at @ryon ef} to mottos edd ,oldenoeset bas pede tt —
oorrod saw Tiltnlelq edt rot halt of yrwt ed? gy
hente tsyoo odd tedt? shaotnoc gals tacdbasteb dT
ott to tauome eft so togtetat Tilinlal¢ ed? gate of
mi I someede edt nt efdawolle tovem ef dootednk dadt ak J— J
Ubetivebay ef eldT otute te yd boblvorg as ¢qeoxe aaonso J—
.qaso .G .009 ,etuteta of? wal ed? to tnometese soorr00, ey J
~al tad? elle pogal (esbivorq avtutes® bealvel a*bayit at
sidance satay as yd bleddtiw yeaom ao*® bewolle od Yau mnet
te ife ,1ad 4a ono odd al “.tmemyen Yo yaleb acolsaxev sand
bas ,{f@L .teugwh 30 disom ed? gatawb belued saw (edgy taran edt
goa exw Siv8 .eldeyedq bas evh med? caw melo —
aotteoup ed? oo Leixt od? ao .oct as tougud Lito taguord
rewollot aa wf bxooes oft .daetedat to sonawolls edt Yo a
tywoo eit das Ifliw baw eseo ya eaole I ;WOTHAR Aue | ’ oe i
sO? Liltalelg eds rot solbtev 2 Hall of yawt ode tourtent of :
SL.S8S% bm faqtoutrg SE.THOL% gated .94,088L% Yo mauve edd
feotetat
Tioyome ed? of ee etyqe lh yaa ered? ef ;?TRUND FAT* | —
tdylx ef aoltedeqmon of? emusetq I :WRAMROUATS . AMF ie,
exif bivoo T bua yet oft of molttouttant edt of tootdo Tj i
eft aroted ,molstinoqetq Leyel edd ao dad? mo bused od « a
Vist ed? eftowrxtent tu uo 2
8 10% aottom ed? no bised od mao woY :HOTRAG .AM* —
at gal xd ot betoursent od Lite Sik odT ravoo mr ?
h _tasbaeteb edt dontege bas Yr1entelq ot re rover * teu
* Pity: Yi
saw mottoatdo om tadt as oga⸗ yltecto tt ot
— F 20. ——
oh; Salts ee
oS me
‘made to the sllowance of interest. The question waa not
aang to the trial court, and it has long been estabd-
lished that a party cannot raise a question of thie nature
\_ for the firet time in s court of review,
Finding no subdetantial error in the record, the
judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicsgo will be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ton Gaw noléaeup eff .teeredal to sonewolla edt of
~datao seed gaol ead tt bas ,tawoo Laltd odd —
eistan ald? to soliveup a sella tomngo uitag «fait | 4
walvet to tivo a at omtt de ad
ed? ,brooey oft al voTte Lalinatedve om —*28
ehomattia od ke epeoldd te twod faqielaul od? 2
-CIMATTTA
281 * 21677.
PEOPLE, ex rel, EDWARD A. SUHI
‘ Plaintiff in *
*
*
BRHOR TO
CIRCULT OCQUNT,
COOK COUNTY,
198 1.4. 342
, eA ae oy
*. TUSTICK O'GCRHOR delivered the pinion of the eourte
’ Pat
}
—4
The writ of error in this me necke to review
an order entered Wy the Gireult Court ef) Cook dounty
quashing @ writ of hebeay corpus and ai shdnoing the patio
tion at plaintiff n error*s cost and rohending the infant
quite of plaintiff in error to the ountony of the defendants
in error, The parties will, for convent ence » be designated
ne relator and renponéente. The facts are these:) The
—
— *t
— — — — — OAS
— — —— — * * —
infant ———
and enly ehild of the relator, and the granddaughter of the
reapondents, The relator a Sa man about 32 years of ALCe
eerie ropianein the village of Laporte, sdnnenota, —
Aarevided igoadid—otete practically aii his life. On February
25, 1911, he was married to the daughter of the respondents
at Kenosha, Wisconsin, Ressondents’ daughter and the relate
were cousins +f the fireat degree, and prier to said marriag
she Lived with her parents in Chicago. She vieited the
relator and other relatives in Minnesota and there fey?
became engaged to marry the relator. Afterwards the = =~
relator game to Chicage to be married, but found that
the lew of thin gtate prohibited marriages between cousins f
a
° oT TOLE * ses
2 PEUHS & A GAAMIE oiot xo ——
Pd
OT AORAM
: THUD LY 7 1 Beh: # Be
efTHO0 AVI
ise c AT Ser
ee 5
)
i |
" wahvet of silesa * aid’ ak treks to fiuw off
4
tnotei ond ae see taoa er roti 7 riisntese ta acts
, Bfuabsetod ot to ——— ea? of toro ak TWrhtnioly | 20 bLtito
betauyt: aah ou .90n9 Lu vine tot ffiw aghtxna ouT store 9
e%8 avout eA? safnobmogao bua todaLod J
— —
*ossquab S — —— —D—— ‘bListo Tank
ent to tosdiyusbhbnatg of? ban .togalex orlg 20 GLiisdo vine bese
2958 %0 ataoy Sé tuoda ment — totaler ost? -2emoimoqnor
rp
— a" ead oustin au er to onalliy on¢ ot fpenteor i —8
Ginebnogeot od To retdguaeb afd of hoktaam geaw od eif@L as
otafex ent bao toitgueh ‘aitebaoyeoh .tisrovekW ,etieomel ga
a3 bodiekv of ,oyoodm® mt atnoray cod Atte bovdl ove
exons hie stoaounil mk wovltater tedto bas sotates
| sild abrowtestA .2oteLer etd read OF degesno —
todd deusot sud ,bolexvem od of ayn of omue rotator
‘enlavoo neowted aeyettism oon aitaieng — adult te wok -@
J 4
od tuN0 oid Lo modalen old dorevi tos nonaodeo Abdaraut u
Ado na) 4044 and” oh Yileoksow1g Od smb tedemmeagyt bobteoash
dviam bins of tolxq bum ,ooryob tarkt ef9 YW efbayeo exew
ole
of the first degre@. Thereupon, he, together with the
reapondénte, and enid daughter, proceeded to Wiuconsin
where the smyrriage geresony was performand, They ell
dumeodintely returned to Chisage, and within a duy theres
after, the relater and his wife went te their home in
Hinnesota, where they centinued to Live together as bune
band and wife until April 106, 1014, when she died.
Vivian Dorothy Schutt, the child in question, wee the
omy child bern to relator and hin wife end wae about two
yesara old when her sothor died. She wae not very strong
phynically, end about three weeks after her nother's
eee th wan taken to ——— — lly bi, toning in Chicage,
where slieeten. sevens About Deceuibey 12, 4024, relater
wae notified by publication that respondents had filed
& petition in the County Court of Cook County fer the
i. By adoption of said child. Le pate Pa 1914, relator
of the month demanded that the: pepenaente deliver te him
q hie child, which they refused * do, Thereupon the petie
— —
tion in thie ease was filed.
The respondente convend/that the cusetedy of the
@hild was turned over to them by agreement “pe that they coul
reine her to maidenhood, the father, however, to have the
right te vinit said ohild at reasonable times," that this |
was done at the dying request of the child's mother; that
ghe oka well taken care of and had o good home in
Chicago, and that it is to the best interests of said child —
that she stay with respondents,
mS
end ssiw yositegod od soquexed? eborged gnast ste te
alanoe aly oF beboonorq , toddyuab bhas a sasesonogaers
{ile yout .besrtotzeq sew Woueiw® ogaltian ont eee
eosed? yeh o aiddiw baw 4 0ga0 Lith ot bemniwiet vlotakbonms
ai geiod “hodt of Sow otiw aid bine rotator ott —R
wat ag toltenot evil oF dentisnoe yond weed + os Gaon Lh
oboih oda nostw {MOL ,OL SiagA Lhinw etiw bra brad
ends saw f stokseoup mh Shino odd ,Sturine Wored — —
ows dueda | naw brie ot iw elo baw tofalert of mrad —R —
Biota ryy ton eaw of8 .bodd orld om tod nectr bLo arasg
a’tedsom zon to? ta edoow eos” tueda bee . a VL Lao Legg,
eOQeokso as as Ko beogant Sh Bre — ee car ous oF aovat naw atm
rotator Wy: eft — ri rs evil i 1886e-ahe 9x
bolt bel atrmobaogeor Sale notseotidug yd bed ils om aw
“eta so% vx⸗auoo Aoot. 20 21v0 ——— ade od aoisiteg a
tosalot bles ee 2 todos ot ebLisio btw to noksqoba Y
988 std HO bie (bLkeo ott it aénebaoqaot ony begtarv ——
aid ot toviled — vets ants bebremeb Adcom gad to beh
wtieq acid aoguo <onT 9b os beauton yedd to debe u⸗⸗ ak
—-
: obese oa Same akay ak mols
sx 00 Mins ——
eat to ybotauo nault mules efarbaoges: eat —
goo yott sadtt on™ tancongge “a moni? of t8V0 bomtud saw bf tio
ord ovad oF yxovewer ytodtot nt sboortebian of text eolex
HH Soe *
Bist sacs "{eomk? oLdanoact ta bLido bias shaby ot drtgtx
fads stodsom a*blidy at to taoupor geiyh ent ta oneb ow
Xl emo boog a hal baa to exed tease Low pg: |
obe
SS : .
The parent Lae thre right -+2-the-eustody-of |
pis & * as against the world unles# he has forfeited
or the welfare of the child demande that ne
@ deprived ef it. Sullavan ve the People, 224 111, 468;
L, 211 111. 519; Hohenadel ya Steele,
POY Ili. 229. The wontrolling element is the welfare er
‘ao child, and this is
got to be determined solely frop
he financial standing of “he partiere In Sormagk x. /
¢ SUpERe the court Gay, pe 523; "We regard the
ighte of the parent ae superior Yo thoes of any other
on to have the
ron, when that parent ie a fit per
bguirenente of such w charge, The mere fact thr,
ö— ———vrrrr
Tevidence tammiecto tee respondents Wkike able
to furnish the child with a more comfortable home than
dare relator, but—we-have-ne-doubt fromthe evidente-that
the seiator is a Tit aint-proper person-andcufficientiy
Bble-te-nuppert ant tare for -hie-thtide ‘The svidence
tendel/to show that 1% relator «as very fond of his child
and thet he did aot intend in anyway to surrender any of
Kies rights by turning her over to respondente; that he da
& strong healthy aan, in a carpenter and contractor, and
engaged im the lumber bueinese; that he hag held positicns
ef public trust, auch as aseeavor, weaber of the Village
council, etd; that he is honest and induetrious, and |
has no bad habite; that he has had some financial reverses
occasioned by the destruction by fire of relator's lunbere
and
yarg/was indebted in severs) euall suas; that ewes earning
Uae ee ee BPs ee
a Sire rae
,
}
ota
—— “hetaue-srit-ot—tigkt ott Gat Fo xacg oft
| tiatrxot wan od septlow blaow of? tonteya aus
oa jot? abuammbh bite os to eteatlow edd TO 4
z008 {11 OG ,egord oft gv mavhlius ott % Soran
storie av Sobanoso ;@40 £11 118 Ligeia ax
tol sxstiow ot oh dironem Lo guiilorterge ed? .@88 woe |
t yfeLoa bonimosed od at tomat shad bee io 0 ⸗
—E a .vektieq ody to yathnata Letonantt « ,
ott biuagot O8" sEh@ oq tuueo off eptgus —E
Paao ye “lo evois solieque an sneusq ot ——
| | ed evest oF ft
H
- omOK ya soar oro off ,ogterto « dove To adnegin’ pet
⸗*
id vin nt “reer 20 Yornon orom eved - xowseg a - .
ae olde — — rete sat wile oo tame of =
nadt emod eldadsotuwo tom 0 Hy iw Biko eal —
— taild-somebive onld-wort Tewod-on-ved-we-tud yxotater a |
J —B—— ona severe vaoae to FETS aE eaters ot : ~ :
: gonob hve an? 4 |
bikse eid Yo bot yrev anw 10salo% —ã ——
te ene Is hais Tie ot yYawyne at busgat sou bab on beds bas
«Gk on Sadd [esusduoqaex of cevO sed gaderewd YC adiigts <7
hewn sKotowrsaoe baa vetaoqray © ah suis ysis Lab⸗i baa
okskedy bie wad ont sacs —— vores * —*
J
J
Wig &
ake
about $100 per month; that he hed arranged with a
family living in Minnesota ta take care of hiagelf and
ehild. HKespondents further contend Mine the court
found that the relator ana hie wife wore married in
Wingengin to evade the lawa of TLidneis; that the
morriege was iueestucus and void ab indtios that the
reepondents are proper persons to have the tustody
of the infant child, and that it For te onild'ts
beat — to be reminded to their quetodys
ö—— — — —— — — NEN SC — — — A BAA AIT
Au 8 WENT AHS NERS TR Were
introdune’s in evidence, showing that cousine of — tho
first degree may lawfully warry in said orate. th
ogulity of marriage taking place in a feroiga state,
when questioned in Lilinois, is to be ws fuaced by the
jw of the foreign Mate (Reifachnedds
of exome positive law of th —* Wilsor neo,
fll. 460, im tho case at)» » the parties havdng
¥ been warried in sage am legality of the mar: Lage
mst be adjudged by the 3 we of Wiscotmin (Beifscioiag
|} Resfechneiaer, supra; Lion Xe Lon, 880 TA. dhss
b Me Heleod, oy Ill. 545; Butler ve Bobler, 142 112.
), unless the ‘partie have Violated sone pealtive jlaw
| Of this etcte, /In the case of Ziloon ve Cook, su ea, it
V
“ene of the parties nad been , di Vereea; war
ole
s “thw bognerte bad od Saud jovaom seg 00L8 tuoda
hon foam To etao odud of stooommmhil as piivel <Line®
giva> ot —D sod tt adnobuogest eb Lkelo
ak babvies otow otiw sind ous tolalor oft fad bewot
ort takt gutoatitl to awal ex? ebay of atutios a xu
ont dod? pottiog ge blow bre suomtecoms aae paabenin
ybostaup ort evar oF anosreg teqotg ote a¢nohinegeet
atbLino ot col Md 94 ads bo »bitdo snared elt To - 9
bo ug toss ot bebnamet of of teotosnd aad 9—
PORTE ST RN re — — A opts Nhe Me — — ———— —
A SY CHORA IN Sea AMT To owe
ost 20 aniavoo Facts gariwosia yeaneh tye ak Legs :
act Re bina a2 yrram VLivtwal yam eptaed sex}
⸗eoo qae nghore? sak eoalg yuisat eyobties » to Wa
+t yd ot od of ah ,@iomilll a ——S
gape i aX Teptonsondion) otags aglorot ott coe wi,
pan hatoiv ak at ogady tan oad oysielw sqooxe 4 (88 esd
A —E Share i? to wel ovis tsoq euo8 ue
acitva eektuaq ont , — * eaem odd ai 08 Ath a
og dſtr a ont to ysifeget odd, snimnooe dy ak —-
phionipation) aipfopaiw te
14 ate OGM asoul a mol
efiX tb8 , HO — — Axcꝛ *
wot} ove, Lae omon hetaloty oved wid y eds asf
4 2.8002 o¥ moetiy te enas odd s aesode auat
fas to anos ksi o ows moows od ezatruan 2° , i, bie
oss oxoW bow ,ykxwosetM to ofsts on⸗ oF : ee se &
at mk bebiass fre Derust oe etarbount nih
ey ome akua kw coakg nodad waived ¢
— ere areT
diov-aaw {BAOTEVED mood bust | oes *
4
inh We
abe
The court there say, p. 4633 “Every Gtate has the power
to enact laws which will personally bind its citizens
While sojourning in a fereign juriediction provided euch
iawe profess to ao bind them, and to declare that marriages
sentracted between its citizens in fereign Otates in dite
regard of the statutes of the State of their domicile will
not be recognised in the courts of the letter State though
valid where eelebrated.*® The ccurt quoted with appreval
from the case of Lanham vy. Lanhag, 156 Wie, 360, se followas
I% (the law prohibiting marriage within « year «after diveree)
seems unquestionably intended to contrel the conduct of the
residents of the State , whether they be within or outeide
of ite boundaries, fuech being, in our opinien, the evident
and dlearly expressed intent of the Legicinture, we hold
that when persone domiciled in thin State and whe are
Subject te the provisions of the law leave the State for
the purpose of evading these provisions, and ge through
the ceremony of murriage in another State and return to
their domicile, such pretended marriage is within the
provisions of the law and will not be recognized by the
courte of this State."* In the Wilson gage resicents of
this state, left thin state and went to the state of
Mivsoura for the purpose of evading the statutes of this
state, went through the marriage ceremony in Missouri,
and immediately returned to Illinein. ‘he sourt there
held that such marriage was vaid. in the case at bar,
the relator was not a resident ef this atate but wae a
resident of Hinneseta. He had a right to go to Wieconsin
and be married and then return te his home in Minnescta,
the law in both of those sintes permitting marriages bee
ae
—*
iy
towog out wad ofasd yrove® 180) oq .yan ered? dxu00 ot ;
anouttin 232 batd yLlamoereq ifiw dotdw awa dose —— a
dows bebivote moisolbelaut agiero®t so mi gilerino Loa —R
————— baid oa of exotoug ava —
wald af astaga ng loa oꝛ ak amesitio alk noovted — i
Iitw eftotmob todd to efad8 eit Yo uedudata edd Yo busyet *
oggned? otat) astiet odd Yo agatvoo edt ak bos ingooer od = 9
favotqqa dtiw hestoup Sivoo eff © * botanéesop oxesiw hilov — Be —4
wrote? as ,00% salt O8f .mataal ay masinal to vnd of? mock ie
tovih tofia ta9ey% o midtkw egeivtom grtgkdidorw wal out?) sr
eit Yo toubson ets Lozttao oF bebnedns yiderotsmoupay ani 98 ;
“obkeduo te macsiw of yout resdtede , ofati ond Yo asasbteox .
taohive oft ,woiniqo two ai ,gntied dow .esitabaved ati to
blod ew ,vtwteiaigel odd Io Mnodat bo uos aqxs yliuelo bat
ete otw baa stata ald at boLinimeh amoareq now tet 4
40% efasc oft svael wal oft to enokalverg orld oF sootdua
dguvoutls oy bas ,srolelvoxrg — yiibave to ssoqiwe ond |
02 miter ban stata rositonm at syatriaa To yrometes ond
| ott mid¢tiw af spaiuvtam bobuoterqg down ,aiiolaob atodd
edt yd bexingeoor ed ton LLiw bas wal ed? to anoketverg :
to atmebines pao goaliv odd mI “.o¢e38 ald? to adiweo
to ofese od of suow baw otota alfd St0L ,ofode akdt F
atdt Yo aetudain oft gitbave Yo saoquag ef? tot —* a
sitvonaik ai yrometen egetienm ont Myuomls trow yotate
ered? tovoe off sntontirl of bostwies yet stbomms bua
} tad ta evan off al sbher naw epoitan coun Sadi bie —3
& sew Jud stata eidt To dembiact o ton sew xa nt
“mtanooelW oF oy ot digit 2 bast of ononn iu 20 4 ae a
fousanth mt emodt ald oF miusox ——
aod aopanriam gatsdinrog sodas ‘one
subs il
io) pale
ate “
264
tween cousins of the first degree, The marriage was, there-
fore valid and binding, Under all the facts in this case,
we have no hesitancy in holding that the relator is entitled
to the custody of his child.
The case will therefore be reversed and the cause
remanded, with directions that the child, Vivian Dorothy Schutt,
be delivered to the custody of her father, the relator.
REVERSED AND R"MANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
~~
-stsdt ,asw egsiztism eXT ,90%g9b serit ens te an *
,9a89 aint mi atost ent [fs robmU ,anibaid bun
belstine ai rotsfor edt stadt gatbfod mi —— J
»blido aid to
J
sauso sit bas beatever ed etoteisAt {Liw seao ont a J
—
durſoo vi⸗ oxod asiviV ,bLino os tant anotio orld Meike
5
eGQMOITOSAIC HTIW CECMAMYA CUA CHAARVEA
| | iar
: d Oe ae 12 :
: if Nat 7 : J ¥
>. i ; ht J iy if —* ae eh ey ti
WY , Lead } i P
6 + 21420
MARY KRAUS,
befen
ant in Error,
ROR TO BUNTOIUP AY, COURT
va,
GF CHICAGO,
NATIONAL COUNG
AND LADIZS GY 4%
Plaintiff
» ANIGHTS
sURITY,
in Error,
%, f
‘ f
198 I.A. 345
ER. "“¥RESIDING JUSTICE MesURELY
DELIVERED THE OF INIGN OF THE COURT,
oN
Pai \ — —
* — claims on ao benefit Certificate ig- |
sued by def endant we life of Julia hints her wether,
1912, Upen trial she had judgment for
who died becember 29
i Z
Among the grounds lor reversal presented we shall
y é
$964 §
—— — —
— ———— ò *
~ nete-only-one, Phis case involves facts substantinlly like
—
those involved in Neenan v. National Council, Knights and
Ladiss of Becurity, 168 Ill, App, 490, beseription of the
Plan of insurance, with benefit certificates and by-laws of
the defendant material to the point in the inatant case, “Sy
be found in the opinion filed in that ease,
By defendant's by-laws it ke Srovided that «
"All assessments for every month shall become
due ang payable on the first dey of the month, The certifi-
9 cate of each member who has not paid such assessment or
J Bosesanents and dues on or before the last Gay of the month,
| Shall, vy the fact of such non-payment, stand suspended withe
out notice, and no net on the pert of the Council er any
officer thereof, or of the National Council, shall be ree
quired as essential to such Suspension, and all rights
under seid certificate shall be forfeited, No right under
such certificate shall be restored until it has been duly
reinstated by the uember complying with the laws of the
Order, with reference to reinstatement, *
‘ae ——— Yr
— ai
oF It HS"Al so Provided that a menber might be reinstated by
——
pauyment within 60 days from date of suepension of all ar-
a Ce
~Fearages, "provided, however, That he be in good health at
she time of making payment * * * provided, further, That
OSes a
. 1 i Yan
61007 of Inshasted J
THUOD. AILOIAVM OT HOR
ODADLHO WO
— — —
abe ALeet ote
Nos J
xadaauaou HOLTAUT onmrerbwage” 4
-TAUOO “WHT TO MOLMI4O MH? CAANVILEG
pat J——
— fi, cm ? —
uy ~ek odnortisted $itoned-a ao auiato t —R
ri
{ * j ‘
‘axed oe tort ,ounex aiini te otlt ert ae Smite
“o% tnhemaist, Bred oda Labte moqu SLO es ——
‘fferie ow —— — {aero vex 10% abusers etld. —
— renil,
some
⸗
— — — —
SN ——— —
—XR — — — — eJost sevioval sano abdT ono 7 st
bas asdyinn — fanolitat .v J ai beviovns |
eee ~9e80 Snatani od ok taioqg ous og falrotan —
,9es0 tadd ni boLit aokaiqo odd ab bower |
+ gadt bebivorg wh Ji awaleyd 8! auabaeteb Ya
emoosd IfLarie Adcom Yteve tot ejnomaseues [LA* as
-itidaeo eAT ,1idaom odo Lo yeb sexl? ad? oo sidaeyaq bus
“0 ¢nomesssen Nove blag ton sad ow tedmem dome Xo
:Ainom odd to yab sent afd etoted so no aeub ban Siaemnnesi
-ddiw beboeqeve buade ,tnomyaq-non doe to Jost end yd , Lis
vine 10 L[louvod edd to Jtaq edt ao dos on bas. ——
-o% od Linde ,Lfiouyod Lonoital eid to to ,Ttooteds
adiyin la bas .dotaneqeuve dove ot Leiinoase ea
tebruy digiz of beadiotrot ed {lade etaoltitteo view *
Yiu aead asd’ th Liou boroteot od Lian oto, tid
edt To ewal ond ddiw yatylqmoo tédmen edd
| eas icnsstacet | ot ——
ae -18 [fa to noleneqaua ‘te —* mito
* * SH — *
9 6 ps ines, boog ah ad oa daatt —*
— ⸗2u rod sbeblvorg +
the receipt and retention of #uch assesaments or dues, in
case the suspended member is not in good health * * shall
/ not have the effect of reinstating said meaver or of en-
titling him or his veneficiaries to any rights under his
Benefit Certificate," — !
—— (HF cedent $
Fe — y conta ; : }, aanesanens
for September, 1912, was not paid during that month
\ {act-was-sufficrentiy~proved,,..cseence, under the automatic
a operation of the by-laws reSte teens becaue suspended, and
—
subsequent peyment would operate to reinatate her only on
condition that at the time of such payment she was “in
\ good health," A payment was made on — 7, tera, | Theres
— — — 50
al question is, was she in good health on
Tes
she was Hoty the paywent wine invetecty¥e\eg'
ghe atea/Decaber 2b, 1g, and) if not reins
|
ot “in Good Stunding”- & condition necessary
— —
herteVidence demorr=
\ y 4
\ é
1 —
9— — * .
- 7 we tae. ae PP 0
oe J — — Pa
“a re —
i — —
aærr eten that on October 7, 1912, 8 was afflicted
with mitral regurgitation - s valvular disense of the
heart - and that she had been under the care of a physician
for this disease for several months prior thereto; that bee
cause of thie disease and its consequences she wae confined
to the house for some eight months before her death; that
the disease progressed, with the usual dropsical conditions,
‘
until it caused her desth, That—sehe—was-n9t—lin._.oee Terre"
unsel for plaintafy. seems to atten
the compete > the /evidence that.—
a
ni ,esub ro stnamassses dove t0 nolineser bas sqievet oft \ :
ifsde * « dt {ood beon at ton ef tedmem bebnogexs oad saso. P \
-ne 16 10 tedmem bise yaisatanitor to soe tte eis oved ton : :
ati tebnu atigiz yne oF eeiraioi tensed. aid to mila attata tes
* — P = | * — A
drome veeas as — — A | si
vitamotus edt tobay —— aw Fo
ban , bebueqaua ounood — awal-yd ond to noldaxe¢
no yino ted odasenior os stdareqo biyow tno myeg sasupoadun
ni” gew ode soemyeq dove to emis odt te gads doit kbixo
— —
— av redosoo ao obama asw Ineomsq A a
—— ee)
#0 “tae x “booy nik oie asw ,ei nolsaoup {sok tx . ond ‘
—
—*
‘02 ——— ve snoatyag eas sion esw ade/ tl tedeb. 0
“niet don t2 | \bas 8484 roduanit)boto ene! Auc osaganioy
yIsensoon aoilt bios gS = "gaibansa boog, ai* tog saw sida ‘bazash
J
tes duahoetes add cow — — e209
=Tromeb p conab oc reetnteean TF
bosoiltts cow She Sen (8 tedosoO mo tad? waserta
ens to oanga th taluvievy & - aoltadigurget Lattin —
neioieyig # To s1e0 oid teobaw osed bad ede sad? baa « txnod —
-od Jadt jofetodt noir adinom [atevee tot ssaoalkd whit 20T
J
4
J bheaitces ssw ede asoneuvpeenoo eft bas oesenib sidt Yo seus
tudt zaasb tod etoted addaom srigio emee tol sewod edt ot iz
7
’
68aoltibnos {soleqotwh feuen sas Adkhw ,boeeotgotq seseeld odd “4
YT ,dtaeb tof boeuen Sk verre in
— — — *
— —
—
$ quad an ot smooe.- yeaa cg 101 Leunueas
|
pt ease sonebive, edt 103 etoqmoo eas noqu 2
7 \ :
“vat to ots ow vides — aaw 3 in 6O88R 10 fare at
an attempt to pay the assessment due a Cetober, The /sus-
pengion for non-payment operated automatically, and nb order
e defendant eee WAS nece ssa
facts, /suaquent for the defendant eetares here,
REVERSED,
-6ye\oHiT ,tadoto0 ti eb taousesuee ond Yaq of tquadie as :
eUIsseooen eaw xtelgoa. Snabneteb o Yo
becevoelh ote geno eliis ak bosmouergesatog ye
,9t94 betedos sanbnoteb ed tot Jaompbut,
—
Aavan
6 « 21420 FINDING OF FACTS,
We find that the inoured, Julia Kraus, failed to
pay the Geptember, 1l¥le<, assessment and dues, and thereby bee
eaue suspended as a member of the defendant wocliety; that she
was not in good health on Cotober 7, 191%, and that the pay-
ment made on that date did not operate to reinstate her;
that she was not a member ef the defendant society in good
standing at the time of her death, and hence it is not in-
debted to the plaintiff, Yury Kraus, upon the benefit cere
tificate sued on,
—00
-STOAT TO OMICHIT
ot belist ,suerh sifu ,berwenl st dad bat —
wed ydeteds bas ,e0ub bas Jneoseouaa SLL o tod
- eite dass iytoloon sdnabaeteb edgy To — s os
avsq odd fads boo Sek ,f tedov00 no ddiaod iia ‘ |
| _ pte efatentot of otateqa Jon ‘bth. otab at a0 baw * ss
boog al yiestooe saabaotebh ond to tedmam a toa wav a one
ne
, ni gon ei tt somodt. bus ,Ataob to ‘Xo omid — 2
J
35 - 21681
GEORGE L. TRAPTON, Guardian of
Alfonso Cadamartrie, Louise
Cadamartrie and Jennie Cada-
)
)
)
martrie, )
Refendant in Error, ;
: HRROR TO MUNICIPAL
) coURT OF CHICAGO,
RATIONAL )
LADIES oF )
)
@ T
O Be iN = 4 7—
UR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
— bringing suit on A benefit certifi -
eate 1osuet- to rilora Cndamertrie,nad—judmment-£or-poe? oe,
Fete ,
y H this case in its general features and as to the cxweiad
— inv hiew ay a similar to the case of Kraus vf. tree
4 — wd — —
ay 1) Ope Fit ed- thls. cege, and
— «
Neenan ——— — 188 Ill, App. 490, HKeference is
| made to the opinions in these cases for description of tne
J character of the henefit certificate and the by-laws.
fhe defense in this case te that the insured
, did not pay the assessment under the certificate for the
month of July, 191%, before the last day of the month, and
for thnt reason, under the by-laws, she became suspended,
and that on August 26, 1915, when she paid the July and
August assessments, she was not in good health, a condi-
tion necessary to reinstatement, Tre question to be de-~
termined is wether the insured was in good health on Au-
/-eunr-20,-19195-f07, as has been held in these other cases,
¢ _if-she-was-not°in good health at this tine the payment did
not- operate to reinstate ner, and therefore under the terms
of the-pelicy she was not in good standing in the society —
‘ at the time of her death and hence cannot recover upon the
a
=
‘te naibiewd ,MOTTART of |
ealvol ,eititamsbad oa
-abao elavet baa elise
(
!
3 sTOUKK nt sundae toe
IATLOLMUM Of: HOAAL | f
ODADIHD "0 TAUOD
YIEKUGOM KOITEUL OMIGISRA su
.TtU00 ART YO MOLMIGO BRT auANVIUE
— tT ISHS RO Five gnigniad , Pines
ai — ——— >be oc Z
——E ott of 8a bas setudaet Lenonog ath ak ee —
— avert to. eases — ait. at ca ak bey ty ipvet eels
—— —
bis oo elise Fears
ak eoneto tot OG .,qqA ,1fI BSL ,
—* Tot etaoltiixeo odd Tohru Jnomenoesa ont —
bas ,dtcom ons ‘to ysb desl odd etoted ELC ehut to a
hebnaqeve emsoed one pawal = vd odd sobnu snouaot sacs
bas yLut od bleq ode mow ,éLeL a8 saunas no 3 7
-ibaoo a ,dtimed booy ak tou any ode — D———
~ob od of woideonp- ont Snem sateniet ot
“uA no ad fas ‘booy ak — ‘borat vf > 1
—E resto. soot wi bien weed tn cao
A
bib - dao anys and bina alat ta “as ont X
sñoos oid of yoibasse..doog nt tome
et ogy Tevooet Jonumo eoneit’S
y — in ee oe
a It was proved béyend-csntteversy that on August
28, 1913, the insured was suffering from a tumor of the uterus,
with pressure symptoms which, in the opinion of her physician,
required the removal of the tumor, Upon his advice she was
taken to a hospital and on August SOth an operation was per-
| formed removing the tumor and also the uterus, fallopian
| tubes and ovaries, The tumor was about the size of a fist;
the doctor describes it as “quite a large tumor," It is slso
not controverted that this tumor had been growing for a period
of at least several months prior to this time, Inamediately
after the operation her heart began to fail, the doctor testi-
fying, “there was a weak heart-muscle, the heart wasn't strong
enough to carry her along during the convalescence," one died
: operon wT EF Ing
“End “Shiareeter; whiten necessitated
on September gnd,
pair the constitution, in se — wevare following
Court of Honor v. Dinger, 221 ill, 178. Testgad
——
—
e insured wae net Ih Coser nearth.
Sl bows
Sar hen that t#€® by-laws were not properly
introduced in evidence, orertiout merat, They: were certified
under the hand of the naticnal secretary, with the seal of the
\ society affixed, @hts-re-tr-dsaplianeewitr-section-15,
—
— alee A alley
;
E ,auitsiy ait to toms 3 mort ANTICS aaw bétwent odd —38
saw oie eoivbs aid maqU .tomud acid * {svomet ost bertupe
beg
eafe ai dh *, 10m) ogtal & otiup" es sa sedizoveh ‘togoob i
boirog & tot golvotg: need bad noaust elds tas boras voraos
ylosaibeaml wate elds of toleg — Laxoves toast oo
— kteed totvob edt ,Liat of naged dtasdt tod noi tox» qo odd 2 2
anoxde t’anasw Jised oid .oLoewmeSt#0d anew 8 eew eroxi3* as
bolb ed& ",ooneoeetavace edt patitub gacis xsd yrteo 4 Aauo 2 |
gnireTige BOSTSY Bw VRE INODIVOT Toe |
podetiesossn: ‘Motaw (rodoethis” BAS BeTE“e rit
idiot boog al Soa wary no: t —X a
aiiireoncs | fownsoo” Sede es spe Se ——
~-isaed Baw — certs =
ote pa:
Soro) vapid ised boog at ed ot betasqqs ols sacs toette ous Ot
—E 3
, to ‘edmaxsoqqa oud oi esonatemuarto Howe *— 7
—
ty ae
.wolfot of” ‘beni font jon et sw saroviosg ‘Ga at Sno b
i nosteg # tadd ‘nade, * va⸗ Caocli boa a “abtow ont buasetel
a“
yalb Vin moxt sett bas ped ee osate booy ¢fdanouaot a ea
asdaew of Udapnamaeg. aot vieboles obao⸗ todd aser th
*
*C
* oid galwollot ote sw ‘Bath Los o# al .ne
bpseol -OFL ffl ISS ,~Zegatd .v toned to Jxy
Lit taent boos AL Yor daw berwenk om
ylieqorqg ton etew ewael-yd Dr Jedd PeLsn002009 3
a beitidsteo srew oxedt Seton TronsTIreed , goaebive at be e
edt Yo {nee oid sitiw ,ytatetose. {snoiten ent to ba
cL-noitoow
la | ie mame Statute on Evidence and Depositions,
it he alae contended that the defendant waived
the prevision of the by-laws with reference to good health
when the financier of the society accepted the assessment on
tnowledge that the insured was in poor health might operat
s a waiver - and upon this we express no ofinion - there
s not only no evidence in the freer that the financier jin
lhis case knewsthat the insured was ‘net in good health, b
Ine entire contention of plaintiff's counsel is that on the
ate the assessment wrt pata the insured appeared to be free
\_ Frem disease and in ees a health, As has been held in the two
cases first cited, at appears weyond controversy that the in-
sured was not in/good health at tke time the assessment in
jarrears was paid, Therefore payment did not operate to re-
linstate her, and there is no liability ‘en the defendant upo
the penefit certificate,
* Other questions are suggested, Specially the
quegtion os to the right of the defendant to op@ and close
je argument, but in the view we have taken it is Wonecessar
; to discuss these,
The judgment is reversed and judgment of n
wi pe-entéred in this =. "|
REVERSED,
aD Se ee
é f re th 4
: ‘hd ix me i
ain
er
=e
ow e@00itieoged bas soaebivel xo. ———
* boviaw tneshboeteb ects tact bobnetnos ite ai tI
\
diised boon oF sonetsetet dtiw owaenee oad to soleivorg oad
no dnemaaseas ond botqeoos ytoltoos extt to re tonank? oil? noite
— — —
rors arose) os Saar
J .us taſs boog at fom Baw borwant edt Saclzomr ees a ap
ont ao stadt el Leanvoo —— to moifnetnod etitas ;
eatt od of betaeqes betvant sds B by Ao tnemeoeaa osit ote a
ows ocd ni biod moed ean eA 8 idiged Geog at bas sencelh a
emi odd Jadd yersvozsaeo baoyog ska We shosio sertt eee *
nik snomeasens ont omid off ta dd laod boog al sor eaw b o xue
Joos os stateqo Jon sey IMS OYBT o1¢ tore A? VS, q eaw atnozta .
noqu dasbuoteh oft ag ytilideltt om at oteds bus tan —
-ote0ltis2reo Ittened » id 4
»boseegqgue ete enoltsieoup tedto
p | * Vo elad nt borden
TE AEVEA
35 - 21661 FINDING OF ¥ACTS,
We find that the insured, Flora Cadamartrie,
failed to pay the July, 1913, assessment, and thereby became
suspended as a member of the defendant society; that she was
not in good health on August 26, 1915, and that the payment
made on that date did not operate to reinstate her; that she
was not a member of the defendant society in good standing at
the time of her death, and hence it is not indebted to the
plaintiff, George L. Trafteon, upon the benefit certificate
sued on,
.aTOAG FO OMICUTe {[BdLS - &
vsizdremebed er0ll ,botwent odd sadd doit of pr
smsood ydetedd bne ,Jnomesoesn ,éf@L ,ylut edt yaq of bo Liat
saw gfe tads ;ydotoos tusbuoteb edd to t9dmem #2 an bebneqeaue ey
tnomysq edt Jadt one ,5404 ,8S sewguA ao difsed boog mi son
efe dadt j;tei etassatet of etatoqe vou bib otab jad no sham
ts goibaste booy al ytotooa tuabaoteb edd Yo tedmem 8 ton eaw
eit of boddsbat Jom ei Ji soned bane ,dsseb ted To amid ond
s3eoltitieo sitoned sat noqu ,nosteryT ,J eytesd sttivalelq
10 beue”
ll - 21551
CHAS, &,. JORNSON,
péefendant in Error,
ERROR TC MUNICIPAL COURT
vs,
OF CHICAGO,
CLARENCE H. MORGAN and IRA
S$, FERGUSON,
Plaintiffs in
198 I1.A. 350
MN, PRESIDING JUSTICE KeSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
—Piaintiffvrougnt suit against defentunts | rer-
gusen was not served with summons, and suit proceeded by trial
by the court to judgment for $317.50 against Morgan, who se exs
. Paer severing Ferguson and permitting
Morgan —— his writ of error alone — — entered
Vas “ he
in” Gourt.
By his statement of claim plaintiff aver@ that de-
fendants made a contract with him to deliver and convey cer-
tain land in Washburn County, Wisconsin, for a consideration
of $300 which plaintiff paid, but defendants breached this cm-
tract and have failed and refused to deliver and convey the
land, to the damage of plaintiff.
Plaintiff testified that he met Ferguson "and
talked to him in regard to some lots at Long Lake in Washburn
County, Wisconsin," This {the only evidence as to any con-
tract. Plaintiff then introduced a warranty deed whereby de—
fendants conveyed to plaintiff a number of lots in Washburn
County, Wisconsin, The deed appearbAte be in proper torn lst
was duly delivered to plaintiff, Thue far the -evicence fails
\
to Show any breach Ur~any-contract, +laintiff then saw that
he sent the decd to be recorded to the registrar of deeds of
Washburn County, Wisconsin, but it was returned with a letter
THU0D JACLIOLMEUM OT HOMNH
.OOADTHO %O
OGE AIL 8eL
“YAAHVGOM HOLTSUL OUIGLEMAd .AM
emod MBE 40 ROIRTYO REY CupnvEzee
: . strains —— |
etooe ow ,“agtod geniags O8,Siée rot tnoambast of — me ;
anisd Lateg bas NHoavugiesl gniiteves spe .
fat ' gare oe Sara —
betesue nasiz-ead snofa roxre to Jim eka oINIOBOEG
:
i -Te9 yovnoo bis tevilsb o2 ink Ad bw Soatsaeo a 9bam 2 te
7 nottatebianos # xot ,adenooulw <Vdnyod atuddeey ot baat i
* -~mo eidt bedosetd esnabno'tebh sud bieg Trivatalg iiotde 0088 2
rn ent ysvaoo bua teoviteb of beeu'tet bas boLliat evad bo soond
-Tiidalaly to sjemeb onde os oi ot
ie baa" noauy 10% tom od dedt beltigaed Vidoes | ie
7 atuddeaW ai oval yAto.l ds etol emos oF bingedy at wa od be:
“100 Yoe ot am 9onebive vino — ali? “,nienooeltw. wa
a (-9b \dotody boob \Jastiaw 3 —— neds Midaelt da J
9 miuddcaw ad atoL to tedawn @ Iidaialg od bevyevaos | edash
by 7 a a teqorq al od os Mxaeqan boob oft abenoos se Mere
eite?-sonetive-odd sated? .Itiinialg of berevifes vii f
tous bess nods Tiidniels .soariaee—yr ; —
from the registrar which seid that the plat of the property
mentioned in the deed had not been recorded.) IIe sear aT “ot
{ts~tnve, The letter pu “purporting to — Tome from’
16 registfar was incompetent, but even ir we could consider
{to prove nothings Fleintitt therefore sine
ARR NE RARI CORAM POSEY
fowever,;-we- nave” fIVENn Consideration-to» the-en=
tire Fecord and find the situarron to ve is-ferrowss | The
lots conveyed by the warranty deed Bee, Sasar shed as in cer-
tain blocks in *Orielle Fark, a subdivision,* etc, At the
date of the delivery of the deed there was @ subdivision,
duly platted into blocks and lots, that name, The lots
mentioned in the warranty deed cay be readily identified and
located from —— LE SAN ae — —“
a
‘4 have-veen-stritren fromthe’ record by the trial judgte,;—waich
A was ETOper as’ tie PIat TS vonpetent evidences-—it seeti-
— ⸗ appear df that defendants supposed this plat had been
recorded in the office of the registrar, but such was not the
fact. It adds appear that prior to this suit the tract called
Orielle Park had been re-platted under another name, which latter
plat hed been recorded, that the blocks in this later plat were
of the Base size and numbered identially as the blocks of the
Orielle Park plat, and that the lots mentioned in the deed
could be identified and located on this later plat. A deed
| conveying to plaintiff these lots by more definite descrip-
tion in accordance with the later plat was offered for delivery
j to plaintiff provided he should withdraw his suit.
7 AS we, have indicated above plaintiff. bas — to
e, And eres latter \cons oh ai tend by
A
entered in en —*
Viweqorg ssid to dafq sit saus biee doidw tatzelgom ons meee
x TSR ENT _Cosbr0002 ased gon bad beeb et alt henotsnem |
‘wort omod -ovad oF anissodxug T9ISeL% ee seeao
robꝛaaoo bisioo ow Mu neve sud Sao as aaooa aw ——
—R ———— ———— —Mrctueo
— eit" aye
teed ov- 1oldatontenos ASVIQ Svat ew,tevewoy
eit | Swottet-es oe SI notvauy ire say ball bas brooet orks.
-t90 li 6s boutaoasb one beeb \iaetiaw ed yd beysvnoo esol
edd JA cote “,noleivibdue ao ,Atei el{{eltoO" ai exoold aist
vitolalvibdye 8 esw ox id beed eit ‘lo yteviled sis lo odab
atol off omen dant vasol bus exoold o¢mi besjety ytub ;
bas beitijnesbt yiibset ed gee beeb ysaeitew odd alt benottaea, a
Mb Bi09e@ tm Lor- —— “dalq alist mort besaool
dotiw—~egbyt ishtd Ol Ve Proogyr sr
<pteett—aeoneb tve Jango qu03 STEELE VIET om ‘
need bad Jalg aldst beesoqque etanbes tod dads Wexaoqaa has ~
edd ton aegw dove Jud ctaxdalyoy ort Yo enltie od ak bebtoost
belino sourd odt tive eldd of toltg $udd ta9qqe asi tt
austell doisw woman tedtons toba]as hes teiqeox need bad Ar offo240
otow tulq todel aids mt exoold ed? sadd ,bebxodes seed bat salq-
edd to extoold suit aa vilslsicob! Setedmuumn bas esie ones eis to
beeb odd nk benotsnem atof odd sand bus , tela Atet sifetto
beeb A ,delq t9osal eids no botaool bas boitisnabsé od —R
-qitoesb odiniies arom yd esol seeds Itisaialq of ‘amtyovaoo
Yleviish tot bet tto sew sJaiq tedal edd dttw oonsbr0008 ak mois
Jive etd wardbdsiw bLyode ed bebivorq Iidatelq of
of bolint ead Iisniniq syods betsotbai evad. ow BA
* dxoda Ot baie * @nco wearge —J beur o
—* cr tovooon bad bpisi¢ao son” et * jads teu °
eds to- * but, bits —
21 - 21588
THOMAS C, DOLAN,
Defendant in Erfer,
ERROR TQ MUNICIPAL
vs.
COURT OF CHICAGO,
HARRY A. LOKER,
Plaintiff An Frror.
DS Liat oe
WR. PRESIDING JUSYICE KeSURELY
LIVERED THE ’
iff
OF THE COURT,
F Pf April 16, 1914, judgement by confession for Tens
was entered against defendant, Subpequently ne WAS aiiovea
i
spin and after, much delay and \two- trials judement was
yored sgainst. his hor e250 which he seeks.to have reversed,
8 Raabe,
— ——
— whe twill k
therefiiende.disgheses, vay %on Nehzuery 25,1913,
Jacob C, Paquet was the owner of an apartment building in Chi-
cago, and on that date entered into a written lease with the
defencant for 4 apartment, the term beginning Kay 1, 19143,
and extending until April 30, 1914, the rent to be $42,50
per month. Subsequently, in April, 1915, Faquet sold the
property to plaintiff, Dolan, and Loker's lease was assigned
to plaintiff, J. kK. MeDonald appeardé to have been acting as
asliecter for Paquet, and he collected some rents for a short
time after plaintiff became the owner of the building, De-
fendant saxdl that on June 14, 1913, by agreement with plain-
tiff his lease was canceled and a new lease entered into ex-
piring September 30, 1913, and as evidence of this he produceé
what purport#dto be a duplicate of the lease upon which judgmmt
was entered, across the face of which is written these words;
"Canceled June 14, 1913, J. M. McDonald, Agent," rt —
mitted that NeDonald wrote this, Defendant also produced a
memorandum which he himself had written, which is to the effect
JAZIOLWUM OT HOANE
eODADLTHD FTO TAHUOD
SE& —
TAVoOO aT 10
tnet ⁊xoꝝ ‘aokegotnos “0 ‘I eambut dLOL. 23L Ihaqa «=.
Bowe tLe BBW ost yitosupaddug - snabaetes tegisygea. bored
—_-
nr
| ‘naw etic alairtt- cal one ysiob sounl\g9 3B bas hao
7
__-beetevet svast.o2..aciseni sippy D688 26%, mist taniege b
—— SLAL, GS Yilawiedon- ng —— att i cul —
| -idd ak goib{tud tnemtisqe nse to tenwo oft saw touped.D « —
odt dtiw veael aetsinw s otnt bsistne stab ne no bas 40; 8 —*
' ELGL ,£ Ye gaioniged amos odd ,tnoutteqa ne 10% Sane |
O€.S8¢ od ot snot odd ,dLOL ,O& Liaga Lhtay — ——— J
aa
edt bloa teypad ,cleL ,fiatgA ai ,yltnsupssdua siden t9q
7
_
|
j f
9— bengiees asw saael{ e'isdod bas gnalod ,tti¢galelq of eas qorg ‘a
v
mh
eS ynitos need evad ot xasqan bLlanotiod .M .t Migalelg ot
Stowe s tot atnst somos botoel{oo od bane .touped t3ot xov00C fo
am.
| -o .amibtivd edd Io temo ont oamoed Iitnialg ‘tests — F
J -nisigq dtiw snomeetys yd ,ef@L .df onul mo tad hase —
~xs oJni boarsdas saeel won # bus bs fſoaoned aaw ganel e kid ma
Swobbea ei eidd to gonesbive ea ban ,éfeLt — todmelsqoa aad
’ mmgbut, doidw nogy easol sit to eiaoilqub a 9d os hasroqrud : oa
rebtow nent nesiitw ai doldw to sost edt asotos sbere tne am
abel ee, $I ",toogA ,bLenodoM .M .u eel yh nut | be ona a0
a arn oals tnebnoted aids oto1w d aaogou Mi it 9d tbe
Vey
gette eit of at doduw woods tan bad es ‘oval okdw smu 8x0
ee ‘ 7, a aie *
that the apartment had been leased to the defendant from July
1 to September 30, 1913, and upon this memorandum kKeDonald
— —
— —— —
rne Bind ar Torce of these memoranda depends
upen—the—authority of /eDonald to act and bind the pleintiff,
Plaintiff testified that he could read and write and that he
wrote his name,
never authorized heDonald or anybody else to make the nota-
tion of cancellation across the lease, awed that he did not
gee the paper prepared by defendant, nor icbonald write
his name thereon, and that he never directed him to sign it,
We have considered the evidence tending to ores
Laintifg, an
—
J— justified.
th /\
e epinion/“tnnt| tne“ex —** n al the
nald ad no autho {ty to cancel the lease
ot
— *
As ee ee no aman of the lease.
fends t was vou by” his 0 14getion — pay re
The’ j gment is proper and f affirmed.
—APFIREED.
NeDoneld's autsority _to ) act in the —
yinl mort taebaeteb edt otf beesel need bad snomiaqa ost i
blacoiok swhnetomem aint mnogu bag ,éfeL ,0& Todmosoe
— — — — ——
— —
—
ebneqgeb abastomem $esus to SoToT gritbnic-ont :
’ i
-Tiijaielgodt Said bane Jos ot blanodot Te
ea tsit bas edintw baa beet blyoo off stadt bettitess aun ah
: -sion edd osm of safe ybodyas to bianodoM besixo 01
4
ton bib ed ssdt See ,oassl ods seoTos ins dE Soma
J etitw bilanodow tom , XAaheis Tob yd horaqerq taqeq suf ,
: 21 agie of ald besoextb toven 9d sais bna ,nosteds
4 etisiy yd isk er tsdsam out oi toe ot ysitoisus —X
* OT ——
—
—— ot -gribnes - spceabive odd bereblanos even wy
; bae/'r0 ngishofoa nas | (sna Notatqe anh to ban me
a
7 eesel sat Leonao ot ys Modjus oh ba b Landon ‘
\9b-oasot outs to eblgoiso on asw ated aA
te
et vaq oF “ebuete dt noitmyit o Bt d i ae
-bearitts ef baa teqotg ek sas f
— CREE EA | |
57 = 21687
WILLIAK W. PAISLEY and CHAK
H. WALKER, trading as Faisl
& Walker, —
Def endants in E
™ OF CHICAGC,
‘CG, K. MICHELS,
BRROR TO MURICIFAL COURT
Plai |
atift in Error.
198 1.A. 354
Mii, PRESIDING JUSTICK McSURELY
DELIVERED THE GPINIOK OF THE COURT,
Pere
on 8 “nOte whde by ‘defendant judement *
üö—— IR MARY AAS ATE
—by confession wis enterca for-g425, | Defendant entered nis
/ motion to stay execution and permit him to plead and defend;
this motion was supported by affidavit, After hearing tne
court denied the motion, Defendant contend
thet this should have been allowed because the affidavit
cnows. good and meritorious defense to the action on the
note,
—
0 ee eer oe
we do not think that the affidevit present
145 Ill, 462.
up as a defense is thetplaintitrs
——
re oat <% — en oo
r set
a
“$8aL&8 « ve
—
J
AHO Bae YMICIAY .W WATGLIW a
feiet be anibats ,AaAIAW oi
"tes Law so
i at ed nabae Late #43). \aeae
/ exaust
afi —J——
to
TAUOD JARLOLAUM OF AORAK |
»JDAOLHO {O°
pas A. BEL | OTE mus
YUAAVGOM AOLTSUL OMIGLeaRe .nM.
~THUOD HHT €O MOLMIGO KHT GMANVIUHG .«
. “taombut § dashaeteb Yd Siam ——
nat ii ——— — —
ain bo Tadceo taabaated — hoes Ina aww ;
jineteb baa bso [g ot mii elotog bas nolituoexs vate o@ noitom 5
oid gotused tettA ,tivedtitts yo bedroqqua saw noisom a it
; —
———— sandr toc -T0L3 om oul botnsd
tivabitts ortd bauhocd bowolis need —— biwose onas
rem
90 a hexesNe-seemsbuT-2 WSIS o ai—A- .
, od FombLuode bas fq ot tushasteb edt ⸗anog os
fe t1u09 — ————— —B— ot a ats *
edt noqyu senston bags & Bai - Saabee te J taste tivabi1 |
essoav of , Tat ostsio * nottas qas ie aie seth
d1gqqua oi bolit adivebitts ,basta_< ovaes Tot baw tno. aba
. AF oh
ont tenisye ylgnoite seom boy enod. 26 ot ous aua⸗e⸗ bier (Ok
einte of Inelotttwe ton ef $1 snodtnoltyge oa da taan & 7
Rape, q —
d 3nigin senateb —D & xO bevorq ta eft al
sAned Lien .v 99 ga! foorgerit oanodsid .
tnesex¢ Sivabitts edd sadt ankds ton ob OW reach
—
es
tsGaon9 Yep gridanry md sxuoo ond vilseut 09
Gem AAdy 23> fo Bab. Chilo artes tld ple TA .
while acting as agents of defendant falsely and fraudulently
made certain Fepresentations and that defendant, being in
ignorance of the facts and relying upon the statements of
the plaintiffs, was thereby induced to trade a piece of real
estate for a note secured by trust deed upon other real es-
tate, and some stock in a Five and Ten Cent store, lt ime
said, first, that it was misrepresented that $<,000 had been
paid upon a $12,600 incumbrance which was a prior lien upon
the real estate covered by the trust deed securing a $6,000
note whicn defendant alleged he was induced te accept, and
that certain interest installments had been paid upon this
prior incumbrance, ) These
— might nave been
e as stated, but as ay does not/ appear wig t the pene of
4 t would make no/ difference as bo / Ane faiye
cay Atha received by defendant ap to wether the
y
rance rap 20. oG6-er $12,000 dr as te" the amount
poner Another representation said to be fvevavient“Se”
that the stock @n the Five and fen Cent store nad a market
value in excess of $125 per share, “whereas in trutn and in
fact * * said shares of stock had no market vaiue, but their
value, if any, was entirely speculative and uncertain," Dee
fendant deed not allege that the stock was not worth $125
~per share, nor that it could not be sold for that amount,
that it-has no-market--vadue- and: that-ite Ay
lue isa "entir — — uncertain® is not equivalent
0 ih ac un ‘that- it was actually-worth, less than $125
er share, . blegation. ja _dneufficient Papa of
se,
— per alleged that there was a false repre-
sentation that the $6,000 note and the trust deed securing it
“in legal form,” whereas the note was not correctly
“mtn Ji ,etote tooo ae? bas evi a at xoots OMG bas ,9d
wPW)
ee ry ay oe !
, —B — “at sored dy PRL Os Kis, —
ylineiubestt bos yleeiet tnabaoteb Yo esuegs es gaisos eLlidw
(Sxolsatnoasrget atadtao 9
to adnoustasa eds moqy gaiyiot bas eftoxt odd to sonate gt
ai yaied ,Jasbneteb tedd bas
{sot to eosigq 8 obais os heoubal ydetens esw ,atlidataly odd
-e9 {aot teito moqu book Jautd yd botuoee eten # tot ota Be
need bod 000,56 tend betnsastqetelia eaw ¢i tads ,saxtkt bk J—
aogqu sell toltq & eaw doidw sonatdawont OOU,SLg a nog blag
bas ,¢tqyeoos of beowbat asw ed foasita taabasteb okie ston
000,9¢ @ goituoes boob seutd ont yd betevoo estates Laer out
ein? moqis blag snead bad ainoemiiatent sSsetotat ALGTIO9 — re ts
“need svad daigim RRC © na
son egob Yt aR tud : tate as ob
to — ont paw tsoqqs \
—9 odd \ oe as gouote TL \on 92881 | ene sk a Yost : ‘i —
et gnolubuert od ot biss noldasasestget tensonaA
joizem 6 bed atota Jus0 nel base evil odd ma doode oid .
ai baa atuxat ak saetedw” ,etacde toq ESL to aesoxe ak oulsy
aiedt Jud ,eulsv soxdxem on bad Aoote To setade biwe »* toat
“97 “ alesiteony bos evitalusoye Yleotidjne saw ,yne tt outay
6Sl® Atitow gon aaw XAXsota odd Jedd ogelia ston doar dnabast
-tasons Jedd tot blow od Jou biuoo ti stadt ton ,stade xoq
—— J tedd bas-eyiev doxkten on ead th tant {fe a
*
$a9 Lev tapo gon af ‘aladue ok baa evitel Titae" ak oul. :
—
este mans aot itrow-yTTauton new tbtads notsayotta nn 09
V -sr9ti9d.89. gas snetoi?iwant af noi sayosio- t
-e1qot esulst e aew otodd Jans beyolis oats ad bas
dk gniitsoce beeb tauit ont bas sson 000,3¢ odd "
vftneat+Aan tan aeaw Pere eo att pgeaavantw eee
described in the trust deed in that the note was made pay-
able "November lat after date,” and the trust deed recites?
that it was "payable November 1, 1916, after date," ivts)
—
eve Chex? dhl ⏑ does not i
alue of the e note;—Allegations in the affidavit that deq
—
fendant is informed and velicves ‘Wimt—tie note and trust |
Se ROEETT ees recertty eC “ggllalerak- ab
Tested “by the rule — — e stated, defend-
ts affidavit/of e gogd and ueritorious devas féils. |
e court below ruled orrectly in overruling détendant' —
tien, and the setuenl 14 affirmed, *
——APPERRED ——
“\Saq ↄbam saw ston odd Stadt at beeb seurt ose al bodizoash
Mgotioox boob tents edt bas ",otah t0dte tel tedmevor® olds
SS ",9cab tetts ,8i@l ,f todmevent efdayaq* eaw. si sods
oxi pee ed don e90b-bne torte fsoltoto outs
; Rie’
rob sands divabitte ands ak snotjaye LiA-—{ ween osig to aula
it
_AetsTELLles- ——
tents bra osom ent saat eovatlod bos boortotak ak fuabaeR
~bneteb shetese syoda- — 9 Cua ous |xa beset
| eating suns teb ayolzohizen bas beoy 3 te tivabitis: at
¢'taabaeteb ani Lorxe vo me UN gence boLut woied Tiwo0o @
bemiitie ei-¥aougbut edt pae~ noise ;
~~; CMSA
43 - 21723
CHARLES BRACHAS, —
Defendant in Error, Big
ERROR TO MUNICLIYAL COURT
vs,
| OF CHICAGO,
SABATH AND WEISSKOPF
COMPANY, a corpoyation,
Plaintiff in Error.
OY o>)
19% ey. — 3517—
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
— aa
F Plaintiff — alieg hit that he had de-
posited $500 with defendant as security that Anton Lechowicz
would turn over to defeniant all collections made by him
while employed by defendant, wien, if done, the deposit was
to be returned to plaintiff with five per cent, interest,
Plaintift?—-saga that subsequently Lechowicz left the employ
of defendant, having turned over to it all moneys collected
by him, !
Defendant ¥y ite affidavit of detensé any that
Lechowicz, employed as salesman and collector, made collections
aggregating $190.75 wiich he failed to turn over to defendant,
also that he is indebted to defendant for a balance on his
merehandise and cash account, also for an item of expense
incurred by defendant in verifying accounts anong the trade,
also for commissions advanced on sales where the accounts
were not collected, The trial court struck from defendant's
ae affidavit the last three items just described and entered
judgment against defendant for the difference between the
amount of plaintiff's claim, $529, and §190,75, the collec-
} tions ssid not to have been turned in, which is §$356,25.
\ a
i
1
a
The court reserved jurisdiction of the balance of plaintiff's
9
| elain for future detersination, |
a ie ‘
eS
— —
* RE — ———
YY
THUOD UJAZLOLIVUM OF HORE (
~JOADILHD TO
— ' , ©
YLGIUGoM ZOLTEUL OHICIGAAL , Hi
.THUOD MAT ¥O MOLMIGO SHT aNAAVIUMG
-9b bad sid sands b& so 610 9 kite teteretd Ititoiealt
Solwodool aoena Saud ytiqvose as tnabasteb dt iw — —
asw sa0qeh ais ,snob ti ,neiw ,tnshaeteb yw bovolqus. ad
stuotesil -Jn99 tug ovit dtiw ttisgnialq oF boarwso 7 02 | :
yolqms elt stool soiworioa.t yYitneupeedse tans en * tatelt
betoelioo seyounom ite 3i of tove dbontys yoived , sasvuotab 2 te “
tans diene — to divebitta est Se aab nis tet
“enoltoetioo ebam \\modoatloo bas ceuee lea as boyofqne «soiwodt
.insbaeteob of tevo nat of bolial ond AoOtmw €V, 001g: aatisgorg30
aid no eonalsd 8 tot tnabasteb of botdebat ef od dans “1
esneqxo to moti ne tol cele ,Javooon deao bas seibaar
.9bs8t) sid gnows etnyooorn yniylitev al tnabusteb yd —
etayoo0s eit etenw cofse no beonavhs ano laatmnoo 10% 08 =
e'tusbasteb mor? Aoutte tiuco [eizd ofT botoal fod * orn
betotns bow boditoaeb seul ames estat teat odd div abit —
edt neewlsd eotietoTtib edt tot Juabneteb Jeaiags as⸗ mabut
-Selfoo ont ,cV, Oey bas ,@Ség ,misilo aatata Yo. 4 :
GS, 865% at dotiw .ok bontys avod bins ” —
ea'ttigaislg to sonelad odd to noito
~o J
— — ————— nd i 9 = tet ;
We hold that the judgment of the court on the
items disallowed was right, | mae condition of the deposit
of the ¥500 was stated in the written agreement of the par-
ties to be to secure defendant “against any loss from dis-
honesty, misconduct or neglect of business” of j.echowicz,
We are not of the opinion that tne deposit was intended as
security for any proper obligations of defendznt's salesman
in the usual course of business; the agreement does not
reasonably bear that construction, ‘The conditions permitting
any deduction from the deposit when returned have reference
to any indebtedness due defendant or loss sustained through
dishonesty, neglect or —— — of their salesman, The
construction placed upon the agreement by the court meets
with our approval,
Flaintiff has assigned cross#-errors alleging that
the court should have stricken that part of defendant's affi-
davit setting up amounts collected by Lecnowicz but which he Tl
Aas failed to turn over to defendant. We Hold that the de-
( posit oy plaintiff was intended under the agreement to apply
_ to such collections, It may be tnat this failure can be ex-
elaine, but standing alone and unexplained it implies a loss
to defendant through dishonesty, misconduet or neglect, and
therefore comes within the manifest intention of the agree-
\
J
J
ment, It might also be noted that the averment in the affi-
davit of the failure to turn over collections, puts squarely
, in issue the allegation of plaintiff's ata tenent of claim
that Lechowicz, wien he left the employ of defendant, had
_turned over to it all moneys collected by him, ‘The cross-
errors are without merit,
For the reason above indicated the judgment is
affirmed.
- AFFIRMED,
—
fi SB es
ent no tiyoo ett to taoomabul sad Jans blod oW-
. sieoqeb oot Io moidibacs eit af. digit saw bowolleatb ewosk
* —————
-teq edt ‘to dnemeotya nestiaw eds ai bedste aaw oveg odd
-aib mort esol yas tanisgs” tnabneteb etuoee oF od of 89.
| Senese tex ovad bentyset neuw tiaoqeb ons moxt soitoubsb all
5 — bentsteve seolf 10 tnabneteb, eub eavnbstdebnt Yas of
eiT ,nemeolse tioad to soubmooetm 10 sootygon <wWesnosia kh J
J BJe9m Inuoo ons xd Snoesnsetys eit mnogu beosigq noiseuréance
————— * w
dedt yoige (ls etotre-s2019 bengiees eed tibinialt -
" -itts ae'snabaeted to s1aq isis noxoitte avad bLuome —
pe ed doindw tud sotwodoel yd basooLtoo aJauoms qu gniddoe iva fy J
web old dant blow of .daabae ten. oJ tevo miss od botied “i
-yfqqs o¢ tuemeetge oct tobay bebnodad eaw aeatala vd thao
i .
a
5 -x9 od e909 etulist sidd Jans ed yen JL ,amoitoolfoo owe
i eeol 8 asifgmi tf Soniatqxseny baa snole ynibmage stud , bout
bas ,toelgan to stoubaooaia ‘iasnoneib Aywot ad tabs rob of
- se9tga edd to moldnesat —— ead aiisiw semoo ———
all
-itts odt oi Snearteve odd Sand Seton od coals Siytm FL -
vlorsupe etug sanotsoellos teve cist od etufint ant to ‘evel
J
‘to bein ties soll e'ititniala¢ to moltsys{le ont ounet ab’
bad ,tnsbusteb to yolqms edt st9L oof now ,xokwodoot J and
ari i: J
-eaoro oA? min yd betos{Lloo eysnom Lie tt oF revo t
throm rane ee a pa
\ c Ms
March 27, 1916
CARRIE O, MEACHAM, ‘rHILO A.
GT1S and si fase dle ——— Truabees
under Otis Trust ecuent,
ss — in Trex’,
a BRKOR TO MUNICIPAL
v3,
aa COURT OG CrilCace,
HARRY H. LOBDELL, Trustee for
gomuel Fitluk and Leo J, Lieberman,
copartners doing business as La
Solle Street Shoe Store
Plaintiff in Nrror,
— ee — — — — —
7 fi oy
* —— “ease” ; : 9
MR, PRESIDING JUSTICN MCOMBVRMMI.
DELIVE
THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Flaintiffs brought suit claiming
by reason of a lense to @ pro rata, shere of moneys ree
celved by defendant, Lobdell, trustce, from the sale of assets
of Samuel Fitluk and leo J, Licberman, co-partiers, . Upon trial
,the court instructed ‘the jury to return a verdict against de
fendant for vl, (54 22 upon which judpment was entered, Dee
feidant seeks to have this reversed,
pitluk and Liebernian were lessees of a store
under a written lease from plaintiffs for a term beginning
day 1, 1912, and ending April 3G, 1917, at 4 monthly rental
of $500 pnyable on the first day of each month during the
term, The lessees also agreed to pay lessors for electric
light used. In April, 1913, the lessees made an assignment
vw their property to Lobdell, as trustce, to be converted
into noney to be used in paying tneir creditors, The rent
"the store due April 1, 1913, was not paid, on April loth
e trustee took possession of the presiises and occupied
“il April: 18th, Plaintiffs claim that under the terns of
“C@iease, the lessees being in default not only as to rent
“ton other covenants, the entire rental'for the baiance of
ee
Paid
7 a
ASELS o: Bh
: “Th, iJ [Ss AL vue:
owed ‘ a en OF bits
are , @i¢0 Stk :
i
» f — oH 5
: I x Vol — benraly
= as 5n ness
— —— ard
: NO Yo
fi : J—— J
4 ee — x 7
4 7 Pray i
ath f ‘2M 4 .
~ of vp dpe i
7
ii i Adda ge
adit ol yee
b=} Sully WE"
is a © we * yee
f 4 v “eke ul gdh
_ ith < . aloe gall I
a uy) OW ae 40.108 ae
: : Sh A sade. ite
nn Jelena tl Peer — 9
—0— ida ti oe)
rt —* —E—»— ond, —*
D—— touid i
-ssed term because due and tnot plaintiffs sre creditors
itluk and Lieberman to that amount, that is, from April
1913, to April 30, 1917, at 500 a monti, wiieh is 724,500,
*
‘4 to this should be added’a bili of 43382. 10 for electric
tight, making a total of 124,852.10; from this should be de—
icted the pont paid by-the trustee while he was in possession,
waely, $124.51, leaving a balance due plaintiffs of (24,707.59,
essed upon the allowance of vlaintiffs' claim for this anount,
fudgnent was entered for their pro rata share of the moneys in
tie hands of the trustec,
It is first contended by defendant thot tke
tiffs were not parties to or beneficiaries of the assicnmerit
fron kitiuk and Lieberman te Lobdell, trustse, in that it was
necessary for creditors wishing to varticipate in the benefits
ff the assigned estate to become parties to said agreenent ef
signment by signing their nanes theretc, It would be a
wciicient reply to say that this defense was not set up or
claimed in the afficavit of defense filed in the Lunicipal
ourt, Under -the rules of that court, which are properly be-
fore us, defendant will be heard only as to thiose matters of
“fense specifically set out in his affidavit. (See rules
and 20.) Yhe only issue made by the affidavit of defense
i the amount dues. But even if we should not apoly the rules
trictly, the evidence fails to sustain the contention that
laintiffs did not Sign ihe assignment. as
2 se
reement; rather the
‘ference is otherwise. ‘The document in question refers to
Nerties “whose names are dgigned hereto, or to a copy
‘Teof, being creditors of said first partics hereto,” ‘The
ccument in evideyce is signed by only one creditor, As the
‘Yidence shows that eight pther creditors shared in the disso
‘ition of tine proceeds of the money in the hands of the trustee,
*Presusption is raised that there must have been enother copy
} .
* —
* —
co
ha 4 0o n 6
J fe 7
te
° a
‘vil
é rit i L 7
»,
to Gil
© : ' : *
4 ala, ;
A . “OD @ae 7
7
ae
it laird
_ +> ide
old) Bt *
mas une
> ha |
Hen ® Otiyas
» Widosse
‘ih tee i. weep
: i 22. a one Tster
visi ge iL her we
Ls Heeu thd goes
i: ( ot Gubeo Aa, Copan
? Zila kt Jie ? nels worgalr®
¢
U
WB = Pe Leleal
. lease provided to be paid * * * as the liquidate
634:
rother copies of the agreement, one of which may have been
ned by plaintiffs Shere was no evidence that the
vil w
the record was.the only copy of the agreement, and there
sno evidence that plaintiffs had not signed onotner copy.
Oojection is made to the form cf
PVE tree i 4
vile VerulLlenu
fund in the filese While tiis may have been informa]
Ly ok
ostantially correct, In any event, the re
cord as to the verdict returned is sufficient, in Chittenden
1, Evans, 48 T11, 52, i% was smid that it was
— —
fora jury to reduce their verdict to writing and that it
sight be reduced to proper form by the clerk undcr the _
action of the court.
It was not error for the court
to deny leave to
efendant to amend his affidavit of defense, The motion was
de several weeks after the canclusion of the trial Mure
nergore, no ancndment. was presented to the court at t
inc the motion for Louve to amend was mpde.
Claypool, 126.372. 207: Dileher v. Schorik, 207 Ill, 526,
Under the provisiona of the Lease avove refcrred
4
0 it was provided that if the Lesse«
nt of their sexta for the bencfit of creditors, the lessor
ight terminate the lease and re-enter said premises and re-
sSe38 themselves thereof, and it was further provided tnat
42 Guch event the lessees snould at once pay to the lessors
4 6um of momey equal to the entire amount of rent by this
ad damages
af . . *
% the Lessors,” The claim of
b 2
‘a0unt of rental as liquidated damages was —— under
“ie terms of the lease, Among t)
——
ne cases 30 holding are
fntral Invest? Co. v. Mellick, 267 Ill, 564; Smith v. Cood-
1449111. 75; Grommes v. St. yuul Trust Co., 147 Tl.
and Williams v, Short, App. Court No. 20581, not yet
sh Thy 6 62S aR eagy
ae Hy stishe
= ‘st > hye of :
: I I —
= ® ¥
vf a4 —
wise
7
—- 7
ont LJ
—
bd ah
i i 4
’ a I
6.44
: 7
e J é
vnaselt
75 = foe at
e®
oa oe 86 oye 4
it Of \@@ayade eeu
A) * i deen tod
wast ‘o> iting: 1¢ tweet
* tie) eet DS am, on jot
‘@ -10T) St Sehh Gr,
Ho sufficient
t
. disturbing the judgment
rengon being brought to our attention
°
ee S65 off 4 A
it is aiftirmea,
AVY Tis —X
= *
64 » 21814
PEOPLE OF THE STATS OF ILLINOIS, )
defendant in Error,
\ ERROR TO MUNICIPAL COURT
vs. \
\ ) OF CHICAGO,
WILLIAM De JOY, \ ))
Plaintiff in Yvrror, }
LOS LA Sim
HH, PRESIDING JUSTICE KeSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Defendant, charged with pandering, was found
guilty and fined $3006 and sentenced to be confined in the
House of Correction for one year,
He seeks to have the judgment reversed, saying
that the information is insufficient in that (a) it charges
several offenses in the alternative, and (b) the place of the
offense is not’ dgpbeibed. befendant's attorney went to trial
without objection to the information, The defects suggested
to
ene question of guilt or innocence, it is too
late now to object, People v. Weber, 152 Ili, App. 102;
do not go
People v. Ferca, 161 id, 666, iiowever, the information
charges only one offense, “Inducing” and persuading" are
practically synonomous,
The place of the offense is sufficiently dese
eribed; it is charged tnat it happened in the city of Chi-
cago, at No, 671 Milwaukee avenue, (See opinion in eople
v. Leon, No, 21745, this day filed; also beople v, Bennett,
185 Ill, App. 316.)
Was there a jury waiver in writing? We hold
‘that there was, The record recites the execution of such a
waiver; the record imports verity. Nichoison v, Loeff, 255
T1l. 526, And the waiver is in the record, ‘hat the de-
AIOMILIL TO ROTATE HAT “OH
stonta Ot tnaboe tec
ve Mou : fey fc eae jt, ®
PAUOD SALLOLMUM OF HOMAT
‘ ,ODADLHD TO |
(
[de AI eer
Yaustue YOM MOITLUT ———— | .AM
j
b
—
Auoo HHT GO AOIMILO AHT GAAAVIISC
bavot. eaw ,yataebaag dtiw bogtade Anabris tod. ; See
+taey eno t0T Koksoerro9 t0 908 *
i
cae
eegtano #i (#8) Saud? at dneloittwant at no Ldauro tad ond ¢ vu 9
7 odd mt boattnoe od of boonsdnee bas 0068 boait bas
yaiysas ,beersves ——8 edt evad of axooe on
a
Rea’ ipa fi
rie”)
ent to somly sit (d) bona ,evisantesla ont an seunetto i *
2 fain ot Jnew yerroséa e' dnabns ted — tom et = bd
Ey! beseoggue asjootsh elt melsamip las edt of aotses ido | se ai *
oo⸗ af 41 .2oneo0nni ro 4 to aoltesup on? feu 4 9
80L .qqA ,fL1 SCL ,z9d0W .v gkgood .toetdo of * ——
moisamioIni edt ,tevewoH 808 .bk I8f ,spt9d .v 2 * i
ets “gnibayers" a “gntoubal® ,eanestto eno “= —
—XR wee * 1
; s *
maeb YitnotolYive ek senetto eit to sont oT k: en a 1,
7 \ — ae
-idd to ysio ait at bemsqqad 3k isdd bogrado sk ah j
gigoet at acintqo ee8) ,exneve eotuawlia {Td ) soit 4a J
At ae!
J \gdenneg -¥ gigoot cele jbelit yab 6 ksid OTIS * me
ro
(BLE F ut
, F
blow ow tyaitinw aL toviaw ‘week a ll —
vey pal
8 siova 0 noisuoexe oad sedtovt see — ae rod
ees aoe ov ses —9* Arogat Sto: et odd ;
fendant signed by making his mark does not impair its in-
+‘ tegrity.
J fhe evidence has not been preserved, The
q errors alleged against the statutory record are without |
merit, ‘The judgment is affirmed.
4 —
APFIRMED,
P ’
1
—_— se
«tk ett chequk ton fob sem ald gain we
sit ,bevieeetg need fon asi sonobive var
. fyodsiw eta bioest yiotustase ed? Saniays |
-beomiitts af tan ott 24% |
+.
” :
a —
— —
J
5
‘
| 3 i)
J— * + J J J
J i: \
J ‘ ie 1
7 i F it) 4 el
Bye i ta ! ‘
ari Aas
vil
j iu oe | A
‘ A ie 9 ch at)
/ a ' F t 9 ia , J
y ry ‘ ; e sa ae
y ; ; i
85 - 21946
JOSEFH FRANKEL et al,,
Appellees,
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL COURT
vs,
OF CHICAGO,
SOL C, SALZENSTEIN,
Appeljant,
198 L.A. 363
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY
DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiffs employed defendant as a traveling
salesman, ‘They bring suit claiming that their advances to
him exceed the amount due him on commissions and that under
the contract of employment he is obligated to repay the dif-
ference. Upon trial by the court judgment against the de-
fendant was entered for 93685.74,
— ———
Te sadienes commenced to run March 9, 1909, and
ended February 28, 1910, It eo olaimed on behalf of defend-
ant that plaintiffs wrongfully discharged him before the end
ef the ————
— trial court—properry © ould’ find’ that
in December; “tous ;~or sanuary, 191 yd by “mutual ‘agreement the
contract vas terillinted, / Thapsaniesreignimebetne evidence
4 sie to the effect that at a meeting between defendant and
—not~—persuaded’ from-the--evidence that
plaintiffs in December, 1909, or possibly January, 1910, de-
fendant proposed "to quit," to whi oh plaintiffs agreed, (Ho
— —
* ö—— ——— ———— ———
e passer upon — —— of @ bi ce loa
There being no wrongful — and no refusal
th —— “on is alleged in the Statement o i that
apers - a8 9
fa te sorta wot i”
ae soo lleqga | n Ras ihe ,
THU00 IJASIDIZUM WORT IARETA : Be iN
* av mele a p ute
-ODADIHOD TO a
£0:6 ALS6el
YIRAUEOM MOLTAUL OMICIENAL . AM
.fHU09 SHT Jo WOLML4O ART GEAUVIIEC
goifeveart s 3s jnabasteb bayolqme atilinield ; xg
ot seonsvhe taled? Jadt gotimiato Jive gaird —— J
robeau tans ois anoisetmmos ao mid exh Snvome eat Arne ste J
-tib edd ysqet o¢ batagif(do ai of tnomyolqme to a sal aig odd
⸗ob oft seniags SEAS uoo elt yd Lsits aoa. —3
_sP8,2888§ 107 boreda aaw dnabast
bas ,@0@L ,@ dors aut of beonemmoo sositsnoo oT 4 feet —
-bieteb to tinded no bemislo a 4X ,Of@L ,8S. — bebao oy
bas et etoted mid boyradoalh lactated etiLinialg sads tne Rr
as
thdt- conebive-srtt mo Tt bobayereq—ter Atostinoo pga ln
nri⸗ ———— — a
— ** te
exis” dromeozas tausum Yd OLR T ER ee oet · roaneaa· a )
_sorebive’ —— — — * J J
bas taebaeteb asewieod gaitoem, “ ts gait soatts one OF ede
9b ,OLeL ,ytesnst yidiesog 10 ,@0@L ,tadmeoed ai nuatata
— —
boasraea attisaiaty doidw od *,tiup o¢* beaoe TOTS aedaon
———— — |
ü— —— — Tae
got 8 “to “RoLiqmiveN ony woqy bse ba
feeurter or Dre — e® Iutgnomw on gated etedT 92 riioeih
t
mi tom sis yous " tostds09 o ntlw no og
attiinial, y
edd vorotne of gnivece hoz? betzst Jon eta eoned —
stnebgeieb sénisys sostines out Yo a |
pans ot Holiw goa⸗ ooũod lv⸗ t1etequoo” ce ote | * at ‘ly |
By migso“to tnometase edt at beselia pe Med
— we
_—
the advances to defendant amounted to $4464.50, The affida-
vit of defense admits this, The Statewent of Claim further
says that orders obtained by defendant upon which he is ene
titled to commission amounted to $21,934.46, Attached to
the Statement is a schedule giving the names and amounts of
each order, and it was alleged that these were all the orders
upén which defendant was entitled to commission, If defendant
wished to question the correctness of this statement he
should have specifically done so in his affidavit of defense,
as required by the Municipal Court rules, which are in accord,
or, a8 provided by rule 20, he could upon motion be excused
by the court from specifically answering any particular al-
legation, upon showing to the court that he could not answer
it because he did not have the necessary knowledge as to the
fact alleged, or for other good cause. Defendant did not
avail himself of the provisions of the rule, Upon the trial
no attempt was made by him to show that the amount of orders
was not gorrect, ‘The books of the company, upon nis re-
quest, could readily have been brought into court. We are
of the opinion that the correctness of plaintiffs' statement
of the account was admitted; hence it was unnecessary to
make detailed proof thereof.
The points urged for a reversal are not con-
vincing, and the judgment is affirmed,
AFFIRMED,
; : ’ Aa) 4 »
~ J J
-sbitts ofT ,0¢,S0bR8 of bed nwona nates ab ‘ot on⸗
—
teddiv?t mislo to tnometate edAT ehad éftobs odneteb
“16 si oat do kolw nogu tnehbre Tob ew boritasdo exsbxe tad nae)
ER
os borionttaA dh, 880,189 of bornuone —
Yo ednwoms bas seman edd yoivig ofubexdoe #8 ek eoseo asas edt
arebio eds {fa etew sasdd sant bone lis eEw Py: deta — ome : ;
tusboeteb tl .ooleatmmoon ot boltisne usw. tnabis teb — ville a
od tnomedats eldt to eaondosrtoo, ons Wobtaenp ot bone iw
,eenstoh to stivebitts etd ai oe snob, _ileottiosgh eves biwora
,btoo0s ai ots doidw ,solut txyod Isqlotnwh ent yd bexkupot es |
beeuoxes od noitom moqu biyoo of ,OS slux yd shamba adr 1% 10
-fs8 telvoitreg ye goltswens ullaoltinegs moet tryo9 ould
tewanes Jon bi{yoo sad Jadt gruoo edt o¢ Qniwote mnogu obioget | ‘tA
oft of as sybefwonX viraeesoen oft oven toa bie od aeuaved tk
ton bth tnsbasted .seuso boog tedto 10% To sboge ta’ ton
fetxt edt mnogU ,efux edd to anoleivortq odd to “‘Pecmid. Eleva
atobto to davome odd sadd wode of mid Yd sham eaw tquw dda on
-e1 eid moquy ,yarqaoo add to exood aut .to97%109 don sew
mY
ests sW .dtyoo otni Joygyoid oeed evad yYlihset biuos steoup
J
inomeiase ‘etiidJaialg to eaensost1e9 ede tadd moinigo oad ‘to .\
of ytAsesDenny asw di goned jbessiubs-aasw emo 998 eis to
. toetedid tootg beliateb sexism
“09 tom eats Isetevet a tot bogtu staiog eAT
eboumxitts ef tnomgbal oft baa ,gatoaty
. CAAA WA
ya j / f A Ke i} ey
Fe)
ye
36 = 21664
PF, A, JOHNSON,
leaintiff in Errgr,
ERROR TO MUNICIPAL COURT
—
asa OF CHICAGO,
er —— por a in nrvor
: error. ra)
! \. je 19 YO De 3 67
*
\_WR.-JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE COURT.
— — — — ——
Plaintiff had a contract to do certain work in
the erection of a building for defendant and after all the
work had been done received an architect's certificate for
$671, the balance of the contract price. by the terme of
the contract plaintiff agreed to complete all the work he
had undertaken to do on or pricr to August 25, 1914, As a
matter of fact this he failed as to one store to do, The
work of plaintiff on this store was completed on September
15, 1914, a delay of twenty-one days, Defendant claim at
he had rented this store to a tenant who had paid $5 on ace
count to bind the bargain, at a rental of $45 a month, which
was the reasonable rental value of the store. , ,
the testimony—of Defendant eatabidched—tne-fuat
that he never saw this prospective tenant again and was un-
able to find him, ‘the store remained unrented until kay 15,
1915, and defendant claimed that the loss of the prospective
tenant was duc to the store not being ready for occupancy by
guch tenant at the time plaintiff had contracted to complete
his work, Defendant claimed that the neanure of his damages
wag the rental value of the store during the time it remained
_ unrented, and the trial Judge, heeding defendant's contention,
gave judgment for $404.90, the amount of the architect's cer-
“tifieate, less the rental value of the store at the rate of
Wo
etTOTTH ak tisabel
THUGOO JATIOIMUM OT HOARE
eVDALTI HS tO
soe AI Bel say,
.THUOO ART TO MOLUIGO ANT-GMARVIINa MO@IOH TOTTeut—.au_/
— —— ⸗ — — ——— — — — —
ai Xitow aiadteo ob of toattnoo —a bad Prdsatals |
eid {Ls x9Jis bas gnsbuvtob tot yathiiud # Ye aoisoete edt —
tot esollistes a'soesisows ae beviovs1 enob aed bad AtOWw
to sates oft yA .eoitqg sonmainoo ens to sonatad add , {V8
ei atow eis Lis eselqmoo of bootgs Tiivalalg Josisaco odd ©
eB eA ,dfef ,éS sauqua of toliq to no ob of aeasdtebsu bad
eit ,ob of stots ono of es bolist od aks Sont to totten
todmetqget ae boselqmoo saw etosa alist no Midaiole to fron
ae aS jusbasted ,ayab eno-ytoows to vyaleb s Scr el
-on mo 6% bisg bei odw sJaoanet # o2 etote abit basnes bad —
d
doldw ,dtmom 8 €6¢ to fatnet « te ,aiagind ef? bald ot tayoo
, , «9todve ods to eulaevy Laénet sidsaoeset ons —
sont ond ——— Inabas teG 20-ynomitess sit
“1s efw bas niags taanes svitsoeqeoirq eld? wae toven on tnt
OL wed Lisay bed aottiu beniamet etose of? mid bast os olds
4
evisosqeotq edt to esol eid Jacd bemtato tnabneteb bas a
a)
ud xoaaduooo tot yvbaet gnisd son etotoa off oF ond sew 4 Py
cath
a
etolymoon oF be J oaranoo bad titisakalg emis edt ta snanes iow a
raat ve
seyemnd elu to stwewom ott Jadtd bomlialo Inabne ted — iron —*
bocakacisx tk omid ond yaliwh eto0dsea oid To oulav fatnox oud
: Hotaas anoo 8’ 3nabne teb anibosd ogoul falxt ould bre shone
“190 e'foedidote edd to snwomn ssid 108, dong 10% — ove
to osa1 eit ta otota ond to auce⸗ ta⸗noa ous *
X
ae ; te” SORTA fre”
$55 a month from August 25, 1914, when plaintiff's work should
have been completed, to May 15, 1915, when defendant succeeded
in securing a tenant, Plaintiff seexs-#-review-of-this judge
wrent-—by_thia cour-and ask for @ reversal and a judgment in
his favor for the amount of the architect's certificate with
interest, less the rental value of the store for twenty-one
days, defendant's damages assessable for non-completion within
the contract time, tN ear Nera ON
—
Plaintiff contends that in cases like the one at
bar, where a contractor fails to complete a building within the
contract time, the measure of damages is the rental value of
the premizes from the time when such premises should have been
completed under the contract until the time when they were ac-
tually completed,
There is ne authority for assuming that de-
fendant suffered any damage by tne loss of the prospective
tenant wio proved elusive, and nothing in the record justify-
ing a conclusion that defendant's prospective tenant disappeared
leaving $6 in his hands because the store was not completed
for twenty-one days after it should have been under the con-
tract.
It is the low that where a defendant claigs dan-
ages by reason of delay in the performance of ® building con-
tract, whereby such defendant nas been deprived of the use of
the building, he may recoup the same in a suit against him by
the contractor and tnat the measure of damages is the fair
rental value of such portion of the premises during the poriod
of delay, Gallbreith v. Chicago Architectural Works, SO ill.
App. 248; Suell v. Cottinguam, 72 111, 161,
It is not disputed that §55 a month is a fair
J rental value for the store, which was not completed by plain-.
biuoda Atow e'ttisalealq oesdw ,A1@L ,@8 tauguA mort inom a ag p
bebosoove snabneteb amodw ,éfekL , ef yall oF ,bedetqmeo need eva
-gbut-eid—te-woivet-#-enees Ttitniali ,Jsaaned 6 gnttuso88 ä —
ai Jnoomabut, & bae Lsetevet a sot Maen : 4502 —
‘Adgiw etaoltisieo e'tostiaorts ent To Jnvome oad tot rove
eno-ysuews 10T st0se eds Io oulav Ladner ocd eeol teers
niotiw nolstetqmooenon tot efdsessess aeyameh 6'sasbne teb ey
een ann ETS foarsa09 °
be eco sit oil eoaso ok Jads ebnotnoo Ttliniali | om
eit olddiw gaxibtiud a otelqmon oF eLiat s+osontdm00 gs 2 t9 cw ‘a :
to ovlav Istnet sit at segameh To o1vesom at ,omit Jowrtinos
mead ovad bivode ssaimetg dove notw omits os mort souinotg oft i
-98 stew yed? nodw omis ond fiinw sJoatinos ot? tobnwy —
obese lques 5
-ob ted? yoimuees tol esitoddue on ek st9edT —
evidosqeorg od Yo eeol edt yd eysmsb yaa bote TIwa ——
“Ylisgeut btooet os ai gnidvon bas ,eviauloe Sevotg. ortw *
betscqqseib tusust evisgoseqeosq a'snebaeteh gadd noiewLonoo &
bhetolqmoo don saw otode odd gewaced abuad ais at cy yatvast i
“100 sdf rebay need eved biuede 3L tad ta eyed sno-ysaows 10%
| | teats
emad eaiaslo Jaasbusteb a etelw sans wal od wf 31 . uy
-“ao0 goibliud # to eonamtotieg oft ai yealob to nossot yd @9
to eau ed to beviuagedh ased aad tnabastebh douse betel oft eid
vd misdi ganiays sive a ci omee odd quooet yom on vamtb thud )
aiget sd? el esyomeb To stueaem ett taud baa xosootinoo ond x
botisq ot gniivb esalmerg sat Yo noitiog dove to eulav f new
. ffl 08 .¥ Sitesi ited vale
| -L0L {11 ST .wadantssed .v Liews 1608 .aaA
tist 6 al uinom a 0&9 Jadd beduqelb gon ot dE a rt
-ntalg yd botelqmoo son asw dolduw ,otota ods x0? ontev £
tiff until twenty-one days after the time Limited by the con-
tract, The rental value for this twenty-one days at $55 a month
amounts to $24.36, for which amount defendant is «ntitled to a
eredit. beducting this sum from the amount of the architect's
certificate, 671, leaves a balance of $646,64, due plaintiff
. January 16, 1915, for whieh sum, with interest at the rate of
& per cent. per annum from the Inst date, plaintiff should
have had judgment, Not having eo recovered in the trial
court, plaintiff isa entitled to recover in tiis court
$646.64 with interest from Janumry 16, 1914, to the time
of filing this opinion, which interest is 670,94,
The judgment of the Municipal Court is re-
versed and judgment entered mere in faver of plaintiff and
against defendant for the sum of $717,585,
REVERSED AND JUDGKERT HERE POR ¢717,58,
POR FLAINTIFY,
“noo oid vd botimil emis sid 1 1s ween eno-vinews Lita mis
ditom a C6 ta syah eno-yduows aids 10% eulay Ladaet vit ston
8 OF beldisue sk dusbuetebh tavemea dotdw a0? 296,a59 oF esnvoan
e'toetidores of To Snvomea odd mott mue Bio wolsoubed .thboxo
Tiidalely sub .b3,353% to sonatad a sevael ivag s9daoLtiaas9 |
to eset oft te seatetni ws tw we doinw tot ,efer OL sea
bivoie Btidaielq ,esab desi ect mott muans teq .die0 t9q a
faits od ak botevooet ow gnived tou tteamhbat bad ove
2tHO3 ekid ai toveoor of Beltitns ak Mildntaly —D
eais adt of ,bLeL .aL yraunet aot? seetesni atin bd.a J
. 0. ov ai Jeotedak io lsdw ,woinigo & kid yatsit we
“ot ai true) Laqioinu oad to tnemgbut ad?
A
bas tiisjoialg to rovat ot sted botedas dnooyba | bas ‘beatey
«380, VIVS to mue sdt xot inaboe tes daninga
-3, VIVß OX MATH THMMOGUL GMA GMenavaAN We) | d
eCULTMIALY BOF | J |
296 - 21692
WALTER E, MCKENNA,
Plaintiff in Error,
ERROR TO SUPERIOR COURT
vs,
OF COOK COUNTY.
(1981.4. 369
SOUTH PARK COKMISSTONERS,
Defendant in &
‘
\ y
———
WR. JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED THE CFINION OF THE COURT.
Walter ©, KeKenna was a patrolman in the employ
ef the board of South fark Commissioners, McKenna was what
is known as a "Civil Service employe." He received his ape
pointment way 17, 1911. On August 17, 1914, the Civil Sere
vice Board of the South Park Comsissioners preferred charges
against KMeKenna and appointed KH, C, Carbaugh and H. J, Furber,
gr., a8 a trial board to try NeKenna, kekenna was charged
with conspiring with officer Sullivan on August &, 1914, to
demand from Walter H. Yulser, who had been arrested, 380.
Wulser paid that sum and kieKenna released nim, Un this
charge McKenna was tried, found guilty and discharged from
hia office, Hetermmmvrougit this mandamus prééeeding to have
the-soutn-rark Commissioners ordéred-te-forthwith- place his
«ame upon ‘the roster of. patrolmer, go -that he wight perform
“the duties of ‘and keep that office.
| ‘ It appears from MeKenna'ts petition that a partial
‘hearing of his case was had in September, 1914, before Carbaugh
: and Purber, the trial board, and that owing to the sickness of
: ‘-MeKenna the further hearing was postponed until February 15,
a his own defense, fFurber did not sit upon the trial board
x the hearing of MeKenne in his own defense was had before
rbaugh, who alone sat as the trial beard,
Q § eer The right to —— erit-et nandanus rx ba
SOLS ~ des
J
— —
o⁊ W nt ⁊ꝛueaiata hae
c
; rauor HOLHZGUG OT HORAM — ——
ay: i he me
eXTHYOS ROOD TO
Peds. AI 3er
— — — —— —
Anuoraaruoo —X ‘eruoa
eTOTKR al smabne xe
Ps
ee
ts hs
ae —5
-THUOO EHT TO torarao AHT danviad MOCIOH AVITSUL .AM
yolgus edt ai asmlotseg S sew anieXok 4 sos Lav oe
' deadw eaw annexXoM .atenolssinmo) Atel diwoi To birod ods *
“qs sid bevisce1 of “,eyolgno solved iivio® &@ 8A owortd
etal £ivid ent 1b L£0L TL teuwawA oO fel ., 4 vau naoaaie
geyiado bettetetg atenolestmmo) Ated dsuo& oxia 1% os 908
iM
eTodint .t& .H baa dguedtad .0 .H betnloqga baa anne Xow Jen —
a —* vel
beygiaio eaw anmteiod ,aennetoM vis ef biaed fais? e ye J
og JaugwaA ao navilinue na0itto as der golxiqe mon as
068 ,betaotis meod bad ow ,toatud H ——— mort oa⸗not
éiss nu aiid beeselet acttid on bas me 4 biag x98.
mort bogitadoelb bos yilisg bawot ,beits saw aaas aou eytada
evan of yripesootqg evmasbaam eiad eero err <onitta 8 *
— ‘@tenolcelanod iat-s .
.
; mrotteq tiyiwm of Jadt- oc ,noemfottaq to teveor oad coab 9: i
“,o0itto gad? goax baa to J—— oud
falixeq » iadt noistideq e'anneod mort sxseqgea 31 a
Mgusedie — .A ,tedmesqod ai bad eaw aano ein To sunt ‘
Yo seomioie anid of aniwo ad⸗ baa .btaod fati3 odd rodwh |
0 yravidet Lisau benogteoq aaw gnitasd nous? orl 2 ‘
braod aaw brs boteeqge Yifsaoetoq enaeXon om dotuw to aé
; y ues
biwod (airs edd moyu die ton bib xodtu% seated * io
er0led bed esw oaneteb awo * ak anne 10% te auun⸗·a 68
Poe —
are upon the contenticn that Purber was absent at the
; hearing on February 15, 1915, and that the report on KeKenna's
case, which was adopted by the Civil Service Board, was sade
by Carbaugh only, and it ie “contended thot Carbaugh had no
jurisdiction to hear alone the charges and report his findings
thereon, To McKenna's petition a general demurrer was inter-
posed and sustained and the petition dismissed, and KcKenna
prosecutes this writ of error, seeking a reversal,
—
— — — ——
Section 12 of ih Sage Givi) has oeenieee
that “charges shall be investigated by or before the Civil
Gervice Board or by or before some officer or officers ape
pointed by the Board te conduct such investigation, sa 8
The objection that Carbaugh could not act alone as a trial
board is made in this Court for the first time, The record
does not disclose that Mckenna was deprived of any Legal
right, ‘and it is not denied that the proceedings were in every
particular, excepting the one complained of, regular, As the
4J Park Civil Service Bocrd approved of Carbaugh as ita trial
officer, (it will be assumed from that fact that he was author ized
J to act a6 the trial board in kekenna's case), As unde section
12, supra, it is competent for one person to act as a trial
board, (it will be assumed that Carbaugh was acting as such
| under authority of the Civil Service woards who not only \
J approved his report but acted upon the recommendation con \
q | tained in it,\ That he was not so acting is nowhere averred |
(| 4m BeoKenna'sa petition, Neither is it averred that Carbaugh
had not been authorized by the Civil Service Board to act as
M Sole trial officer, The Civil Service Board had the power to
change the personnel of the board at any time, and in the
absence of any averment to the contrary it will be assuued
that it authorized Carbaugh to proceed as sole trial officer,
said by the writer of this opinion in People v,. lowell,
it peed J _
‘i my Ovi Pe ere a 7. sy 4
ee f ; a7 oa
sit de taseds saw t9diwl Jadd noltnstaoo odds moqu bedas
a 'annoiou ao txoget odd Jedd bun ,cf@L ,oL yravidet NO | f ‘
shan eaw ~btmok§ eoivied Livid sds yd bestqoba eaw soldw , so
on bsd sussadtad dads bebnesacs af ti boa ,yine dgueds) :
egnthbnit ald sroyot bas segtsdo edt emole rs0ed oF voisatbats
stosal saw teTruueh Lareney @ moijiseg e'anusiok of .. !
Sno9HoN bas ,beealwoib moliisoeq ed bas bonteseus baa
etagisvet # yaldeos ,toxte to Jitw edad oiuooe
ü— — — —— —
esiivorg JOA soivaep Ktvk0 uxt edg to Sf moltoss —
Livid eld atoted to yd betagiseovnl od Ilada acgzedo® 3
-j% 8@Teoltio to 199itlo smoa oteled 10 yd to bisod ner
nes notsagisuoval ova foubaoo of bisof odd ww be: i
{ottt 6 us onols gos don bivoo dguadis) sed3 noite tse :
br009% ou? omits sexi oft tot dJawod elds of ebsm eth
Legos yas to boviteed eaw suneXoM sade oaoloe ib *
reve mk otew egnibsescoorg ods tadd be Laed ton at $1 bas. 4 —
⸗ BA .taluget . to beaialqmoo ono ant golds qeoxe — D
{aiat ett es dyuadiad to bevorqqa bred esivren — (x0
poi foujus esw ef Jans Jost Jad3 mort bomuseaa od Lite ods a: n '
noidooG | wmebis GA loess & ' BA Aou ai bis0od fairs * ee 00 08
{sits s sa tos of noeteg ono tot dassequos ai 21 ccs
Howe es gai sos aaw Mguedted doit Hoswaes og iLiw MDa
, Xiao ton ow doraos eoivies Livid ez to wailed:
‘soo notssbaemmonss od woqu betes dud I20q9% ata b
(petuevs etedwon at gaidon oa toa saw od tadt tt a J 46
dgusdta) Jads berteva ti af tontion Moltizeg ofa ° 108 |
| as goa of brs0d eolvies Livin odd xd bextredtue noes nw bad
7 od towoq ed bait dauot oo vaoð Liv eat — tt of
a ont at hae ,omis yon ds brad ona to — of —
bouw ees 9d {fiw si Vrars 109 ond ot ime ra⸗ " Bs
i , toi Ito fait ofoa aa beovorq of Nguse
Ad ey per ee ee ee ee em Cre oe 3 ie One
127 Ill. App. 614 - “However, if there was room for any doubt
| as to the legality of the appointment of the persadns conati-~
| tuting the trial board, the ratification of the action of the
board by the commission in approving and adopting its report
\ and findings was a sufficient corrective;" and as further
| said in the Powell case, Supra, “He appeared at the trial
| in person and was heard in his own defense, and in thia re-
gard all the requirements of the statute were fulfilled, He ~
| made no protest cr objection to the jurisdiction of the
\ ‘trial board either before that board or to the commission,
The juriedictional question cannot be raised on this appeal
for the first time," Joyce v. City of Chicago, 216 ill,
466, is a@ supporting authority,
a City of Chicago v. The People, 210 111, 64,
urged by counsel for plaintiff in error as controlling au-
thority, is in no wise applicable, because in that case the
| trial of Gray, the relator, was adjudged to be irregular, as
the trial board was not constituted as required by the rules
| of the Civil Service Commission, and Gray was also deprived
of the opportunity to be heard in his own defense - elements
which are not present in Wexenna'ts case,
If it were neceasary for us to decide this case
;
;
pon its merits, wuich it is not, we should be impelled to
find that keKenna was convicted of a heinous offense, dishonest
in itself and destructive of the discipline of the police
force, of which he was a meuber,
The proceeding against McKenna, whieh resulted in
hia discharge from the service of defendant in error, being
regular and conforming te the Civil Service rules applicable
te his case, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed,
APPIRBED,
tdyob yous 01 moos eaw eteds Tk .toveweH® - * Aun Atut
eldanoo anbateq of to Ineuatalogga oils to a Liagot oult ye
edt to aotaoa ef2? to molisoltitar edd sbtsod fobas om. 5
troges ati salticqobsa bus gnivoryga: mt nolentmmos. ond ‘Wh *
acla an bas “jevisoetr0s duslvitive s eaw enuban? 6
{atxd od ta botaeqqe oH” ,axque ,eeno Llowol sai abt
91 gids ai baa 1949 tob fiwo aid nt bined eaw brs nested
oH ,beflitint otew otudada odd Yo etnomotiupet odd (im t Ay
ait to molJoiboitul, edt of anoltooa{de to seatozg on pra
-Holeaiummoo odd of 10 btwod gand etoted tediio braod ae
Lnaqqs wkas no bowiazt ad sonaso nolsesup Lenoldotba itut,
tii 818 ,ogsoiadd to ystd wv aexen ",omis dark? ma x
Ni hrodtus aaisitoqqua a J— a
-,b6 .1f1 OL8 ,olqoot oT ,v ogsoldd to yettD |
ue yaiifortaoy as tori oi tiisatata 10T mat
ayy yy, :
od oeso fads oi oaunoed ,oldaotiqga eviw oa at at vedios |
f
A
“am
ea ,talugotti od of boyhulba eaw Ao⸗atos end — fala
.9880 B'sane io at dmemetq Poesy ote | —
o040 gids obioab os ay 1oT YIseseoen otew SL TL a
ot bolfoqmi od biwode ow .don ei tt dokitw ,athuom eft 1
Jaonoieib ,eane?to eveniod # to begaivace aaw sae aou todd
eollog edt to enitqioeib edt to ovidours sob *
+t0dao.a & saw on sokdw Ye
mt beodivect dotdw annexe —R anibeosorg oct
ty 17 F
anied ,totrs at sasbastob to oolvive od ‘02% *
ss eLdmotiqga eefux soivied Livio outs oo wminrotnes &
ebourti tte ab gxuod xolxeque + edt to — a 108 o 8 i
| ‘aaa
— ——— hy ha *9 i 9 Haeae —
42 = 21720
A. B. HARTRAN,
Defendant in Error,
’ ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT
va
a OF COOK COUNTY.
city oF ran ape: a — ne
corporation, ¢
Commissioner:
City of Chicas
— — — — —
Q T
198 Lh. 372
ER. JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE COURT,
A
\~ The order for.a writ of mandamus in this case
st\be reversed for error in procedure, and as the case
st Oe in conformity with the theory indicated
this opinion, the merite of the cause will be neither
etermined nor discussed,
pefendatfn error riled “BY. Retition for a
it of anager #eek ing to compel the plaintiffs in error
to approve-plans for a certain building and to issue a per-
ö0 w eS
mit —authorizing-ite—erection,} ‘According to these plana,
metal covering was to be used for the walls and ceilings
of the building, without any plaster on the inner side be-
tween such metal and the wall or ceiling, which was viola-
tive of the provisions of Section 605 of the 1911 Chicago
code, The respondents interposed to this petition a gen-
wea Reta x
eral demurrer, The finding part of the.final order and
judgment — — as follows:
"This cause coming on to be heard upon the
demurrer of respondents to the petition of petitioner and
after arguments of counsel and being fully advised in
the premises, the court doth find that section 605 of the
building ordinances of the City of Chicago as amended and
passed and in force on and after March 9, 1914, is unreasonable
and void as to each and all of the provisions thereof requiring
lathing and phaster above and behind metal covered ceilings and
8 in buildings erected in said city,"
4 —_ —* J abt } >
1]
*
estas = Se
“
MAMTHAR . J—
rauob TIUOHIO OT SOMME
{
|
eYTMUCD HOOD WO
OMe hel Cer
»THUOO MHT TO MOIMIGO ANT GRANVILIGG MOGIOH MOTTeUL .AM
9889 aids ni eymsbosm. to tiww oa to? ebto oT
tte
geno — as bas 19twb990Tq ai totre rot ea 3
betacibat — edt dtiiw ytiorrotaes nt —— 8 od. a ‘
‘Sedtien od Iltw seuss sit Yo etizom anf ——
— N
‘a ; an -besaavoeth tom bontaxes
& Tot — Pete bo Ltt TOTT9 aD gabnoteq
tott ai etitniala eit Loqmoo ot yainese
-it9q9 & sueat od baw ynibfiud niaties se t0o% anal sevorgas .
. — Y REN AINE — onan,
.enaiq gaedt of — “ — ———
agnifies bas eliaw edt tot beaw sd ot Baw galtevoo tasom
-od ebia tonnt off wo t9teelq yas tuotstiw Bab Lhud outs “i q
-sfotvy asw cotdw ,gntftes to ffaw add bas ‘fatem dowe neewd ;
oOgBBoLlNid (LOL adit Yo @08 aolttosa te antoieilvotg ent to evis
“1193 @ notatſog eldt of besoqgiosnt agnebaogest of? 9boo
~MOA ~ ow Nahe ah
bre tebro fanit.sdt to sasq —— eA? ato rts d {219 —
sawoffot es od Fons Totine whit bE bowtera t Snomgbs
— —
eit noquy bisend od o¢ mo antmoo seuno aldtT® .
5x8 tenoistigeq to moisiteg edt of etasbnogest to tatiumeb
at beeivbs yifut gated bas Leanvoo Yo etns tA totta
add to @08 motsoee stadt batt dtob tiyoo odd ,seataetg ont
baa bebneme as ogsotdd Yo ytto edt to seonentbhro gatbfivd
eldsnoesorgay al ,d{@L ,@ dors testis bana ao sotot ai bas or bas
goitinupet hootedd enoielvotg sft to [fs bas dose of er btov bo
bas agniiieo bet9vos {atom bnided bas svods tetasdq baw gnidésa:
| ".ysio biea ni besoore egnib liud "ie
,
io
iy ——
Pei | i ae ‘ , ee wie LAR
The order continued by awarding @ mandamus against
the City of Chicago and its Building Commissioner, as prayed
in Hartman's petition,
— — wild be noticed that the demurrer is nowhere
disposed of. ‘he Court could not enter a valid final order
without disposing of the demurrer, After the disposition of
the demurrer respondents had their election either to abide
by the demurrer or to answer the petition, If respondent
shall elect to answer the petition, the question of the un-
reasonableness or reasonableness of the ordinance may become
a question of fact to be deternined as other questions of
fact, This being an ordinance passed presumably in the
exercise of the police power, it will be assumed, until the
contrary is made to appear, that such ordinance is reasonable
and the determination ef the Council on that subject held
to be conclusive. Languel v. City, 197 Ill, 20,
| The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed
and the cause remanded with directions to the Circuit Court
to proceed to hear and dispose of the demurrer and thereafter
to proceed as in like cases,
REVERSED AND KEMANDED,
—
¥. eo)
4 ¥
&
genieyes aumebasm 6 yaibiswe vd —RR tehio oT “uf
boystq #8 ,tonoiseiamed gnibliud ett bas egsotdd to ysto odd 4g
nhs. aR) «glo ktideq e'namtasH ok ~
etoiwon ei t9t1umeb edt Jsdd beoiton oe fiitw x Se |
tebto Lanit bilsv s tesme son biuoo t1u09 sit to beaoqetbh
To moidiegogelb od teSIA .t9TtuUMeb ed to gninoquth euedsie '
abide of reisie noitosle tiedd bad esnebnogset tetaymeb ont ,
gaebuogeet Ii .aoisiteg esd towana oF to tetx1wMeEdb odd yd
-au edt to soltsesyp edt ,noltisedq eft tewens of toale iflade
emoosd yam eonsaibxo oft to seetis(dancaset to gasneidsnoaast c
To enoitesup tedzo es beaimteateb ed of Jost to Aolteoup 8 |
eit ai yidsmueotq beeasq sonanibie as pated alAT “dont
eds fitau ,bemsess ed {fiw ¢t ,tewoq soifoq edt to sulovexs
efdenossst ai sonanibto dove teadt ,1ra90qes of ebam ei yrstsnoo
bled toejduve tadd mo Lionvoy ant Yo nolsentaresob ett bas |
.OS £11 Ver M39 vy Lougnat review lonoo od of
beetovet ai dtwod sivorlo sdt to saomabst 9aT x 3
| tinued Sivorio edt ot anoisoetib dtiw bobnamet sauso ont bin |
Sedinsiesds bus tertwaeb edt to saoqeih baa t#ed ot boo oorg of J
29880 exif ai 88 beeoo1g ot
~-CHOMAMEH CYA CHORRVEH
= >
44 = 21726
I. LURYA LUMBER CO., a
corporatéon,
Defendant in irror,
ERHOR TO MUNICIPAL COURT
vs,
OF CHICAGO,
19S 1.A. 374
MR. JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED THE OYINION OF THE COURT.
PHILIP GOLDBERG,
blainti
Re ae ee
in irr
i, sean — o's — in
wh prdinta * recovered @ money judgment for- Soc against
ü—— —— — ——
det enaant on the: finding “of ttre~court. J “The elain for a
| mechanic's lien Wwa.s —— —— —J
teie-review, —— Crane
—
mer enaant had a contract with 1.
Harris, & general contractor, for the erection of a build-
ing, in. -¢omtract all liens and claims or right of
lien under the Mechanic's Lien Act for labor or materials
furnished, etc,., were waived!
Sjoue Lande had a contract with Harris for carpenter
work to the amount of $2100, Plaintiff furnished lumber to
Lazar, which was used in defendant's building under the
Harris contract, The Heitman Bond and Mortgage Company made
@ building loan on Goldberg's property and plaintiff exe-
cuted and delivered s waiver and release of any end all
liens and claims or right to a lien on Coldberg's premises
on account of any material it had furnished to Lazar, which
J
waiver and release it delivered to the Mortgage Company,
The Court awarded the judgment on the theory that Goldberg
had testified in a prior suit that he had reserved out of
the money due and to become due to Lazar, $200, which he ae
“OSTES = Be
8 4299 arent “Avs Sh) ae
80h! 8107700
oe, PA OS —E ‘ni daabas ted
THUOD LACLOLMUM OT AOMAA .
: ' ay
-VVADIHO TO
AYE AT 8er
.⁊auod RHT 4O MOIMIGO HHT quauvtasd MOdLOH MOI TEUL eh
* ORMAKLLOD uurna 7
To kas B ortos Met etd? J
ole 8 ——— ‘TOR si 2 *
Sanisys Sosg to? trie mab st yornton 6 barovooe 2 Liniate
ME ne g0 —
— — J
@ tot mialfo ont Ic ruooh· to” that⁊ Joa nod
~~ — —
— — — — a —
— . og — ton egw mokt e'olnsioen
,l dtiw tostinos s bad ‘inion ——
-biiud 8 to moisosits edt tot ,totoatinoo fe19094 B eho
to gigit 10 amialo bas anett Lis sonssmoe fod om cam
alattotsm 10 todel to2 soA meid e'olnsdosd edt tobay molt ;
ch bevisw stow ,,ote ipod taut | y
Qetneqies tot airaeh délw tosrsnoo # bad ‘ciead ena , —
ot tod bodealoiws? Piitais{t .O00LS$ to savoma ant od At10w *
oud tobnu gaibiiud a’tnabnsteb aL bse eaw dobdw —J—
eban Yasginod agaydtou bas bnod asadioH odt ,Joettnoo altieh
“9x9 Tiidnisld bas Yiteqord s'atedbLoo te aso —
{is bas yas to saselet baa ‘tov Law a botovileb bas boaus |
age imerg e'aredbLoo no weil a es Sogh+ 10 amtefo bas anette
do titw (tase ot bodetotwwt bad ti {elrotam yYais to nuoooa ao
. Vquo) agagtioM sat of botevilob et seaolfet bas’ roview
atodbio) tads yroods edt no ‘Seeper in eds bebtaws $1509 *
" * et dotdw 00s texet ot oub smoosd of bao eub ones 6:
yor
___——##e_have-not—been—favered—with either briaf-
or thre “part —— praintirfr * |
We think it clear that no claim for a Liven
eneral contractor, Varn\Flaten
v. Winterbotham, 203 12
⸗
JZ
fen and it did not try thi
98.
Plaintiff had * 8
case upon that theory. We. tind jaintiff's rights must be
ney
oa within its omplaint and\tiat therefore the
udgment was erronéous, lacking a finding that plaintiff).
viet ase right to a lien, |
But, proceeding further, we will\ dispose of
aintifis~cinim for- ‘hunber™furnt
*
— ——— —— — — — —— ek LEE
This stain ‘Taberutea by the testimony of defendant, Harris,
the general + dapanioet adh I and Frank Heitman, who — ——
— —— —*
“Tf the baw ~eeuhe-tokerate.
—“
the Mortgage Company x-
———
— —
eging one cause of action and: — —
still plaintitle fails,
The judgment” ‘of aotped Court is reversed,
and as —— no cause of — “ageliist-defendant /
eable in a court of Beal the cause will not be re=
— — — ——
REVERSED.
4
— aataadata ed} tot anibfoa |
J ditiw borevet—seod—-ton—oved_38——___. F
wed
.triintetq: tevtraq-ent—oe-
m@it & tot mialo on Sadt teofo 3 aAnids oe
7 asin Josiinoo eid tebaw as ,tilénislg yd box Sutem ed)
| taq alat, -boviaw eaw meil e'otaadosm a of dala ons ef
natas both anoeteq {fs moquy yalibaid soatinoos ont t
dj ,eitiesh dtiw soarttanoo-due yas bas elsitetsm to 10
{I Gos wadtodzedaty -V gessiiAipy .toseatinos {mteneg
/ .8en
hit yxt ton bib 3i bas nstt/on bad ttignielt |
eym eddait etttitaleig/lntat oW .vtoeds Jedd noqu oes
you edt stoetetesdy Suit Aaa tats (qaod. edt MEAS bw bowsese:
arsntacg stadt ayia & gnidorl ,euodaorte asw ——
Pi -Meit @ od Sdgit att Desiet Listas
—
3 owogase Ain ew ,teidivt gribessotq , tug X
branvaorpt onus {sits odd noquy Ptitatelq yd aba belo 9
gS iP ok ot saw doidw ,OOS% esizg sosttnoo sdt mort duo YLo
f
Mersat-bone trtyr ‘Tedewt tot misiouetivateg brews
— —
+8irreal ,tambneteb to vnomistass ost vd botutet et mialo elLat
—ñ—— ed —
Sesneaaxget ow ,memstio# ALAeTT bas ,t0ssatdnoo fatenesy ont
E ——— ee
— etstefot — wat ent “tF- Fanis-oe| x —— — — 23630 oM ods
— —— — ——
foaaoaa ——— Seuss SHO ⸗
ela tidnisly SEs
———
——— ai tuuod faqio tosnt-ont to Paamgbut ont
tnabie teb—-tetilays notion to savao on ead ‘TMitnis£a ee b
—*
“St od ton [fiw seuso edt ,wel to tiyoo a at ofdseotetns
- CHeASVaAR
46 - 21743
THE KUOFLE OF THE STATE }
OF ILLINOIS,
Defendant in Krrer,
. BRROR TO THR MUNICIPAL
\ ve.
COURT OF CHICAGO,
EDWARD LOR,
' Plaintiff\in Rrror
198 1.A.376
MR, JUSTICH HOLDOM DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THR COURT.
Defendant brings this weit of error) to haya us
i
4
revie a) judgment convicting aim, Ot being ap inmate of a
—
hous. of prostitution, ete.) _eontrary to See, S7, A. i ehap,. —
—— —
— — ⸗ oi
— — ce be a
oo R. Ss A jury: bade waived, the tried tudes 7 hear-
ing the evidence feund defendant guilty of the criminal offense
of veiling an inmate of a house of 111 fame kept for the purpose
of fornication and fixed his punisiment at 30 days imprisonmet
in the House of Correction, the payment of m fine of g100 and
costs of the prosection, 4* at $6.50, in default of payment
of which defendant was to be detained in the louse of Correc-
tion until the fine and costs are worked cut at the réte of
$1.50 per day, or until discharged by due process of law as
pllippelatlo
The ere
q by otatute provided, os
> Only the statutory record 48-befote. us,
rors complained of arc said to be ——— within this ree—
ordJy $¢-will_therefere-be-assumed-that the evidence was. auf -
iris i4
a which defendant YS? charged with offending went into force
July 1, 1915, befendant contend tnat the information euarges
— ⸗⸗ — — ————— — —
conviction and judemenat if the informa-
tion-warranted-the convictitn and the judpment ie a idawful
en he prosecution %@ by information, The statute
ü
— E,—e— — — fiat defendant ~
Savis 54
( TATE BHT WO Z40Ru ann
LOKI TO
stOCTA aL Saab tod —9
JATLOLAUM BH? OF ROARK
ov
MOL aaave
Sort at/Yttsaield a
eVDADLHY YO THUQD
aye . A. 1801
oTHUGD AUT TO MOLMLYO aur QUAAVIIMG MOGIOH HOLTEUG AM
eu owed od | —J to 3 Btw aids panied dnabas tec J
Pal
to os ani aA | aithod vs teh yalsoivavo * sivet
—
a
Gato ef * Ve 2 dae ot — —— 1980 Holts aera, Yo ¢ aid
-tasd * —8 Tatts eit ,beviaw Ce atk a ee
eenetto Lanimito oad To vs taa susbnstobh bawvot sonebive oid yak
esaogivg edt rot tqex omet {[f{t to eauon a to otmmak esis atied Yo i
Snoemnovizqui ayeb OF ta tremie tiue ald boxl? ban mott¢aotato? to
bas OOL¢ To sail # lo Jnemyseq od ,moitvert09 to @eue ast at
tooayaq to slustob at ,0d,358 ga ——— — and —X
-99%109 Io gawoll odd at boniateb od of sow anabeis toh okie Yo
to otax oft tm suo bextow ota ateon bus salt ont Litow molt
as wal to esesc1g ob yd ee fisayv to ,yab taq one
ror) das ads fe | bebivery otutade: ‘eg
-te od? a sco yieruindad ot vino |
-991 elds alidtiw ———— od of bilan nes to bontatgaoo *
-Wwe eae sprebive-ond-dandt — ————— Lore
~aorro tates ti vuemybyt- daa” wobsotyres- ‘
etusata ef? ,noktamrotat yd —— aa?
ha ret 4
—28
"A aod ofal daew yaibootto Atiw poytade SY saabaytob lie
; — old sarrotat eds dads Mebane scros timbas tec ~G£0L — voy
‘oui2 stk — — —R weld
CoE AD TOW nitd—o7rn-ongulT..... —E — —
— —
thabus Lob — ———————
— RD He
*on the 7th day of August, A, D. 1915, at the City of Chi-
cago aforesaid, at, to-wit: 1259 ¥, Madison street, was then
and there an inmate of a house of ill fame or assignation or
prostitution or lewdness, contrary to the statute,” The con-
tention Yo"'that the charges being in the disjunctive are ine
sufficient to charge ang offense of which defendant can be
convicted, and that the venue in the caption of the informa.
tion is no part of the information, Defendant voluntarily
went to trial upon the information without objecting to its
sufficiency or moving to quash, ( The objection made on review
Sa
for the first time is without
force, The trial court committdd
ho error in ruling upon the sufficiency of the information, bee
esuse defendant did not challenge in any way its sufficiency
or call for the ruling of the court thereon, Besides we are
inclined to the opinion that the offensea charged in the dis-
junctive are in legal effect and intendment but one, Hither
one, less than all, may be disregarded, and an offense of a
similar character against the statute remains, A house of
assignation where prostitution is indulged in is a house of
ill fame and prostitution is lewdness. We regard Blemer v.
The People, 76 il], 265, as authority supporting this/dicta
B |
and as in no way contrary to it, The venue is a part of the
information and the charge that the offense was committed at
the *city of Chicago aforesaid", etc,, by construction refers
to the venue as laid in the caption of the information, Again,
defendant claims that it is not charged that his act of be-
ing in the house of ill fame was unlawful, liowever, the
charge was in the language of the statute and the statute
made the act charged unlawful, ‘That was all sufficient, De-
fendant says he was not an “inmate” within the meaning of
the statute, in the condition of this record the evidence
may have established, for aught we may know to the contrary,
*
8
2Ru to ysi9 odd dm ,€L0L ,¢ A .tengud Yo yah AIT ond no" ny
neid esw ,foersa mosiball ,W @OSL :tlw-od ,ta ,blanetola ogao ‘a
i's geld One
to noivanyiass ro omst {fi to eswod w to etsmni aa event bam Y ;
“noo eit “,atudase oad od Wists A089 .eeoabwat xo wolsutiseong: —
aa
-ai ote svisounutelb ot * uttiod seyriedo ont tudd ek nokiaed
ed ago tnebaeted doldw to eanstto gaa eagtaio of — ae
=
ne
——
eamrotai ods to moitqeo of at ouuov edt dads baa bedatvriog he }
YLiteimsloy ¢asbasted .netsautotat et ‘to susq on ef none .
ati of gaitostdo syouistin aoisamtotal od moqu {eit? o3 —*—
wolivet oO obam noses tdo oat ieaup of agnivom 10 yous iota
bbstinomoo Jtwoo Lalist oT sort fuocddiw et emit tort? odd —
-od ,molsamrotni of? Yo youstoltive ed? sequ yaifut nt 10179 od
youslolLliwa ati vew yas al eynot taro. ton bib sannne tah wee 7
ets ew @¢eblacd ,noeteds txyoo ent to nativa on? ot ffs0 10 a
-alb ext nt benzado seens ite eit sad? nokmtgo ety ot bentfont a
Todsii .9a0 Jud Joombaedal bas soeTto Layo ai oun Weise’ i
s to senetioc as ban .bebisgeteib sd vam ,ifs aads “ J
to ogyod A ,uniawes otueats edt seaniage tetoatado talluie J
to gauvod a ai at bogtvbni at aoidusiseorq eatery nolsengiens :
J
-V¥ tome ld bisget oW -seonbwot ek nolsusisesoiq bas omst cob J (4
(atonb\a tas aaisxroqqua ysirousus aa ,cOS .11i a lanes ot Ri
ods to dasq s ei sunov oT Ji oF \YtHtsnOe Yew on ni aa bis
3a bestiomon aay seaotte edt tad? epteds oft boa moldemrotal J
etelst solfourtunoo vd ,.oc0 ,"bineotots oysoldd to vtto™ out
bapa Molsawsotai eit to aotsqno edt ak — a8 eunev ond ot nt
-3d to tow eid gad bogtado son ak tk todd ‘amtato saabreteh — Mi
edd ,tevewod ,futwalay saw emat [Lt Yo eesond oft at gat
etusate od bas osusste odd To eganygnal ond ab asw oy 6 I
“eC .dneioittwe ils eawidecdt .fvtwalau beyterto ben eds t a
To aninaom odd midsviw “esamni" as soa ‘enwod ayse $e a
| ,saiebive sit broos⁊ aids to aota abaoo ods al inte "1
ie — etersa09 edd of wonal Ysa ow Sigua 10% .bosiet
that he was permanently resident in the house of ill fame in
which he was arrested, and all intendments must be indulged
necessary to suetain the churge in the information,
Defendant challenges the constituaionality of
the statute for the violation of which he was convicted,
Whether this challenge be well taken or not is none of our
concern, “his Court is not vested with jurisdiction to de-
termine constitutional questions, if the constitutionality
of the statute was involved, the review should be prosecuted
in the Supreme Court, In this Court the presuaption obtains
that the statute does not offend any constitutional previe
sion, Barnes v. Drainage Comm'rs, 221 111, 627, Seeking a
review by this Court waived any constitutional question
which might otherwise be raised,
Defendant contends that there is no statute
authorizing imprisonment for the nonepayment of "fines" or
"costs," In this he is in error, Sec, 452, chap, 35, Hurd's
RR. . provides: “nen a fine is inflicted the court may
order, a8 a part of the judgment, that the offender be come
mitted to jail, there to remain until the fine and costs are
fully paid or he is discharged according to law." Gece. 448
provides that where jail sentences may be imposed upon de-
fendants, the court may send the culprit to the house of cor-
rection or other place provided by the county or city aue
thorities. The remaining part of the sentence - that the
fine and costs be “worked out” at the rate of j1,50 per day -
is in the interest of the convicted persen as it minimizes
his term of imprisonment,
The objection to the jurisdiction of the trial
_ Judge to preside at the trial of defendant is not well taken.
There is no reversible error in the record before
: us and the judgment of the lunicipal court is affirmed,
APY IRKED,
ai
F
ai vast (Li to saved eff ai Snebieor yLinensaresq sew od 9
beytubui od sueum estuembootal {is bas ,beteotra eaw of do Liter ‘
a
ia
moligsamrotai ei? al eyienso eft niatiewe oF ytasseosn
4
to yslisnoldusisenoo sit sogaetiano saabneted
-bedotvnos esw ed doldw to noltefolv odd 10% otudaste out
tuo to enon ak gon to moist [Lew od ognetiano elds oddone ;
-o) of noisolbeizut diiw besteev son ak éxyod ald? -t99M099
Utbianotsusidenos atio tl ,enoiteesp . {enoltus isemoo omiores "
betvoveotg od bhwode welvat odd ,bovioval aaw osusate edd to B
eniaideo ve kieeuease ast S100 a tria al .31y0oD emexque edt ni E
eivorg fenoijulisenocoe yas baetto ton asob stutaste ont? santa
s gninesté ,TSd .fil [SS ,et'mmod eqaniozt -V¥ sonted — |
nolteoup Lanoijusisenoo yon beview Muod atds yd wolvet
-besiat od eeliwitedso sigin dolaw
~
esiusese on ef etodt sadd shnotnoo stasbue tet
10 "senit" to suemyaqenon od t0t daemoalxqint guisitodius —
e'bxs ,8é .qaedo , o .1t0orte ai ak od elas al “,eteoo" —
van dxuee odd bostoiftnt el ealt se aedW"” seebiveorg ,.u Ah
-moo od tebnetto sad sadd ,Juoagbuet ed? Yo t2ag Baa — —
eta eseco bas eatt edd Litany alemez of sted? ,iint of bestia —
Sbdb .oot “wal od gnibirovss —— et of to biaq xf uw? }
-ob coq beeogat od Yom eooneines List siedw tact eebivorq —
‘bila inet to exes
fsits ed to noisolbalau, ods oF natteelde oat |
-Moxes [Low Jon ei dnabuateb To —R edt ta oblaetg ot
@toted biose: odd al tots oldieteves on al oredT
ae sbomritia el dived LeqioLawil eds ‘Yo Soomybyl
*4
47 © 21746
ERROR TO MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO,
COMPANY,
Plaintif&® in error.
198 1.A.379
BR. JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED THE OFINICN OF THE COURT.
This is an automobile collision case in which
the gas car of defendant struck the electric car of plain-
tiff while the latter was imprudently turning nis car
around from the north to the south in about the middle of
the block between Harrison and Congress streets, The case
was tried before the court, who found in favor of plaintiff,
assessing his damagea at $238.30 and for that amount gave
judgment, Defendant seeks our review and argues for reversal
errors committed by the trial Judge in his rulings upon the
evidence,
The rulings of the court are contradictory and
in many essential particulars erroneous. One of the material
questions before the court for solution was the amount of
damage to plaintiff's car resulting from its collision with
the car of defendant, Defendant cont¢zied that just prior | _
to the instant collision plaintiff's car had been in collie
sion with a horse drawn truck, but the court won not permit
counsel for defendant to ask questions on crose-examination
concerning such former collision, weitKer would the court | ~
allow any questions to be put to the witness of piaintiff
testifying as to the amount of damage done to the car in the
prior collision with the horse drawn truck, ‘this witness did
not see plaintiff's car until after both collisions, and his-
4 d
a
THUOD IAAIOIMuM OT AORTE
«QUAQTHS ‘TO
HAS
+ torr ak ttntets
ese AT eer f
»THYOO aur TO HOIMTLO AUT GHARVILMG MOGLOH MOLTOUL . i
ioinw af ease —RXE elidometus ae ak elu? tk
-nislg to 189 olLitoole edd Moutsa tnabneteb Io tao easy ot
t80 eid gniatwe VAsaobstgms ecw tetteal eat oLiew BRA
to elbbdm oft Swedes at Atuoe odd of idtom oft mort aun
seno od? ,atoetie easxginod bos nositteH neevsed toold oat
,Wisaisiq to tovet ai bavet odw ,tiw0o oft stoted boitd @ —
evsg énwoma tads tot baa OF,8824 3a sogamab eld —
Leerteyes Tol seugis bas welvet tuo ei698 Sueabreted — sao ; :
edt noqu egaltux aid mk — faiztt odd yd bodtianod —J—
—E—
bus yrotolbstinoo eta dxwoo oft to egniivt edt * —
isitetsem edd To on0 .tuestotte Bra twolsisg faldueens xauu *
to Javoms sid exw noitulos rot siweo ed. o10%ed wnoises: a
ditiw moleif{lov esi movt gulsiuee rt ts9 a'ttisnisiq os openab
N. | toltg seul fads bebsptnoo tanbasted ,sanbaeteb to two ‘ox J *
eiffoo mi need bas 185 a'tti¢aieata nolaifflos tuuitenbi edt 08!
Sinteg gon blyuow trtwoe ods sud «touts cweth vetoed 6 Adiw mole .
noivenlusexe-eeoto no enolitessp Mea of snabie tod tot Soanwee. j
™ | gxu0oo ods bivow —8X sMoleifios tomxot dove aleneonos
Tilininls to esendtiw ous of tuq od of enoiseoup —
eas ni aa9 ald of onob eyemeh To Savoma ete of Gn yaly
— bib eeentin sidy ,xowtd nweth sarod ons di be — *
a
ct is ial
om ald bus ,anolelifoo — Testa iitoy aso a! hoard. J J—
Po Oe 9
a J
estimate of the damage to plaintiff's car did not take into
consideration the former collision, Furthermore, counsel for
plaintiff nad the effrontery to ask the court to discipline
counsel for defendant for his temerity in asking questions
concerning the former collision, Again, plaintiff was al-
lewed to prove by his son that Officer Golden had stated to
him that his fatner was witnout fault in the collision; yet
the Court refused to allow counsel for defendant to ask this |
officer whether plaintiff had not admitted to him that his |
car hed a few minutes prior to the collision with defendant's |
car been in collision with a horse drawn truck, and that es a
result of such sollision his car had been damaged, In all
these matters the trial Judge erred,
The son's testimony was clearly hearsay, efter
v. Chicago City Hy. Co., 159 111, App. 81. Proposition No. 3S,
held as law by the trial Judge, was erroneous, it held that
the question of plaintiff'a being in the exercise of due care
and caution, ete,, was one of law, while on the contrary such
question is one of fact,
| We do not intend to pass upon the weight of the
evidence because that is not before us on this review, but
for the errors indicated the judpment of the Municipal Court
is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial, when
the evidence excluded, if again proffered, must be admitted,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
mot [9envoo ,etomredstrud ,moteiilos xemrot odd —5
esifqtoeib of gxyon add Aas oF Ytednor tts said bad ias
eneitesup goixzes ai ysirtemed aid rot tsb teb 10? foe
«fe Baw YiLsnialg «HiayA .moleiflos xomiot aad aera
ot betase bad nebfod teolttO tadd mow eid ys even ee:
| toy ;aoteiffos eat ai sfuet tvousiw saw todsa? Shit tald
| elit aaa of Jasbnetob ret Loenuoo wolia of boau'toz s1w09 |
| gk Sand miki of dossimbs fon bad Bisalaly todsedw t9OLT
| a"dnabnered at kw motelfioo edd of toltq sesunim wot — *
as dandy bas ,towts nweth eatod a Atiw Moletifoo at aged 9
{is ai ,bogameb need bad tao oid noie ites iowa to stwaee
; -berte ogbut Inlad ods vsetiam sent
tojicd ,yectsed yitselo waw. yrouisjees a'noe oat | ce
1E ,0% moldteoqont .£8 .qgA LI @bL 4.02 oh YthO anol )
tact biod tt BNOONOT TO asw ,ogbwt Lalas od yd wat os bie
9its0 exh to selotoxe ent ai antod ‘et %tienialg ‘to ‘woktaoup ot
Mowe yerernee eds no atisw wwat ‘to eno Bow 1.288 — R 8*
.onn 2o ono &
eat to dsigiow ous moan aang oF baosins 17m ob 8 ahs
nedw ,fetit won a 02 bebnames ok oauao ose bas Seu
bottinba ed saum bore ttorg: atass tt bebutoxe sonenive:
aaanaunn CHA eENECVE A |
» Bl- 21926
PROFLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOZS
ex rel, KARY BELASCO,
Appelfee,
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL
COURT OF CHICAGO,
HOWARD LANGFC
— —— — —
198 1.A. 389
WR, JUSTICK HOLDOM DRLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
this i+-e-preseoution for bastardy. / defendant
waived a trial by jury and the case was heard by the trial
Judge, who found the defendant to be the putative father of
a@ bastard child born to the relatrix, #-oney—jidpwent—in
the ususl form was-entéred and defendant proséecutes this ape
pent, the errors assigned and argued eC that the finding
and judgment are contrary to the weight of the evidence, that
there #e no proof that relatrix was unmarried at tue time of
conception, and that relatrix and defendant were non-residents
of this state, — ON: Oe
— —
—* Gone titpid
——— was an unmarried woman,, reeord.
fused to hdd as Ane law. in the ¢Griffm was adai
tion, eke is no evidence in this cAse " relatrix
was not umarrled woman at the time sMe concehved the child,
defendant stands cynvicted of being the father, in the absence
> a!) Bey
e9OtLoquA
JALTIDINUM MOHY TARSSA
-ODASIHD TO TAUOOD
POPOL OO PI OP
888 ser
rob SHT WO KOL“r@o: SHT GEARVILEG MOCLOB udi reut J
I mn em
dasbne ted — — —————
fsixd oid yd bimed eow sano oft bas yut we taind a
to todgat evidaruq edd od of duabreteb esd bawo® enw
aniopalt ois sacs 9d —— bas benpiann e1oTte oat
ae i) Rai
194890 s
\ — M snot badasttede-mqntspads od IE
ale —— attemow beltiramin ta FER unl *
— J—
ataeblasi-aon stow suabdeteh baw xitdsier tans bas nots eon
feqoontos to
Araater
a 7 or tees 7
ay ;
, on
of proof or challenge to the contrary it will be assumed that
relatrix was unmarried at the time of conception, Furthermore
eeratinix testified that defendant was the only man she ever
ie
o attemot was made to prove otherwise,
The trial Judge proceeded with care and tircunm-
carnally knew
spection in dealing with the facts, Not being satisfied wit
the testimony of relatrix in affirmance and of defendant in
denial of the charge, the learned trial Judge continued the
hearing for further proof. at the final hearing each side
produced two additional witnesses, ‘Those for relatrix cor-
roborated her on material matters and contradicted defendant
regarding matters which he by his testimony had denied, De-
fendant's witnesses testified to negative facts which were
without probative force and tended in no degree to establish
any material controverted fast, | The clear preponderance of
the evidence is with relatrix, Defendant rests his case in a
categorical denial of relatrix's testimony, but the evidential
facts so clearly discredit his testimony that the trial Judge
was justified in giving little heed to it.
While the parties were non-residents of this State,
they were both within the jurisdiction of the court, as also
was the child, who was born in Chicago, Defendant was arrested
in Chicago on relatrix's complaint and appeared and pleaded
without making any objection to the court's jurisdiction, It
is now too late to urge this objection if it were otherwise
well taken, Counsel for defendant admit in their brief that
under the law of this State a non-resident may maintain a
bastardy action; so counsel's contention that because the
parties Lavenved are non-residents the action cannot be main-
tained in this jurisdiction, falls of its own weight,
There is no error in this record and the judgment
of the Municipal Court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.
*
stadt bemveas od {Liw ti yrsxtmoo edd oS egnelfsdo 10 tootg to q
stomtediiu® .moitgqeonoo to amit ot Je bolirtemay ssw epee
tovs oda aem Yino soit eaw tusbasteb sadt aera xitislom)
r [_-seiwxostt evorg oc sham esw tgastis of\
—
-muotis baa 57a0 dtiw bebssoorg sybwt Isirtt oT
: Rai
edt beunitnoo eyhut Isirs bentseelf edt ,spieado silt to {sineb —
ebie doses anitsed Isenit sdt sa |.r0014 todtryt zot anitsed —
-too xittsfet rol seo ,esaesntiw [smolsibbs ows beouborg —
tusbasteb besoibsttnoo bas etetisem Leftetsm no 19 betstodon
deaifdstes ot setgeb on ai bobmes bas sotot evitedotg tuoddiw
to sonetebmogerg tselo ect [tow bestevortace [siteden yas
8 oi seso eid esast tnsbustsd .xittisis1r diiw ek eonebive odd —
= ata edt gud ,yaomiteot a'xitislor to Isiveb Iacitogetso.
— {sits odd tect yoomiteod eld tibertoeib vitae Lo 08 etoat
.ti of booed oftsit gaivia at beitisvas, asw a
,stste eidd to atnebiser-non stew neti sag: eit aLidW
oels es ,titu0o st to aotsotbalust ond nadsidiw diod etew vod
boteovts asw tnsbnsted .ogsoidd al mtod esw omw ,bftdo ont aie,
bebsefg bas beissgqs bas suis fqmoo e'xizttefst mo ogsotdd ni
‘dL ,moisgoibeiau, atiiryoo odd oF noitostdo yas goidem tuosdiw .
selwienito stew ti Tk moitosido eids ayts o¢ etal oot wor at
. tadt Isitd tieds ai simbs tuabasteb tot Loeensod nected “Slaw
& nisinism yea dnebiser-non 6 esate aids to wal oad —
Dy WML A Lg ‘a
edt seusosd Jadd noisinstaoo — Goemwo9: 08
+ eniem od tonaso noitos ont etusbieer-nor sf ‘beviovat —
.tdgiew mwo efi to eflat «nokta i a elds nt ben at
bs) 1 bee
, doomgbut edt bas broos elias oa —* — * 45 We
hy ; * Mee
U CTRT ROT GF er A al . ‘kid — — —5—
af
281 » 21264 /
EH. E. MC CARTHY and Cc. P. LARDIEg
trading as MeCARTHY & LARDIE,
Appellants,
APPEAL FROM
VS.)
COOK COUNTY.
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY, a corporation, A
wan 198 L.A. 495
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED TH® OPINION CF THE COURT.
)
)
COUNTY COURT,
)Q
This is en appeal from a judgment rendered by the
County Court of Cook County against the plaintiffs for costs,
following a verdict of a jury in favor of defendant, in an
action in assumpsit for damage to three cars of potatoes,
The declaration contained two special counts as to each car
and the common counts. One special count alleged the failure
of defendant to safely and securely carry the potatoes, and
the other alleged the failure of defendant to carry and de-
liver the same within a reasonable time. The defendant filed
a plea of the general issue. Some of the potatoes in each
ear were frozen while at Manitowoc, Wisconsin, or while en
route to Chicago, Illinois,
The potatoes were loaded into the cars at Spencer,
Michigan, Before loading, false bottoms and partitions were
Placed in the cars at proper distances from the sides and
ends thereof and were “doubled papered" in order to keep the
potatoes from contact with the cold outer air, and a stove
was placed in each of the cars, Three bills of lading, one
for each car, were issued by the Pere Marquette Railroad
Company on January 30, 1912, which showed that the potatoes
had been received in apparent good order and were consigned
%, Sa8l& ~ [8S
.
*
eHIGHAL & VHIMAOOM es gnibs1t
Legnelleqga
MOHD IARIIA si
,THVOD YTMUOO .@v
eYTMUOD HOOD
a SET GHWHT AOU & onanian
4 Moitsrogioo a hat
G 0 h ives | B'C [ aia the
~~.
y
‘AUOD GHT YO WOLWIGO BHT CHAMVIGUD YUIGINHD GOLTGUt ouIGI@and . AM
eft yd betebnet tnomabut s mort Lseqqs ams ef aldT
,ateoo tot ettitnislg odd tentegs yiauod Acod to sis0d ysnuod-
ng ak ,tasbnotob to tovet at yw, s lo totbirev s gntwollot
,eo0tstog Yo etso sexrdt of onsmsh rot siaqmuaes nt nottos
tso doses ot as atnyvoo Lstosge owt benistnoo noitstsfloeb odT
eswilist edt bexsils tavoo LIstoeqe end .etnsoo nommoo oft bas
bos ,ssotstog edt yrtso yLlorvoce bas yLetsa ot tnsbnetob to
-sb bas yitso ot t¢asbhbneteb to erulfst edt benetis adhe. —*
befit tnebnetesbh sAT .omist el{dsnoeset s aidiiw ense odt tovit
ross mt esotstog oft to emo2 .euaet Lertenes eft to abla”
me elidw to ,.nienooaelW ,oowotinsl ts efidw mesort otew 189
setonkl{I ,cassind of stuot
~teonsadé ts etso ant otnt bebaod stew eeotstog ont
tow anoititis¢ bas amotitod selst ,anibsol eto ted snsgifoim —
bas aobie od mort eoonstetb reqoxg ds atao oft mi beosiq
eit qeeX of tsbt0o ak "botsqsgq bofduob" stsw bre tosterit abe
evote 6 bns .tta totuo bloo edt diiw stosinoo mort seosatoq
eno ,ynthel to allid serdT .atsao ent to dose iit boowlg ssw
beotlish etieupisM esteT eft yd bouast etew ~tRO dose Tot
esotstog oft tant bewoila doinw ysleL ,O& ytsuNsl no waegmod
Ser
bengianoo etew bas teb10 boo, e— ai bevisoet weed
age
to plaintiffs at Chicago, Illinois, over route "Ludington
& Ce & N. We" The cars were conveyed to Traverse City,
Michigan, and from thence to Ludington, Michigan, Plaintiffs!
agent and caretaker, C, B. Martin, testified he rode on the
cars from Traverse City to Chica:o, and at all times kept a
hot fire in the stove in each car, From Ludington the cars
were taken across the lake by car ferry and arrived at
Manitowoc, Wisconsin, about one o'clock on the afternoon of
Friday, February 2, 1912, It was very cold in Manitowoc on
February 2nd and 3rd, On the 2nd the temperature ranged from
15 degrees above to 7 degrees below zero, and on the 3rd from
5 degrees above to 16 degrees below zero. About two hours
before the cars arrived by ferry at Manitowoc, plaintiffs,
Imowite of the weather conditions at Manitowoc, sent a telegram
from Chicago to defendant's freight agent at Wanitowoc, re-
questing defendant to accept the three cars (giving their
numbers) and saying; "We will stand the loss if any by freez-
ing; send cars forward today to Grand Avenue, Chicago," This
telegram was received by said agent at 1:15 P, M, on February
end, about the time the cars arrived by ferry. Defendant re-
ceived the cars at 2:30 P. M. on that day. They were placed
for a short time on a side track and then hauled by defendant
to its "Calumet" yard, about two miles distant, where freight
trains bound for Chicago passed or were made uD. The cars re-
mained in said yard until about 4 P. M. on Saturday, February
| ord, when they left for Chicago in defendant's regular freight
train, No. 180, arriving in Chicago on Monday, February 5th.
Usually, such a freight train,cerrying perishable goods bound
for Chicago, left Manitowoc at said hour each day, but, owing
to snow and weather conditions, the train echeiuled to leave
at 4 P.M. on February 2nd did not leave Manitowoc until 2
o'clock on the morning of February 3rd, arriving in Milwaukee,
motanibul” etuor tovo ,afoniif{I ,ogsoidd ts etititnislg of
<VtLO satovetT of beyevnoo otew ates oat "Ww oh 2 OD Dd
fattiinisli .aegidoiM ,motgntbud ot sonsdt moti bas ,napidoim
edt mo shor of boltitest ,aistisl .f .9 ,.asasteiso bas inegs
s tgeit eemid [fa ts bnew ,onsoidd of Yl eerevertT mort ated
etso oft mOtantbud mort .1s0 doses at evote ont ni as1tt tos
ts bevizts bas yxxet tso Yd owal sod eaotos nolat etow
to moomtetts edd mo AooLo'o eno duods ,mtanooetW ,cowosinsi
m0 cowosinsM mi bloo ytev esw SI .SLeL a Yrssidet ‘Vebkri
mort boxnsr stutetscomes eft baS sft oO .bté bas bas vrsuidet
mott bie edd no buns ,otes woled asetgeb VY ot svods esetgeb af
emod owt tuodA .ot9es woled aserneb Sf ot evods esotgeb €
pattidniela ,oowotlnsM te YITet Yd bevitie ateo odt o10 ted
mstzefet s tnea ,oowotinsM ts anoltibnoo tedtsew eft to 3 atiwo mi
-ot ,oowotlnsll ts tnegs tiztott altnsbasteb ot ogsoidd. mort
ttont gnivis) etso serdt oft tqeoos of tnabme teb anit eeup
| super? yd yne UE gaol odd basde Liiw oW" :antyee bas (ezeduum
efaT “,ogsoidd ,sunevA bastd ot yabos biswtrot aren brea eget
yvinsideT nm ,M .¢ @£:;L ta sSnoge bise yd bevieoset esw mstgeles |
-94 ¢nsbroted .yitet yd beviiis ates sot emit ond fuods ,baS
beoalg srew yor? .yob tad mo . .4 08:8 te exes ont bovieo —
tnebmoteh yd belued nent bas Aostt obie s mo emit Festi 8 ToT
toigtett stodw .dnstaib aelim owt tuods ,bisy "JemulsD" ett ot
“8% @1s9 ONT os sbsm stew %0 beadac oꝛgos ao tot bauod entont
YiIsv1deF — mo .M TA 00 ds fives bisy bisa mt —
tdgtett rzsflus9% a'tnsbnoteb rit baavidy tot ¢teLl yous now . bre
Ate yisuyide@ ,.ysbnoM no ogsoidd ot antivirus ,O8f .o kets
bovod abooy ef{dsdeiieq gniyrieo, aisit togiext 8 tove Vilsuel | }
antwo ,éud .vysb dose tw0od bise ts sowotinai titel ——— ms) a
evsel of holyhbendoa aisit edt ,anoitibmoo ‘todd sew brs won, of
—5
& Litow oowotinsM ovsel gon bib baS yreurdel no .M bts
Ree kt eR OE ee ee PN ee ee Sa eee ey WORE em Vv EG i eT 11
use
Wisconsin, late in the afterncon of that day. ‘The train
which left Manitowoc at 4 P. M. vaturday was the first
regular freight train to leave after the departure of the
freight train at 2 A, @. on Februsry drd. After plaintiffs
had sent the above mentioned telegram, and about noon on
February 2nd, one of the plaintiffs, ©. i. McCurthy, called
on B. A. Little, assistant fraight claim agent of defendant,
in Chicage, and inquired if dsfendent would accept the cars
en their arrival at Manitowoc, an¢ Little infermed hcCarthy
thet defendant would not then accept perishable freight at
junction points, such as Manitowoc, on sccount ef the then
existing weather conditione, and that on that morning defende-
ant hed wired instructioss to its agents et certain junction
points, including Manitowoc, not to receive perishable goods
from shippers or — — Lines on account of the weather
_eonditions,) Subsequently, on the same day, plaintiffs again
wired defendant's freight agent at Manitewoc, as foliows:
*Put cars wé wired on this morning in round house. Wait
instructions from Mr. Little.” | this telegram was received
by defendant's said agent at 4:17 P. kM. 1 4s now appear
that any instructions were afterwerds received by said agent
from Little or thet Little was to send any. Defendant maintained
a round-house at Wanitowec. it contained only 4 stalls, each
stall capable of housing one engine or one freight car, and
defendant there had no other facilities for "“roundehousing”
engines or cars containing perishable goods. On the night of
February 2nd two of defendant's engines were put in said round-
house and two freight cars, of the refrigerator type having
no stoves therein, containing perishable gocds,. It appears”
from the-testimony that it is not the custom to "round-house"
any car containing perishable goods where the car has false
onistnian tasbastol .yis base of eaw efttid todd x0 efsei moxk
e-bmuot hise ni tuq ot9ew went ane a'insbnae ted tO owt bas Yrseut
hae off .yeb stadt to noontedte ont al otal ,untenooaly¥ a
garit oft caw Yabmeel .M 6d > de oewodinsl steLl dolitw a
eit to oistiaqes add srstts eveel od oiatd Soaiert —X Ri,
ettivatalg 193 tA .biG yYtsutdeT no .M oA S ta nisi ddatett i
MO Moor ‘eunile bas ,metygeflot benoiinem evods edt tn9y bai |
belles ,vwdsdisDoM . oH ,attitnisiq odd te ono .bn8 vsaurdot
,toabnoteh to tnoega mialo Joyiort Instetesa ,olssid A J— ‘mn
atso edt tqoo0a pivow tnsabmeteb tL boutupat bac oneo aud toh x
yAsisdoM Homrotnk ofttil tas ,oowedine® Jo Lavirtia lost no 7”
ta tdgtextt eldadai rod dqe0068 nerds ton blsow inabnetob tent
neds edt to tavocos no ,oowotinsh ea cous .atniog noisonut,
-bnetob yainiom teat no tent bas ,snoktibnoes tendtdsew patielxe
nottonuj, aisites ts ad nese ati of ano Lsountant heute bast tae br
ebeor oLldssieiteg avidost oc som ,oowotingsM gnibulont otntog
teoritsew oft to ο asenil anivoamnes 16 avoqcide moct
oy bs
’ . — ey.
nisgs etticaisly .Yeb emsa cnt no .Viimeupeudua l,enod ibs oul
:awollot as ,oowotinst ts dnoye delgioxt a's nbasteb bortw
‘ttaW .eeuorl bavot ai gatorom eidt mo botiw dw anno duG*
MEYARD eR Gee mstgetes aid? | *.eitsid ot mort — —
issqds jon woo wl OM OG VEsd ta ‘a bisa e'inabasted —
5
tnoas bise yd bevisoet absaesh ite siew emoijouitent yas —
tose ,eiissea b yino benisinos ti = .oowosinsY ts sawod-bauot a
bas ,tso deiyiext ono 10 enigne sie aatauosd to aidaqso Lista
"‘gaiievon=havot «sot aeitilioat rssdde on bast exosd tmabaotob
to toyin any nO .abooy eldetatisg patntainos etso 10 conta
nd tat MGI T
— can eqvs wotstegizttex end to ,e%s9 idgtes? ows ons *
“ Biseqqe ti .eboog oLdsaretieg Sahni Oe ann
“eavoteboyot" oF mocvavo edt som ak $i tats Moeu⸗ ot
galst asi te oft oteriw aboog —— paintataos we—
‘7
A
——
ode
bottoms and sides and a stove therein and an attendant to
maintain the fires, as was the case with the cars in questim
It further a the testimony of plaintiffs! caretaker,
Martin, in charge of the heating of the cars, that when freight
train No. 180, scheduled to leave Manitowoc on the afternoon of
February 2nd, finally arrived from the north about 2 o'clock on
_the morning ef February 3rd, he heard the conductor of the
train say that he could not put the three cars in said train
for the reason that “he had his tonnage," which meant that he
then had in his train all the cars he could haul on his
division; that the cars in question remained in the yard expos-
ed to the cold wind; that notwithstanding he kept a hot fire
in the cars all the time some of the ———— at the ends of
the cars were — en February 3rd mail haters they left
Manitowoc; and that they were in good condition and not frozen
when they eer in Manitowoc. It further ———— the
evidence that shortly after the arrival of the potatoes in
Chicago, on February 5th, the same were sold, and that solely
because of their frozen — plaintiffs sustained a loss
of about $773, It déés not appear, however, that. plaintiffs
suffered any damages by reason of any unreasonable delay, if
such delay there was, in the delivery of the potatoes at
Chicago,
It is first contdnded by counsel for plaintiffs
that, on the issue whether or not defendant failed in the
performance of its implied contract to safely carry the
potatoes from the time it received them at Manitowoc until
it delivered them to plaintiffs at Chicago, the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence. Ye do not think that it
is, It should be borne in mind that plaintiffs, knowing of
the weather conditions, wired defendant's agent at Manitowoc,
before the cars were received by defendant, to accept the
ob=
a
ot tnusbnetta ms bas ntetedt evota s bas eebla bre amostod
‘oiteeup mt atso eft dtiw eeso edt eaw es ,estt?t oft atstatem
\
ytotsterso 'attitnislq to ynomitees oft mort eraoggs t3edtiut tT
deigtett nedw teft ,etso edd Yo anttsed odt to sarsdo mt , ait Tall
to moonrette edd mo ocowostinsl svsef ot befubedoe .O8fL .ou nia
mo Aoofoto S$ suods ditronm oft mort bevitia yLisait ,bak yisuidef
edt to totovbmoo edd brsed of ,bxé Yrsuidet to gatmtom edd -
mnizit bisa of atao sexdt ont tug ton biuoo ed tanit vee atett
ed tsdt tnaem doldw “,eysnnot eid ber of" tads noesot edt 10%
eis no [usd blyoo on eres ont Lis mters etd at bed nost
-eoqxs bisy edt mi bentamet noiseeup ai erso ett todt snotatvib
siit tod s tgex off gnibass edd twion geds ~botw bioo oct ot be
to abns odd ts Beosstog eit to emoe emit ong fies etso ont at
ttef yedt etoted bas bit. yisuidet ne meso etsw etss oad
m9so Tt ton bae nottibaon boog at etew yerlt tant bas ;oowot ins
ant — —— tedgiuyt $I 0oovoo mi beviris yors nedw
nk esotetog odt to LIsvirtis eft tstte yitiede tedt sonebive
yfefos tant bas blo etew emsa ons Ata yissxde® mo ,ogsoidd
eeol s bentateve etttintsiq molsibmoo mezort xzteds to eausoed
etiitnislg ted ,1evewod ,tseqqs ton abbb tI STS Suods to
ti ,ysleb efdanoessiny yas to noeset yd eegsmeh yns betotive
ts esotstoq ent to ————— mk ,esw sitedt SCob dove
: ; 20g69f09
atiitnts£g tot Loemoo yt hebnbsnoo gertt at #1
edd mi belist tnsbneteb ton to tentedmw eveal ond mo ,tadt
edt yatso yLetse ot tositinoo betiqmt at to sonanrotiegq
fico oowodtasM ¢s medt boviesot tt eomtd ont mort aeotsatog
ek toibteov st ,ogsoidd ts attisnatslq ot modt beteviteb tt
sf tadt Anidt tom ob sW ,eonshive eft to tdgtow oft tantsgys
to gotworm ,ettivnislg tedt baim nt entod ed blyode s1 —
ae
PowotinslM ts FAogs a'itnsbastsbhb bertw .8nols Ebaoo sod sew edt
eit tqooos ot ,sasbnetob yd bevieoot etew atso ont oroted:
: eb a a
ee ee ete
aes <5
25
cars and that they would stand any loss to the potatoes
by freezing. The cars were not accepted by defendant until
after the receipt of that telegram by defendant's agent at
Manitowoc, and the subsequent acts of defendant in the handling
of the cars at Manitowoc should, we think, be considered in the
light of that telegram, the severe weather conditions then
existing and the fact that the cars were heated by stoves
in charge of plaintiffs' csretaker, Plaintiffs' second
telegram to defendant's said agent was not received until
about three hours after the receipt of the first telegram and
until after defendant had received the cars in compliance
therewith. Counsel for plaintiffs argue that the first tele-
gram can not be construed as meaning any more than that plain-
tiffs would relieve defendent from its liability as an insurer
and that plaintiffs did not intend. to relieve defendant from
liability resulting from its negligence, We are of the opinion,
however, that the telegram and the action of defendant in accept
ing the cars thereafter should be considered as in the nature of
@ special agreement between the parties, Plaintiffs were anxious
to get their potatoes as quickly as possible in Chicago, and,
mowing of the weather conditions and that the cars might be held
up at the ferry landing at Manitowoc on that account were willing
to take chances of the potatoes freezing, especially so as the
cars were heated and their caretaker was in charge of the cars,
and, hence, they proposed to defendant that if it would accept
the cars at once they would assume the risk of loss from freez~
ing, and, acting upon the proposition, def endant accepted the
cars. And, under all the facts and circumstances in evidence,
we think that the jury were fully warranted in returning the
verdict they did,
Counsel for plaintiffs further contend that the court
erred in giving to the jury two instructions, Nos, 11 and 15,
=O w
ssoistog elt ot esaol yas baste blyow ysdi tisdi bas ates
fitny tusbneteb yd betqeoos ton etew exso ef? .gnissett yd
ts tnogs e'insbasteb yd metgelet sant to. tqtesst eft tet ts
gniibaed ect ot ¢usbaeteb to avos tnsypeadve edd bas ,oowodtnslt
edt mt borobtanco ed ,wnidt ew ,biuode cowottasM ts atao oft to
nedt anoitibnoo tedtsew etevee oft ,metgefet tsi to cise
aevosa yd betasd orow atso oft ¢adt toast st bas gatstalxe
bmoosa lfatti¢ntsiG .1telaterso ‘ettiinislg to spiredo nk
{tse bevisoet fon esw tneys bise e'tnshnetob ot matgelsd
bas mstgofet tarrt edt to tqtsoet edt t9etIs emo serdd tuods -
gonsaifqmoo mt atao eft bevieoot ban tnshmeteb rstis Ittay
eefet garit odd tsdt euvgis attiiniaslg tot Loemod .Atiwotent
entalg jedi medt stom yas aninsem as beyirsanos ed gon aso As
tetuent ns as yYstl{idetl£ ati mort tasbusteh evetfet blyow atris
mort tnsbastsb evetfor ot bootat gon bib atts ntelq tsdd bas
~motnigo edt to sts eW ,eonegiizen ati mort gnitiuest ytilidarl
qeo00s ai tnabnetebh to moitos ent bas matgeled oft tsit ,tevewor
to emssn oft at as botsbienoo ed bilyoda tettseted? arso ont gnt
syoixns gtow ettitnis{L ,eetiisq edt neswisd tnomsetgs L[atoeqe s
bas ,ogsoidd at efdkeaog es yftoliup es asotstog tlodt tog ot
fet ed tdigjim atso odd tsit bas anoltibnoo 1extsew edt to pnriwoml
yxiifliw stow soooos tsnit mo cowotinsl! ts gnkbast yitet oft ts qu
eft as oa yYifstooqee ,antssett asotstog edt to asonsdo oxat of
.~atso edt to eyitsdo ni esw tetstetso stiedt bas betsem otew earso
tqecos bſuow sk ti tsdt tnsbnoteb ot beeogotg yont ,somed ,bns
-soett mort eeol to Xeiy ont omvees bluow yeds sono Js atso eit
ent beteoosa Saubus Mb ~moltieaoqotg eft moqu gnitos ,bas ,unt
sonebive nit eeonstemyorto bas atost sft Ifs tebou ,bmA .8%ts9
eit anintutet at betastisw yifvyt etew yint eddy tedt Anids ow
«bib yort toibtev
too edd tedt bnetnoo tendtiuwt ettkinislq tot Leanuod
cl buna If ,aou ~anolttouttant ows yiut ent of gatvig at bets
26
we are however of the opinion that, even if it be considered
that the instructions were not strictly accurate, plaintiffs
were not so prejudiced by the giving of them, or either of
them, as warrants a reversal of the judgment and the remanding
of the cause,
The judgment of the County Court is affirmed.
AFFIRMHD,
~d—
beteblanoo ed $f Tk neve ,«stant aeiatge et To reveword ote oW
etitinialg ,stsruoos yYitolrte ton etew esnottouttent ont tandt
to tonftis ro ,medt to gnivig oft yd beolbuterq oa Jon stew
antbnemet edt bas ¢nemabut edt to Isersvet 6 atnatisw as ,medd
e9eauso sit to
.bemiitts ef t1v00 ysnuol edt to tnempbut, eT
oGhMAT TTA
|
\
36 = 21285
PEOPLE OF THY STATE OF ILLINOL,
. Defendant in Eryor,
ERROR TO
4 CRIMINAL CCURT
JAMES THOMAS amd JOSEPH KB. SROWDEN
* OF COOK COUNTY.
3
=e ee
q
JOSEPH B. swowpeit
Plaintiff i Brror. 8 I at. 4 0 9
F
F
—
af
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE WRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE coURT,
Plaintiff in error, Joseph &. Snowden, became surety
on a recognizance taken in open court in the sum of $1,000
which was forfeited because of the noneappearance of the
principal, James Thomas, in said Criminal court. Thereafter,
on Februsry 8, 1914, judgment was entered in favor of the
People against Thomas and plaintiff in error in the sum of
$1,000 and costs, To reverse the judgment plaintiff in
error, on February 27, 1915, sued out this writ of error and
moved that the same be made a supersedeas, which motion was
on May 1, 1915, allowed by this court.
It appears from the original transcript of the
record that Thomas was indicted by the grand jury of Cook
county for larceny, that Thomas with plaintiff in error, as
surety, entered into said recognizance, that Thomas did not
appear and the recognizance was declared forfeited and a writ
of scire fcaias ordered to be issued for them to show cause
why the forfeiture should not be made absolute, and that on
February 8, 1915, the court entered an order reciting that
“the writ of scire facias issued herein has been duly
returned by the Sheriff of Cook county," etc., and declaring
that said forfeiture be made absolute and entered said
judgment. Nowhere in said original transcript of the record
Vir
8SSlS = B&
,QLOulsuE YO wTaTa at TO Kzd0RT
torts ak tnaehustee .
OT sIOFISE J 9—
Ar
THUOD JAMIMIAO
—— HIREOL bas GAMOHT GHMAL
eXYTMUOD XOOD TO ie ; ——
amy ~H HUZOU
mi Ttitpiald
% f
©
Ob .AL SCH wre
THUOD SHY TO MOLTO ANT GuMVIIK Yue sOIrevy DULOL Saat 5 Ale
yseutuea omaced ,nebwond “it iqesol ,toxrre mi Tibinisld
000,f2 to mya odd nk saveo nego mk —— Sonssingooet & 10
edt to gonaiseqqo=enon oft Yo saveoed betleTtret aaw Moidw
~T9Itaotesit .tuvoo Lanimi1) bise nt ,acmonT eomal ,[aqiontag¢
edt lo tovat nk beotetmo usw trompbyt, ,tLeL .8 erewrdet 10
to mua end nk torte ak Ttivaialgq bas semodT seniage eLqoed
ni tittniele tromgbyt edt sarevet of .ateos bas 000,L¢
bas torre to ¢itw aids tuo bows ,aLeL TS yrssrdet no J
@ew moitom doidw ä sham ed emae ont bevorm
-tisoo sind yd bowolla ,GL@f ,f Yam mo
edt to tqitoansit Lanigiza sls mo xt eusegas #1
X009 to vil bosty odd yd betoibnt asw asmodT tant drooo⁊
se ,to1te ai tticatalq déiw asmodt oo Une otal mat Yitnvos 4
ton bLb esmondT suds ponent nooo bise oc ai 4 Wome —
tiow s baa botiet10% betaLloeb Baw VonaEtayooet ett bas ts9qqs
savas wotle of medi 10% bewealied ot bate bro aatsot gtioa to
no Jodt bas ,atuLoads sham od ton biworle exutietz0? ond yw
ted? yntitoet tebi0 as bheretae siwo0o ont SL 28 (ranido®
Vinh mood asi ntorod bowent antes? gttog to ¢itw oft”
aat aetoob bia ,.ote * «Xe avoo x009 ‘to tiftsedé ent yd bocraud oa
bias bereino bas etuloada obam ed etutistxo? phoe tard :
—— offs to tqtioenaxnt LIsntnizo bkea at eteitwok "pacar
2
is there contained any writ of scire facias.
Counsel for plaintiff in error, in their written
_ suggestions filed with said motion for a supersedeas, contended
thet, notwithstanding the recital contained in the court's order
of February 8, 1913, the judgment should be reversed because no
writ of scire facias appeared in the transcript, and in support
ef their contention cited the case of Campbell v. People, 22 Ill.
234, 235, wherein our Supreme court said; “The office of a
scire facias is both that of narr,. and process, and the record
should show, not by recital, but by its appearing in the record,
that the writ was actually issued, giving a copy of it."
On January 10, 1916, the People filed in this court
_@ motion suggesting diminution of the record and asking leave to
supply the omitted portion of the record instanter, and at the
| game time presented a copy of said writ of scire facias, duly
| certified by the clerk of the Criminal court. Counter sugges-
| tions were filed and the decision on the motion was reserved to
the hearing. eh TASER ABs HERS the motion was allowed and the
copy of said writ was filed. On April 6, 1916, plaintiff in
error filed a motion suggesting that said omitted portion of
the record, so filed by the People, had been diminished by
reason of the omission therefrom of the record of the proceed-
ings of the Criminal court euthorizing the filing in that court
of said writ of scire facias on January 7, 1916, nunc pro tune
as of Februsry 3, 1913, and osking leave to supply said record,
In view of the conclusion we havereached that said
judgment of the Criminal court, entered February &, 1915, must
be reversed and the cause remanded, it is unnecessary for us to
pass upon said motion of plaintiff in error,
We have carefully examined the copy of said writ of
scire fucias presented by the People and filed March 28, 1916,
it appears on its face to have been issued by the clerk of the
Criminal court on January 24, 1913. It recites that Thomas and
-asiost extoa to tiuw yne bomketnoo exedt ef
mestinvw akondd oi ,tot1e mi Thitntealg sot Leanwod
bebnesmoo ,sssboetsque 2 tot molsom bise diiw boLk% anoitsougue
’
aebxo etersoo off nt dontatnoo Latioes edt ynkbastedtiwton .jadt
on eausoed besvavex od bLluoda tnompost, odd ,EL@L ,6 yrawxrdet to
éteqaqwe ok bas ,tqtroans:s od? mi bowseqqes saloat extoe to saw |
££2 88 ,elyood .v LLodgmnd to easn off bedto mottaetane thedd to
& te soitto ofT” ;bisa Sus0oo emetqué ino ateterw ,36S bes
buecex eft baa ,caeoorg bas .cian to tedt dted al eaioat ertioa
,Stooss ons ni gaitacqqs ati yi dud ,{siiovs yd son ,wode bLuosta
*“.$2 to yqos s gnivin ,beveesk vilautos asw tiww oft tant
fivoo edd af boLtt efLqoed ost ,8L0L ,OL Yrsunat oO 3
ot evesl naites bus breost off to nolsuntalb gatvaongua aoiton a
eds ts bas ,tetinatent broset od? to moliaeg bottiow oct vfqqee
yinh ,aatoa? etioe to titw bias to yqoo s hetaesetq omis emsee
“aongue tedsasoD .tiveo Lanimit> et to Atefo et yd beitiiizes
© Bevteset eaw soitom eft oo molaineb off bus belit stew enokt
eat bas bowolls saw conedans oft ,d4@L ,88 dors oO .gatracd silt
— — —
— ———
ad Tiusntele. , BL@L ,8 LieqA mO bell? saw siaw blee to Ygoo,
to moisvueg bostiino bisa sand anittaesgua mottem s helit sors
ud beset akmss noed bsd ,oLqood edt yd befkt oa ,b1098% ont
-beesorg ed Yo buooes oft Yo moxtotods molaaimo ex? to noaset
tuvoo sadd ak gatikt ent gniaitodjua sau09 fantmixd ont to agal
mud org omur ,aLeL ,f Yisunet no astont pztos to siaw-biae alt
ebiooet bise yLaque of evestl aniven buna ,éL@L ,é yrsvidet * 8s
bisa sad? bedoxereved ew noleaulonmoo oct to wotv at
gamma ,éf@L ,8 Yraride® heroine ,tuvoo Lanimix) and? Ye ‘dnomabat
of ay Ict YIsesooonny ak fk ,bobuamet eeuso edd bus dearsyet od —
etortte mt BMiktnielq to molsjom biaa noqu essaq
to titw bisa to ygoo sdd boaktmsxe yLiyterso svad eW
-O£0L ,88 dorsit bofét bas eLqoed edt yd betmeserq satoa? cha’.
og t6 Aefo ont yd besoak need eved ot sost stk ao etssqqa ary
‘ baat
bea samon? tents aetboos #3 EOL .bS veraueet ao suu)lSD Lantoat<
i ——
652
Plaintiff in error entered into said recognizance in open
court on July 22, 1912, that at the January, 1913, term of
said court both Thomas and plaintiff in error mde default,
and that their recognizances were declared forfeited. The
sheriff of Cook County is therein commanded to summon Thomas
and plaintiff in error to appear before said court on the
first day of the next term, to be held on the first Nonday
of February, 1915, to show cause, etc. The first Monday of
February, 1913, was February Src. On the back of said writ
is the return of the sheriff to the effect that he served
the writ on Joseph J}. Snowden (plaintiff in crror) "this 3rd
day of February, 1913," but that Thomas could not be found,
On the back of the writ, also, is the endorsement, "Filed,
Feb, Srd, 1914, Frank J. Walivh, cerx. | section 17 of
Divison III of the Criminal Code (sec, 310, chap, 28, Nurd's
Stat. 1912) provides in part as follows:
“When any person who is accused of any criminal
offense shall give bail for his appearance, and such person
does not appear in accordance with the terms of the recoge
nizance, the court shall declare such recognizance forfeited,
and the clerk of the court shall thereupon issue a scire
facias against such person and his aureties, returnable on
e st day of the next term of the comrt to show cause why
such judgment should not be rendered against such person and
hie sureties for the amount of the recognizance, which scir
facias shall be served by the sheriff of the county where the
court is held, upon such person and his sureties, by reading
the same to the defendants named in such scire'facias, at least
five days before the first day of the term to which the same
is returnable; and, in case the person aforesaid cannot be
found by the sheriff, he shall make return of that fact te
the court. The court shall, thereupon, @nter judgment by
default against the defendants for the amount ef the recog-
nizance, unless defendants shall appear and defend such
cause; and if the defendants shall appear and interpose a
defense, then the cause shali be tried in the same manner as
other causes of a like nature, after any such recognizance
shall be declared forfeited as aforesaid,"
iy The judgment against plaintiff in error was entered
on February 8, 1913, It appears from said writ of scire
facias, issued January 24, 1915, that the same was returnable
on the first Monday of February, 1913 (February 3rd). It
ona
wh we
meqo al oonmexiageses blea otal bewstne toT1te ni ttiiatel®q
to oret ,tf@L ,yraunet ons ts sadd fel Ss : ¥let no Fuavo0o
~tiusteb ebam torte mi Tti¢gntaly dns samodT tod t1yoo bise
eit .batketuet borsf{oob stew asonseinpooet thodd sadt Som
aemonT coma ot bebnsimon ateredt af ytaved wood to Btirede
efit mo ¢uyoo blas etoted tseqqn od to“re wt Tt akalg bas
yabnow terkt ed? so bled ed ot ,erted sxen oft to yYab saxt?
to yabnoM ¢attt ef? ote ,eaueo wore of ,g10L ,yreutdeT to
i
ii ——
siww biae to Mond eof nO bad yiauidet aaw .cL8L .yisuerdst
bevise of ted? tootte ont og ttkvede ect Yo ntwtet ond ak
oxé atds* (aott nt Ttidatsly) nebwom’ . Aqenot no thaw ent
ebauot ad ton Bilyoo eamodT tants gud " €L8L ,yrsuide® to ish
~oelit" ,tnemeutohas oft ek ,onle ,di«w sf¢ to Aoad odt oO
to VL wiasos | Mateos ielaWw .G Aanett ,éLer edie dot
ath .8 .qatio ,OLS .oo2) obod Lantmizd oft Yo ITT moatved
sawollet as taisq at apbivote (sieL tase
fanimisto yas to beavoos al onw noeteg yas nedw® —
noateq dove baie ,sonatseqqes ald sot Liad eviy {fare sone
“goose edd te amitot eft dtiw sonmbtooon ak tasqae fom asoh
pbosistiot esaexingooet rove stslosb [fade tuyeo edd ,sonasia
stioa a exaet moavetod? Ifada tivoo sit Yo dvelo oft bane
no oldsriuwtet ,seitetse aid bus noateg dove semisys ast
Uie sauso wode of gameo oft to met stxon elt To vab tea
Sas aceteg douse senisgs besehbne1 ed ton bivoda Jemmabyt dove
5
i
)
)
ezios Moldy ,gonssingoost ext to Snvows off 10% eottema aid
ens otedw ytmvoo oft to Ttitola ont yd bevtes od ifane s
giibser yd ,aesitenus eid bre moerog dowe moqu ,bfen ak tiw0s -
gasei 3s ,anisst'oxtoe dove mi beman atnebaateb ont oF omse ont )
étse ont Noiiw ot mrss ess To ysbh satkt — Exo lag eysb ovt
— ——
od Fond bleaasiols ndeieq of} eas al ,bne jeids mies
ot gost tant to mtytet ofan [Lane on Vibveda 9
vd tnemypoyt t98efm ,noqueteds ,iisde P1089 oaT twee ae
-goces ent to ¢ovoms oft 10% atnabme teh ost taniean tiustob
dove breteb bas tseqqe ILate atnsbusteb eselay ,sonasina
& peoqgtoint bas tseqqe If{site etnebnetodh el? Tf bone j;eaues
us Tonman omee oft at bolts ed Slade eauco oid nedt ,eeneteb —
eomaxingooet dove yne teotte ,etudan oftl s to eveauao terito
*, biseetols es betistrot betefloeb od ilede
hetetme esw torte nk Tilintalg senisas snemybut edt it
etter to sitw bisa mort ateoqqs tL .ef@L .8 yisuidel no
eldantutor enw omen eft stadt ,eLCL dS Ytauasl hoveet .eetont —
#X .(bxE yrourdet) EL@L ,ytswi1de% to yahnoM saxlt ont 0
wie
further appears that the writ was not served upon plaintiff
in error until February sra, | He was not served "at least
five days before the first day of the term" to which said
writ was returnable. In our opinion the court was without
ee jurisdiction to enter final judgment against him on
February 8, 1915, or at any time during said February term,
because he was not served in apt time to require him to show
/cause at said term, and that said judgment is void, (People
V. Moore, 143 Ill. App. 382, 385.) In the case cited it is
hee "The jurisdiction of both the subject-matter and of
the person is essential to the validity and binding force
|
|
| of a judicial sentence, If either of these judicial facts
pe wanting then the sentence or decree of the court is void,
In such a case the whole proceeding is coram non judice,."
(See, also, Campbell v. MeCahan, 41 Ill. 45, 49; Mulford v,
Stelzenback, 46 Ill, 505, 506; Gardner v. Bunn, 132 Ill,
403, 410: French v. Xegan, 58 Ill. app. 261.)
The judgment of the Criminal court is reversed
and the cause remunded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
tiftsatelg nogys bovioa Jon caw Siiw edt sant ateeqqas tedd iu?
gassfl ta" bovitoe ton saw ell — yYisurdet Liinw torze at
biae doidw ot “mrat ont Yo wah Zexkt eff g1ieted eyeb ovit
tuodsiw eaw davoo ord molnigoe two ml ,efdanintiest aaw sicw
no mirni taniags stnempbut Isntt tofae of notsotbeiavt
iet yisuidel Siae gniivh omid yms te to ,6LOL .8 Ytewrdet
wotea o3 min siiwpot of omit tqs mi bevtes ton eaw od seusood
efgosd) .biov ak tnomgbuy bise tant bane yoted bisa ts oeuss|
eat $i betio seas et aI (,a8E ,S8E .qqd .LLT ELL oxo .¥
to bos tetiam-soojdve ont died to notsoibalavt ett” rem |
eotot gnibakd bnew ytibifev edt ot Laténeces at nosteq ods |
atoct Latotbut ovedt Yo redftte YE .eonesmoa Lalokbut # to.
“,woibut, non mexoo af ynibosoorg ofodw ond esa s dove nt |
| a
ehbiov ef tuoo edt to eetoeh xo sonetnee ods medt nalkinew ef |
ov Hrotinw ;@h ,c) LSI Lb ,aetisdvol .v Lledgme) ,oalse ,9ea)
effI SEL nme .v genbusd ;O0E ,60o {fT Ob ylosdnoxist2
(£88 .qqa ffl 82 ,mege’' .v domoxt 3OL) ,0b
Soazevet af tives Lantmixd oft to S$ nomabut oft
ebobnamet vauso eft baa
eCHCUMAMEA CWA CHBAKVILA
36 = 212385
PHOPLZ OF THY STATE OF Monas,
Defendant in rror,
MRAROR TO
CRIMINAL COURT,
vs.
JAMES THOMAS and JOSHPH HE. SNOWDEN,
obese & dnnon
COOK COUNTY,
JOSEPH KB, \SHOWDEN, { : :
Plaint ff in “rror. a 7 A Ly i) *
f > wy, J \.. @ : *
—* —
—— ———
—— ——— — — — —
|
O)
Joseph &. Snowden, became surety
was forfeited because of the nonsappearance of the principal,
James Thomas, in Band betaine Court. Thereafter such proceed-
ings were had in said court that on February &, 1913, judgment
din
f
was entered in favor of the People against Thomas and
‘tn=are@er in the sum of $1,000 and costs. To reverse the judg-
ment pA ha -ersor on February 27, 1915, sued out thde writ
prow’
iy and moved that @m same be made e supersedeag, filing with the
motion certain written suggestims, which motion was on May 1,
1915, ailowed Ng Bourte
it appeaxbls cont the original transcript of the record
that Thomas was indicted by the grand jury of Cook County for
larceny, that Thomas, with mas surety, entered
into said recognizance, that Thomas did not appear and the ree
cognizance was declared forfeited and a. writ of scire facias
ordered to be issued for them to show cause why the forfeiture
—— not be made absolute, and that on bebruary 8, 1915, the
fourt entered an ‘erder reciting that “the writ of scire facias
issued nerein has been duly returned by the Sheriff of Cook
county,” ete., and declaring that said forfeiture be made
absolute snd entered said judgment. Nowhere in she original
aa
aa: why
¥ | transcript of the record ie there contained any writ of scire
netiag OS a —— So
—
OT HORN
YT WW mf; HOOD
y ry
he aay
(
*
~THIOD LAWIMI £19 a
ae
— —
— ——— —
— —
ö— — —— — —
Ye&@wa omsood ,wobwone .u Aqeeot
Hoisw 000,f% to mye ond ni disoo mogo nt mowed eonssingooes & 0
elaqionixg aad to eonsiasags-non oft To eausoed betie trot ea "
«bessotg Nove tesiseied? .sisod Enada) oa ni ,aamont aemst 4
tnomgbst, .cLeL ,8 ytourdel no ¢edt g1s09 pe ni bad etow agnk —
+i bas esmod? teniags ofqood eft to tovet ak beret m9 saw j
epbyt edt sarevex of .ateoo bas. 000 ,£8 to mise end at toung-nt
tiww edett duo bese ,2L@L ,VS yussidel no — Eh dea |
ont ddiw aniiit goeboatogua 8 ob an od omss sé tadd bevom bre”
f Yai mo sw moitom doiniw ,aniveogyve nottizw akatro9 —
vents yd bewollis sal
btooet oft to tqitoanaxzd Laenigizo sais —— #1
wot ysnyod Aood ‘to vant baaty sis yd betolbnl saw aamonT ati⸗
RY |
beretine tore an-~ nd iw aunt doads watt
ot of baw tseqqe fom béb aamont sald SOMBRE BOISE biee oe at
aston eitow Yo tinw s. brus bes fo txo't borsis $b Gow. sonastagea J
ii eustietrot offs yrlw sevao wode ot mods T0%, howeel od oF betebt0 q
ons LOL .& uC awidet ne sant base ,stulouda ebam od son | —*
asins? gtiog to Jkuw sft" Jedd yutdioes —R as betes ne aap’ v
000 ‘Yo Vthved& ons yd bowusss4 Yiu nood est niered bouses
— .
5
—— vee
——ã
ebam od otwdkotiot bisa tnt antzaloeh, bas se ote * ytnwos .
Ms ee bids ni ererwou ——— b Lat bored baa ad!
-2=
Counsel for plaintiff in error, in their written
suggestions filed with the motion above mentioned for a
supersedeas, contended that notwithstanding the recital cone
tained in the court's order of February 8, 1913, the judgment
should be reversed inasmuch as no writ of scire facias appeared
in the transcript, and in support of their contention cited
the case of Campbell v. People, 22 Ill, 254, 255, wherein our
Supreme Court said: "The office of a scire facias is both that
of narr,. and procees, and the record should show, not by recital,
but py its appearing in the record, that the writ was actually
issued, giving a copy of it."
On January 10, 1916, the State's attorney filed in
this court a motion, supported by affidavit, suggesting
dimunition of the record and asking leave to supply the omitted
portion of the record instanter, and at the same time presented
a copy of said_scire facias, duly certified by the clerk of
said Criminal Court. Counter suggestions to the motion were
filed by counsel for plaintiff in error onc, by order of this
court, the decision on the motion was reserved to the hearing.
These counter suggestions have been duly considered, but we are
of the opinion that leave should be granted to file said omitted
portion of the record and it is so ordered,
The copy of said writ of scire faciae discloses that
it was issued by the clerk of the Criminal court, that it was
served by the sheriff of Cook county on plaintiff in error,
Thomas not being found, and thet it was returned by the sheriff
and filed in the clerk's office. .
The copy of said writ of scire facias now appearing
in the transcript of the record, and the only point relied upon
and argued by counsel for plaintif’ in error for a reversal of
the judgment being the absence of such copy, the judgment is
affirmed,
AFFIRMED.
nostinw xtodt nk ,1orre at ttisatelq tet Loanwod
a tot SDomolinem evods moitom oft dikw boll? anolivsexyyue
enoo Istkoset oft natbastadilwton ted? bobmetnoo ,asobsetsque
tnempbut, oft ,ELCL ,8 yrsuidef to tebio e'dawoo edt ak beniat
betasqqe asiost orttoa to tiuw on Be toumesni beeteves od bivoda
besko notinetnos thot te dioqque nk bas ,tqitoansart oft aki
ayo miotodw ,@o8 ,bES .LLT S& ,efgoed .v LLodqmad to ouno edt
tadd Atod at estost sttoa a to soitte sft" sbise siv0d omotque
efatiost yd tom ,wodea biuode brevet od brs ,sas007g bas + TI8M te
VYLisutos anw tiww ons tadt ,bioce ont 4 aniuseqqs ati yd fud
“$i to yqoo s ynivia ~boueak
nk beLtt yentotta atetaté ond .2L0L .OL yraumst m0 me
anitesyuve ,tivabittsa yd besroqque nok tom g tuvoo ahd
bestino sit yiqque of svaol yattes bas brooet off To no kt inumib
bestneesetq omits emaa aft Ss bans ,tednsteni brooet edd to noktrog —
to Aas I0 edt yd beltisico yfub ,sstozt ethos blee te yqao ad
stow noitom edt of enoltsoyguea totmuod .s109 Lontmt1> bkaa
sidt to tebio yd ,baw torts al Tiitnlialq wet Loenuoo yd beLtt
eis ew tud ,betebkLenon ylub nood ovad encistsoggue tetmvos oaodT
bsitimo bise efit of betnorg ed bLuode evael stadt sotaiqo eft to
eborebro o# ef ¢i bas brooe1 eft to notiioq —
tandt aecoloelb esioat stloe to tkhiw bkeae to yqoo oAT i ‘ 3
aew tk tedtd ,txuvoo LanimixD oft to Axelo ont yd beseak Baw 7
<torte mak ttitaisly mo ytnvoo AooD Yo Ttitene ont yd —
YWirede odd YS boaruter aw $i Sant daw ,dauvot gatod tom asmonT
aiitasage won astos? otkos to titw bkee to yqoo sAT
no qu bolle gutog yino eft bas ,brooot oct to tatiroenatt ont ——
⸗
324 ~ 21308
RUDOLPH ELLER,
Appellee,
é APPEAL FROM
Fi
VS. y | SUPERIOR COURT,
/
COOK COUNTY,
FRANCES Ae ELL > F
ards
AL 198 J.A. 411
MR. JUSTICE BARNES DELIVORED THE OPINION oF THE COURT,
bebe feiokid ¢ ah
— Tit" appeal is. trom's)dcoree! grentsn @ husband
a divorce on the ground of extreme end repeated eruelty,
dismissit the wife's cross-bill for separate maintenance,
directahA partition of certain real estate owned by them as
»”) tenants in common, and sepeint ies receiver to collect the —
— from ene BE Oper ty pending the partition proceedings ,/*
aitenecontenca EY that the decree is against
the clear preponderance of the Tremere ®) that ‘ie cross-
bill $=, suppor tec by the greater ia of the evidence (%%
that the court had no jurisdiction to make partition or
apooint a receiver,
The decree found that the wife had since their
intermarriage been guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty
substantially as charged in the bill of complaint, that she
was a woman of great austerity of temper, that she indulged
in violent sallies of Passion, that she had on two occasions
used personal violence towards her husband, striking him
once a violent blow in the face resulting in pain and
loosening his teeth and at another time on his hand with a
heavy hatchet bruising it and causing pain; and that she
used towards him opprobrious, obscene and abusive language
without provocation, and maliciously and without reasonable
ee accused him of having unlawful sexual intercourse with
7
i
hi,
Tih .A.1 Ger —
ok — * —
basdeud —5—— —— ak. sunset = ‘
, ont toslioo of tevisoex 8 rear bas —
* ———— —— ——— xen
——
aig bw sewoorot at fauxos £ —— atvas to —
*
\ BOELS ~ ASE
x |
( (FOLIA Aodua
—
MOAT TANGA NY!
,THUOD HOTANGUE Re LAN av.
sYTMUOD MOOD %
sytmectseck
+«THUOO SHE TO WOTUTGO SET Ca vidid SHAR gOLTEUG i ae
—
ago oat mort 4
-880T9 * tett cc — orf? to ‘sonesebangere xeelo 0 ods
‘]
(@) sonsbive. sft Yo pears rotaotg ‘ont x dot zosque me its o
“0 moitttisq exam of. notte bed wt on bed t1109 edt ‘vant
1s,
F . wevtene: 8 satoqas
—— vi; ‘
ttorndt sonte bsd etiw odt tastt bawot setoeb oat
ytleuto —— bas emsitxe to vi Liay ‘geod egelriaeretat
*
ede tent ,¢nitsigmoo to IAJ ent nk boytasio @s —
— tes
sysugnsl evieuds bas onsoade — ——— mba
ian i Tey Pe ey 9 yt
= Deo
one of his tenants,
Avis was sufficient ‘evidence on which to
base each finding, “dees not admit of argument, in our —
and whether such evidence clearly prepordcrates in complainant's
favor, depends altogether upon the credibility of the witnesses,
rnon the opportunity to see as well as hear gave the chancellor
a facility not possessed by this court, one which. has been
Peferred to as of the greatest importance in determining the!
weight and eredibility of evidence, (Corari v. Olsen, 91 11.
277; Johnson v, Johnson, 125.44, 510;"Porter v, barter yaa"
IOUS GS HET NUE ar HeNevsa1—were-of-tne-guue-
d character-as’ those charged in the bill, and the
Aawiy* conflicting at most of the
‘equiring-— shes fortteretion.at_the
redibility™ ‘oF the respective tnesses, and se fer as ita
— —
termination became” anevident fedton in finding the tacts,
e shall not undertake to Pata the-decree or analyze Ane
*
|
sential teh a
ce. that” Seemingly justifies the courtrs” rintings<
Ron-—tinetance;-we note thet Against the evidence of
— —
seven witnesses as to her use of opprobrious epithets and
abusive language towards him, cee nei bare uncorroborated
denial, and against three witnesses charging him with similar
language towards doers, Sate Lie bare denial, The motives and
interests of these several witnesses ee sutébetently dis-
—
ve 7 ‘the.f inal test by which their dreaingatty Was
termined. The application of such test is a well recognized
ction of the chaneellor, ona one.of much importance when
4t is clear that one phrty or set of vitnesses or the other is
ifestly falsifying, , applying the maxim falsus in uno falsus
mibus, the chancellor may well have discounted her
lenis — ai eonatroqmi teetsety oft to ‘Ba, of bette
Lat £@ ,neelO .v txex0D) .eonebive to ytiLidkbers bw, jHate é
, — varecra ccs cy totr09 OL vbt ASL ,noantol .v m0 asutol ‘sg Ph — a
’ ie | , —* — J
omas-orit-to-otow Litd s0e048 ond ni Shain” wegiadto
ont bra ,fitd odd ab boytato stent es-wetestado bagi
ext Y6 teon * gattelitaes: My *
— snbierehie no O-erofs--gnitiupet
ett as Ist-oe bas ascend t y.
edost edt gakbatt at 208002 tnobive tem Hino Od no kdnkmaod
aah osxſaas⸗ 0 —— — dusteth of sled to bm gon Ltase °
egaitit? a’siioo ond aoltivoaut ylyaimses — bs
to gonmebive odt tentase — ed orr-ow- porter On
: we
bns etedsie avoizrdorgqe to cau red of as —“ 107 oe a
Ao! a
| badetodot1ooms ersd rol ebmmke id ehiawod egsupnael vious
;
‘es PS ————————— if
‘
<slimie atiw mid yatgiaco — gerdt tanisgs bas Laknod
‘a
P
, bas eevitom eft ,Leineh ord will a1 — , ton eabiawot © opavamel
-aib Yfinetebbiwa son * asasend tw {steve sees to eseoredak
«
j
, ——— adnan todd ovlg of ai oiidana.d 01000 ont mi boaole
4
ifoew XAtu — —— ~elirw soubnos-baa-sonaissaqe~nkedt 3 —R
saw yi hLigibers xtont doindw yd taot Lenk tond iat
—
boaingooot Llow s ek tees cova to — esta ponte
aint 0 on pk evelat —— mut xem oxis —— —*
—
a ad
Pog
wad hatmtmanbR awad ff faw OS Ae acl cae
ode
versions of “the acts of physical violence,
#@rebe Her version as to both incidents of physical
violence was supported by her son, who took an active part
in her behalf in one of them, her daughter and another witness,
as to one occasion, and her daughter and son-in-law, as to the
other occasion, corroborated in the main his version of the
affairs, The main acts of cruelty charged by her against him
were parts of the same incidents relied upon te establish his
Vand -met—otant OF Tall ty the
-test—of-—erecdivility. It-wovld-subserve no-useful or practical
purpose, therefore, to narrate here the déthils of these
charges of the same character
incidents, —we-are-sattsfietthat-giving credence, as the
Ghamcellor mst have” done; ~to--complainant’s witnesses “Phere was
eufereitnt evidence of intentional commission without just
provocation of two distinct acts of physical violence against
him of a painful and serious character, while she was in a
State of ungovernable temper and evincing an utter disregard
ef any danger that might attend them, 2
J—— ree “Whsn-thewe—incitunia are considered _in—conneetion..
with ,é Evidence showing the history of their family troubles,
J apparently began over money matters in which he was
seemingly fair and generous, and showing that he had always
evinced a kind and peaceable disposition towards her and her
children by a former marriage, and thet she was a large,
strong woman, of high temper and wilful quarrelsome disposition,
given to vituperative and vulgar language towards him and his
tenants (all of whom testified for him and against her) and
that she had evinced a manifest disposition to get hold of his
_ property and to get rid of him, and had previously without good
) érounds filed a bill for separate maintenance which she dis-
en containing unjustifiable charges against him, and that
.soteloiv fsoteuiq to stom ent to° eno:
fsotaydg to ednobioat dtod of en notetov 190i ofiey
tisq oviioa na Aoot ow .noa rod yd bettocawe aw some Lote
,seentiw todtons bag tetdgush te ,medt to emo at tLetod ——
eig o¢ es ,wel-nienoe bas totiigysh told bas ,molesooo emo oc
eit to moterev eid niem oft ni botsiedotio9 soddnses: ste,
mid tantege tod yd beyrads ysLev1o to atos ntam oft sextet
aid daildstes os noqu heifer etnebtonit omaa ont to ates a
SEE TERY emsa ont to al
~
Isoitosia 10 Luteey on evisndue bivow-sI~
eaent to aflatob ont over o¢sTian of , sto tetensd— 9 aquuq
—
~~, — va ,esonebeto anivig- tadéd botietrar ots—ot > on
—X — — — E— ‘overt — —
govt tuodtiw noteeimmoo L[enoitnetnt to sonebive + pé8e wih ‘
tenians eoneloiv Isokaydg to atos toulsalb ows to notsasovex 1
S nak esw oe olfindw totootsale evoitoa base iv‘tnisq a so inhi
btepoteib zettiy ns antontve baa teqmed emer
| * 8** —⸗ — acl⸗ ——— ius
———
Noitoonnoo—it. berobLanwo "bra shewtrbont~onessase
~eefduort yLimest ated? to yxotelid ot gntwoda oonsBE Vi,
aaw of doidw ot etettam yonom tevo mazed yitmetseqas ——
avewis bed of stadt natwore bas ,avotereg bane tist Lanimese
ten bna tod ehtswod noliiaogalh s{dsvsoreq bas baid ws boon *
~oRtsel s easw one todd bas ,saeitisem tomt0t s yd noth Lbets
etoistiveogelh emoafesteup Lu'tiiw bas teqmes duid to ,nsmow yao
aid bus mid abtewot spavgnst usyluv bus ovitstequity oF nevty
bre (sod dentegs bas mid tot boititaeds mosw to LLs) ate
aid Io bLod tog of mottiaoquid sactinsm s beontve bad ede tan
boog duodtiw yLevolverq bad bas ,mid te bli toy ef bas —
-aib ofa dotdw vongnetniam ogstaqee tot [Lid se boLk? ab .
ted3 bas mid saniaya asyiedo eidattiveutas gnintedmos bosed
—
aia
he —— seventy years old (her senior by about
eighteen years )ywe-think the fact of extrene and repeated
cruelty;~as heretofore-interpreted by.our Supreme Court,
—was.fully established and justified the decree,
he other point mate by appellant.as tothe
t of jurisdiction to make partitionof their
real estate aad appoint a receiver to collect the rents,
is $0 clearly untenable that we need orily to refer to
appd@liee's authorithes to which apfellant has not undertaken
to reply. (Harrer v. \ ; “80 Ill, 197; Heyman v. He
210 Ad. 524; Van Vlect Vy @ Witt, 209 4d. 153) Besides
appehiant is in no port tion — such question on ite
merd 8S, as it appeérs that the pabgies had by mutual id ae
settled all controversies and questions respecting their,
;
rea — fr it is so found in the *
i
$0 far as the question is one of —
e Spied ablen’ Seminary v. Gage , 103 id. Sig ov
~The decree will be-urfarmed:””
A¥PIRHED,
en oCAMAL TEA
on 1 ;
J 9 a
tuods y¢ toimee ted) ‘bLo etsey Wrovee — ap YY
betesqot bie sitettxe to “Poa say antiit-owy( etsoy moddghs
.ftH0D smerque wwe xd betorgtetab rH eye
esotoeh ont beblitaeut baa bedelidates—
oni? ot ae taslieqqs yd otam’ THIOg itshto enh --—
.samybit -V gamyoH ;V@L , {Lr oe ;
aeblaet (28L .bt [0S ib at 47 to9LV geV jA8@ ob
ast mo nottecup dows —— *& om mi af dass
— Ladion “0 eno al moltaeup oft @8 a? od
*
— 8 J—— 4it tot eted beatae yl qo xqut al gi wet
\ (VL .bi SOL, oe — Yrsotar a Laotgolosat Ve: :
> pemetYns id ilLiw se1t.eS sit ~
ae ay i
—* Peon eee
334 = 21319
RAL FROM
vs, CIRCUIT COURT,
COOK COUNTY.
198 1.A. 414
MR, JUSTICE BARNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
J ‘This appeal—is-from-an~order-vatating a judgment
| teaken—ageinstappeliees—(defendants” below) 6n default...The
yh order was based on a motion in writing made at a subsequent
term in behalf of said Milton E, Petty to correct an alleged
error in fact, Sea eR Fer under section 89 of the
| —* a) Jollet a
b Practice het) a cha"
a
he wrtt-of
error Coram nevis. the basis of the proceeding was the
contention that said Petty was mentally incapacitated when
—— zal summons and remained so wn fter — ot ats
fon nat Ap, ——
the = jar, was had J attitavite, a Ane orepar” practice,
ñ—ñi ——
— ne
iar — Linseed-Compariy, "221 ITY" 162;~266. )
White-an_oral-hearing; Hs” requested by plaintiff, might have
been had-in-the- discretion of. the court.under section 86 of the
Practice Act, the record discloses no abuse of discretion in
aenyine the request
——__—> There were two affidavits in support of the motion
and two counter affidavits. The former were by physicians, who
attended on said Petty in the period referred to, and con-
tained positive, unqualified averments that he was then
wholly irresponsible and mentally incapacitated, The cowmter
\ affidavits were.one by the deputy sheriff, who expressed a
?
contrary opinion, and one by plaintiff's counsel containing
MOA IAW
enuod TIVORIO
“YTHUOD 3009
RED hel 6 Or
eTHUOD BHT WO WOLMIMO HHT ay ——— —A — EOLTeUL ce
poe i
me
— — ———
—E— 3 — t9bte nse mot? — —
eat. .tiusteb no (wolsd uinebnsteb)-eseiteag,
ineupsedue g ¢s obam gaitiaw nk noitom a no beesad asw Tob10 «
begelfa ms toert09 ot ytted .f nosLiM bise ‘to Yared nd mist 7
edt to @8 mottoee tobnays onob~ yar-es ,doe8t nt 0x20 a
(533 er "he MP 8 g) q
teetrtw sdf rer nettom 21s [eon sottostt
: oft asw gnibsscorg ot to esisad ont har eg ee
nemw botstiosqsont yliatnem asw ystod bise stadt notinestnoo
mended fondAng Gh) enti: goviistl Late non
,oolsostg dlehidirni hase, aow gnt
bas J nomebut teste Litny oe bonismet bus enommye dtiw bevtog,
<4 a
“V¥eeuper ont 3
| noitom ent to gtoqque mit ativebitts ows ox|w otedT < *
ew anstoLave yd stew temi0ol oT sadivabitte tod RYO owt bra 4
J -noo bas ,ot betxreter boltisq edt nk ytted bise no ***
nedt asw on tant etnomiovs bet tiLaupay — * bent 35 %.
. fet¢ewoo eT .betstkiosqsont \YLiataem bra eldtencoeerst xu re
g beasetgxe odw ,ttitede ytugqeb ont xd 5 esiv b
a a tk ea een ae dl 18't
@2e
X matter almost entirely hearsay in character.
— — —
—— ™e-order fails’ to-make~an~ express finding —*
—
“but it was unquestionably based on a finding that said
otty wes mentally incapacitated during said period, for that
as the oniy~issue raised and to be determined in the pro-
eeding. We shall wot disturb the,order because of such
informality. We think it was, nfutified by affidavits of
pérsons most capable of kuin of merited Senda tiens, and in
r pene the conclusion we disregard the motitne and petition
first filed” as the — * motion here considered properly
— ——— — — F
presefited. the. — on “which the-issue was taken.”
AFFIRMED.
ar 0 eas
: i : ; : ‘ Wap): 5
WT AO) fh US hae
‘ 4 wey *
ae — ——— Paonia
. te BaEBRIY exoraxo- m nein C : Te oT of —*
blag tant gnibait s no beesd yLdanitesupay saw $i au
tet tot boliog bise guitub betatiosqeont yilatnem ¢ pe
™ -otg oft mk be niiixed ob ed of bos beelat ove
Pe ove to saneoed —* ere diutats te ifade :
7 te ativebitia yd bekti2: —* Anids ef
x nk Bas no tttbhaoe fst nom ‘to oatabit.re » eidaqso
— poktiteg bas. anéisom edt biepetath ew molaikonoo ent gat:
c ven ge*.. —B sied soljom gneupoedue eft ashe.
b ei sneasd -2sw woonceredd fo iitw
CUMAL TTA
«
=
Pe sk
ht Nee a at
eee d J i Uy ‘ :
ay 4 Ge
a ima i 4 9 ap
S60 © 21335
ALBERT HERTEL,
fopellee,
APPRAL FROM
vB. GUP#RIOR CCURT,
COOK COMTrY.
CHICAGO CITY RAILWAY
COMPANY,
Appellant,
198 1.A. 415
BR. JU. TICE NARNKS NGLIVERED THE OPINION or vr coor,
This was s suit to recover damages for nereaonal
injuries, ‘the verdict end judgment were for 34900. The
company's sppenl in besed on the contentions thet {1} the
verdict is contrery to the law end the evidence and (2)
is excensive,
J Hertel, the plaintiff, was a pansengter on one of
defendant's cars that in 2 backward movement collided with
_ & ween and horses attached to it. He was probably thrown
from the cer end sustained injuries therefrom,
The declaration charged that the moterman of the
@ar “wrongfully, imoroperly and negligently ceused the car
to be suddenly and quickly sterted and in a backward dire
ection, and to be operated swiftly in e backward * # *
G@irection" agsinat a certain wagon in the rear of said ear,
‘ The car was an open, light summer cer operated by
@leetricity. fe-avert a collision with a wagon that was
occurred,
Whatever view may be
MAST aacxau⸗
THUD POLAYaTA
YTMND ZOO
Melb A. ser
Rr
J sTAUCS ENT vo uora aa HHT IMAC TREE aura sont ae tt '
Yi ! j kot) prc
Lanontog to% a9pammbh isvyooet of tive a waw etd
: ent 00K tot etew tneormphist, Baw toth ev eft } . é,
" ia at (£) tant onokinatnos ey no herud ak Less. a teen
(S) baa eonehive eft bas wal oft oF yrostnoo wk fotiner
| -eviongaxs
4 20 OO NO TONNeRREY A HOW Metabate edt —8
Aiiw behitloo snomevom btawload a nk dort tao ott
q Ki nwonls yidedord eaw at oh od heroatia seared si
‘. ) er smonterentd askrotak bomtatesyse —“
by “ods ta namtotom edt toad? beyisdo noliataloabh edt
mM 189 oft bengao (iiaontinen baa yivoro vem . ——
ehh brawloed s at ban. hottw#e —— baw yLaobbwe
negligence complained of, and whether the case can be said
to come within the rule of res ipse loquitur, we think the
evidence submitted to the jury werranted a finding of the
negligence complained of. Whatever was lacking in plein-
tiff's proof was supplied by the testimony of the motorman,
who, although he claimed as the reason why he conld not
stop the car in its backward movement that the reverse lever
became stuck so thet he could not move it back, failed hoth
to shut off the electric power and to apply the brake after
the car started backward. Ye think his ow evidence was
such as to justify belief that from his munifeet inexperience
and goufuaion he neglected to resort to either of said means
the exercise of which would dovbtiess have prevented the
accident.
But we think the verdict wes excessive. The
evidence of the extont of plaintiff's injuries ane how far
they impaired either hie permanent health or ability to
: work, is net as satisfactory os it ehould be. His principal
injury seems te have been the Aislecation of hie arm which
| “was immediately set. Ne woe laid up in bed for seven weeks
he
when his docter told him he could go to work and/réesSumed
lsbor of the same kind in which he had been previously
engaged, that of saussge making, and in which he remained
at widiminished wages for about a year, when he boid off
for four months, claiming thet he had pains in his arm and
other parts of the cody. He consulted no physician, but
acting on his om Judgment treated himself at home with steam
baths, He then vent back to the work of sausage making for
three months. ‘why he left it does not appesr, unless to take
the easier work of tying pork loins together at/wnicn he was
employed at the time of trial. He then got | i
) Br: or to the accident he received $18. PF a year after the
Sy Maat
bisa ed oso sand ed? teriterw baa ,to bent alqaoo sonsziigen
ot Xabit ow tutiupol segk get to ofut odd nbs tw emt0o of
aft to gntbait s betnontow yt edt of bods kdue vonehive
enttalq ot anblost eaw tevetady .%0 beniaiqnmoo —
nsariotom oft to ynomistaes afd yd boliqque anew tootg —XR
ton bunnd ef yw coesot eft es bomtalo ed AXyuontic 0
sevel setevet eft tant Smomevem hrawtond aff amt — etd qt
dtod beLitst toad $2 evom fon hinoo ef taslt of Houta omsood
iow oedabive nwo eld Motes of .baewdioad botieasse tad oid
sonetreqxent feotinam etd mott fart tolled wladeut ot vs dove
ansom bine to teritte of dronet of hofoetgen of nokentnoo baa
oft betaeverq evad saettduoh bivew doldw to ealotoxe vat
.taobioon —9
eit .eviesooxs asw tolbirov ant Anlidd ow soe wy
vat worl bre aotuvtat atttitaial to dnote edt Yo vonebive
ot yYdiitda to dileorl tnonnnteg ain todd to betiagar yeas
Laqtomizg alti .ed Afuoda #2 aa erotor tekéne os gon at TOW
foldw ats sin to nokfsoolelh ods need ovad of amoen wnt
exis ow — sot bed nk qu bial sow of ten yiotsthonmi “aaw =
boat ban Aiow of on bivos on mid blot totoobh ela norte
vinuotvenq mead bast of dolrty ak brit oma edd to todal
i bontames off cio a cin mt bow ons auss Yo tact bonaden
} tito bhee os nore ,iney « tucda tot: separ hosted aka bas ta
. bos mts eid nt entaq bert on fort paimielo ,ertd nom HOT 10% 4s
dud ,astokaysiq on bodivanoo ef .vbed ont te dads woulto |
maede Hgiw omow ta tLoomid bodmetd Trearghy | pero waka ne prisoe
tot pakion enjeevee to Xtow oft of aoad ‘taow as el⸗ oll santas
, Taeqqe ton noob #2 red « of vate etd a0m oon
—
accident his wages were from $20 to aa8.] How much harder
“sausage making is than tying loins the record does not dise
close, nor why plaintiff may not still follow his forner
occupation, for he scems to experience the same pains in
@ach kind of work,
However, he evidently experienced some limitation
in the use of his risgnt aya and bedily paine and should have
compensation therefor, But any other disabilities that ree
Sulted from the accident are somewhat conjectursul, at any
Pate very meageriy and unsatisfuctorily shew,
the accident occurred “ugust 20, i942. He ceased
to have mediesl attendance and resumed work Cctobur 25th.
The treatment he received from his physician aside from
changing the bandage ou iis arm consisted of rubbing his back
with medicine whieh his wife continued to do for four months.
Me hae not soughtnor received madical care Since, His
physician died vefore the trial, He is apparently an ignorant
man with little knowledge of the human snatomy or tie causes
of bodily Lilw. The verdict was based on his rather wnintellie
gible description of them, withut the aid of any medical
teatimony as to hin physical condition, or the seriousness
or cause ef the seemingly minor troubles, aside from the
condition of his arm, of which he complained, If they were
of a2 serious or permanent nature ond reasonably attributable
to the accident and such as to impair hi» general nealth or
eapacity for work, it is difficult to understand why medical
testimony relating to his condition was not preduced. The
evidence is by no means convincing az to the extont cf ef
still do the work he has done in the past even since the
accident, or whether the difference in wages between tho:
‘received formthree months prior to the trial and those re-
ET ge a) ART ———
— —
— — J
ay “tebrund Howe. woh {889 at Ose mark erow aogow abit duobiove
— —
eath tou geoh bxongt off eniot pee nas? 8h mata a⸗
nt entag eames end soreixegxe ot amooe ot wo ,nodsnque
| tow to bata
moldvetimil emes beoneitoyxe uhimebhve eit ,tovewol!
oda bisode bas entagq yiibod baa mre gmyht wid to oun edd mk
Wot tad wettifidselh asdie yuna ivi =. xe herons Noss saneqmeo
‘beases sli .248L ,O8 suvgwa boti990 dmubtovs oxlt
AGS aodesoO Atew semwest baa eonnhbnetie Laoiboem ave of
mort votes antoLeydg aid mott bevieoa: of dnomsooxs adh”
dosed eit paiddss to betealenoo mts uit no enebnad ons wrt pnndo
-adtnom syolt tot ob of hounitnon otiw aif Mot itw endo bom be
aiH .oomte otes Leolbba heviovst xondilgyne fon eos of (
dnatonat os “Ld neieqes ak oe ,iei«cs off orxotod beth unioteude
aeauno sid To Ymotans namul of To egbalwomt eLteit cid bw fm
whites abn ‘onltex eid ne beand asw Jokbiev ont .afLt “iibod ro
( favibom yas to his aft tuodiiw ,awitt Yo nokeqinrgesb otdty ‘
eseenevoixzca esd LO ,ookiibroo Iseeieyig eli ot as ynomktood
ond mori shbleaa ,eelduert tontm yYLynkwoer etl? Yo wade TO 7
etow yous ti .hbeatealgmoo on doldw to ,atea aid to mols 2609
eldasudiatia ‘idanonsot bose oipten 3 ri ram tog 10 auoitoe a xo
10 Atined detensy eld akeqmt of en owe ban tnebloog ik. ow
Laokt bes vit breatgatobny of tlaovtttib ak gt ,dtow stot yi bosgne |
Le
< 2 Fx a. 4
out ebesubetg Jon aaw molvibnos alin of yakialor aaa cl
Who to tuodxo of) o¢ aa gntontvneo ansemt on ba el “sons 1
i$ vomle asva deag ed nk onod fat on Atew ond on
a aeyow ot batten tact orit — Hs ee
o4-
coived prior to the accident measures the degree of physical
impairment. If therefore appellee will enter a remittitur
of $1000 wlthin ten days the judgment will be affirmed,
Stherwise it will be reversed and the cause remended,
AFP IRMED ON REMITTITUR.
— a
rads stmor a twetme Lliw aesiougn oroteredd — J
shomrktts of Liiw tiomghut od? eyed aod a
sbebnamet sauso edd bas beatover o¢ Kite 4
AUTEN TLIC YO CHARTER
“4h vr fi ae inet * Oa
556 = 21341
GENNARO CALABRESE,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM THE
vs.
SUPERIOR COURT,
ANTON J, CHRMAK,
Bailiff of the Wunicipa
Court,
» Appellant.
\ fF 198 T.A. 41 8
MR, JUSTICE BARNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
COOK COUNTY.
—
os
thie-was~ereplowin \suit (tried before the court
without a jury. Whe court found the defendant Cermak
guilty and the right of possession of the property in
question in plaintiff,Gatabkrese.. The property was levied
on under a judgment in favor of the Common Sense Company
against Calabrese's brother Vincent, No propositions of
law were submitted to the court to be held as such and no
question of law te otherwise rere in the record, The
only question raictinaal athe & — — ——
sufficiency of the evidence ss to the ownership of the
property.
The property levied on consisted of a soda water
fountain, a show case, a safe and cash register in a drug
store that had been owned and conducted by Vincent for some
years. Being indebted to Gennaro he executed a bill of
sale to him of the drug stock and fixtures including said
property s0 levied on, on September 19, 1915. Gennaro took
possession on that date and sought to evidence the trensaction
by recording his bill of sale September 22nd, He hired a
party to conduct the store and gave Vincent desk room therein
| for another line of — His possession seem#“to have
7
LhELS = d8o
+ ReTACAIAD onauumd
Ioqua /
Ar MONK JARTIA j
, . av
~THUOD MOI ARIUS ‘
eYTUUOD HOOD <HAMAYD .L MOTMA
Six 'piver ' em
*
*
eTHUOD BET LO MOTMISO HT Corey ttt _CEMAAL | BOTTLUT «Ab. as
tuuoo edt etotod — tuk (cheapest
xeorrsd tnebneteb oft bavot gies en Jy, s "guetta
mi ytusqotg edt to molLaseaeog to Agte oot bas ytiiuge i
betvel eaaw yiteqota sat sagmisted. Tit bela nt nétddame
Yaegqmod sense nommod sai? to tovat ai jnempbut s te bas 0
to enoltileoqormg ok .tnsonkV sedtoud e'seerdsisd senisga
om bos dove es bled ed ot tiuoo oft of botsindyea stew wal
edt .htoost oft at Rag h say trey eelwredto wk wel to noisesup
— IW Kary aKa ds. sh —* ——————— im
ont (ai -moltsrbienos æo 2 teqoxg molt aeeup vino
edt to qinetemvo old of as sonehive ed to yoneiotttue
| «YS IscoTg q
teisew sboe es to betelanoo no beivel ysiaseqo tq eT ,
auv1b s ak totvaiysa daso bons stsa a ,eeso wore & ,nisinvot ~
emoa tot tneontV yd betoubnoo bone bonwo need bad taht etota
to {Lid s botiuosxe ed otenne) of bstdebnt gnlef .ets9y
bisa gntbulont eoiwd?xit bne Asota guth eft Yo min of ofse —
aoot o1senmeD .cLeL ,eCL redmoesqed 110 0 boivel os Ysreqotg |
noltsosenstt edt eonebive o¢ tdywoa bas sisb jedt mo nokeassaog
"Ce
. e bottd eH .bnaSS redmetqet ofsa to fltd etd matbroos⁊ Ye
4
nisxodt moot nob tneont¥ ovey bas etotea ect toubnoo of xis:
eves ot Menesa noheseasog ati ass atoud 228 *
“ — date a
‘een oe he il ——— —— — me *
ot
/
224
⸗ toind that the transaction was valid and free —A fraud
— ———— — con travened the Bulk Sales Act. It was A
— — — —
“A that no notice of the sale was - previously given to the
Common Sense Company. tthe court properly found that WhO
ee,
mes-net-ecreditor at the date-of the salewy While 2 hed
(
received an order from Vincent for goods prior to said sale
it did not deliver them until subsequent thereto, and there wr >
— aren — —— — —
was Rothing—in—that-ctireumstance or- -any- Sthee evidence that
established either in law or fact the r vibe ame of creditor
and debtor between said company and Vincent prior to said sale.
¥We-find no occasion for disturbing the judgment.
3 AFPTIAMED ,
=
?
—
~ab
—bwett moxt sott bus bilsv daw noltosensat edd todd Be
hebeonos naw $I \ oA sola XLut edt bonsvettneo Fr eesinw
— —
— — —
eds ot mavig yLavolvertg asw else eat te golton om dai
th tent doum Vireqere txu00 ent tui. Yaaqmed eaned o
—RX 9
bet #& oftetw y Veise ent to — — oat te rod kb: en-eee
efaa biae of totiq ehoos rot JavonkV mort asbio as boviecet
corw stodt bas ,oteteds tneupesdyea Litmw mort sevifebh tom bib tk
WD
DMS '
tacts vonwbive [ent YUlus-tO. 99.003 emevtto fend omkdtod ee
“wy
to¢ibeto to gidenolisafor ort tost to wel mt aedtio ——
eolse bisa of toliq dasontV bane ynequon biss neewied tosdeb baw
o CMT —
ure Le —
567 = 21352
IN RE ESTATE OF WOLF
FREILICH, Deceased,
CH, individually
—J—— of the APPHAL FROM THE
estate of
deceased, CIRCUIT CouRT,
COOK COUNTY,
MOSES FREILICH ag
SCHONFELD,
RR. JUSTICE Banus DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
— — —
fis Appeal we from an order /af?irming in effect
an order of the Probate Court tareotine|etsPiant ep *
executrix of the last will and — of Wolf Freilich,
deceased, to pay out of funds in her hands , to two legatees
under the will, $1500 each , on account of their legacies
thereunder,
in—the~condition —J the estate We think. the order
g
of. the Probate Court was: premature oe not have been-
wes
—
upheld, When ¥t* wes made Tt apy appeargy that the executrix had
in her hands $14,459.70, that the uncollected accounts of
the estate were deemed worthless and that there were pending
Claims against the estate amounting to $4,495.10. It also
appeared that ad not been allowed any compensation
for her services asnéxecutrix, nor fees for her cousel, ‘The
Circuit Judge, on the proof before him, estimated that the
latter might equal $1700, and from the showing of record her
compensation as wien tree might ageregate, on a full statutory
allowance, $7560. en if, as contended by appellees, the i oe
J— — have taken into ‘consideration what amount ~~
MSS properly allowable for her compensation and her counsel's
"
"Ow FO ——
.bs ass d od —
—* HOTELS ave.
ST MOAT IANGGA
eTHUOO TIUORIO |
sYTHUOD WOOO 7"
Koad cd ⸗
tootte mt —“ Ay a —— Laogaph abet
* — ds 1109 etadord ent to xebt0. ne
loi fiert Low %o —— wits 1th tulad ont %o xbusuooxs
avesagel owt ot ,ebnad tod nt ebast to tuo yaq of ,boaneosb
estosael xrkedt to tno no oso OOCLF Litw out xebaw
.tobrsetedd |
tebio edt anit sw eistae odd to nolsipnoo-ens—al , é
nood evant ton bitioda bos ori d sno 1g asw PtuOo™ etadext_ot te
Nay" e —
bad xkisuoexe end tent axs9eqgs ) oben aow “9 monty . blee ‘i
to ainvonos betoslioomay eds old OF. 08d ML$ ebnad rod fg
antbneg siew stedt tant bas seoldiarow bemoeh etow otatas ont
cela I .OL.GCA bg oF Anis nvoma otadas ert teatags sort fo
noivasnsqmoo yas bewolls need ton ba todd botsege
eft .feanmoo ten 210% asst ton ——— asoivise tol x0
edt tadt betamites mid stoted toorg edt mo ,egbul —
tod btosst to gniwone edt mort bas ,90TLR Laupe daigin reste
— [iut e no eotsnetane Sagar xiiivoexe us nol tsar 7 0
ileal — — ATs rem:
edt ,essileqaqs xd — wa , th ——
_—_——-“}muontis Fadw nottarsbkenoo ofmk netad ed tam
~2=
fees whe) the order_was entered, yet the fact repedns that
neither had been tixed, nor properly Could’ ve /withdut the
Vv
— ger of that’ court, mien presumavly would“not be entered
out a droper hearing” ‘and showing. | is The record before
WwW
‘> indicates. that her services as executrix extended over a
considerable period and involved handling numerous transactions
and large sums of money, eggregating over $125,000, incident
to closing out a merchandise — collecting the accounts
mae paying» the creditors, | ‘and as ‘the court might in the exercise
of a —— — allow for the, executrix's <ompinsation /
a —— bea a sum which with the unsettled Lisbilities
might, when deduc ee from the amount in her hands, Leave in-
eam to pay ny legacies whatexer, we think the order
was
Nd
emature and should not have been entered,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
cat. ag
—_—
=
etotod brocot “ame A simulate bs lakes ro go a — ay
— ee
6 Ievo bobsmetxe xkittyoexe as aoolviee sod Jai -‘eotsoltbak wR,
snottosanstt eyotemun gulibaed bevlovat bas bolteq eldateblanos
tnebion: .000,é8L8 sevo gnivsgotags ,Yonom to amva egiel bas
egnuooos ent ynttoelfoo sReontawe eatbnedorem @ tuo gntaoto of
eetotexs odd at trigtm ta09 ot as bra! wetos bet ont But xsg bas
i — — —
\ foltoangqmod, e'xittvoexe Sad, 10% wolla nokseupatb galw 8 S
‘ j \ t
aetsifidstt befttoens ont Atiw doicdtw me 8 aoet e'ieanuoo b
«nt eveol .ebnadt tet ak $ ru oms edt mot ———— — cs
sobro eld Anidsy ow toyed. seloayot ens ag ot dnoiott se
.beted m9 noed eved Jon bivods bas oud amie 4 88 3
eTHCUAMNA CWA GHEAN VES
J
© 4
388 = 21575
WHITE BRASS CASTINGS
COMPANY,
Appellee, APPEAL FROM
MUNICIPAL COURT
VS.
OF CHICAGO.
AUTOMATIC RECORDING SAFE
COMPANY, (Corp.), ) ] O QT A ——
A pel ‘ant, ) en J ye Ale 4 6 5
- fer —
MR, JUSTICE BARNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
— Pisintife beam, was a manufacturer of
defendant ; wes engaged in selle
ing "little household savings banks", called safes. Under
arrangements between them the former manufactured the parts
vi and assembled them, and sent monthly bills for the same ——
as POPE
which appear to have been paid regular. y * over two years.)
ne~valU0-OT- WEF OEHULEE ‘delivered-and.cash
the last few months of their dealings. Plaintite
claimed as due on account..96,193. 922° Defendant claimed a/
set-off of over $13,000. The court's” finding and judgment
¢-in-favor-of-plaintif¢-for—$3,510493<" "
This appeal a ap for review, the refusal of the
court to allow three items of seteoff, (1) one for $300, the
cost of “fillers” made by plaintiff, and delivered and charged
to defendant against its protest; (2) one for $528,67, the
ageregate of an increased price of one half cent charged on
safes made and furnished between October 1, 1912 and January
1, 1914; and (3) one for $10,285.92 veing for what defendant
called an overcharge for material delivered between April
1910 and September 1913.
Plaintiff at defendant's request made a written
Proposition in 1909 to manufacture the parts of the safe at
— a
avels - 88E
re | ae
CON
BOUITBAD BANA anziw 4
YHADIOS
MORT JAMIA ,eellogga ake
TAUOD JALIOL NUM
eODASINOD TO
zep ALeel
.THUOD BHT TO. MOLMIGO UIT CMANVIWUC eHMAgT HOTTAUL .AM
— —— 3
to Towsostunam & esw eed tenet A many,
— nf bezesgno esw gpedied. dnshmetob NO
tobs0 .eetee beliao ,"alnsd agnivas bLodeavosnt ofttii" gat ;
; atisq ont bowusostunsm t8emi0t end mort noewsed ad 1OMOyNS TIS
oy: emea oft tot allid yLdtnom dinoa brs ment beldmeaes bao
ck — ows teve x0% —— bisg ** oven ; | ote
das, bas-borevitob Sseratts ven “Yo wuts eis
Vhs abolé -@gnifsoh xfodd to adinom wot teal ot 6 bk <
* bemisfo tnsbhbneted 80 +80L,9%-$00590 sto eub as outa
tromgby t Bae yatbok? TF 209 eff .000,cL8 seve to Ye
ach —R —— ne —*
SO. 018,58. 20%-Dbtinkely to rove tnt
» end) t0 {savtet ost wetvet xo? —22 fseqqs aint
edd ,ONE% tot ono (L) ,tto-toa to emesi ooxrsiz wolls of stuoo
begtsio das bexeviloh bas eTiisatelg yd ebam “eto lLii” to saoo
ent ,V8,888h tot eno (GS) pteetowg ast saniage tnabnoteb ot
no begiedy dneo tisd eno Yo sokig beesetoni ne to “ohame cane) 0
Visunet bic SLOL ,f sedoto0 noowied bedeiniwit bas beat sores F
tnsbnetoh tadw rot ynked Se. 888 OL8 tot emo (&) bes aia .
2 LIktq) meewted berevilohb fsiiesam to? ogtadsr9v0 nie bel
? -BL0L ‘rodmesqad ps
j * nettiuw « sham teoupot a'Jaaboo%9b 3s sudemtett
yA ¥ ta etae ont to apsag eats onus ꝛunm ¢
224
certain specified prices which does not appear to have been
acted on, defendant's secretary testifying that when ing
ready t9 arrange with plaintiff to do its business, the
latter raised its price. There was a futile effort to hold
plaintiff to its original proposition, But~whether it had
\
accepted..or.not;plaintiff.could withdraw it at any
ime and def endant.was..obligated-onty~to~the~extent..of goods:
ae redi\ The subject of changed prices became a
matter of discussion and correspondence but the record shows
thet the goods were billed and accepted at the changed
prices up to the close of the parties' dealings, and(‘Setualty
paid for without protest up to the accruing of the account
sued on, it is the difference between the prices contained
in the proposition of 1909 and said changed prices for the
Material furnished that constitutes the so-called overcharges
in “Sata third item,
ae The basis of defendant's contention with regard to
Said overcharges, ~ that it was induced to accept the changed
prices from the necessity of its situation and misrepresentation
by plaintiff as to the cost of manufacture, and that its pay-
ment of overcharges under such circumstances constituted pay-
ment under mistake of fact, = is wholly untenable, It was
merely a question of contract. Plaintiff modified its
proposition before acted on as it had a rignt to do. Defendant
may have been embarrassed thereby just as it was ready to
arrange for the output of its articles on the market, But
at that time there was no agreement capable of enforcement
against either party, and defendant was not obliged to accept
plaintiff's new terms. If plaintiff drove a hard bargain and
either took advantage of defendant's necessities or even
misrepresented the cost of manufacture, defendant having
given plaintiff orders on the basis of the new prices without
28
seed svsd of tseqqs son eoob dotdw seokiig botttosqe aistie9
ar $i now defd gniytitess yistetoea etinsbnetsb ,mo betos
eit ,eaentaud ati ob ot ttitntslq dtiw egnsitts ot ybset
blod o¢+ tuotte sflitut s esw erent .eotiq ati beats zetisl
bank ts sontenwetyG .noitlsoqotq fanigizo ati of Ltigais
J ;
/ yas ts tt wetbhbit iw. bBiveo-ttit nisig-,ton..2o. bet
-eboog 10 snedxe~ ont ot vino bedssiido.zsutiushbasteh has emt
g omsosd esotig bexznsdo to soeotdue oT et \/
—“
beansio sit ts betqeoos bas belLltd extew aboos ont sinie
witeuios)) brs ~egniteeh ‘eoituisq edd to svofo oft oF qu esoiztg
tnyooos eft te gniutoos odt ot qu seotsouqg Juondtiw 1z0t biag
bonist noo asotiq ent meewied eonetesttib end at t1 ,n0 boue
eit tot asoixg begnedo bise bus COCL to moistieogotg edt at 5
eepisdorsvo beliso-oe edt aetutisenoo stadt bedeloivt Lettedsat
moti bridt bide’ nt
ot bisge1 dtiw nolinestnoo e'tnsiastob to alasd ent a
beznsio od tqe00s ot booubnt asw ti dst - ,eegisforsvo bise
nolistneestqeteim bas noitsutia esti to ysteaeosn oft mort seoirg
“ysq ati tsdt bas ,eissiostuasm to veeo edd ot es tiitdaleig J
“VS betusideanoo eesonstamyotio dove tebny eeyisdoteve to Jnom
esw $I .elfdsnstay ylionw ei += ,tost to eiateim tebay dnom
ati beitibom itisnisi@ .tosttmoo to molteeup s yLetem
tnasbhasted .ob o¢ taigtt s bed Si es no betos st0lted nottileoqo1tqd
ot vbser asw ti as teu, yderedt beaestisdms nased evsd Ysm
tv& ,toxtam oft no eelottis ati to tuqivo oft wt egnstis
tnemeototnes to sidsqso {nemeetas on asw otedt emit tadt ts
sqs0o8 ot boxgtido ton easw insbneteb bas ,ytisq tsatie senisgs
bas niegisd bisd s evotb Itidntelq ti .aenred won attilsatelg
neve to eettkeaeoen a'tnshusteb to sgstnsvhs Aoos rtediioe
gnived tnabneteb ,siwsostunsm to taoo et betneaexgqeteaim
Seradd te eanb+er wan. ond. Sn (ebiced Gale) ee | Soke eee
~3- é
any binding conditions, and having paid for the goods billed
according to such prices, it was in no position to question
the validity of the contract or the rendered accounts so
paid which by its acquiescence therein became stated accounts,
The terms cf the arrangement did not hold plaintif? to any
specified cost of material, Hence, even though it induced
defendant to eccept prices on exaggerated statements of such
cost so that it might realize a greater profit, in view of the
fact that the actual arrangement between the parties was for
specified prices to defendant, and hdl Vaned on the cost of
manufacture or of materials, there is no room for contention
that there was a mistake of fact or for the application of
the doctrine of the right to recover back money when paid
under a mistake of fact. lience the item for overcharges was
properly disallowed, and evidence relating to the cost of
material and manufacture was properly rejected,
As to the second item mentioned, that of increasing
the price of each safe one half cent, such increase wes re-
quired by plaintiff's letter of Cctober 2, 1912 and accepted
two days later by defendant, and defendant's secretary so
admitted, saying "I accepted it because I had to." But
neither party was obliged to continue the arrangement, The
occasion for this raise was the incressed cost of metal, and
defendant had reason to believe that if there was a reduction
of cost of metal forrier prices might be restored. But there
was no binding contract to that effect. Hence, said item was
properly disallowed,
As to the item of $300 for manufactured parts never
ordered by defendant and which plaintiff had manufactured
ahead in anticipation of orders, we find nothing in the
contractual relations of the parties which obligated defendant
to take or pay for them. There was no mutual obligation with .
bellid aboon oft tot-bise yatverl bae ,enotsibmoo gatbaid yas
nottseup ot nottizod on mt esw tk ,aeotrq dove ot antbtoo0s
o@ avavoons hetobaet edt x9 tostd neo edt to Yibiisv ent
Aad auodos bet ata emaced atoreds someoasetupos atl vd ao het * *
tot eew eelvisq et noowted Inemegnstts [eutos oft ‘tant — :
to teoo ort no —— bas asbeaso tob ot esoltq — *
noitanetaes tot moot om ei st0edt ,aleixezem to to oAud os duen J
to moitsoiiqgs eft tot to tost to eiateaim s eaw. oueds tad
bisq nedw yenom aoad tevoeoet of digit ent to embutoob ont
asw eogiatoteve tot mesk ot —— fost to etetein ao ‘sobais_
to teoo ont of gnttelot sonebive bas ,bewollaatb ylreqorg E
,bosoe tet. yLteqotg esw sivtostunam baa Letredam iq
gntesexoni to sant ,benotinem metk bnooes ot ot BA
-9% asw gesetont dove ,tno0 tad sno etse dose to soitq oft
betqeoos bans SLe@L ,8 xzsdotod 10 tettel e'tti¢gnaialq yd bertup
os Yistesoos a '¢nebne tob bis ,taabnetebh yd tof#al eyeb ows
tua “ os bad I-satnoed $f besqeooa I* gniven .bestiabe
edt ,tnemennsirs ent —— of begildo esw youeg sodtion
bas _ Letom to tado beasetont eft asw oelet etki? tot noiaero0
moigousbex #2 sew stent tM sant evelfed ot nmoasez ban snabre te 4
ersnt tud betoteer ed tigim ceotrq ashxot Lsten to taoo to.
asw meti blee ,ooneH .toette tant of tonut noo anibaid on saw
} .S5owolleatd vireqorg
teven atteq howdos tumem xot OO€@ to meti eft a8 aa ie an
respect thereto, Defendant could not compel their delivery
nor plaintiff their acceptances, In the absence of any
arrangement express or implied as to a surplus of manufactured
articles or for defendant to take a certain quantity or more
articles than it ordered, plaintiff took the risk of making
more than defendant saw fit to order, -
ve should enter the judgment that should have been
entered below - the trial being without a jury - which re-
quires a reversal of the judgment and entry of one here for the
same party for an amount $300 less, each party to pay his
own costs,
REVERSED AND JUDGMENT FOR APPSLLEY FOR $3219.93,
— =~ Fy
yxevitss ried Leqnoo ton bluoo snsbusted .oteteds tooqaet
ya to eonseda oft al .eoustqesos ndont ttitalel¢ ’
im,
vile
bomsostunsn to eslqrue # ot us botfamt so eeaxqxe Snemegnstis
tee
ag Ns Bi
gatien to deli edt Aoot Ttitatelq ,bousebazo $f ment solottis
? nS ( ts J yy,
_etebto o¢ sit wae dnebnoteh neat stom
sion to ytitmeup xhatie0 s exed of dtnsbnoteb tot ‘to ae
need evad biuode tans sSnomgbut edd 19%me bluode ov :
est doinw - yout # txodtiw anied Latrt ent - woled bored ae
edt 1ot eton ono ‘to yttns bas Jnemgout ot to Lseatovet & eotkup
ain yeq of ytsq oso ,eael 908% auoeis fe tot Ystag oma
easveoo fr vO
V
>
> BC, CLSES HOY URIIEGIA KOT THEMOCUT GWA auemuvan =~ \\
—M
229 © 21624
PROPLE OF THE STATE OF
THOMAS LYONS,
)
ILLINOIS, :
Defendant in srror ERROR TO
7 ) MUNICIPAL COURT
V8. * )
% ) OF CHICAGO,
‘ )
)
)
5
Plaintiff in ©
MR. JUSTICE BARNES DRLIVSRED THS OPINION OF THR COURT.
—— — nr
De was charged on information with
larceny of "one United “tates of America Treasury Note of the
denomination of five dollars of the value of five dollars."
On trial before a jury he was found guilty as charged in the
information, on the evidence of the prosecuting witness that
\ the property taken from him was “a five dollar bill," without
further evidence specifying its kind or character, or even
whether the bill of that denomination was money of the United
States or some other country. Spek-eridenen_presente-nol s
— —
—————— —————— by counsel-for th
—
People, bu
—
ure to prove an essential averment of t
declaration. + lpia: domepees of no discussiion.
It is fund al. (People v. Hunt, 251 Ill. 446; Yale v.
#42 —ve-People; 101 id, 382;—Lo
— Sate
’ — —
— yr \ —*
oe will be reyersed and case — f or
\ ; i . : y
i
erry’ in overru “the motion foP& new trial,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
ae > = ee wee AG) —
4 t
TO ATATA AMT TO 2
oF Ost tort ok tandhoe ted ,
TAHUOS JAQIOL MUM
eODADIHD FT
.
i 8 A.1801
THUDD AHT TO Winey CHT CEPMVILNG GHMMAM AOITSUL . a
atiw noitsmtotni.no heytars saw ———
ent to etoll ytuwusetl. soltomA to aetat&® besinl one” Yo ynoouss |
",atelLob svit to eulav oft to artailob evit to —E
edt at bentedo as vo Livy bave? saw ed etoted faixt J
tant eaontiw antivoeso1q edd to sonebive edt no —
tuontiw " LLid xeffob ovit s" saw min mor? metad Ys teqom | ont
neve wo ,xevoatsno xo bald att arly tloege eo nebive — J :
bestia ext to yenom asw nolianinoneb tant to {lid orft OMS 9. a
a fon-stemassee aomebive dove .yutauoo tedte emoe to
—* Lee auoso Yd bebnstaoo se oeneirey to notte
* ad egos
»tobsevoalb on to atimbs tootdie Tr ae mek © ont —2
J eisy. peas Att cas tout .v slqood) — bew't ek
0d-(886...bh 104 cghaoes-+ wi{t® 7@08 ,bt LOL \pe
2 to stnoemieve {al¥neses. as * ot ot
— *—— a
f
* bob mame eae brs beatoter, od od —* *ncxcab ik ent
efolit won ‘etor no ftom oui UNTSVO —3
eCUCUAMMH an
556 - 20890
DUANE J. BABCUCK et al,,
Appellees,
APPRAL FROK COUNTY COURT,
vs.
COCK COUNTY,
WILLIAK C. REGHLIN et al,.,
Appellants.
1981 ie AS 43.2
STATEKENT OV THE CASE, ‘This is-an appeal from
@ judgment tor #426, 5G, entered in the county Court. of Cook
County, againat William ©, \Regelin and ‘William Jenson, *
—
pel ants, ‘in favor of Duane ae oeiek and Grace vabeoek,
4
'
EVE wife, —
Regelin, Jenson & Company, engaged in the real
estate business in the city of Chicago, hereineftier—referred
to #8 Regelin and.Jengon,. through R. F, ’cAkinnon, a salesman
—————— ._ -- —. ~~.
eaployed by them, sold to a certain Wallquist, a janitor in
their euploy, a farm situated in Kent County, Kicuigan, owned
\
by aye ~*¥pegelin and Jenson represented Wallquist and
no commissions or other compensation for services therein ‘
ally
rendered by Regelin and Jenson was paid by either of aed
.
%
Wallquist, as a part of the purchase price, gave to
his promissory note for $750, dated January 25, 1912, bearing
interest at 6% per annum, secured by a mortgage upon the said
farm, The negotiations in relation to the sale in question
were concluded in the office of Regelin and Jenson, j)uane
J. Babcock, one-of-the sppell ees, testified that at esd
time he was introduced by ekinnon, to ur, Jenson eme-oF wire
_ «appeliepsd that the latter said to the witness, "If you have
"any wore dealings, we would be glad to nave you come in, any
oo transactions, come into our —A
About a year later, watlquist having defaulted
«
s.
—9 —
te to ROODSAR otf
,ee0 [logqa
,TAVOO YTMUOD WONT TANEEA
xxruuod HOOD ues
,-4@ Jo ——6
etyallogqa iby:
CEh AT Ser
mott tasdqe ne sad eid? Auad HHT (LO int Ate
| 06, OSD}, tot $1 aba a
a me kttlw ta — “uaa Lt
Snel Yo rove), ob sie
#009 Yo aruoo x⸗enuodꝰ ead at bated
* -G8 yhoanet mei Litw bas ai feye:
Mi ane *
—— 9081) bas Ad o
feet at ni boxagne ,yaaqmod 4 aoeast here: |
hattsiet te sisrietad a to ysio eld
dqensotsaa aotxi A aauoꝛas aff
at todinst » ,selupileW alatteo a ot bios — * x
* ponwo wiwagtaoiw .YIqwed gneA ai betas be otra? oa
bos selvuplley batooersetget noanet bas mtivged’
aerodd evolvree 10% Kolssensguog . tose 10. anh
Sa at lo “oldie ud bisq 2 OW MORN L bas ailoyek ro
— Wire, oF ovay ,9oitg esadotig oat Yo sang a en |
: - gaiteed , eres .68 vteunet bostab OGRE: tot ston —
bet gat
* — soy, 1" .2eendlw edd o¢ bine -eedat ode saat
mae a \
Yas ok ge wor eyed of beta od biuow aw , |
ae (8 ® ® eobtto nwo odd ga
r >. bostusten — — — —
ey
ra
i
\
in his interest payments, Urs, Babcock, ene-of-the-appeitrees,
ealled at the cffice of KRegelin and Jenson, met Kr. KMeKinnon
and asked him to direct her to a good lawyer and testified
that NcKinnon replied, “What do you want a lawyer for, we
do that kind of business right here?* In February, 1913,
Duene J. Babcock called at the office of Regelin and Jenson,
relative to the collection of the interest on the Wallquist
mortgage and testified that he then and there said to McKinnon
that Jenson had told him that if he "had ang trouble or wanted
any legel advice, to come to that office"; that Merinnon told
him that Wallquist was still working for Regelin and Jenson;
and that they could arrange to collect the interest from Yall-
quist. Later and during the same month, Duane Babcock fur-
ther testified that in response to a telephone call from hke-
Kinnon, he went to Regelin and Jenson's office and was there
informed by iichinnon, that fegelin and Jenson had obtained a
loan from Wallquist of g1500 on the farm in question, and would
pay patty... amount due them on the mortgage if the
witness would come to Regelin and Jenson's office with his
wife, and endorse the mortgage and note for collection, which
aid on the succeeding day, On this occasion neither
of saw or talked with any one except McKinnon,
. while in seid office, nor had talked with either of 3
relative to collecting, through them, the note and mortgage
in question,
dot bvndtnd
MeKinnon testified thas he told » Jensen,
he had a mortgage on the farm in Nichigan and asked Jenson if
he, McKinnon, could put it through Jenson's benk for collec-
age, Having obtained Jenson's consent, the mortgege and
in question were placed by NeKinnon with Poresan Bros,
ng Co., Chicago, for collection, kcKinnon testified he
peootiogqs—end-to- one, xocodsd ,at ,adnounyag geotodtn: abd mk
noumiNeM .t vom ,coenet bane ailonef 40 enttte oh tabu
beoitisaes bas teywal booy # of ted Soetlb of —
ew ,t0t teywal o Jusw voy ob dadw" beiiqet monntXom ¢
: ,6LOL ,ytavtdel al “vetoed tigixt esesoiaud Yo bata —*
Adenas bus atſs zo to —R out ts botino Avoodsd ut *
‘telupliaw odt mo desxséat oft to mottesal{oo add of vite!
nonitoM ot bles stedd baa nods ed sand beltivess bas osinad te ie 7
bosuaw to efdvors tas bad” ea ti Inds ata bfos bad noamst ‘at
BLot nonnixoM sadt ;"so0lTte Jails oF omoo oF — BR casoc
zuosuo bas oifegeh rot gaidxrow {Lite saw detupiiaw na a
-{fa¥ mowt gestedak ott So0fLoo of synetts bfluoo youd suds oe
tut aooodad snaud Ataom omea ont yaiuub bas aetal de |
-oM mott Ifeo omongefss s of sunoqeet ak saesid besttveed madd
stedd asw bas soitte e'nesnel bae aileged of snew ost |< stonint mead
8 bentesdo bed noenst bas er seas vnonnbioN yo bewrotad .
biuow bua ,noiseeup at wet odd wo o0aLg to teiupt Ww isovt a⸗ aie
eat Ti sgsgttom ods ane meds ayh savons ont ag
ein dtiw eottto a'moenet bas aiiegent of smoo oLuvow *
- doidw \nottoot{oo tot eton bis vgagdiom edt eetobns bas, 48 he
| Tenvisa moiesooo elid nO ,.yeb ynibesoous wid no bib @ * =|
; stonmitoM sqeoxe ene yas dtiw bexlss to wae , —*
9—
to toitlie dtiw bowllfsad bad ton .eoltto bias *
ak ——— 24 Lak, ; ,
J — Tabata, bfot off nent boltiseed anonalion
* noanel, boxes bae nagidoit ot mist edt m0 opagsiom a be :
-9elfoo tot aAnad a'noenet dawordd 3f tuq be adie e .
Boxe nemstol stiw nonnkxoul * * ome iseeup ml
Vag * As * ad j y
did not remember whether he instructed the bank to credit
the personal account of Jenson, or the firm account of Regelin
and Jenson, with the proceeds of such note and mortgage, when
collected, Jenson testified that ueKinnon informed him that
the mortgage in question belonged to McKinnon's wife and
family. KMeKinnon, however, stated that he did not tell Jenson
that it was a family mortgsge, McKinnon was connected, re-
motely, by marriage with Wrs, Babcock, who testified that she
had not previously seen McKinnon since she was @ child, and
did not recognize him when she saw him in Michigan, at the
time of the negotiations for the sale of their farm, Jenson
testified that when the bank called him up and informed him
that they had collected a wortgage and wanted to know what
to do with it, Jenson informed the bank that he would refer
the matter to MeKinnon, He stated that the mortgage was
credited to his personal account, and that he drew checks
against it, payable to the order of McKinnon and the latter's
wife, respectively, which checks were delivered to N\ckKinnon
and cashed by Kegelin and Jenson, and the money paid to Kce-
Kinnon therefor, in their office, ‘The checks referred to,
three in number, were in the aggregate sum of $735.25.
Regelin and Jenson had no other collection at the bank at
that time, Jenson testified that McKinnon was tien indebted
to the firm in a sum ranging from $250.00 to $500.00, On May
24, 1915, MeKinnon paid to Duane J, Babcock, enter the’
peldewes, $400.00 on account of the proceeds of the note and
: mortgage in question, and, thereupon, Babcock gave him a
A receipt as follows:
a
ae
a
Wy
» \
¢ibeto of anad edt bestonutdeani od tendtedw tedneaot son ht
aifousi to tnwos0a att oft to , sonnel to tnvoone — stl
nodw ,9yspiitom bas econ dove to abesvotg edt ds iw ·aeacas⸗
tec3 misi bemtotnt monaliow Jedd beltitees aoaenet bethctal
"OG
bas etiw a'nonniios of boysofed moisesup ai egsadtom ods
; —
moens. {iss Jon bib of Jand botase ,tevewon ,coamiNow +VLinet
-91 ,botoonneos eaw nowt on 99857 ⁊om Vv dunt & aow dh 42
edie tad? beitisess odw ,dooedsad erm dtiw ogaitram yd ‘<ioton
—
bas Acdo s asw ede sonia nonaixXow aseos ylevolivetg ton
; edt ts ,cayidot at mia wae oe nedw min eainyooot tex hie
‘ae
noeas ,atst tledd to olfae edd tot anolsnisogen ead te: —
mid boartotni bana qu mid beliso ansd edt nesw tad botiites
Hy)
jacdw wond of botany bas eysalvionm a heJveilos bast vont Jas ,
xetor bivow od text aAnsd odd bemtotal noenst i ad we ob on
ada 3:
saw oyegstom eds sands betese off Hoc to ot roddam § ple
axosiio watb eff gadt bos ,tnwvooos Lanoa1eq ald of bod £0
e'’totial edd bas nonnixon to rebr0 edd of ofdaxeq 31 dea 38
_\
=“
nonntio’ of be1eviisb stew exoeds deldw ,yfovitoeqest othw
-o4 ot bisg yonom ot One ,noenel bas milegel yd bodeso bas
sod bet1tstert extosdo oT ,evitte thos ad . toteteds monday,
: J .88,GéV@ to mua odagetaga odd mt ets — mt eortstt
is ta aAnad sit ta notjoetioo tedto on bad moanet bas atlegen
boddebat asi? eaw nonnixod saad boitisees moanet nt Se
i yeu nO = .00,0068 of 00,0283 mort yolgnat awe @2 at mas oud
“ ‘Sit ‘toswme . Aooodad -b maul of diag noani Now eler *
focus ,aten aad to sbseoorg eit To ¢uvoo0n mo O0.00R% 4 —
i
a¥
8 abc ev ny toondsd —9 / boa .noldeouy at 9;
rewoLto? Sted pes
* 14*
J oe |
we ts
aw J
BS
F
—
ae}
Received from fF, F. Mekinnon
Four hundred dollars
to be deducted from collection of note for
/ 4750.00 being mortgage on farm in Kent Go, Mich,
4 "8400.00 Chicago, May 24, 1913,
— Duane J, jkabcock,"
— vpn
at that time, according to ape
MeKinnon informed
—E testimony, tnat such payment was in the nature of an
advance, and that Wallquist had not at that time paid the
mortgage and note in question, No further part of the money
collected on sai note and mortgage has ever been received by
, who made repeated demands upon hekinnon,
and later upon Jenson, for the unpaid balance of the moneys
collected,
During the summer of 19135, irs, Babcock called
at the office of Kegelin and Jenson, where she met Jenson and
testified that she informed him that she was there to learn if
the money upon the mortgage had been received, and tnat Jenson
asked “What mortgage?" that Nre. Babcock replied, “The Walle
quist mortgage you are collecting for us,* that Jenson upon @™
examination of the firm books told her that the mortgage had
been collected during the spring and that Nekinnon received
the money through the office of Regelin and Jenson, A short
time thereafter, Iuane J, Babcock, her husband, called at the
office of Regelin and Jenson, ano there saw Jenson, and tes-
tified that he told Jenson that he wanted the money on the
Wallquist mortgage; that Jenson said he knew nothing about the
mortgage and then, upon looking at the firm books, Jenson
further said, "Well, here is * * * the deal of the farm on
the books, but I don't see nothing else," and he, Babcock,
replied, "That is funny, I brought it im here to deal through
; you people because you said you could transact any business
of. that kind."
| MeKinnon continued in the employ of Regelin and
Jenson until April, 1914, when, according to the testimony of
ay, :
a We ae Me aie a
' ‘Ce
j
re] J
OL0£ vau — he DORE"
nouniXod 4 .% aott bevidden™ a:
erailok hetbuvd wold | A
tot eton to moisootfLoo mort botohbab vd od
SoiM .od tne at mrst ao ageartom gaied OO, OOty
* . xooo dail ob Sates
eqs of gaibtooss emis dade ete) beorto tant moc °
x:
a
ee
oe to estudan ont ai eaw snomyaq dowe sans —
edt bisq emis taut da ton bad Jatupliew tadt bas song)
yonom sit to txeq tondiwt of .aoisaoup al eton bas agen 0 a
yd beviese: need reve sed oyaysiom bom ston plas no bosne toa
— ⸗— ‘ ; ® : 4 p
eMonninow moqw sbnaneh betasqot sham oriw® Mo ⁊aci⸗
a
syscom oft to sonatad bleaqnu sat tol ,noaemey noqu nodal bra
betes ffoo
betiso xsoodall ,atMm ,efe@L To comme: edd amined para
bas moenet tom ode etodw \noenol, baa atloxyen te goitto end 5
*i nesel of etedt sav ede tad. wid heatsink ee godt belrtse 9
aosctol. tend baa ,bevisoet ased bad sysgdiom sz aogu bast
#-Ifaw edt” ,beil{qer Avoodad .atk Jads — E— tadk® boxes
be moqu moatet tadt “,ey tot gaiseelfoo ots woy easatida getup J
\, bed exyeyitem ot sadd ted Hblos exood atit ods. 16 noktentaaxe
bevisoot aounitoM Jad? boa gninqe eas gnkiwbh besos ttoo *
giode A .moéaol bas alfegeH Yo seitto edd mawords ye oui ‘i
7 ott #2 belf{so ,bnadeud tod Aocedsad .& stat srestaeted salt
— ~eod bas ,foanel wae etedd San ,neenet bas ailoyes to epttto
odd no yorom ond bosunw od tadd noenst bLod od ‘tadd be rths
oid tuods yridton werd od bise moanst seadd joxendrom ¢elupfioy J
soenst ,extood milt ont ga rere foggy ,mands ora oyag da
Go mtat eds to {mob outs »* * et etod * {Low bien 16 aw :
,toooded ,of baw ",eale gnintom eee staob IL sud — 7
dgvordt feeb of eted at $i digword I ,vaawt eb tadt® , :
sseniaud yoe soseaars biyoo voy bias vey seunood 4
bna aifeyel lo yolqme eft nt Kountine' ‘monakioM
4 J
To ae ; oe hu JA Bo
Jenson, McKinnon voluntarily terminated his employment, Upon
¢ross-examination, Jenson was asked the following questions and
made the following answers;
*Q. Isn't it a fact that you in answer to my question as to
whether or not you had collected the money on this morte
gage said you had not? Is that right or wrong?
A, I don't recollect just the conversation at that point,
Q. And after [ told you that the bank President had informed
Me that you had collected that money then you did admit
that you had collected ity
A, Well, you knew it then if you--
Q Yes, I knew it. And you did net tell me until after
I told you that the bank president informed me that
you had collected it.
A. I don't just recollect the conversation,”
— — —
ü———— — — — — — — —
— —— — —
— — rns pte
. JUSTICE ReGOORTY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
*
The errors assigned by the OPPS LAE, and relied
on for a reversal of the judgment are, - the adsiisaion, by the
court, of testimony in behalf of the appelleds over the objee-
j tion of appellants; improper conduct of counsel for appelleep;
improper and prejudicial renarks of the ‘court, in the presence
of the jury; the overruling of motion to find the issues fo
the appellants at the close of appellees! evidence, and ag
at the close of all of the evidence; the overruling of motio
al for a new trial, and —* ‘the verdict ond judgment are ex-
| eessive,
Al
the trial courtrelates to the authority of a val eaman of
The main question arising out of the coisa of
|
appellants collect the proceeds of the note and morteage of
‘a
_ appellees \
J— Appellees never sustained any business relations.
ith Regelin and Jenson, prior to the sale of the real estate \
m question, KeKinnon and Jenson both testified that LeKinnon
er enn Je ieee 7 Bi. vv
ay
noq’ .sneayolqms ela bodaninres yLixessaulov msoantion Hoanet
bae enotieeup yoiwollot sat boxer saw moanat tol San Lore -88 or
:e%ewens guoiwoffot ent
oJ @a moigeoup yo of tewana ai voy dadt tomt ws Ji 3' nel
-ttom aisds no yonom end Astool{oo bah voy Jon 10 teasodw
Fgnotw to Jadgix Jady al ion bad wey bise eysy
etaniog Jadd 3a noitsetevnos oid teut toollooert s*mob I
boaxotali bad snebieett aAned ed sacdd woy bic? 1 tette baa
dimbea bid voy weds yYouom tadd beJoolloo bes woy Jatt em
; (Vti betoolloo Deut woy dads
--uoy ti ood JL wend woy Ao v ee
; a.
tests fiinu em [fot Jon blS voy baA .tl waml I ,eey = 6p
sands om boarrotat tnebleetq aned ond sade woy bfLod 1 O
ft besoolLoo batt NIE Oe
",coitesetovnoo eds toelLooor sent, t'aob I
— —— — — — — — —
| .TAUOD KHT YO rorar ao WHT CGiarvruct vraoovoa cdi Tee —
fs
fetter bab ednattoqgs edt yd beongises eroxrzs oT *
odd wd oie Fabs odd ~ ots dnompbul ont to Leet9vest ies
vs (do edt teve ‘ade LLoqge ot to Yiaded at ynoul sass to “Sued
‘ les {Loqqs tot feanwoo to Joubaog xoqotquk jadant logge —
eonsestq oft at rwoo ddd to sxiss9% {elotbuleotg *
Ot eeueeli odd Halt ot noitou to gailvxzeve edd p;ytut end ©
: ge bas ,sonehive ‘aos (foada: to suely ent ta atnellogqge *
J Yo gailuitrevo- oat soon lve eid to Lim to eeoto ous 2 '
-xK9 918 dnompbut das toibrev od \gault baa , Lata wou’ a 101
| GS ovies 08
“to noitoa ⸗as 0 tuo youicixe moitseoup m. ot |
Vi to neoiis Lae a to ytiroidua exit of aotatet tW09 tala⸗ ost
20 ogeatz0n bus eton sf3 Yo ebovoorg ont tosLfoo peat
oA | vagina
yy
M4 14 ANTS. >.
y, Yanotsater eeotleud yas bentadeve teven seo tfoqgh ye
é oasaao {net edd to ofsa edt of volta osnot bas |
eed dees Sweet, haobid Ra.6%S bene aie wiles NE ah i rae
had no express suthority to buy or sell mortgages or collect
money for Regelin and Jenson, It may be stated as a general
rule that whenever a person has held out another as his agent
authorized to act for him in a given capacity; or has know-
ingly and without dissent permitted such othor to act as his
agent in that capacity, his authority to such other to so act
for him will be presumed to have been given, so far as it may
be necessary to protect the rights of third persons who have
relied thereon in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable
prudence; and he will not be permitted to deny that such
other was his agent authorized to do the act he assumed to do,
provided that such act was within the real or apparent scope
of the presumed authority, (Hechem on Agency, vol, 1, 2nd ed.,
section 246; Stock Yard Co. v. Mailory, ete., Co, 157 Lil,
554, 565.) By permitting another to hold himself out to the
world as his agent, the principal adopts his acts, and will
be held bound to the person who gives credit thereafter to
the other, in the capacity of his agent, (Thurber & Co. Vv.
Anderson, 8&8 Ill. 167, 169.)
We are of the opinion that appellees, under all
the facts and circumstances in this case, were justified in
presuming that WeKinnon was authorized to act as the agent
for Regelin and Jenson in the matter of collecting the pro-
ceeds of the note and mortgage in question, It was also for
the jury to determine from all the facts and circumstances in
evidence, whether appellant, Jenson, had knewledge that the
| proceeds of the note and mortgage in question belonged to ape
pellees,before he paid $735.25 of such proceeds to keKinnon,
No reason has been given why the residue of the principal sum,
and the interest thereon, were retained by Jenson,
It is urged by appellants that it does not appear
that William C, Regelin was jointly liable with William Jenson,
F
tos{foo to esgaytiom {fea 9 we ot Ytinondue seetqxs on genes
, € AA
plea Site
feten0g 8 88 bodsta ed yam FI moana bas ailo gen 10? ‘Yemen
: a)
tnegs eid es todtons tuo bied esd nostsg s reverse todd * J
tos oe ot todto dowe o¢ yYtixtodtius aid ixeteawan gadd ak ts
yeu ti aa tat o8 ,nevig nesd event od bemusertg od {fiw miu a
eved onw aenceieq btids to addgizt odd Jostorwg od q1segeoen —
9fdenoasss to seiotexe edd ai bas dtlat boo, ai roe Teds bette *
dowe sent sob og bets imreq ad ton ffliw ed bas jeonsbirg
.00 o¢ bowweas od tos adt ob 02 beudiodtum —8 eid aaw —
eqooe sneiteqas to Leox edd uiidiw sew tom dove tedt bobivore
«ebo BaS ,f Lov ,YouegA ao ren, ¥iitoisus bomuesra oud to
{£1 T6L .09 ..989 , tol isif . .09 busy Hoots 7OaS molioee
: me: |
ur
end ot duo tloemid bfod of teddons acids lariog xa (. aoe a.
{fiw bas ,etos aid etqobs taqtonizg edd ,Jnsge ald as boxer
ot todiesteds Jibeto eaevig odw noaisg edd ot bauod bio, —
J—22 nods ) -tnege eld to ytiosgqeso edt mi roid
(.@af ,Vat . £11 88 —E
{is teboau .e00Lfoqqe tadt mointqo edt to 918 oW . ' i
ai beititay, etew .seso eld? ma esoustamrotio bas ——
—* Fas3s8 sat as ton ot posttoddua asw momakioN tads ———
-“otg sad yaisooltos to tediem ot ai aoanslt bas ailegoH x0t i)
Tot coals esw Ji .moiteeyp ai sysyditom bas eton ond to choo .
mi esonsdemuoxrto bas atost oud ffs moxt eniotetob “ Petar, ents —A
—
Aus ——— ox to sublet sult Be nevis naed aad
Toanet yd benistes stow ost td —
— Ay , 4 J
macgqs ton eg0d sk stands asnatfoqga vd begzu el at
ona’ malrrrYe thie efdettf — ae Ty oe ee
and that, therefore, the verdict and judgment against the
appellant, William C. Regelin, were not supported by any evi-
dence, No affidavit denying joint liability was filed by
appellants; but it is urged that there is no evidence tend-
ing to show that William C, Regelin was one of the mesbers of
the firm of Regelin and Jenson, Chapter 110, Sec. 54, Hurd's
Revised Statutes, 1913, is as follows:
“In actions upon contracts, express or implied, against
two or more defendants, as partners or joint obligors or
payors, whether so alleged or not, proof of the joint
liability ior partnership of the defendants, or their
Christian or surnames, shall not, in the first instance,
be required to entitle the plaintiff to judsment, unlese
such proof shall be rendered necessary by pleading in
eabstement, or unless the defendant ehall file a plea in
bar, denying the partnership, or joint liability, or the
execution of the instrument sued upon, verified by affi-
Ggavit,"
there was no evidence offered by appellants to disprove joint
liability. This court has held that the proper construction
of the statute in question is that it relieves the plzintiff
from the burden of proving joint liability, “in the first
instance," and leaves the defendants at liberty to disprove
it, without first denying it by plea, Bensley et al. v,
Brockway, 27 111. App. 410, 415; Martin v. Nelson, 53 111,
App. 517, 520.
It is urged by appellants that the court erred
in admitting in evidence certain letters signed "Regelin,
Jenson & Company, per R. FP. MeKinnon," because such letters
were written more than a vear prior to the time when appelless
gave the note and mortgage to MexKinnon for collection, and
; that such letters relate to the sale of the farm (which transe-
action was concluded in January, 1912), and therefore could
not by any possibility be regarded as any evidence of McKinnon's
"authority to act as a collector for appellants or to represent
in any other capacity than that of salesman,
No question of MeKinnon's authority to negotiate
eit daniags soomgbul, bus toibiovy oss oro teteds teat bon
«lve yas yd botrogque ton etow ,aifeged .0 mel{fiv aat togae
yd hbelil saw ——— tniel, yaiyned- tiveabitta on ——
-brot sonobive on eh erent tend boguy at ti sud ietanctoaan
YM eteduem ods Io ame aaw aifesen# .o mokitiw dadz wou of
a bowl 08d .908 ,OLf tosqadid§ .noanet bree ntleyen to. wrt
rawolfot ae et ,EL9f ,astutasa. boatve
tenltags boltame TO aeetqxe esoeuanee moqs anotitsn a
' to erogifde snict to sitsntiieq a2 ,siaasbnsteb stam to we
tniot odt to toorg ,ton to begsila oe tedtetw ,etoyag
tisds 10 ,adnebneteb eft lo qgidetendteaq tonysitids
wWorsdent Jexlt ost of .tém (fade ,esmentue to nsisaitay
eeolny ,Jaomont of Titsniatg odd efitiine ot botiupet ad |
ni gnibselq yd yteassoen bertebrot od [isda Yoorq dove
ni sefq s oLfit Lisde tnsbastebh edt eseelny ro ,tnemetec
eit 10 .vtif{idel{ dntot to ,qideatentisg edd gisiyned tad |
e-itta yd boltiaov ,nequ boue tnemutient edd to tektuesxe >. ;
wtivab
saiot evorqeaib o3 atuslfoqqn yd bets tio eonebive om asw —*
dati odd at” ,ysiLidsts Sinko gutver¢ “to —E ©
‘evergdit of vtrodifl ta efosbooteb sdd asvaol bas ",
-v .fo 39 yefenesd ,selq yd tk yalymeh sexi? suodth
ffl 6&8 ,moefet .v mistem ;ofb ,OLfb “— — -
.o8d 02 A
, | berrs f1u0o ot Jadt edoatisadge yd begaw alk 31 eu.
* nſson bengte eretiel alstieo sonshive at galds ko
14 atetteL fiove seusosd ",mnomnk (oul oi A a9q ‘xmngmoo A 1 rout
é “aeolfodis ore sive omts ols of ‘roltg T29v 8 nants atom nasdiaw 9 )
hue dobsees foo 16% nonattow of eyeys ton bas osomr edt 4
-ensts Molsw) ost oft Yo olne ot ot etalet atostot :
‘bLuop etotetsdd baw ,(S1@L ,ytaunsl al bobsfoneo ew a
6 aonnttom Yo sonebive yas aa bebtaget of — ws w
-
Bey oy
Jneeatyet ot £0 Btnalloeqqa r0t ot vol foo s bees ag x
asngoiss To dads madd yiipeaee, # aT
vk
such sale was raised on the trial and while such letters may
not have been relevant or material to the issues, appellants
could not have been prejudiced by their introduction as evie
dence,
Appellants also urge that there was no competent
evidence thet the note and mortgage in question had been given
to McKinnon, nor that he had collected the money on same,
McKinnon admitted upon the trial that he received such note
and mortgage from appellees, sent same to the Grand Rapids
Trust Company for collection, and upon the failure of the lat-
ter company so to do, placed same with Foresian Bros, Banking
Company of Chicago, for collection,
Appellants! counsel assign as error improper re-
marks made by the court and appellees' counsel in the presence
of the jury. There were no objections made by counsel to the
remarks of the court complained of, In any event, the language
of the court referred to did not constitute reversible error,
Some of the remarks of appellees' counsel may be properly sub
ject to criticism, but they are not of such a character as
would warrant this court in reversing the case on that ground,
Appellants also complain that the verdict and
judgment are excessive. The note and mortgege securing same
were executed January 25, 1912, Appellees received 4400.00
thereon on May 2, 1913, The jury were entitled to compute
interest (a) upon the principal aun, up to May 2, 1913, and
(b) upon the amount rewaining due and unpaid, from that date,
— was due appellees on way 23, 1914, when the verdict was
: Teturned, a sum in excess of §426,50, and, therefore, the ver-
dict and judgment for such sum are not excessive.
’ |
yeu etedieLl nove 9 f Litw pris catre ond 0 bootax enw of
etnal logge ,souent ont of faite sam T° tasve Lox hood vad
-ivo es noidsoubortal thendt yd boolbulere aeod evad vou
jnetogmoo om aaw atrodt tadd oy oats atnslleqqa
a pevigp seed bed motteasup ai agunditom bas ston ot tad 9¢
7 .omea fo Yanom edt botoalfoo bad ef tadd ton wnonnhixa (od
| 3 oe
ston owe boviovex ed sadt Laity odt noqu bodtinba sonnks
,tolsoolloa tot oꝝeo dy to
#9% Toqotqul torts as ngtess Leanvoo 'etaslleqqa et
eoneeerq end at Lounuoo tees lloaqs bae duos ous, ud obam
eid oF lesayoo: ud ebam anoitosido on stew ered? pare
i ‘
awe Ot
¥ egsugiuel oft ,taeve vos al ,%o beatalqmoo dayoo oat to a2
torte eldterever astusistanoo tor bib of bexte tet Mn
| emsea giitvose sysygd1om baa oton silt sovianonxe be
“00, 008 bevisvet seelleqgA .Si@l ,é8 ytawaal —* w
eiuqmon od boltitae stew yout edT .éLeL .S& van : 109 T9.K,
bas ve of qu Aus faqionixg odd aoqu —
293.86 ted mott ,blaqay bax osb nacre: tavous ond 0
won toibtev edt sew ,bLOL ,e& yaw “10 — a. ou
k * exis serote ted? bow ,0¢, d5ay %0 —— stayed —* bean
J 9 Livi? co *
eo J M we ' me
a! aie oY Dean pan i
We are of the opinion, upon a review or tie ene
tire record of this case, that no prejudicial error was com-~
mitted, that substantial justice has been done, and that the
judgment of the County Court should be affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFPIRBED,
-n9 oiit no wrlvex sou ysodnigo ai 20 920 oF a |
«moo esw 19x19 Leivibwletq on Jas ,9aao alas | ei
edd ¢edt buns ,snob nesd ead eoiseu, ——
.bemritts ed bivorde 5 vonauod⸗ ois 3
~CAMALTWA THXMDCUL
1 ny
1
eee) cae
*
—
4 J
a 3
J
4
rane
ge se J ay
ag ; ne, ‘
Ace:
| : a
i ; 2
—
J i J J
4 a J
J ane r]
| ’ ’ : 9 9
(a / " yr alae
f 1 2 J
ae
hires 4) * Ned
; ‘ J 5 . J
Sh. igi
68 = 21449
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS ex rel. TILLIS WOLF
Defendant in Enror, ERROR TO
4
vs, \
JOHN ZINZ, \
i yy n Error, 1 9 8 TA. 4 3 4
\J Be
MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO,
MR, JUSTICE McGOORTY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
John Zinz, the defendant (plaintiff in error),
was found guilty by a jury in the Municipal Court of Chicago,
of being the father of the bastard child of Tillie Wolf, the
relatrix, and judgment was entered on the verdict,
The only assignments of error argued by counsel
for defendant are, = (a) improper and prejudicial conduct
of the trial judge, (b) that the court erred in overruling
a@ motion for a new trial, and (c) that the verdict is against
the manifest weight of the evidence,
| te child was born on December 23, 1914, The
relatrix testified that she became pregnant during April,
1914, that she hed sexual intercourse with defendant on the
first Sunday of that month, and about four weeks prior
thereto, Defendant testified that for a period of time
prior to September 26, 1912, he sustained illicit relations
with the relatrix, but did not see her thereafter until
_ May 6, 1914, when he again had sexual intercourse with her,
\There is evidence in the record tending to corroborate the
testimony of relatrix,
A prosecution for bastardy is not a criminal pro-
ceeding (The People v. Noxon, 40 Ill, 30) and it is only
necessary to establish such case by a preponderance of the
OT HORAT
THU0D JATIOI MUM
eODADTHD WO
D = aN af any 1 8 eC J To ⁊x segs
eTHUOD SHT TO WMOIMIGO GAAVIAGC YTHOODSM ZOITCUL . M
SUIS WHOL
,(to1re ak ttitatsiq) tasbaeteb edt ,satS not
ogsoidd Yo tmwod Lagtotma edt nt yt e yd yttivs bavot asw
eit (tLoW ef{LtT Yo bins biatasd oft to rendst edd gated to
.toibtev ent mo bovotne eaw taompbut bas .xittelet
feamoo yd bevyagts xorre to sinmemnmaiers yino elt
toubnoo Istotbutetg bns teqozqmk (s) = ,918 tmebneteb tot
gnilurteve mz berre Sivoo ent gadt (d) ,sybut Istat ont to
gantss3s at totbtev ont teds (9) bos ,tlaits won 8 rot noitom es
,eonebive edt to tdgtow seetinem oft
edT ,af@£ .cé& azsdmeosel mo atod asw biido ost |
efizqA anitub tnsngetq smsosd ole tect bettisess xittelor
ext mo tnsbneteb Atiw setyootetnt Lasxea burl efe tandd ,bfeOL
toixg exeew aot tpods bne ,tiinom tet to yebaua satit
emit to botisq s tot tsdt bettkitees tnsbasted -oteteds
emoitsfloxr sioi{[{ii bentstave of ,S{0L ,d& tedmetgese ot toitq
fititnu tet tsetsdt ted see ton bib tud xivsatet edt tiw
.tod stiw eaitvoorstnt Ieuxee bet ataxze of mow ,ALCL ,a Yel
eit ststodoxroo ot anthbnast btecst edt nt sonsbivs ait steAT
[ .xtstates to ynomttesot
eorg fenimixto s ton ef ybistesd tot nolivooaoirg A
vino at ti bus (0& ,ffI Ob ,moxow .v olgoed eT) yntbsoo
eit to sonstobnogetq s yd eeso dove daekidstes ot yIseascon
o2eu
evidence,
Upon a careful consideration of the entire record,
we are unable to say that the verdict is against the manifest
weight of the evidence, or that the conduct of the trial
judge complained of was such as to arouse the passion or
prejudice of the jury.
It is also argued by defendant's counsel that the
court erred in overruling a motion for a new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence, Such evidence was known
te the defendant before the trial, and no explanation given
by him to explain his failure to offer such evidence during
the trial.
We are unable te say that substantial justice has
not been done, and are of the opinion that the judgment of
the Municipal Court should be affirmed,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Pei ¥ J va -
tooo otlines off to moltateblanoo Iuyterso s neq
taotinam edt fentags al golbisv edd tadt yse ot efdany ers ow a
{atti est to soubnoo od salt 10 ,sonebtve edd to tigtew a
xo notassq edt savers of as Mova asw to bontaiquos —— J
Cust, end to eoibuletg q
sit tatt feanvoo atinabnotob yd bewgxs osts alt tI a
eft mo taizt wen s 10t noltom # gailuraeve nk bette —X i
nwoml asw sonebive dove ,eonsbive betsvocelib ylwen to bravo Tg
mevig nottsnsiqxe on bas ,{istit oft eroted tmebaeteb edt of
gniiub esonsbive dove zetto of owwiiat ate mtalqxe of mic we 4
eLsizt oat
ead soltveut Ieitnetedye tart yse ot sidan sis eW
to tnomgbut ens gads motnigqe edt to ox bas no b need jon |
ebemikita od biuode satyod Laqtoinum oat
eTAMALTIA THEMOCUL
*
y it was during the first two weeks of July. Two of defend-
202 - 21596
PROPLE ex rel. ANNIZ JORCZI
Defendant in i
ERROR TO
MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO,
198 I.A. 439
MR, JUSTICH MeGOORTY DELIVERED THe OPINION OF THE COURT.
— eee — ——— —
in Urror.
In this eass the jury found thal the relatrix,
Anna Jorezik — was on ranuazy /91, 1915, Aelivered
of 8 bastard child, F that George Garihes, defendant
(plaintire in orrer)/ was its father. A motion for a new
trial was overruled, | | and judgment entered on the verdict,
ae ie — urge * the defendant that the verdict is
against the manifest weight of the evidence..
the relatrix testified on direct examination that
she had coition with defendant, on several occasions,
commencing June 11, 1914, while employed in a Chinese
restaurant conducted by a certain Moy Sing. The defendant
was employed as a cook in another restaurant on the first
floor of the same building in which Moy Sing's restaurant
was situated and continued in such employment during the
remainder of that year,
Defendant testified that he first saw complainant
the last of July, 1914, and commencing August 2, 1914, that
he accompanied her on three occasions to various places of
amusement, Jefendant denied that 2* at any time, had
illict — with reletrix. 5° | fang
CUNO TNC wee,
attention as to whether the relatrix entered his employ in
June or July, 1914, but, according to his best recollection,
aests = Sok
{INOHOU KIMMA .Lew xe Pease: ce
{ mi dnobae ted
OT HOSAS Bais |
rauod JAGLOX MUM ft
eODADIND TO : —
GEb.AT8er
.THUOD SHT FO WOLNTGO ST CHAEVIENG YRROODOM ROTTLUT —
Xiitelox oxlt salad bausot yiut edt — akdt of ,
howevilob. 2LeL a” Yteunsl 16 sew — —— nk - a
$ nsbita%teb caoalt x09 ogiroed tant b boi paatesd | an
toibtov oat m0 bores no toompbdys ft baa |b beLwrtevo ow M
at goLhrey ot ful? taba teh ond we Honus ak #k eb
—aonebtve edt to tigtew $ ae Tl oud ene fentane
tans noitanimaxe goaxibh no beltitess xiutater ‘sat? ey:
~enolesooe Ietevea mo .tnebne ted ag iw noitios ad ona Hy.
seontd) a ak beyolqne oftiw fel ,fL ont gnkomemnog me
insbooteh ef? .gnke yo nisires a yd begoubnoo. temcanteet a
terit oft no tnstuetaor «erltons at Aces as as bexoLame asw :
tnetweaseot e'gnta yom doidw ot antbLiud omea ont ‘to ‘rool? 4
ent gikiub snomyolyme stove mi beuniinoo bas bosauthe eaw
.ta9y todd to tobstamct i
tnsniafgqnos wae terk't ef tadt beititeos + asbne ted | ; ;
toads LOL . tesguA gatonommoo bane ,bLeL Aut * junk nit Hi p
to evoglg auvoltav ot B—— sel no xoti betasqmooos: soot i
we — J Aatoton dttw —— sisi
— tte
ns Kae *
we ers sq gon “bib ed tarit ‘be stbeaud ‘i pake you)
nk yolgms ain beotetas xitiatslox edt ont ctw oe —— pire
5 ' moktoellooet seed ald ot gaibtecos .tud eb LOL eit x0
Av
oe * eae Oe 8 Me! eee a Ae a, re Nee yee, ee Pe, | ee ue cen” fy oe
~2=
ant's witnesses, co-employees, one of whom commenced work
there June 24, 1914, the other July 23, 1914, testified
that they first saw complainant during the last days of
July, 1914. Doctor Leonard 5. Wood, testified that he
attended the relatrix during her accouchement, and that the
child at birth was a normal child, weighing seven and one-
s half pounds, who took nourishment and commenced gaining
ee from the time of its birth, The doctor further
testified that the usual period of gestation is 280 days.
There was no evidence offered tending to prove that the birth _
7 was premature. fase fest; that; even Ifthe testimen
letrix-be cepted ss true, the child must have Been
ef premature birth, The burden was upon the relatrix ©
rove\the paternity of the child, The case of relatrix rests
ra
testimony of Doctor Wood, which strongl
the pregnanéy of the relatrix occurre
tends to show the
⸗
several weeks before whe claims she formed the AequAan tenes of
flefendant and hod coition with him, The evidence —
preponderates in favor of tiie defendant as to the time he first
met the relatrix,”
In the cases of Haines V> The People, 82 Ill, 450,
ad Peters e The People, 74 Ill. A 8 178, cited inl support
of relatt ix contention, there was a conf itet of evidence as to
ether the birth was premature. There is ndcont ict of
daence upon that point in this case. In the “Inetant case,
here the testimony of the relatrix shows that the \riret act
f intercourse with defendant was 233 days before the birth
f the child, the burden is upon her to establish by —*
repondcrance of the evidence, that the child begotten of
Atow boorsmmo monw te ono ,sseyolqmo-oo ,avecontiw e'ine
boktisaot ,dLOL .SS yiwt torte of? ,BLOL .dS onwl ozodtt
to eyeb geet ot gatiw) ¢nanteLqmoo waa tetit yet sant
of tedt bettisess ,booW .& bisnost rotsed .bL@L —
edt tad? bas ,tnemenouooos tod gntiwb xiatealet of% pebnotga
e-ono boa nevea gningiow ,bikdo Lemton e@ aaw diaid ts bitito
gninisg heonemmoo bas tnemdelaven Aoot ow .abauog Mad
tedtiut tesoob eT .,Atuid aft to emis orld mort —
-eyah 08S ef noitsteey to boiteg Ieunw end tart} bobtisue
_AMdald old tad svotq oF gnidnes bere tto sonebive on asw ox?
yromisast ene rr — ee ase
noed.eved tam bits odf ,owtt as botgs —
oa xitésLot ort mnogu saw sebiwd ef? Mt ukd eutamerg to Atm
atest xitdalex to oeso ed? .bLido oft to YS tateteq ott /evot
,oonebive betteqquans ted soqu Lott? 6 ;
go⸗ arodoaxoo al tandag toh xo $ Ling to faineh of
—— Noinw , boo 168906 to yvnomiteot gatonotot ot a
— * xittaler oft To (Daange tq old Jatt woda ot abs |
+) eotat at aur on oft boorret este emialo ora e006 axoow tarov
vcaoolo eonebive sfT mid ig tw soit Loo bed bres tnabrete®
sarlt on emit ot o¢ as respond 3 ‘to Tove? nk aetarebnoge
| * oxiatelet ond to:
OES {cst £8 ,eflgosd outt 4 apnissi lo seaao ont al . 7
tiogese fi bests ,8vL oa -LfI BY ,slqgood edt .v “hootet0d bau ;
Ot ea sohebive to tol tm0o 8 asw oteds ,moiinetnos xitdslot
;
to tokltaos/on et erent .eimtsamerq asw Mextd end rddtor 9—
8a tote on mI ,oaso elds at tntog tadd a+ oe
tons sonky ans tends ewode xitteLlor oft Yo ynomisaes ef? ot9d
; igatd /ons estoted aeysbh C&S aew tnsbanetebh dt lw eewootes at 4¢
i f* ud datidesee of tod mnogu ak nebiud edd ,bIkdo oats |
J
¥ iD
‘to mettoged bitdo ont tad ,eonmebive ent to oonstobioqe’
—J ie
Se
such intercourse was of premature birth. Souchek v, Karr,
(Meb.) 111 N. ¥. Rep. 150. |
When we consider that the relatrix had the burden
of establishing the paternity of the child by the greater
weight of the evidence; that her case rests solely upon her
own testimony; that defendant's denial seems as worthy
of belief as her testimony, and that the medical testimony
makes it very unlikely that this child was begotten at any
of the timesswhen defendant had an opportunity to have
sexual intercourse with the relatrix, we are led to the
conclusion that the ends of justice require another triol.
Matteson v. The People, 122 Ill. App. 66, 70.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED,
tisk ov .dtaid eisameiq to caw saiwooustat tone
| 08L gon «Ww 6K LEE (do J |
rabiud edt bad xitteler sdt tadd tebhemeo ow mest : ‘i ln
retsetn off yd bifde off Yo yslnvetag ods saddat date 2 |
tet noquw yLefon aseot euno sod tat jeonebive edt te ta alow
yditeuw ae emoos Lelnob e'snabneted tart caonta ab⸗
ynomitact Laokbom oft sand bas ,ymomiteos t8d es Yelsed Yo.
Yas Ja mottoged eaw biido aint Jandt yLoxliow yrev st #9:
evad of yYitaustoggo ms bad ¢nabneteb nestes: wombs od’ |
ert of bel ets ow .xhitalor odd atiw oau09 104 mk souxoe J
totes xedtons etkupox eottaut to ebmo et tantd nokayion 109
-OV ,50 .gqA .ffT SSL ,efgeod ext .v nocettal
| bobname eaveo oft bam beetevet af smomgbut, odT |
eCUCUAMMH (MA CUBHEVAH
1 = 20771
ELLEN L. NORTON,
Defendant in Error,
ERROK TO MUNICIPAL COURT
vs, 5
OF CRICAGE,
Ww. J. FRER,
Plaintiff in errégr,
|
}
BR. FRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY
DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE COURT,
_ Plaintiff, seeking by an actionm.in forcible”
detainer to recover posseasion of a arn, had\judgment, we
are of the opinion that this judgment should not stand,
Plaintiff was the owner of a lot on which was
& residence, No, 4352 Calumet avenue, and a barn, For some
years she had occupied the entire premises as her home, in
January, 1914, she made a written lease to defendant of
presiises described therein as "House known as 4552 Calument
4 Ave,," the term to commence liay 1, 1914, and expire April
\ SO, 1916. Several weeks before the term began defendant
| obtained from plaintiff permission to take immediate pows-
ession of the barn, and plaintiff removed her electric car
‘therefrom and delivered the barn keys to defendant, who
thereafter occupied it with his motor car, It also appear
that at the request of plaintiff's agent the defendant paid
an additional insurance premium which was required on ace
.
count of the occupancy of the barn with a gasoline car,
There are also provisions in the lease which indicate that
all the buildings on the lot were included in the denised
— — — — —
Prom these and other circumstances, including
the character of the neighborhood, we hold that it was
clearly shown to haves been the understanding and intention
tyros « £
nornon wl WL
~toTte ak sasha tor
TAUOD LAGLOLMUM OT HOME
eV —
DAhind TO
ARES ot —V
24728 of Ces
OhD.AT Ber
YIMAUZOM AOLTAVL OMICIGENE
~THU0O SHY GO HOLMIGO ANY CHAAVIIA
“sidtoxet at aolsos aa yd gaisoge ,Tivatelt *
84 nomgabut bad ,aind.sa te noisaeesog qovooes of NE
,baste gon bLvoca tacmabu eit tans nolalqe saz t ota
_aaw dolidw mo tol a to tenwo edt saw Tikiniald
esmos to% .nisd 8 ban ,ewseve soawiad S66) ,ck ,eonebleet a
ni ,9med tea es eoaimetq etitne edt balquooe bad ova RTB9t — 4
to dnabaeted ct eaeei netsixnw 8 ebam ade ,dfel et ia
toouwts®) S6ES en swonk seuck" sa nieteds bedizoeeb ses imetg
fiagaA etlqxe dos ,dfeL .f Yau eonemmoon of mrad edd ",.9VA
tasbasteb aged ates edt e1tcted exoew Latoved X oo
-sioq sJaibemml sist of nolasimieg Tiitaialg mot? bentasde —
aso oitsoole tod bevomet Ttisalelq baa ,aisd edi to molees
odw ,dasbaeteb of eyod mtsd edd betevifed base mottetedd
\\@aneqqe ob ſa 3f ,t#0 todo ald ditw Ji boiquese ted taor8edt —
biaq sJashueted edt gnegn u'Pligniealq Yo seeupet oft te dads |
-98 no betiupet eaw dotsw mus tonxg sonusivant fanoislods na i
.ta9 entloasy & dtiw arad edt te yonaquono sd? to dnwoo
tad? eteolbal doidw saael edt oi enolelvotq ocala ats eed? —9—
beelmeb odd aiibebyfont etew Jol odlt mo egnibtiud oat *
— — —
gnibufont e90nnteaworto tendso bas esos —
nos *
.
5
of the parties that the premises demised should inelude the
entire lot with all the buildings thereon, In Armetrong v
Crilly, 51 ill, App, 504, afterwards appearing in 152 111,
646, it is held that the demise of a house by a street number
carries the premises of which the house is only the main or
principal feature,
Defendant wae rightfully in possession of the
barn, and plaintiff cannot maintain her action, The judgment
is reversed without remanding the cause,
REVERSED.
Be yee A RR Se ee
—
—
=
*
v al aoe tedt aꝝaab Ling ont ila Pree tot on
~ffi SL oi guitseqge ebtewted ta 2808 —0* ALL ce as
tedmun ssetse s Yd eavod & to seimb edd Jans bien et th y
to atam odd yiuno ai sawou ons doltaw. To aosinerg ould ae
.otud 20% toq om ” |
od? to notsseaxrog ak Yiintsdgit eaw Juabas tod 9
— anlata bas wid
.oauao ost gutbuamex tyouds lw boatevex ai —9
— E——
re
9 = 21455
—
CLARA C. HENDRICKSON,
. Defendant in Errgpfr,
) BRROR TO MUNICIPAL COURT
p va,
OP CHICAGO,
OSCAR A. HENDRICKSON,
Plaintiff in grror.
198 1.A.442
. PRESIDING JUSTICE NeSUAELY
DELIVERED THE OFINIGN OF THE COURT,
* aintiff, Pia holder — — reas aignea
by defendant, C judument itor $334, —9 | upen motion the
gourt opened the judgment and gave leave to defendant to
make a datenne ena testimony was heard by the court,
ees, ae. making of the note by defendant, who was
plaintiff's husband, and the delivery to her was not denied,
Defendant contends that plaintiff was in 411 health, and
upon her saying “that she wanted something to protect her
for her funeral expenses," he gave the note to her “to
e
pacify her," On the other hand, plaintiff testified that
the consideration for the note was money mich she had
loaned to the defendant. Her teatimony was that she req
ceived no allowance from her husband for personal expenses,
and during their merried life she had worked for a time in
a laundry, had kept roomers, that she had received from a
daughter payment for board and washing, and that she kept
an account of her own moneys in the State Bank of Chicago;
that it was from her own money thus secumulated that she
made the advances to her husband, who borrowed the money for
the purpose of buying @ lot. it also appearm that when she
was merried she had something over 9200 of her own, The
:
husband, testifying, Sas net deny that he received this
THVOO LATLOLHUM OT HOARE
eQVDAIIHD WO
GAS LATCOeL
YIGHVGoM MOLTLUL ouiareaat ,
.THUOD HHT TO MOIMIGO HHT GRARVINME 2 6
bonaie — — sebfoa ons tritaiala . it
oud Mois om mogul .80, BESS ——— tuabos tab
ot Japbao eb ad evaed evay bat Soro mab ws on benego —J—
scree oad vd btsed enw cnomisass baa oune ted ao
saw ow ,dnabasteb yd edon sis To yatden ‘edt
.beinesbh ton eaw aed of yievifob oft bas ,baaedaud a'ttiinial£a
bas ,dtined IfLk at esw ITisnialg ads habnesnoo tnabas ted
soul SJoesorg of guidvemce bstnsw one sade" goiyas ted moqu
of° aed oF aton edd evsy sh “,seeneqxe Latoaut t38od tot }
tems SDeltisgaed? Wisalalg , baad t98dse ade nO "ted yYtiosg
bad ofa doide youom esw esen eas tet aoltereblenoo et
“or ote Jad? saw ytomistass ish .sambasteb ods of benaol 3
8eeceqxe Lenoutesg tol busdesdt tod mott soaswolla on bevieso |
at smljJ a 1ot bodtow bad ode stil bolziem aledd gaiiwd ban
& mott bevisoez band ele Jad? ,etemoot 3qeit bad ,yrbauel # |
sged ede Jactd bas ,gaideaw bane btiaod 10% snemyaq tosdguab
;Cgsoldl to Aaek esataG odd ak ayonom awo ted to gasoooa a
one Jadid botatuuuoos euds Yonom awo 194 mort saw st tas
tol yYenom sad bewortod odw ,basdewd tod of soomavba edd ebam
ee new Jans foxnoqqe oula di ,#ol w ygaiqud to evoqing anit :
ont ,nwo tod To OOS$ teve yalddemos bad oa beiviam 9*—
aids bovicoes of Jans yueb Jon eb sadhyLiseod ,
money from hie wife,and the evidence cigarky showkd that the
amount of the note represents only a portion of the advances
; raion by plaintiff to defendant,
“a7 unde these. gireun stances prammeste wap entitled
maintain Her adtion against he husband, tHe wie Sees en⸗/
itled "tugband and Wife," chapte 68, secs, 4 7 Hurd’
Linoie,/ in for July l, 1674, | as been, construe te gue
—
horize ja husband or wife to sue the other on all contacts
xcept for serviges rendered to bach other, ona v.
j
melier. 106 roby 36; Hianilton v, Hamilton, 8&9 124, 349;
y. Sawyer. ase lll, 443. mhe contention of Ketensant |
is court id based ‘upon the ptatute in force prior to |
the enactment of the present statxte, and is unavailing.
The ju ment isvaffirmed,
AFFIRKED,
ens sade —X Yfegato sonebive ait tos,etiw eiA mor? Yodo
S9onevbe os Yo molitzrog # ylne BJooae1ge: eton e439 to tawome bY
Jasbaeted of Wtidaialy yd obam —
bolsiiao a J—— oeog⸗ x9! uw oh aa
789 Sdusate ONT .bandaud pod denisge aoitps tok aisdntam
\ # Pex 09 bas I \,e0e8 4d tod qado *,otlW bas bandit Sols
\ * — need a oSVSL .f yLul sorot at alonil
\ \ \
| etonrtseog {in no Taito oid ous ot etiw to basdeud ® oxke
| -V¥ samo iT Toso doad of betobaez sopiviee tot sqsexg
eer Y {LI @8 Mod Liamiz iv Motiiaeh ;88 Ifft aor ,
| tuabas teh te aoitaasnos ont sCbS ILI &E · ,
Ot toltq esxok ai —8R oad nogu bowed Bt tayoo athe
Siilliavasy et bas —ER snssetg, os No Jnomtoane ede
-bamtittenet dooumgbu kf oat
CHMAL HEA
16 - £1552
fy,
i) LILA weDERONT et al., heirs af )
J law of Hannah U. Conroy, de- | }
4 ceased, Error to
7 Defendants in error,
J — Municipal Court
J Vibe
. of Chicago.
DONALD x. HOOPS, )
YP inindi tf in e ay 4
My 8B
ed 0 YQ I . A. 4 4A 4
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICH MeSURELY
—— THE OPINION OF THUS COURS»
ncic eh DRED
Hannah Me Conroy, now deceased, made a Nee re ‘writing: is
to defendentof premises known on 4519 Indiena avenue, for a
term gommencing September 1, 1913, and ending April 30, 1914,
at a monthly rental of $50. The heirs of Mrs. Conroy brought
suit claiming that rent for the last four months of the term
al by the court the plaintifis’
Defendant argued thet the heirs are not the proper
a partion plaintiff, that suit should have beon brought by the
\/ administrator. i contention Ta. “withoat merit.” _ pont
ERG et
—7
bus 0 OL ’ — heirs, and thereafter they were —* tled to
pollect the rént; the administrator hai nothding to do with
nis. This ie so elementary that ot tattons of decivions are
q mnecessary. J /
Some defense is — upon the concession
at the trial that it thd defendant, vere present ho would
testify to the poor condition of the hoatiitg. — in the
ae and to other natters set out in his affidavit of defense.
While conce hat he would so testify, counsel 20% plain-
tiffs. wees o hig competency a8 6 witness, on the gro
— ———
ander ‘the — chapter a, pee. 2, , On Evidence: ‘ana
*
2 exiod ,.le to ytomacon
~oh ood - deoned to ¥
hea
ov z0%x%%5
tesod Seqtofunt
segantsy te
KAD en I SOT tke —
YISAVGOM HOLTAUL ourcresa¢ efi
Muoo THT CO HOLKLGO Aut —E—
av
{OOH .X eumt
— — ——
— ⸗— “—
“gate baw ot —* obam ,h9ea000b won ,younod ol dennall :
# tot ,onmeves enethal @L8) es won pealnorg todmsasteh ot
ter 08 high gathae tae ,8LCf ,f xodnetqet gatomemnoo aro⸗ a .
— Yours) .atM to ackost oat 080 to Letnox ctat aon 8 ta
mxot off to edtaom xwo% test oft xo nat tase gatmbato oie
Ar ala Cey ont “boo” att gd fotos fh tag mood tom bart ‘
xoqorq edt ton orn exted oft tact esgus tnebasted!
eft yd tdgvoxud nood oved Sloods diow tadd ,tkkintatq aolvisqg
+ nod “le Fuom More tw ar Kok Inet aes | xodentataimbs =~
Oe Al a et
ong Ieox odd ,SL0L ,xedsmoed ot youno Vaan ro" Bei
of bo f3tago otow yedt totteorot? ban ,exted ros_oF beaasi
— sittw ob oF autht on hed totextatatmha ort ⁊ edd *
O18 anotatooh to audited to tadt yrednomele og of etdT .ebdd
az" Se Vresaoo
ao tano ocio o eat cogs beast Korqnedta wk punoteh —XR
— ont Shomer oxew stab aored eae tk gett Letrt oft ta a
‘ as ak aut auaga⸗ —5— and to no tatoaoo LOOG ont of Ciiteet A
a prob te divs tite aid at tno toa — ** geste of fas os
‘ at⸗ La tot Lounsoo eritaod oe biwow at ts 1th out ~
Moreen 4 Abe nm ———
ha —— oa J 9—
Bowe —— nos. oa “fi a — oostode ods | ‘ebm rt
. hae) (vio cue ee wi ye |
Depositions, he would not be permitted to testify. This
objection ia valid, and the trial court so held. I[t is
true that an interested party may teatifty to facts oceurring
after the death of o person. These facts are claimed to be
that defendant removed from the premises with the consent of
one Coleman, who had been the agent of Mrs. Conroy. There is
no teatimony to thia effect, and sven if we should “gonsider
the affidavit of defense as teatimony it discloses no
euthority in Coleman to act on behalf of plaintiffs in any
way whatever, end certainly no anthority to release defendant
from rent.
The contentions made by defendont's counsel axe wae on=
vineing, and the judgment ia affirmed.
APFISNED.
"4 ald? .ytiveot of Betsiorreg od ton hivow od sanoke Luogod
at 1 .Sfot oa susoo Latyd oft San ,hbiey at —
giicusose atoat of yttieot yan ytusq botvetetat as sat ¢ *
ed ot bomtefo ere etext saodT .noeteg # to fsaeh ont
‘Yo dneunoo ont Atty evetmerg eff moxt Sevocer tapsnsteb 3
at ered? your) .axii to ¢noge ont coed bat ocha ssnmefod 0 —
aobhenoo Sinode ow th nave bas ,tootte. aldt of taontseet ¢
on souofosth tt ysomttaet aa canctob to tivablita ‘a Ail
qs of ettivately to tiaded so tom of aamefod at ytts doe
| taehasteb oanelot of Utiroctue on ylatadneo bae stovetaiw % "2
: | | trot nor
ao ocur oꝝa Foenuoo a'daesnoted yd oban anottasisme ed? et
yy shorts ot toomabr, et Soe ygatenty
| CAT HHA 4
x
32 - 21652
HUMAN , }
Pleintiff in Error, ¢
%
WILLIAM PF.
Error to
Cireult Court,
Cook County.
vs. )
)
)
}
POST IAY 447
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MesuURELY
DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE COURT.
Defdpdant in Pxfor.
Plaintiff broughteuit alleging that while he was alight-
ing from one of defendant's cars, through negligence it was sud-
denly started, throwing him to the ground and injuring him.
Upon trisl the jury returned a verdict of not guilty upon which
judgment was entered.
Plaintiff says the verdict wa» against the weight of the
evidence. We do not think so. The jury reasonably could
believe that about ten o'clock in the evening plaintiff and his
son, & young man nineteen years old, were passengers on & north-
bound North Clerk street car; that they lived on the north side
of Fullerton avenue, just west of Clark; that when the car
neared fullerton svenue it stopped at the gouth side of the
street to allow plaintiff and his son to alight; the son alighted
first from the easterly door of the front platform, then turned
northwesterly asrens the track in front of the car; pleintiff
following, atarted to turn to follow his son diagonally in the
direction of their home, and either twisted his leg and fell as
he made the turn, or slipped on the rail of the track. ‘There
wag abundance of testimony that the car made only one stop for
plaintiff to alight, and remained standing still until some time
after the accident occurred. We would not be justified in dis-
_turbing the verdict of the jury.
of torr
F⁊ruoo Fivourd
obo — | Se
* NS WA. I 2@ Peg
YIMAUEeM BOLT Suey. on
«2H00 0 HT TO MOIMLIO ART ——
— aew of oltdw ac⸗ gitgel is. tise tdgtoud rettateri .
~Aus eae vt gonogti gen dauouit ,ause a'onahneteh to 6is0 ee: owe
J ami autal baa basoxg ort. of mks gukwortt * *—
bLn09 yldsncasex yet efT .oa amtdt toa. “ mm
~dtton A no wxegnouasg oxow ,bLo gr00y mostonts cam 3AuOY & —
obtu dixon oft xo bevtl yodt tadd 1180 toorte axe Id ato bared ‘a
otigifn aoa ond ysdytleot now ald Sne trktalalg wollte ot —E J
Soares aode ,orrottala caoxt off to ro oh vixotaae edt moxt tone a
ood? .aloett ont to Ltax oft a0 beggtte xo rast edd ers od
OT ‘qote eno Ulno sham ta0 on? dads Yaomttaer re conabaude « aa
ves omoe Citas Lftte gathaste bentamey bas staat — _
It is said that it was reversible error for the court
to instruct the jury touching contributory negligence, as the
evidence shows there was no contributory negligence in the case.
The instruction is # correct statement of the law, and we do not —
believe ii can be said with secureacy that there is no qv stion
whatever of contributory negligence in a case of this kind. By
instruction No. 2 given at plaintiff's request, the jury were
properly told that before plaintiff could recover he must be in
the exercise of ordinary care for hia own safety. Flaintiff can-
not now complain of the instruction on the same point given at
the request of defendant. Harney v. Sanitary District, 260
Tll. 54; West Chicage st. 8. Co. v. Buckley, 200 Ill. 260.
There being no convincing reason to set aside the judge
ment it is affirmed.
A¥FIRMED.
—E oct xok torre efdtaxever sew tt tect Siae — 9
edd ap ,eomegtigen yrotudixtaes gatdososd yust ode i
‘1
Anima ont af oonsalfgon ytotudiaimoo on Bow ered? arose Yo
on ob ow bus ,wel oft to tnometeta toerx00 a at mnt oi :
«motte ap on at etodt tadt yoarwoon dviw b lee od amo ah
va +bott atid to sano @ ot eonogtigen yrotadktinoo rom
bi oxew Frut odd ,teerper a'tuttatarq tea nevig & wes
gt od dusm od xevooot Sivoo titiaialq erotod tans sted 1
89 tittintieli .yvetas mre sid tot oxo vrsnkhzo: te oats
$8 novtg tatog omea ed? no noktountant oft to atatanes —
008 ,foputats yxsttane .v comet .tnabastob to taon;
098 .LLT 008 «yo Laoua i 2 8 8 same duet 8
Abub oft ebtes toe of noasox satontvnes on gated et
CHMALTUA
—
—
57 = 21795
PROPLE ex rel, HARRY
H. HAMMERSCHLEG,
Defendant in Error,
* BRROR TO SUPERIOR COURT,
vs, *,
4,
CITY OF CHICAGO et 4.
Plaintiff@ in ärxyor.
% :
COOK COUNTY,
— — — —
198 1.A. 451
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Petitioner filed his petition, amended, for a
writ of mandamus to compel the City of Chicago, the civil
service commissioners, the fire marshall and the city compe
troller to place his name on the roster of the fire departe
ment and upon the fire department payroll of the City of
Chicago as a pipeman, with the right to enter upon his
duties as pipewan and receive the salary therefor as he
had prior to his removal from the service on or about
July 25, 1908 ‘To this amended petition a general demurrer
was filed and overruled, Kespondents elected to stand by
the demurrer, and judgement was rendered that a writ of
mandamus issue, —*
"Petitioner has not appeared in this court.
This court has had occasion several times to
consider petitions of this kind, notably in the recent
cases of People ex rel. Hickland v, City, No, 20699, opin- te
inion filed October 6, 1915, and Vaughn v. City, No, 21089,— /%)¢
opinion filed February 15, 1916, see, also, opinion of this
court in Rudnick v, Gity. No, 20897, this day filed, The
form of the petition before us is similar to the petitions
considered in these oe und what is said in those opin-—
ions is applicable to the instant case, iit has been many
, Pal
RA dly LAR Sn Beet:
. PAUOD HOLAEGE OT HOME
—3
.esots .on .yttO .¥ ba .2f@L ,2 tododod beLt? aoint
alit to notutqo ,oels ,o9& .afeL ,af Yisutdet belt motatgo
~. it
* a an a
aevis = ve
‘
YAHAH .fex xe @itoRg
- « OULHOBAMMMAR —
—X mt anasbus ted
av
eYTZUOCS WOOO
my 4 $e OMAUING TO YTIO
SORTA at petiigaialt
|
|
|
moh Ateer’: \/ 7
ois
YISNUGOM SOLITGUL OMICI@aAT AM
~THUOD ABT TO MOIMIGO BHT GHHAVIMEE
“B tot ,bebneme ,moltiseq ald belit tenotsi det
Livio sds ,oysoindd to ysid ett Loqmoo of ayasbiam to ¢iaw
-qmoo ytio es bas [f{sderem stit eld ,etonolesiamos eolvise
— na
-tteqebh etit oad Yo teseot ond mo oman ald eoslg of telLordt fs
4
—— ew
‘sy
to ysid eit To [Lowyeyg Sneadtageh etit edit noqy Bas doom y
eid soqu t9da0 of tigit ond citiw ,nameqiq & ae onad tay ;
ed an toteveds yislse eft evioost bas nsseqiq as aeisub ‘
tuoda to no eoivise ed mort Lavomet ain of roitq Das a
ssiiu09b Lateneg & aolildveq bebueme elindt of .80@L ,@& yLut ;
vd basta of betoole esgnebaogesh .belurrevo bas ba fit eaW
Vs
to Jitw # sed? betebnex aaw tnsagbet bas ,tetiwmeb entd
| .oueek eumabnam
wiw0o aldt ai beteeqgs ton ead somoksisat
ot eomid [eteves molesooe bad aad divoo ald?
dnsoet ot ni Yldason ,baix aids Yo anotiiteq rsebhianos
-tiqd ,@@B0S ,oM ,ysid .v bnsixoil «fot xe efqest to aeaso ;
edt ,bolit ysb eidt ,Te80S of A¶ v dotnbue od u00
enoltivyeq edt ot talimis ek eu oro rod ntoltiteg— oat ‘to mot
enigo eeodt al bles ai tanw bos 18989 ‘ewedd ai betebianco
Yusm assed ea tl .eeso tresant oat ot ta⸗itaa · ek onok
—X —6 of —
times decided that a writ of mandamus will not issue unless
the party applying for it shows a right which is clear and
undeniable, jeople v. Busse, 248 ili, ll,
In the case vefore us the petitioner has failed —
to plead any ordinance creating the office of pipeman, it is
alleged that an ordinance was passed creating “an executive
department of the municipal government * * which shall be
known as the fire department and shall include one fire marshall
* *® and such number of * * pipemen * * and employes as the city
council may by ordinance provide," It is clear that this con-
templates an ordinance by the city establishing the number of
pipemen in the fire department, but petitioner has not pleaded
any such ordinence, and discloses in no way when or how the
city council provided for any number of pipemen. This is
not sufficient- Kenneally v. City, 220 Ill, 485, and also
the numerous cases cited in the opinions in the cases first
referred to,
The fact that the civil service commission es-
tablishes a classification of offices and places of employ-
ment does not establish the office itself. Bullis v. City,
235 lll. 472.
It also should be noted that under the civil ser-
vice rules and the Civil Service Act original appointments
shall be on probation for a period of six months, and that
if any probationer, upon a fair test, shall be found incompetent
or unqualified to perform the duties of the position, the ap-
pointing officer shall so certify to the commission, and the
head of the department may, with the consent of the commis-
sion, discharge him upon assigning in writing his reasons,
The petitioner alleges his discharge by Chief Horan, but
fails to allege in what manner the chief did not comply with
these provisions of the civil service rules and the Civil
eeelny eusel ton {ftw anashonn to ¢law @ sands s9bloeb asus
bane taefo el doldw digit & awoue Jf 10% yoivtqge ywusq odd
off , £41 888 .9eayd ov sigoo% fdelsobas
Ny [ betied een tonoltiteq eds ay axoted sano sili al
ef sl .nsmeqigq to eoltto eid yaidsero Sonenibio yrs baste of
eviduooxs as" ynitesto heeasq esaw sonanibro 14 isis beget
od Iface dokdw * « SN9mNtevey Leqloinum ests to Saomtteqeb
ffedeteam etit ono 9Sutoni {lade baa tnemsteqeb etit edd es wood
ysio edt ens eoyolgme bag © * nenegty * *& to gedaan ose bis * #
“109 elds tedt wsalo et $I " sblvotg sonantbre vd yam CAdauoo
te tedaun add anidelldetas ytio ond VI Sonentibto ma avtelqued
Sebseiq fon asx aonoaalasq tud ,taomdxeqed oti2 odd al meme g.he
eid wo to nacw Yaw on at e@seofoeib bas +9oheKlstO dove yas
ei sidt Aomogta to tedaya yas to? bebivoxrg LLonwoo Yio
outs bas \88b .ILt ‘dneioittwe son
texit seaas edt ai anolutge owt ni bests 89882 @yOToMwh ond
-OF betreter
“88 noleeinmoo golvroe fLivio ond Jane Joet od?
“Yolqms to sees, bas a90iTto. to MOitsoitLeesflo a sedeitds?
MZL9 «Vv etiluk .tfoati SLviTTO ext datideses ton 890b Jaem a
— £01 aR
“198 Livio ot teboy tadd beton od bluyodea oule ti
efnentniogs isntyito toa eolvied Livtd odd baw eelux gotv
Tadd bane ,eddnom xte to betteq s tet ioivadorg me ed Clare
tatsqmoont: bavo't od Clade feed thet @ xoqy st9Hoivederg ys tL
ent arotiag of beltlisupay xe
Moleekmmoo sad oF YtLSTHO OB ffede ywottte anisatog
“simmoo ens to tneanoo add ait kw
“G8 end MOltieog ont to feliub
eit Bre
(VSM Front yagqgeh eng to baed
-ENO8HST Aki anitiaw at atingtees noqy mid eytadoetb tole
Jud .matoH Yetdo Yd egredoeib aid eegellis r9M0ltiieg edt
thw Ylqmoo ton bib totus eds tonrem tenw ot egette od efiat
a Livid e3 bas we tyr eolvieu fivie sad 10 aueteivorg os
a ’
Service Act, From anything that appears to the contrary
from the petition, the petitioner failed to give satisfac-
tion while on probation and was legally discharged,
For the reasons above indicated the judement
of the Superior Court of Cook County is reversed and the
cause remanded with instructions to sustain the demurrer
and dismiss the petition,
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS,
yistiaes edt of stmeqqe sadd ynidsyas moth = .t9A 29 rial
-ostaistse evig of bells? tenmoisiteg od? tithes odd nor’
_,bogtadoalth yilegot eaw bas noltedotq ao eLiaw moda
JoamjbuL sit betsolbat evods ancaset es 10OT hal
eas bas besisyet ef ytuwod Aood to siw0D soltsque ost *
tettumeb edt alaseus of anolsJoutjeni dilw bebuanet 7
olsiiseq sdt eelmetb b —
J
-SGHQOITORHIG HTIW GACAMAA CHA CEGHAVEH
4
if
4
rt?
WO My 7 ran
hi an are? age?
' ; / 9 i Mii
J (iy)
Re
424 - 21822
MATENSZ OZECH,
Appellee,
# APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT,
VS,
cook COUNTY.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER ——— AA. 3
COMPANY OF NAW JERSEY, 1 —* I. A. 45
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff, employed by defendant, was injured
through an explosion in a small foundry connected with de-
fendant's plant. He brought suit and had a verdict and
judgment for $1,250,000
The cupola or furnace in the foundry was
cylindrical in shape, four feet in diameter, resting on
four legs which were about five feet high, standing on @
concrete foundation, The upper part of the cupola extended
through the roof, The bottom consisted of two semi-circular
steel doors which when closed were kept in place by two steel
props; when closed the contents of the cupola were reteined;
when open the contents dropped out. The cupola was loaded
with alternate layers of iron and coke from a second floor,
bien wis called the charging platform, Occasionally the
iron in the cupola did not melt to the proper consistency,
When this happened it was necessary to open the bottom doors
and allow the mass to drop out; otherwise it would grow cold
and solidify, and then could not be removed without destroying
the cupola,
Upon this occasion the iron was not sufficiently
molten, and the foreman concluded to empty the cupola, As
the operation is attended with danger, he first ordered the —
\)
a ne
Cuts)
go ~ eee ‘
% S8SIS - ash
‘
\ ( HOERO xenrrau
X BS eeLllsggaA ! Bie is
.THUOD HOLATGTUE MOAT JARTIA % ? |
@c sb he 1s 20 aa
YIRAVGOM HOLTEUL OWLALeaRL AM
.THU0D THT TO MOLWIGO ART CUAAVI
betutak esaw ,tnshasteh yd beyotqme ,tiitnis(T
J
-ob Atiw bsJjoonnoo “ytbarot ifame a ai moleof{qxe as —EX J
bas dgoibtev # bed baa ¢iue tdauoid eli -daslq atdasbeot
Me eee { to? sno ngbut
eew yibavot snd oti goaniut to sloquo oA
no yaivaor ,totemeib ak Jest iw0k oqacie ak faotxbaktyo
ano giibassve ,datd teat evil tuoda orew ok ctw ages wot
bebnesxs sloquo odd ‘to stusq teqqu edt ,nottisbayot otenomos
xeluotio-imee ows to bStetenoo mostod oat . toot ond ‘iawondd
{sate ows yd sosiq ak tqex etew besolo as che Ao Latw ero0b teoge —
jbenisiet eiew sfloguo odd To aluetaos sid bos ofo a9 rie regora :
bebsol saw aLoque sil ,éu0 beqqoth adaestaoo odd mnae este
~toolt bnoose 4 ott exoo bas aoti to eteysl odantetia at iw 4
edt yifanoiesypo0 .mrottelq gnigtedo edt bol{iso saw ‘dots
.yonesetanoo teqo1qg edd ot tfem ton bib sloqus odd at note q
#i00bh mottod eit neqo ot YIseseosn asw ot boaoagaci elds nodW
bloo wotg bLuow ti seiwredto ;tu0 qorh ot eBnn | oat votts baa
ad
Yisooiottive Jon aaw mort ode noten990 er nog
—F 8A .HLoquo sd yiqms of bebuLoneo neue tot ost baa
—* J J
F eas berebto derit of s tegash aig Lw bebsoea « el ‘not
ame gest:
ORF 5 ’ Fi oy ee J * 1
laborers, including plaintiff, who was on the charging plate
form, to leave the building, and then directed a man, called
the cupola tender, to open the bottom @Goors,.. This man, with
a long rod, knocked out the props, the doors swung open, and
the mass of iron in varying stages of Ligi®fection, With
coke in various stages of combustion, dropped upon the
foundation under the cupola, What is described as"a terrific
explosion® ensued. Farts of the brick walls of the foundry
were demolished and the building practically wrecked, Three
men were killed. lilaintiff saygs that upon receiving orders
to leave the building he went from the charging platform by
an elevator and had reached the ground floor and “was hardly
able to take a step" when the explosion occurred, He was
blown through the doors and underneath a freight car standing
about fifteen feet from the building, Some witnesses placed
plaintiff just outside the building at the instant of the
explosion,
eS Plaintiff alleged
end iitrodueed evidence tending to prove that the hot contents
of the cupola fell into water or on a damp place present
around the legs of the cupola, and witnesses testified that
this contact of molten iron with water not in sufficient»
quantity to cover it would ceuse an explosion, Defendant
escrived tne explosion to a rush of gas into a "pocket"
formed by a partition and the floor of the charging plate
form, and the ignition of this gas by the hot metal and
the flaming coke, Defendant vargudp that its explanation #@ «+
established by the greater weight of the evidence, and
therefore plaintiff's allegations as sry in, his declaration
Arw~
nave failed of preet, and hence he sencot recover. “The
uerat testinony of the witnesses as to the presence,
ry) tet tolsenciqxe ett as acess tnabasted ,exoo gitoslt “an
-selq gutytsdo edd no saw odw , Ttidnial¢ gouibs font ers todsl
beliso ,nem @ besoeitib nedt bam ,gnibiind ont aval ot ,mrot 7
dtiw ,aem wid! .etoch motted eft meqo of ,tebmet sfoqvo ea
ban ,asgo gouwe etooh end ,sqorg ould Syo beXsonA ,bot gnol #
as iw notsoateypts So wonaiea griyitavy ak sort to senm ed?
eis soquy beqqoth ,molzvewdmoo to seyate esoltav ai exXoo 4
oititzves e“se bediaupseb ai gadW .afoaquo edt tsbsy aotsabayot |
Utbawot ent to afisw Aoiid edd to etisd -bewens “noleolqxe a
eetdlT .bexoorw vileolsosig gaibiiud old bae boreiLlomeb stow
etobto yalvisoet noqu tad? aeyse Tiitntsli .belfix etew oom
vd miotéalg guiygtado eft mort snow ed guib{iud eds evel of
yibtsd esw® bas toolt bayoty ed bottosot bad bus t0ssvele se
aaw sii ,bettuco00 noleofgxe od? netw "qete s oxet os wkee
guibaséa ts0 gduiett e dtsentebny bas stoob ed dauotds awold "
bsoelq sesagndiw esmotd ,antbhbiisd add mort soet neostht tuods
edd to Sostent edd ga yathitud oft ebletuo taut titnielg
| oreotax⸗
begotis tiliniasld® : |
agastaoo gow ods gedt svorta of noibaes sonebive —— bas
¢$anegetq soalty queb & neo to tod .eW ofai Ifet aloquo ed to 4
vedd hbeititjeass esaeectiv bas ,sloque ed? to agel edd bayots 45
“dasiolttue ai gen reteaw déiw nori ootfom to gostnoo elds ;
Jasbas tog ttaleolqxs oe eseuso blyow ¢i tevV00 oF yiituesup
“texoog* = osnt sey To dert # o¢ noluolgxe out Hoe tade⸗
-talq aniptado edt Yo tool? edd baa aoltisang & vd boarot
bas {sdeum Jod edd yd aay aidd Yo neltingt edt bne , wrod
b
hae ,eocebive eid to tdylew teseetg edd yd. boretidetas
noitaisloed etd gt b blef aa enoitegel{a e'ttisatelq etotetods —
oat ‘| .xevooex ¢ #onseo od soned bas stoorqg Yo beList vod
*
,soneeetg odd od em seveontiw alt Yo wupuiserd gattoi st
\ PI m1
quantity and exact location of water on the ground around or
under the cupola, and the variant views of witnesses con-
cerning the respective causal theories of the explosion,
were properly presented to the jury. We are of the opinion
that the jury reasonably could find that the plaintiff had
proved his claim as to the cause of the explosion,
it should also be noted that at the defendant's
request tne following special interregatory was given to the
jury: “Was tne explosion in question caused by the dumping
of the cupela in water which was then ana there under the
cupola?” and to this the jury returned the answer "Yes,*
No motion was made by defendant to set aside this special
finding, and there is no assignment of error in that regard,
it has been repeatedly held that under such circumstances
the defendant is conclusively bound by this finding, City
of aurora v. Rockabrand, 149 111. 599; bennsylvania Coal
Co. v. Kelly, 156 111, 9; Empire Laundry Machine Co. Vv.
Brady, 164 I11, 58; Varrell v. illinois funnel Co., 177
Ill. App. 425.
pid plaintiff receive injuries which would
justify ea verdict and judgment for $1,2507 Plaintiff's ad
damnum in his declaration was laid at $25,000. We are not
persuaded by the argument of counsel to believe that plain-
tiff received no injury of any kind. it would seem to be
seif evident that a person receiving upon his body the
force of an explosion only a few feet away, which was suf-
ficient in violence to wreck & brick building, must have
received considerable shock, Jhysicians testified to the
presence of dilation of the heart and injury to the kidneys,
While at times plaintiff may have affected to be in more
physical distress than warranted by the facts, we are not
disposed ,under all the circumstances, to consider the ver-
oo
to bosows bayoty; sid a0 t9¢ew to moidsool sosxe bas ysitasup
-xo9 eseegentiw to ewelv gosliisv oft bas ,sloquo eis taba
,moicoiqxe adt.to esitosdt (eeunso evisoseqeot od yalareo
soinigo eit to ots oW ,ytyt off of Sstasaerq yiteqotq stow
bad ttituiealag add gent boat? biwoo yidanosset ytwt edd tedt
.m1otactgxe oft to eeuso eds ot ee mieslo sid bevoitg
e'dnuabostob et ta Jedt besten ed oe te biyore 51
ent o¢ navig asw yrestapotistini [elosege gaiwoifot ant sesupex
gniqnavb edt yd beaves noitesup al aoleolqxo out esi" ;yIut
eit teboy etend bas neds eaw doldw tedaw ai aloquo odd Te
*,esY" Tewans sit bomivser ying edd eins oF bas “Teloqus
{sioege eins sbise foe of Inabuotsbh yd ebam ae ok
-bisgst dant ai totre to sJnemnglaees on al steds Daa «gnkbait
Beonatamuouls dove robmy Jant bled yLlbsdaesqet ased ean 31
NYSLO .ytidbait eins yd bowod yLeviewlonos af tasbneteb sd
iso? sinaviyenme: ;0e@& ,{f1 eCdL ,bnatdsdtoos .v SOTA tg
ay 09 anisiosm ytbaust erigmz ;@ ,ff{1 004 ,ylfod .v .o0
‘wh
YVf ,.00 fonowt elonitli .v Lloret ;8¢ .{f1 bof .ybssa
-GSh .qqA [IT
blyow doidw aeeitutat evieoes ttisnais(g¢g bic
bs e'ttidnis£t f0eS,Llg tot beas soibisv s yiiteut
tom ets sW ,0G0,dS% ds bisl eaw moitstelosbh eld ak muomeb
-nislg isis eveifod of [eguyeo to soomuyta edd yd bebsueteq
ed of moea bivow Ji .buid yas to ytuial on bevisvset trie
ods ybod eid mnogu gnivieost asoatsg s seit tuebive tise
-Ive aaw doldw ,yaws deel wet s ylwo noleol{qxs as Io ept0t
eved seum Wgeibtind Aofid a xoetw ot sonefotv at smefolt
edd oc boitivess ansiotaydi ,doode eldstobienoo bevieset
-8yenbis odd of Ytutmt bas dts0d edd te nolsellb to eouseety }
stom ai od ot betootla svad yam i⸗atata —X ts oct
ton 918 sw ,esost sid yd botdnetteaw aed? —J Leva
-tov edt isbianoo ot ,esonatanwotto end Ile ꝛebau.
iq
4
:
*
—
dict of 81,250 to be excessive,
The refusal of the court to give certain ine
structions at the request of defendant was not harmful in
view of the specific finding by the jury as te the cause of
the explosion,
Alleged improper remarks by counsel are not
of sufficient seriousness to require a reversal under the
facts of this case, but even if this were not true we could
not consider this point as defendant has not assigned as
error in this court any improper arguwent or conduct of
counsel,
holding as we do, that the verdict was not cone
trary to the weight of the evidence, and that the amount
of the award is not unreasonable, the judgment is affirmed.
AFYIRMNED,.
,eavieesoxs ed of O@8,1¢ To fold
ext mtattao aviy ot dimuon edt Yo Isauter sail
at Iutored ton asw tagbusteb to Jeeupet etd Ja enoitoutsa
to seyso oft of sa yr, edd yd goibatt oitiosqe adt to woiv
-Noiseiqxe odd
ton ata L[eenuoo yd adtemet tegotqmi SDsygella
eit asbou isatavet s stiupest oc eeanavoitea Insiolttwe to
hSfluoo ew sutt Jon etew sidd ti aeva Jud ,eeso aint to atost
as bongieas son asd dnsboaeteb a8 tuiog eins toblenoo son
to Joubmoo 106 JnsmwuytTB Isqotqmi yas tiwoo elds ai tori
{sano
“noo ton exw soibtev edt tadtd .,ob ow as ygatblok
tnuome edd said bua ,sonebive edt to tdglew ois oc YreTtd:
bemtitts eal tnuomabut, ot ,oldanocessiny ton ef braws sd to
CEMA TA
72 = 21869.
JOHN P. KANE,
Appellee,
Appeal from
va.
Superior Court,
INDIANA HARBOR BERT
RAILROAD COMPARY,
A
Cook County.
198 I.A.458
ike VRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY
DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE COURT.
Plaintiff while employed by defendant fell from a high
platform and was injured. He brought suit alleging negligence
of defendant in leaving crushed or slush ice on the platform,
causing him to slip and fall. Upon trial by a jury he had a
vordict upon which judgment was entered for °1,000.
Tho jury could ressousbly believe from tho evidence that
plaintiff was employed in and about en tee house snd icing
_Pplatform aged for deing ears. | Th he platiern Le about 760 feet
EStié#Meng and 16 feet wide; ' eM. sa double-decker with a sheet-
iron or tin roof; the 0 woper deck is about 21 feet from the
ground; at each end is ‘a eluster of lights; under ages)" y
:
1
these were lighted prs when ieing cars. Railroad tracks run
perallel to this platform on both sides. Crushed ice ie pre-
pared in the ice house, then breughtover the platform to the
Gars; from the upper deck it is placed ee carrying beef
and poultry. One erew under a foreman does the work in daytime,
and enother crew at ———— Orders HE etven to each
erew when the work ‘ie finished to clean up all spilt or loose
! ice. Inetruetione from the foreman were, “whenever there
ae wae ony Slush ice or 60114 ice spilt on the platform it
a must be immediately picked up, placed in a full car that
might be standing along there; and if there was no full
\ ion standing here, Uerer it into one empty; if sane ws was
0 empty car chere shovel At off on the ground, and deat
yw it to lay on the platform.* In February, 1912, ——
af
F
-@3afs - &Y
TAX .T WHOL J
ort fseaqa ; 1 gir ;
“av f
e*#2900 xolceque baie —
#0 A iy
»otaro) Wood. 4 — ‘ah
A
BabA eer
YISHUSOM SOITAUL OUIGIENAY .AK
-THUQD HHT TO HOLIWLYO AT Canavisad
figid a mort [fet tanbneteb yd hoyofqme s Cteu vt beateld | i ;
eoneat fg0n anigef tn tise tdgverd of .bourtat sev bas mrortstg 7
exoꝛoala ety wo eof durta vo heodwrro aniveel at inadactes te
a bed ef yuh s yd fntxt noqd .fist bose qife of mid aateune,
. +000,£8 ~<o% boroins saw taomphet Aetdw noqw fotstey
tent eons hive ot mort eveltted yldaneasot Slgoo yet oT
3cctot ban paston oot ne tuoda ban at boyolqme saw tidatstg
teot OaT. toda ‘SF mobvaty eAT ). .axR0 gukab xot Soar —
— — ——
“toon 9 1dtw vod0eb~olduob Re Dass sobiw teet Of bua aor
et mort toot £8 tuode ¢ al does sor 0 edt Noent att co” noxt
— ⁊eo hciu zaage te xoteu Lo a ak Bite dose ts jhsirorty
tur adsext Beorlhnd saxe0 grbok most ck — ox0w ened a.
‘tood gakyxreo —X * boost, - “at #2 seed xoqqe ‘ont work jexeo
Ay’, J 9
mivyeb ot anw add agon Remexot & xebsy werd ead. “sued Seog: Ga) a
sone ot sorta i arebro ——— te wore todtoms ban
eredd rovernoriv™ gee namero't’ ott pre? ono tsoustont
—* mreteaty ont: * ‘ttaq ect Btfoa +o ont * bat 7
By ‘
.
,
‘
cnt on asm exalt tf bas — * 3
‘uaw exvode Sh iat eno hes Le * |
ay
2
the accident occurred, plaintiff did @lerical work sround the
ice house, sesisted the watchman and assisted the night crew
in icing care. Upon the night of the aecident no cars were
iced. Plaintiff was assisting the watchman, and in the pere
formance of this duty he walked over the top platform at
least three times during the night to pull the night watch-
man's clock; at these times he valked along the south side
of the platform. On the next trip, which was his last, he
walked along the north side, and stepped into slush or crushed,
ieee which had been left there by the day crew. He did not
kmow it wags there, ond on account ot the darkness did not see
it. It caused him to #lip and he fell off the platform down
to the railroad treck, receiving severe injuries. Only once
during the seven yoars he had worked there had he observed
any slush ise left on the platform by the other crew; the
instructions to remove this ice had been followed with only
one exseption for many yoars.
es: Bea does not seem unreasonable, in view of the great
Ganger to workmen on this high platform, that ordinarily and
usually great care wonld be exercised in keeping the platform
free from loose ice, and that only rarely would there be an
exception to this rule. '
Did plaintiff assume the risk incident to the presence
on the platform of crushed ice at this time? We think not.
If the fact was, as the jury must have believed, that the }
presence of this ice at this time was an unusual and extra-
ordinary oceurrence, then plaintiff aid not aswune/risk, As
wo have before indicated, we cannot conclude that the jury
_ should not have so found. ‘This being true, plaintiff did not
agsune the risk of that which he did not know, or of that
_ : wae
edt Souoxa axow Ieotzofo bib Ttttatelg ,borwove snebtoog ant ’
wero Jtigtn ont Sotaiaaa bas nemfotew of? Detatesa ,eavod ook
exew axrav on tnobtoos offs to tdala ont nog’ .arA0 antolL at # ;
“tog oft at baa ,osamdotew odd yaitotasea aaw Mt ttatels shook
ts orxottalg got eft tevo beslew ef ytub alt to oonamret , an
~fotew tigtn odd [Iuq of teigin oft antag aomts soxit taset : :
ohts dtuon odd gaole hewlev off somtt onodd ta gaoofo a" nam
of ,taeal atd saw dotdw ,qtat txen oft oO) .mrottalg oft J
odasto 16 Masta ofnt Seqget® den ,oht» Atron otf? anole hodfaw a
ton SID oh .wero yah odt yd owdd Mtol ased Sad dolbitw ook a
eee vou Sth euercixed efd to tasooon no hae ,ored? aaw tt woend — J
arob mrotiefy ad? tro [Let od bas qtla of atch boneo 1 «tt ;
gone YlnO .aotustat oreven gntvitooer ,soast hooxller oft of
bevresdo of bad ered? bedtow Sod of ataoy mover adv gatush i 4
edt jwouo redso dt yd mrottely edt no tel eot dante yas
ylno dtiv howellot seed bast oot ald? ovomex of anoitountant
sazeey Yaam sot nol? qaoxe on0
taorg eft to wolv at ,oldanceseray mesa ton a00d #1 |
bas eikinntere gad? ,orroitely dgid eidt ao seonlrow of tegaed
nidivata ert gakqoos ot boatotexe od brow ox85 Jao _iteves wa
aa ed otods Sluow yloxax yao tedt bas ,eot saegt mort oo
oft: aldt of notdgeoxe
eonoserg oft of tuobtont awk edt ommage Trtintaly bd : ‘
ston Anté? ef femtd elit ta oot hodarxo to mrotselq ont ao 4 :
odd tadd ,hbovetioed ovat taum Fauh odt ae ,wew Jost ond — | a
-sxtx0 * ———— a8 aaw omts atdt ta oot eid to ——* J
Pr tats \onsees ton hth trhtntalq nadt , oonoTsmpeo Wambo
Crt od Fact obyLonoo tonnse ow ,beteothat exoted 7
a bth Viktatale ,suxt gated gtd? hat os ovad ton ae uo
tod? to x0 ,womdk tom Lb of soldw tad ko aats « i? om
cies J nn Be
J i Ae ae Tig
A which he was not chargeable with knowing. | i
th The judgment is affirmed. |
Aa¥
“ THMAITIA
-gaiwool diiw efdsegtado Jon eaw on dokdw
-hamriite at tmomabst ol
95 = 22012
JOHN LANG and LOUIS LANG,
nen
APPEAL FROK CIRCUIT COURT
va,
OF COOK COUNTY.
£98 J.-A. 4 0,
KR, JUSTICE BAKER TET YERED THE GPSAION OF ane COURT,
JAMES W, HEDENBERG,
— — — —⸗
The issues in this case are practically identical
/
with those involved in Summers v, Hedenberg, ante cage é iu
The land involved in this case and that involved in the Sum-
Mers case were parts of the same tract, which had been orig-
inally owned by Summers, In this case the defendant ©
entered into a contract with the complainanta for the pure
chase of the land involved eee ach ne purchase price
of the land involved in this case was the seme as that of the
land involved in the Summers ease, the two contracts containd
the same provision as to deposits of the contract and carnest
_ money with the Chicago Title and Trust Company and the right
of the complainants to retain the carnest money if defendant
failed to perform the contract on his part Syed of oe
quest « Hes lg ag in the two cases are idé see toa
“the: ‘Sunmers” c Easat aot * Ct ee atad diene.
ee e — was delivered to defendant, who
made no eejeation to the title, When the time for the pay-
ment of $4,060 arrived defendant, on repeated demands, failed
to — the money and also failed to pay the §5,000 when it
fell due on the ground that he did not have the money, The
Master preperiy from the evidence concluded that tne only
reason that defendant did not make the payments was that he
% was unable to raise the money, as he never gave any other
THUOD TLUOHLO MOHD LANDEA
.YTHUOD HOOD TO
* at A.1 2? ms J
—R woo wails TO ‘BOrms £0 aur — TAA goLTaNt ie ae
— —
act.
faotiaebs yilsoltostq exe eeeo eld? at sevesi sdT Mie
A x 8
sana, sins sBtsdasbek .v atemawé ai beviovai — aie
-ous sat xt beviovat tad? bas seng aisd at bovioval ‘Baad. oft
-sito mecd band doktaw ,tostt smee ent To esusq otew 9ea0 ey
‘ gausbceteb edd easo aind ol ,et9mmye yd bonwe yitemt
-iNg au⸗ 410? esasalatqmos ai3 déiw soatsao9 & otak —
eolig sensioruy ous vooas oka beviovnt baal odd to oands
edd to todd a omes odd waw oenn aide at bevioval bas £ ond 1 ;
fantatnos atostinos owt ont oe erenmus edz at bovfovak bau
seentse bua tostinoo edd to atlisogsb of ea aolaivorg ome od
$dgiit sit bas yosqmod gaurt baa ofo2t epaoiad edt dg hw enon |
tnsbastebh TL yenom ftaentao ols atadet of etaaniafquoo ond to —49
odt to yas, ,Jusq etd ao toetdmoo ont mrotisq oF bested us
‘oe Sake aise — * eta —— ews edt nt bevieyal 4s
Oto ‘bevaeeee nua don been 9 ——
ow ,tuabaeteb of betevilobh saw sostteda ® — eon?
-“aq edt tot emis edd aonW eltit odd of woltsne (ee on abe 4
‘botis? ,abanaed besaeqet ne , tambo tab boviris 000408 to
F tt mestw 000,4§ edt yo ot be thar oats bax vonon ‘od we
ext? enon ouid eved tou bab od tatl⸗ baworg mld « ‘
«so gate dads bebulonos ‘eonsb ive acid mort | t
on dada aaw esromyag edd oxen ton | X
¥ J —** Ys 8Vvag “oven o fan .
, a ee
reason nor made any objection to the title of appellees, A
motice similar to that given in the Summers case was given
by complainants to defendant April 14, and, defendant having
failed to make any payments, complainants caused defendant
to be served with another notice that on account of his
failure to perform the provisions af the contract, make the
payments necessary and comply with said first notice, they
had elected to declare the contract null and void and to
retain the purchase money, hiay 29, 1914, defendant filed
in the Recorder's office an affidavit similar to the affi-
davit filed in the Summers case, He never made payment of
either the £4,000 or the $5,000 to the Chicago Title and
Trust Company nor offered to do 30, No argument was made
before the Master of any defect in complainants’ title and
no argument on this question was made before the Court on
exceptions to the Waster's report, it {eo breued for the
\\first time in this Court, The grounds of reversal urged
yet First, that complainants were in default at the time
of the service of the notice of April 15, 1914, and were
not entitled to forfeit and retain the earnest money, be-
cause there was no proof that at the time of the service of
the notice they had perfect title to the property, Second,
that complainants did not tender a deed nor prescribe the
form of trust deed. Third, that the notice did not give a
reasonable time for performance, Fourth, that a court of
equity will not aid whe complainants,
| eae By basing » his — sn. contract -
SW RUE ETON
biestion, "gehnson v, Zbnnson, 45 Minn, ⸗ ———
defendant that couplaingnts rene ‘toeive hin —
for the papuaad of the — price is not wuppastee
——
ba
r ; : , 1 * —
A -seetisqqs to elitist ont of — van obec ton NOSBO'T
nevin caw caso etoummyl odd ad sevis ‘dacs ot solimke sotto
anivad dasbnoted ,baa ,Sf Lh1qA saabnoteb of atnaniatquoo we :
tnebonsteh beauso etnanialqmoo ,etnoayaq que —X ot boLiay
eid to ¢nyooos no dad? soiton tadtone di lw bovao⸗ of or
eid ovam ,sSsattaoo edd to anoisivotq ost oꝛasa ot owtia®
yous ,solton sexit biases dt iw yiqmoos baa yiseseoen adnonvog
od bas blov bas {iun gostsa09 edt exeloob os besooLe bexi 3
‘ Ry
belit tasbasteb ,bL@L ,@S yek ,yenom eandotwg od auaava
J oↄda od tallinis tivabit%s as eolite al rebtoeen: oat au
to tnemyseq obsm t9ved of .oaan eto sue exit i botid bivab
baa ef3tT ogscidd edt 08 000,88 ont 10 000,08 ould sonido
ebem sew inemuagte of .o@ ob of betelto tom yaaqmod taux? |
bas oltit ‘ataanistqmoo at goetebh yas to tedeaM edd stoted
ao Fo) said e1oted. ebam saw molsjeoup ald? mo tnomunte om
- edd rot bowytet oy $i 6 ,&toget a'tetaak ot od enoliqooxe
beni [getevex to ebrwotyn eT .tawod eins ak omtd sent’
emit oft ta ¢fLusteb at o19w etasnialqmos fads torte | pond i,
ateow bas ,dfeL ,éL Lhiqd Yo oosison one. to ootvrea ent to
-od ,yonom geentse edt alasot baa Sieti0? of beliltsns fou
to soiviea edd To emit ont Ja sadt Toorg on saw etods seuao ‘
one. .ytieqerg od of BLdid toetreq bad yorit ooltion ont
end edixoze1q ton besh # szehnmod Son bib esnanialgmos t
@ @viga doc bib soliton edd tend ,biidt> vhseb sauts to rot
to Jisoo 8 dads ,détuol ,eonaarrgtreg 10% smite sfdene —J
\dosrsno0 aiit_sxo240g-o¢- “fagsstot @ ete — ad ya mi
abawoxy “KaKi3 0 {ia beviaw tnabme teh“, 68 -uh: Of = ma
*
beens tou et “ — $ to tnomyag “oo
* oy TT. |
by the evidence and therefore cannot be made the basis of a
claim of his right to a deed upon payment of the purchase
price, The evidence shows that his refusal to perform was
upon the sole ground that he did not have the money to make
the paysients within the prescribed time. In Ashbaugh v.
Murphy, 90 111, 182, it was held that where a defective
title isa tendered and the conveyance is refused on the
ground that the purchaser did not have the money, he could
not object to the title, and the Court said;
“Had he himself been ready to perform the con-
tract and objected to the deed because the property was en-
cumbered, the plaintiff might have been able to show that
the property was freed from all encumbrance and the title
perfect; but defendant makes no pretense that he was ready
and able and willing to perferm the contract,"
To same effect is Runkle v, Johnson, Sv 111,528,
In Johnson v. Johnson, 45 Minn, 5, it was held that it was
not important that there was a cloud on the title which could
have been removed when the vendee stated that he could not
get the money to perform, it was not necessary that complaine
ants have title until the time they had agreed to deposit the
deed in escrow, and before that time defendant had made default
and could not require complainants to obtain title, The Kaster
properly found from the evidence that Hedenberg made no objec-
tion to the title, but failed to carry out the agreement by
reason only of his inability to provide the necessary money,
In Kissack v. Bourke, 224 111, 352, Jiourke made
@ contract to sell to Kissack certain land provided Kissack
deposited in a named bank the purchase price, which should
be delivered to Sourke upon receipt of e deed from him, An
abstract was delivered which showed a defective title, The
time in which the transaction was to be closed was extended
thirty days, Kissack offered to pay the balance and take a
Yh ta ie
@ to alead sdt sham od Jsounao stoteteds bus eonebive odd ys
eascoisg edt to toomyeq aoyy boeb a of Joyit eld ‘Yo mista
few stotted of Laavter ata tad? ewode sonsebive oAT aohag
aian of yenom edd eved don bib ox sant ‘bauota” foo odd 04s
-V dgveddeA ni «omit heditosertq ox3 aiad tw adnemceq odd
evitosteb a stew fait bled asw tk ,SBL ,LkT OC Bec |
edt ao boeutet ef eoasyevnos edt deia bovehunt ak oleae
—
bivoo od ,yonom edt eve ton bib tesademsq odd tadd bowery
tibiae fino) edd baa soLdkS esis of Neh
“109 end arcotizeq of ybaet nosed Besmid ed bax"
-19 eaw ¥Iteqorq ead eeusoad heed edd of bodoatdo bes sont
éadd wone of olda need evad Jogim Ytisaiesiq sdd ,bete
eftit edt base eonatdavens {fa aott beett eaw ytteqotg
yYoset eew of Jade senetetg om eokam dnabaeteb gud jJsoe nit
“,Joatsaoo eis mrotiueq of gnitiiw bas ida | —*
.BBC. 441 O& ef tostts smse of
saw $£ tad? blod saw 9k 6 ,ankM & + fo8 A We moeudoy at
biuoo doidw ofitd ond no buwold @ saw exedd taut Shad toque gon
toa bLuoo ed tadt botada esbuov edt codw bevomet ‘nood ove
-infqmoo tads vreaeooon fon aaw 71 .orro'rted ot Yona ond jog
eid tivogoh ef beotya barl vous omts od? fisaw ofsid svad aan
$Lusteb ebsn het tnebseteh omtd said etoted ban ,wotoae ab be
Totus oft .efsit alatdo ot estnaniafamoo otiwpar ton biuod bei
-saide on sham giadaebeli dadt oonsbhive oA3 mot? bayot hati
|, Youom vineeeoen oat ebivorq of yeitidank atd to ——
ebam oxtwot ,86 {fT BSS ,pxuvoe .v Apmaatsx ol
dosexit bedivorg baal niatzso dosauty of Iles od teatdnoo
binge sdotuw ,ooitq séadouwwg edt aned bomen a nt bediwog
nA mts mont boob # to tqisvex moqu exawod ot beened
“edt -2f913 ovisoo tad @ bewods doidw botevilod eew t
bebasixe ssw beaols od of asw nolinssastt exe nepal
a lad bas gonaled odd yaq of bozetto — seca
———- —
warranty deed, or to deposit the money in the bank if fourke
would make the deed, which he refused to do unless he was
peid a larger sum, ‘The Court gaid;:
"We are of the opinion that the deposit of the
balance of said purchase price in said bank was a condition
precedent to appellant's right to a deed to said premises,"
fhe tender of a deed was not necessary, All
that was necessary was ian offer by complainants to make the
deed and deposit it provided defendant would deposit the
payments and perform his contract, and they made this offer,
By the provisions of the contract in escrow, complainants
were not obliged to deliver any deed to defendant, but only
to deposit it in escrow with the Chicago Title and Trust
Company after defendant had deposited the purchase money as
provided in the contract,
The law does not require a needless formality,
and an actual tender is unnecessary where the seller is
ready, able and willing to perform on his part, and ea tender
would be a mere useless form, If before or at the time of
performance the purchaser has declared his intention not to
perform, or refuses to do so, the seller need only prove
that he was ready and willing to perform on his part,
Osgood v. Skinner, 211 11), 220; Gohen v. Segal, 263 ill, 34,
And if tender by the vendor would prove ineffec-
tusl, the law does not require a vain act, and such tender is
unnecessary, ‘Thus refusal of the purchaser to perform, or
his notification of the vendor that he is unable to perform,
relieves the vendor of the necessity of tendering a deed,
39 Cyc, 1377. To the same effect are: Mix v. Beach, 46 111,
$11; Peck v. Bright & Co., 69 111, 200; Clark v. Weiss, 67
111. 458.
Defendant's -ohjection to the decree on the
ground that the notice given was not reasonable is not sus-
tained by the evidence,
exrwol ti dnad oft ml yenom off Slaoqeh of to ,besb Vasey
; sew oc eootus ob of beaewtet od nokdw , boob ont salem bivow —
tblae giu0d of? jmwe tegtal s vies
adit te dase git tadd solniqo edt? to ota ow* ; —
meisibacs a eaw dnad blee ak eoltq eaddotwg bise to 9 eg
* eoaimertg bise ot heeb @ of Sdyit alsualleqqe of tanbe J
{fA .Vviseeaooen ‘gon saw boob 2 Yo tsbmed oct
edd oxen 6s sénanielquoo yd xetto ni aaw yraseecon &, aaw ag b
edd Sieoqeb bilyow taabastes bebivorg ai tieoqeb ban —
xe Tio gids ebhan yedd bans ,tontinoo cid MLO LLG, one — ay,
ainanialgmoo .worons ni Jositéinos eft te anoielvorg uit we
yteo gud jnabas teb ot boob yrs xevileb ot boyitdo ton oe
geaxt bas oltiT oxgsoidd eds dtiw wores mk sé pieaeb of 1
2a Yenen ——— ‘esi — ‘bad Aabas top tod te ego
,deaxtaee ont aa ———
VeLLemtrod seolthoos. 6 etiupes gon esobh wal oat
ak tolfea eat axed cranevoenny at cohnez. ——
- tebnes s bae — R etd ae mrotrsq, ot and (Lit bas. ofda. .vbaot
Yo sald edt ta xe ‘etoted 1 samo eee tons hatin i
«b% .fis cas Lago v pad OD eas ie £8 ——
-potient avoir bivow sobnev edd yd tebses ‘te baa — —
ek Tebasy dove. bap Joe aiav sxiupet Jon aseb wal edt Tout
tO ,mxoGtieg of teesdotwq eit To faeutor —X — ————
—B— — o⸗ o Lanci ok a9 tada rebar, aris to Laisa ich a
boob 8 grixobned ‘to vtieeooen dt to xobaow nstt. aove
nes aa toned “¥ xi Ome, too rts ema oad oT see *
va satel .V¥ eato i008 Ati 89 2 4.00 4 Snead v
edt m0 eet09b ont of —2 ‘8! taabme ted * a.
Ae -aus ton ak oidandenet Jon asaw nevis eolson ont * auo
oa ; . pore se
.
Defendant's objection to the decree on the ground
that a court of equity will not decree a forfeiture should be
overruled. The decree does not declare or decree a forfeiture,
but merely decrees that defendant has by his own ects prior
to the filing of the bill rescinded the contract or caused
a forfeiture, and that the title to the earnest money was
in compiainants at the time the bill was filed, S#arnest
money in the hands of a trustee belonging to the seller
because of the defeult of the purchaser cannot be returned
to the purchaser, but may be decreed to ve paid by the
trustee to the seller,
In Bucklen v. Hasterlik, 155 i11, 425, it was
urged that the sourt wes lending its nid to a forfeiture,
The Court said;
“if the decree of the Circuit Court in its nae
ture enforces a penalty, or forfeiture, it cannet be suse
tained, The contract between these parties recites that
‘seid purchase has paid $1,000 earnest money, to be applied
on said purchase when consummated,* and should the vendor not
comply with the terms in furnishing title, ete,, 'the said
earnest money shall be refunded.’ Ly the terms of this contract
the earnest money became the property of the appellee, of which
he could be divested only in the event of his failure to pere
form his contract. fhe check wae, at the time it was drawn,
delivered to appellee, and while it is true it was afterward
deposited, together with the contract, with the International
Bank, the evident purpose thereof was to guarantee that Haster-
lik would, within the time prescribed, furnish evidence of a
good title, in which event he would be entitled to the check
or the money."
The Court cites the following passage from ry on
Specific rerformance;
“Where the purchaser, after making the payment
by way of deposit, unjustifiably repudiates the contract, or
in any other way goes off through his default, the vendor
is, in the absence of stipulstion on the point, entitled to
retain the money, treating it as having deen paid to him as
@ guaranty for the purchaser's performance of the contract,”
The Court also cites Depree v. Bedborough, 4
Giff., 479, where the Court said;
“Then how the person who is in default can,
——— adit 00 9 edt ot molroside af suabae ted
~@msslettct s serach to stalveb gon ac0b setoeh oT bo Lutteve |
i
ed SLiode erutiettot a seteeb son iLiw ytiups 0 ⸗NAuoo * sad ;
toliqatos awe ela yd ead aual tis teb jads agetoeh yletom gud
; . —
beaveo 19 fositsnoo ond bebmisaod {fid odd to gall? elt ov
Bow Yonom teerntse ofS oF eldid odd Jods base oTUSLO TOT B
gaontsi bell? eaw [Lid odd mts ot ga usnantelquoo ‘es
telfee eds of gnignoisd seteuud a To shana ond ak yoren
paqauney ed Jonna tessdoisg edt to tivusteb ost to veuinood
ant xe bieq ad of beetoed - od yam gud toastoisg ond ‘oe
tolloe ent od ‘potent
esw ¢: (8S Lf) GOL .Abiresend ,v np LXoudt at be
sors Lotte? 8 ot bie efi gather eaw trod ed? taut begs
tbise sewod eat
ean afi al gxvwo) sdivotls edt to setoeh edt T1*
«sua ed tounso ti ,etutietrot to ,ytiansq a — *
tedd sotioer esiirsg seeds noowsod sosxtnoo el .beniat
beifaqqs sd of ,yenom saontse 000,f£@ bisq eat sescdoug biset
gon tobscev ed bivodea bas *,bessemuence sew evadouwg bias no
' bkae edd! ,,9% ,ofstit —— ol ssrte? odd déiw yiqueo —
goatsnoo eidd to amzod end YS ' bobmw'tet ed Liade yonom sesntas
soidw to ,selleqqs ed? to ytieqoig eid smaved yYenom Jeenmtss |
-toq ot ervliet ein to Jaeve edd al ylao beteevib sd Sivoo et
<awerb saw ti emis odd gs ,esw Aoeno oT. .Joatence ——
brawiesioe gaw Ji euars ol th eLisdw dus ,polieaqgs ot bovevilfeb —
fanoitanctetal eds d3lw ,toatsnco sedi asiw tediegos ,botieoged —
“rosea dad? setnareug of saw Toeteds eeoqrug tnobive edd rr ae
2 Yo sonebive deiwiyt ,bsdixoweestq omit ofS alddiw ,bivow AML
* edt of bofiistas o¢ bivow of taeve do Ldw ah settle boog —
*,yonom eit tO
MO YTT NOXk ogesasg eniwesior edd asdio dused eit
_ ieomReTO TIE oitioogs
. doomyaqg ond gaidem sotta ,tesenoxwwq sd etesiy" .
to ,tonisnoo sat aotaibuqet yldelttitewtaw ,Jkeogeh to yaw vw
nobaev ont ,Jiusteb aid ogvotad tIo sson Yaw todto yas. #
od beftitas ,taiog oft no noltaluqise to eoneedsa odd ai ,et-
es min of bleaq seed yoived ea Ji yunisnots ,younom ond takes!
* Joo1snoe odt to gonamtotisg a'tseadoxug odd tot YSnataue 4
> ,d@gvotodbed .v setysd sesio opts give sAT |
:bisse IuwoD edd otosdw 20D ,, THD
eiao Sfueteob at ef odw noeteq od wod noriT®
upon that default, and in consequence of that default, ac-
quire any right to the money, which was parted with as a
security that there should be no default, it is difficult
te conceive,”
After citing these cases, the opinion of the
Court in the linsterlik case proceeds as follows:
"jt is clear from the contract thet the only
contingency which contemplated the return of the money to
Bucklen was a default on the part of asterlik,”
. The Court decides tnat the objections te the
title were not good, and, therefore, Bucklen had failed to
perform his contract, and hence Hasterlik {who had not dee
feulted) had a right to declare the contract forfeited,
anc the earnest sioney was turned over to him, The Court
also held in this case that no tender of the deed Was nec~
essary because it was evident under the facts in the case
that the seller would have refused it.
Karnest money 18 @ guarantee that the contract
will be performed. if the sale goes on, it applies as part
payment of the purchase money, but if there is a default on
the part of the purchaser, he has no right to recover the
deposit, but it belongs to the seller,
owe v. Smith, 27 L. R, Aw, B. 5. 89;
Gatton v, Bennett, 51 LL, P. (Chu. D,) 70;
Kelley v, Thompson, 161 Mass,, 299;
Bucklen v. Hasterlik, 155 I11., 423;
Depree v. Bedborough, 4 Giff., 479.
The conclusion reached by the learned Chancellor
was right end proper and the decree appealed from is affirmed,
AFPIRKED,
— es
-o8 ,tiuateb Jad? Yo eensupeanoo al bmw ,tiuateb dads sou
2 64 aviw betiag eaw iioliw ,yenom sds of Siigit ya ot J
#Suolttib ai #1 ,tivetebh on od bfuowe etods 2* yt
* ,ovieones
eit ‘to “woialige eda .80an9 oaerd goidlo ted TA
:ewollot es absseotg saso Allistash aad ad txu0d
vino oct sandy Joatinos edd mort taolo ai 2i* |
od yenom ont to ntutet odd bosalqmedtnoo dolaw — ——
“ Ailaestest to dueq edd ao Sivete’ a saw wotilo
ens ot unoldosido off Jadd eoebioeh dame oT
ot beolist bed aelioul ,exctetedd ,bne ,booy ton sxow ofthe
“9 son bad ostw) Aiftoeseod eoned bas ,teatiaoo aia ——
sbetletxol Jeettaos vit sisloeh os digtt « bad (bod twat
devo oft mid o¢ teve bentys aaw yonom Jeontas edd bea
oon gaw beob oid to tabnet on tads sano akdd at bfod ‘oala
eco ont ni edost ent toban Jaobive saw Ji seussod Yiaese
.di hoewilet evead hivow talfea ont tat
Soatinoo oAd tadd sotastavy @ ak Yonom Jeantal Gi
dasg aa asiiqga Ji ,no eason ofae odd TI sbomtetxeg of Lttw
mo tiueteh s ai eters tL sud Katom Sendoumy ods to tasmyng 4
ead teveoes of Jdgli om ead of ,t98edoung edd To S2eq odd
etoiies edd of eyaofed 3k dud ,thuogeb
zes .2 M.A A OE TS ewou —9
sO" (.a . o .t .t £8 — Hodsey
iGesS ,,aesk LOL ,moeqmodt .v yelled
(OSd «fl Bel «Akitoseat ov metvtoua
-@VS 4. TILO Dd ,dguotodhed .v¥ setgett
tolf{sonaid bearsefl edt yd bedosert notewlonoo edt ou
-bemritin ak mort bolasqqe sstoebh edt bas toqoxq baa tdyiz sow
— CUMGTI OHA 4
2 = 20897
ALBERT W, RUDNICK, Administra- )
tor of the Estate of James fF,
Scannell, deceased,
Defendant in Error,
ERROR TO CIRCUIT COURT
vs, 4
é OF COCK COUNTY,
CITY OF CHICAGO et:al.,
Ylaintiffs in Yrroy.
X yA 19 8 I.A. Ae
er
WR. JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED THE OF INION OF THE COURT.
| me relator — fren the CGireuit Court a
writ of mandamus reinstating him into the claimed office
of “meter setter" in the Department of Public Works of the
City of Chicago, Frem-the-judenent awarding that writ
respondente-heve-sued Git a writ of error sééking-a-reversal,
Since the writ was sued out respondents weve suggested the
death of relator and his administrator Res been substituted
and duly summoned, and while his appearance had. been entered
he agg failed to file briefs or argue the cause,
J The cause was tried before the court upop the
petition as twice amended, the answer of respondents and a
stipulation of fact, The relator had before the filing of
the petition been dismissed upon a trial before the Civil
Service Commission, in conformity with the requirements of
the Civil Service law,
— — —
We do not deem it necessary to our decision to
—ñ—⸗ — ——
notice any questions presented regardüng the irregularity or
the propriety of relator's discharge by the Civil Service
Commission, but will decide only the first assignment of
error, wiich is, “The petition as amended did not set forth
_ facts which show the legal existence of the office or posi-
thon of ‘meter setter’ nor the legal right of the petitioner
ne ®
to hold it,
»
1s
eiseininbA ,MOIMGUH , INRA.
“a eomal to stated ont Yo toe
Deersoe0h — —
etOTTH ol Inshne toc
f .ev
ee 2 8 ‘te QOVADLIUS To vero
eKOtxrt of aPiisnial«
BER ATeer \Y
«?HUOD THT TO HOLMIGO ANT GHAMVIIEa MOdIOH MOLTSUL : cM <
THUOD TIVONID OF KONRKX
ere av." J
ei 2aUOD 1000 10
——— ‘anc bentatdo tojaler ott |
291 to bomials odd oval mid goitatentet auaaboam te ¢ baw
eit Yo extoy obfdud to sneneteqed edt wk ““etton sodem® %
otlaw- taney ——— ‘Sete mh ert ont. won't .ogno bid 20 who
, inaxeve*: B antasss ‘torte to diaw a 19 Wore-oved-edasbaaceo%
otit — 9Ve0 einebnoqgest tyvo beus aaw daw odd sonte
besusiiedue — eet totartetnisha eid bus teenies to sitaob
boxe tas heed nd Sonsiseqqe eid otisw bas » benommsve viub base
.96Nad ont ougts To aretrd efit os better aa ae
es ogy Sayeo vad ertoted boins a2w SOURS ont | os :
4 bas einesbnogest to sewena sald —— eolws ea nolstieg:
Yo gaiflt end eroted bad tosaler eit ,toat to noktaiugise
Livia A⸗ atoted faints & noqa heealime ib seed Hotsidoq oat
to asnemettupet eds délw Xs imzotnes mi Molec Limo y oolvtog
wa. solyted Livid ont
—*
ot noletooh xn0 ot Ytaegeoon st meeb ton ob ow *
tO YJitalwyertt ot ——— besaseexq enoldeoup yes ‘sokdou J—
0014v100 —J outs xd Syradoalb a'rotslor to Wersernn ode
to tnomrgiees Jerh? eit “fro ebiosh Libs dud noise lanod
ds1ot tee son bib bebeme as noisitoq oar· ,at o.itw 7079 :
~keoqg 10 s9ltlo eit to eonssaixe Inael ond woda do katw atoet
A hte — —
a we
* atl iF
— exis to fants Ingel eas tom oc totem! to no
| onto Parse ent?
We have concluded that by ne averment of fact in
g
j the petition as amended is it made to appear thet any such
j
office as "meter setter” exists in the Department of lublic
i
Werks of the City of Guiannh: \-toe relator avers” tiat the
Department of Public Works was created by ordinance passed
. “April 18, 1281; that thereafter, by the revised code of the
) City of Chicago, 1697, the said department waa established
| as an executive departwent of the municipal governuent of
| Chicago known a8 the Department of #ublic Works, embracing
| the Commissioner of fublic Works and such other employees
66 the city council may by ordinance prescribe and establish,
By no averment of the petition as anended seit
made to appour that the a, flee — Patrice
office of “meter setter," Thee —* service Commission had
no power to create the office, hey ceuld only classify the
offices crested by the ordinances of the city council, It is
settled in this juviediction that in sandamus proceedings
where the existence of an office is claimed, it must be made
to appear by appropriate averments that the office was created
in the manner prescribed in cases of this character by an ordi-
| nance of the city. Courts of general jurisdiction do not take
| judicial notice of municipal ordinances, but he who relies
upen such an ordinance must allege and prove it as a matter
ef fact, People v. Busse, 248 111, 11; Stott v. City of
Chicago, 205 ibid 241; Gersch v. City of Chicago, 250 ibid
6; Bullis v, City, 235 ivid 472,
| The petition as amended does not cite any ordi-
nance of the City of Chicago creating the office of "meter
setter® and without the citation ef such an ordinance in
the petition of relator the court cannot determine that any
such office exists, This principle of law is so uniformly
well settled by so many decisions of our Supreme Court that
mt goat to theme vs on yd dadt bebylonos ovad oW
dove yne tadt tmeqqa o¢ sham tl ei bebaean ea nosisog oa ‘y
obfdut to, taemsraqed eff at stuixe “rodsee tetom* an ⸗
edt sah exeva totaiex eat | ,ogsoidy to ydLo edt to : a ia |
becesg vonanibire yd —E eaw alioW olidui te tae . | |
edt to eboo beaiver odd yd , tes teeteds tadd- ,L60L ave
bedeitdases asw toemsiaqeb ye aut .Te3L ,ogaotdd to
a
to dnoourtevog faeqioinum ont to —— ovissooxe - a
|detideses bas edixosetq vonsnibie yd yeu dkonuoo ysio edd aa
ay) —2*
ti * bebuewa es noisiseog edd ‘to susmateva on Ys
dt hoteeto gonanibte yd Lionwoo wee YY ons Jadd tasqqs ot
wr Bay Biheernn dawg mm b.tho.psxnonorn sine
J bed moiaelmmod solvied Livis Dat At a * cotton resem" to volte
iy 9
yy
i
eit yvtieeslo ying bfueo yoiT .eottio ads otaoto ae Towoq.
eit ¢% 4 ,fionwoo vilo oy Yo seonantbhio oft yd bossorto sook ‘
agnibosoorg exymebasm al dads molsoibe bint @ bed ad boise
ss @bam od seum $k ,bomialo ui eotTio na to sonedetxe ads ono.
betaato eaw eoitito oid Jads addomteva atalzrqoxrqgs xe — ot
=tbt0 aa Id wasoataio elit Yo eoeso ai bedirosetg tostam ou
, exes ton ob neltothetiet Lateaeg to atived lated exis to o .
. seifer odw of gud ,go0manthte faqioiaum Yo ooldon fatox bk but
7 tojtom a as ti svotq baa waetis Feu eonanibxo as dove 0 oo
Jeo ysivd .v grote it sts 8dS ,geaud «Vv gigood toot
‘ bidk 08 ,oyavind to Xoh9 -V dogted ;£88 bidt eos gao kidd
9 SVD adh 26s 1X29 w¥ abs ee
t «ibto yas atto gon e90b bebneme aa —9 od’ 9
tstem" to ooitte edd yaisdaeto ogaoldd to yd Lo oat —*
ai gounanibto aa dova to mottatlo odd ———
J
i yne dads oninwetob sonaso #100 oa⸗ oaalo % 0
Iar o thew es oi wal Yo — oat oy wixe
dens uod — ‘tuo ‘to yaa 98 XC b
Pit ae oe eile — *
9
we do not deem it appropriate to further extend this opinion
in desonstration of so clear » principle,
a the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed
and, as the relator was not entitled to the writ of mandamus
*
pray ed and is now dend, the cause is not remanded,
my
REVERSED,
34
moinige aint baséxo rersidiwt of sisinqorigas ti moeb ton ob ew —
-9{qionitq ms weefo oa to Holisisenomeh aah
boetevex si tuuot shyorts ait to tusmybut ony
auombnsa to sitw ont of beltisias son saw todalex oss as be J
eGHGHRVER
a⸗- > - 6a
\
SOL FINKEL, °
De
ERROR TO MUNICIPAL COURT
vs,
; OF CHICAGO,
SAMUEL SPRINGE
4 _ Plain
198 1.4. 483
DELIVERED THE GPINION OF THE COURT,
On a trial before the-tourt without the intere-
vention of a jury pleintatr had judgment for gl50, and de-
fendant brings the record to this court for our review and‘
q asks a reversal, MOA Sa eee
— —
Plaintire claimed to have Qloaned defendant §150
— t—
with which to pay money that defendant lost at gambling,
oe ee eee att nea, 4 3 /
defendant invoke), section I8tcaertereein ky os, : * * E
fense, It not contended that the 4150 loaned, or any ?
2
part of it, — paid to plaintiff as money won by him from %
defendant at the gambling game of poker or any other gambling
ma
game of cards, It oie? neueven that plaintiff ond dee
fendant and five other men were playing poker at plaintiffs
house and that defendant lost 3190, and having only 940
with him, at the conclusion of the game borrowed the $150
from plaintiff and paid it, together with the 940 he had
with him, to the persons who had won various amounts of
‘Boney from Bim — a
The aittieusty | wita *s contention is,
that bis hestineny lacks corroboration by any of the «= .
persons present during baat evening who assumediy had knowledge
of the transaction, —9 ef” these | persons was called by de- J
J fendant to testifyin his behalf, on the. other nand, two of —
‘the participants were called vy and testified on belimif of
a mae * nh Sete testinony was corroborative of plaing
a te hen Phe
*
i Be
}
!
TAYOS TATIOTMUM OT. OMAR
-~QDADTHD FO
at
esh AI eer
aed
-TAUOO SHT €O HOLMIGO HT GAMRVIIG on ———— —V
—
— —
“total oat Suetstiw Jaueo-ens ezoted tabne a m0
Ob bas ,06L¢ tot Ioommbwy at Nicsꝛ⸗ca Yytul a To aeitne
“+ baa welvet two 10% duuoo elds of bropex — agaird — sh’?
he — ~ tawteves s ema
—â— —
— —
—ã——— —
(O61) snsiue'teh bensoly evad oF bemialo Iidalslt
ng et
-Bitidasy tu teol tusbhaeled sada yotom yaq o⸗ ds dite sty
ey RE rain 5 +P wath ei
) Asstovat ta saabne oc
3 | .
ya 10 , bonnet OSLh odd sans —————— rou a 1 —*
mort mid yd new yonon ea Nisaiale o¢ bleg F — to 3
giiidms, tedto yns to texXog to sammy goilfdmey odd ta danioneteh
-96 Soe ttitalels sadt stovowod Ataee v1 abrao to omg
i — #Tibdatalg ds toxoq yatvaly etew aoa a9dte dais ha tosbaet
Of yino gaived bae ,OUL§ deol tasdneted Jadz. bas vewos /
OGL} edd bewotred emay oct Yo neisutonce eft ta coke : awh
bast oi OM} ond Aslw Tensegas ,3i bing bas Nieatalta pers
to ednwows evolisy now bat ow snoetoy oad os wat a as. xt
y Le, See een OTE S oa vo ——
4 aoisuetaeo a*t at bw Xs Luge Teh oat ait OF WA a
| oslt 10 yam yd aoitexodorxes exont Xnoatsuot awe ‘7
bo dwar Sad Yibomeas enw aninove * — —
ob iW belles asaw — 28244. “to — eee
tiff's account of the transaction in every essential pare
ticuler, Defendant's testimony was not supperted by any
other witness, in thia condition of the proof the court
gould not find the issues otherwise than for the plaintiff.
At the time plaintiff loaned defendant the $156
in sult, the playing of the poker gaue wae concluded and
defendant borrowed the woney from plaintiff with which to
pay the persons who hed won from him during the evening,
plaintiff not being one of them, If plmintiff had received
any part ef the money loaned by him back again as money
that he hed won from defendant at tue poker game, then the
statute invoked would be a complete defense, It ia the law,
hewever, that a pursen whe at the close of a gambling trang-
action loans money to pay m gambling debt may recover the
mondy in an action at law, notwithstanding the lender may
‘have knowledge of the purpese for waich the money is bere
rowed and that it is to be disbursed in the payment of
gembling debts,
We think plaintiff's claim comes within the
ruling of Armstrong v. American Exchange National Rank,
133 U, 3. 433, in which the court wade the following ob-
servetions: *An obligntion will be enforced, though ine
directly conneeted with an illegal transaction, if it is
supported by an independent consideration, so that the
plaintiff does not require the aid of the illegal transac~
tion to make out bis ease,® Bank of Montreal v. Griffin,
154 111. App. 616, is to a like effect,
The judgment of the Municipal Court finding
support in the evidence is affirmed,
APY LRAUED,
seq ialdavsace yreve ab nolktosamess vat To sauooos arise
yoo yd bedteqqua don saw yom teod a'tnabne tem taLuass
txyou odd Toorg eit Yo molikbnoo alday al seontiv 19Adse
.Utivaieatg odd tot meade oulwiendso seveal edd bait Joo bLuow
O&LG odd tnadae'teh bowacl Ykinialg emit ods ta ‘ : | hi
bas bebylonoe aaw omey texcq soit to gpaivalg odd ,tlue ak
od doidw ddiw Tiisaielq moxt youom eld Boworted Jnabae ted
.aoineve ait gnixvub mid moxt mow bad ow encereq of? oq "
bevieoost bad Btituieiq Ti ,aeit Yo ene gnisd son tihiniels q
yonom us aiage doad mid ¥d benaot yenom gals te titaqg Yas ;
—XR neds .omng texog eas dm Snabaoteb aott mow bad off dest |
~wni od at JX ounetob ofelqmon a ed bivow bodovnt otutage
«anaid yotidaay » Yo esofo eft da otw noetsg o Saad .tevewos |
ond tevooer yam tdeb guiidusy « yaq of yeucm easel noltes —
ya tobaefl odd yribandettivdon ,wal Ja soidom am at ywaom
“tod gi vonom vis dolew rod seogzuq ssid Yo eabe (wont ovnd
to stnomyeq odd mt beard Lb ed af oh 32 sadd bas bower :
added amuténna s
eis oldsiw semoo oafelo a'Thivaiaiq dakd? eW ;
doad Lanolgat eanadoxt geodzoms .v yaongemta 20 palin
-do gitiwellot odd ebhau duvoe ofd dokdw mk ,882 .2 .U SEL
wih Mguodd ,beoxotno od Ifiw aoktagiide mA* renotsevron J
ei $k YL ,woisosenett Lageli{h os dtiw 4 eltsexth —
edd dads ow ,woisetehinavs tnebasgebnai aa xe bosroqqwe |
-oounais fegolli of! to bie add otkupst ton weob VusaLalg
Hitting .v SeeadaoM to Asad ",9an0 Bld yo oxam of —
.400 120 exif # ot ak ,8L0 .qqa ast bet
gaibalt s1yod Laqiotaui os Yo doompbst edt
-houxitia ek sonebive off ad ¢roqque
CAML KA
MINERVA V¥.
28 = 21632
AUGUST? LER
bla ntiff in Error,
TO CINCUIT COURT
vs,
\
i
i
) BRRO
;
} ¥ CUOK COUNTY.
j
befen
wa 1 98 I.A. 49]
WR, JUSTICH nonBow’ os ORLIVERRD THE OPINIGR OF THE COURT,
The writ ef error in this case seeka te have
reversed # judgment of nil capiat and for costes rendered in
@ trial before the court without a jury. vefendant in
error hese failed to appear,
the abatract of tie record, the souree of our
search for errore, is as a whole meaninglesa, it is ine
echerent and in tne fragmentary manner in which it is put
together presents neught for judicial sonviceration or ine
terpretation, #ven the comeon law record is net adaetracted
and the bill of exceptions is siaply referred ta ae such by
nese, but ite contents are not even suggested, Were we to
attewpt from the abstract to deteruine tre cause of action
or the state of the pleadings our conclusions muat be based
solely on sso
It ia stated in the abstract that the decliara-
tion is in an “sction cf debt on a foreign judgment Laying
damages $79.50." It appears that a judgment by default was
entered and then set saide; that pleas of nil debit (ea bad
plea in debt on a judgment) and of nul tiel record were sub-
sequently filed; that s replication to tne plea of nul tiel
record, concluding with a verification, was filed, and that
on gra tenus desurrer to the ples of nil debit was sustained,
Then follewsa the judument of nil capiat, waich recites tnat
THUOD TIVOALO OF
~YTRHUVO NOCD
feb AT eer \
*
~
eThU0D MNT TO HOLURLO ART aunvi Lad soatoa woutas 5 Au
~ eve of 440060 caso vlad at toxte ta dia oat.
at botebuer adaoo 10% bas ta tame List to saoabul a
ai dnebostod .yivl « dwongiw giueo ead oxoted J
| | Taq ot betta asd
tuo To soxsoe vas sbiove7 sas to spatiada out —
eal ak di. -keo Lantonom slodw a aa al sz017e * Y — —
guq ai 3i doime ai tecean es one. aa baa 3 nexede |
“ti to noidatedlenca Laioiny, xot Jdyaac staveorg © mak
betostteda gon af broosa wal nesnp odd nove saolaase — oy |
ya doe aa od borre tex Manis es enolaqooxe ‘to “estt bes
ot ow onsl¥ bo saogaue Aasvo ton ou sdnedaca * a
Pun ue
notson to asso oad onioreteb at Joursoda ata mort * ws
—
besed od sada anclévlonoe 1H0 egnibes la eas 10 osuta *
J
ae Lo,
-atelooh ens Juris sonisede arid nd —XRX st #1
gaivad ‘tovombul, ayioexo? « ao Sdeb to notson* as ol 8
saw tluatob ud toomygbul a sad aiaeqqs $1 * 08,8
bed #) sided iia Yo anelq Jas jobian Jou aoa⸗
~due oTaw biroo8t Lote fun & te pita (dnomudut a
’ dois fun to mely ont os aoisnot igor ie ;
dad baw ,belit aaw snotsnoltiney ry ghee
-bonissaue enw sider Lin to wen eds —
au⸗ —R dotiw «Jatgeo L
* Th wy « —
i rs
- A. —J —
submiosion of the cause for trial by the court was pursuant
to the stipulation of the parties, Subsequent to the entry
of the judgment defendant filed, by leave of court, a plea
ef puis darrien continuance. tio issue was joined on this
plea, Fblaintiff then moved to vacate the judyment and the
motion being overruled an sppeal was prayed and ———
While a full tranmseript of the record is before
us, the abstract is but little more than an index to the
record, The abstract is the pleading of the plaintiff in
error and a court of review will not look beyond it sand
search through the record in an attempt to find reasons for
reversal, ‘The abstract faile to disclose anytiing which
tends to impeach the judgment found in it. The Hupreme
Court, in Village of bes rlaines v. Winkleman, 270 ill, 149,
eon a petition for a rehearing, pointing cut material matter
in the recerd not found in the abstract, made the following
pertinent observations:
"Our apprehension of the record is derived from
the abstract prepared by the appellant and accepted as core
reot by the appellee, ‘that abstract does not show the obe
jection above quoted, and the appellee did not supply the
Omission, if it was an omission, Under such circumstances
the court does not search the record to saacertain the is-
sues, but acts entirely upon the abstract,”
The abstract of the record failing to show any
error of procedure or in the pleadings, the judgment of the
Circuit Court ia effirmed,
AFFIRBED.
tasueiwwg aaw Sivoo oft yd Leiid tot sevto ot ‘to mon ;
yisne end of Jnoupeedul eotiszaq odd To noltatuqiss ®
uidd mo bentol saw ayeak of
gt ban Irmemybul, os oteoavy oF bevom meds vtatalt
ae ,bowolls bus boyarg saw Laeqge aa be futteve ae
sreted ek brooet ot to tqirosuass [Lut @ o Liaw ace
eds od xebat an madd atom efsili gud ai soatseda od eu
ak Yiisntsty odd Yo antbacte odd ok soardade of —
bas 3k buoyed Avol gen Lihw weiver to sayoo a baa tern
10% enoaset bait of dqasdéa am al btoser edt dgyotds sow
Holdw gnivtyan saofouih of alia? tomasada ot fan ren
‘ — ime
emexqué od? .th at basot toemgoul, od? dosoqut o? eba
sObf , ffi OVS temo ldall .v penials aoc 20 enasity ot 109
tetion Initetem tio yaisatog ,yaitesdet a t6% noid ideq: a
ay
, aaweA aan edd ban ,toetieds edt ak baset som brove oat
reno lsavieade ones,
mort beviteb ek bipset odd Yo qotenedetqga wo" 9*
“109 #8 betyqeoos bas tnallegge sas yd sense soazteda end
edo ont wode ton seod soatéada Jadt .oollogqa os d soot
eat ylgque ton bib selleqqs ofd ban ,betoup evoda —
asouavamuerio dows tehbal ,oolawimo ma eam 3k BE tO
-ai edd alaszeoas of biooes oi dotsee ton esoh s1u09 i:
* tostiada oft mnogu ylexrisas estou ——
yas wore of guifiat btooet ef) to doardada ed? jm id
efit to snomybul od? ,wgaibantq od? al 10 siubeso7g to —J
-bewtltta el a1u00 shu to.
o CAMAL ETA
_—
29 = 21633
ROBERT H, HOLMES
Plaintisz
in Error, F
BRROR TO CIRCUIT COURT
3. y
OF COOK COUNTY.
MINERVA V. SCOTT,
Defendant
193 1.A. 493
MR. JUSTICE HOLDOK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
| The record and abstract in this case are in
all essential particulars the same as in the case of
August Leroy v. defendant in error, General Number 21632,
opinion in which is this day filed, and contain all the
infirmities in that opinion pointed out. For the reasons
appearing in the Leroy opinion supra, the judgment of the
Circuit Court is atfizmed.\ ,
AFFIRMED,
Geh ATEer
sears - es
~TOTTH at tinisl{
THUOD TIUOHIO OT HO.
-YTAUOD AOOOD TO
.TT008 .V avon
tnsbasted a
~TOTTH
i
p - We
# 1 .
~THUOD HHT TO AOLMIGO AHT CHAUVIIIC MOGIOH HOLITEUL . A
ni ets seso aids ai sostieds bas bioset sit Ly
to saso edt of es omse sat sisivoliteq [sitmeres [is
.SSSlS rsdawi ([stened ,terre at pepe nee Vv yore. deuguA
edt {fs nistnoo bas ,beLit yesb etdd ai dofidw at notaigo
enocasst edd tof suo botaiog moinigqo tsdt ai seid iouttnt
edt to tusmgbut edd .Stque aotnigo yoused edt at anizesqas
Y: ebemritie ai truod orto
- CHMAL TTA J
34 - 21676
ANTON J. CERMAK, for use of
STARK,
Defendant in Error,
ERROK TO MUNICIPAL COURT
va,
OF CHICAGO,
V. A. STARCK PIANG CO., a corp,
and WNITHD STATES FIDELITY &
GUARANTY COMPANY,
Piaintiffs in Urrgr.
— ee — —
198 1.4. 494
BR, JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE COURT.
Vin an action upon a replevin bond plaintiff
in a trial by the Court hed judgment for $400 debt, the
penalty of the bond, and $254 damages in the usual form,
and defendant brings the record to this Court for review,
The replevin bond sued upon was given in a
replevin suit, under whieh the defendant Fiano Company
took the piano of plaintiff. The replevin suit resulted
in a judgment in favor of plaintiff and the award of a
writ of retorno habende for the piano, The piano wae not
returnedyand the measure of plaintiff's damages in a suit
on the bond was its value together with his costs, |
Defendants tendered in defense @ writing
claimed to be a contract between plaintiff and the Piano
Company for the purchase of the piano in question on the
so-called “instalment plan,” It was claimed that under
this contract plaintiff was behind in his payments at the
time of the suing out of the replevin writ, and that thereby,
under the contract, the piano was the property of the Piano
Company and it had the right to reduce it to possession,
Plaintiff denied that he signed the contract, but claimed
that all he signed was a delivery ticket, Defendcants'
witness, Laury, while testifying that plaintiff signed the
axdts + Bs
to eau tot ,HAMMKD .b HO
BRATS
eTOTTA al, snsbneted = -/
PAUOD IJACLOINUM OFT HORRE
,ODAOIHD WO er ee”
.gtoo & ,,09 OMAIT TG A of
*
CR.A.ICCI
.TAUOD aur TO WOLMIGO GMT GAARVIAAA MOGION MOLTSUL —
ttignisly bnod alvefoez 8 moqu moidoa aa ar .
odd . dob OO) tot soomabuyt, bad Jrwod edd vd felat a mk
sat0t Laueu ocd al sogammb d6S§ bas ,baod eds to” ei Laneg.
-welvyet tot dxvod elds of brooet ocd agairad tnabus eb baa 4
8 ai mevig saw moqu beue bnod aivelqes out —
yosqaod onotd tnsbaeteb edt doldw tebaw +f ive aivetin
bosiuest tive nivelqet ont | TWibtaiala to onaig en? wood
& to btawe ons baa Ttidatal¢ to tovet al sneambut es ak
jon eaw onatg ed? ,onsiq ed? tot abusded ontosot te she 4
give 2 al esgamad aefttisnaialg, to o1mesem odd basfemruter
[.ataeo aid dély todtegos oulev esi saw baad oat ao J
yotiiiw @ seaeteb at bexebnos etashaa ted | .
consid edd bas Yiidntsiq neewted testéaeo a od ot beutato
aid no coltteeup ai onaigq vit Io seadotsg ont tot aeqaod
tebnu gad? bomielo sew Si “,naiqg taemiadent* bo fteo-oa 9
add tm atnomyaq eit at baled asw tiidntety ftoatinoo aldd
sX¥Goxouls ¢add bue ,stizww alvelget edt to suo yaivue adl ‘Yo —
oneld edt to ysteqorg odd saw onalg and toaxénoo edd & bat
Tolsssesog oF SL soubor of deiner ent ban af ban ut J
bomialo sud ,tosataoo sad bonyte od sad? be ined auata
‘atnabae tod JoAofoe ytevileb a exw bongte od fia |
ss gold bongie Ttitnialq sans gnivtlseod old — —
9 — —*
—_— = ne
proffered contract, admitted that it had been changed in
several material particulars and taat a large part of its
terms had been added since plaintiff signed it, There was
no proof that plaintiff assented to any of the changes
made in the alleged contract, The Court exeluded the writing
because such material chenges and alterations had been made
without the assent of plaintiff ,\/@his ruling of the court
left defendants without any defense, and our conclusion as
to the correctness of such ruling must be the determining
factor in our decision,
This ruling was without error, for, as said
in Gardiner v. Harback, 21 ill, 128, *The law will not
tolerate such changes in the evidence the parties have
provided of the terms of their contract, and if so made
annexes as @ penalty the release of the other party from
all obligation under the contract,”
The alterations in the contrect were material
and were made without the authority ef the plaintiff. There
was no subsequent ratification by plaintiff of such une
authorized changes, either express or by implication,
flowing from any act of plaintiff subsequent to the maxing
of aueh alterations, Under the proofs found in the record
the legal title to the piano was in plaintiff, The find-
ing ond judgment of the Municipal Court are right and its
judgment is affirmed.
AFPIRKED.
ni begaads meod bad $k todd botiiaba ,foardnoo bow tong
sti to dusq ogxal a ¢ast boo ataluolsraq falredam Laxevon
saw ate! ,ti benmgie Tiidatalq sante bebba aaed bad ated
eegnsis odt to yaa of hotnsana Tiltalelq sant teorq on
gniditw edt bebyloxe tavod eT tosttnoe beyotiea edt al obaa
sbam coed bad ssoltstesia bae aeyasco Laitotam sigue oausved |
$tu0o odd to gnilwt aby, Yiisnislq to Joonsa odd dusodd tw 4
#s molaglonoo ‘two baa ,9aneled yas tuoddiw efaabnetob stot
een lake edd od gaum goiftyt dows to aeendtoetroo ons ot
-oisigeh i140 at xétont
blag es ,tot ,10tre swodsiw eaw gniluz eid?
gon iLiw wal edt" ,@8£ {1% IS ,doedaeh .v watband ab
eved solttaq os gonebive ond at eegmedo dose otarofot
ebsm 08 li bas ,Joatsmee head Yo amos edt Yo bebivorg ;
wor yling tedvo odd Yo seastex ed ¥sieneg @ an eexontn
—5 eit tebsaw notenka Ila
Saliesam etew Joztsnoo add al enolisresia sdT
eTeda? ,Ttiidnielg eds to ysivoitus odd snedhiw ebas 9tew baa |
emu douse to ttitatela Yd moltaollisas asupos dun on sow ¥
tOitsoilgm: yd 10 ewsiqxe tedtie ,¢egnado box bod dun
giiiam eid of Sneupsaduve Ttliaialq te toa ys ant gaiwolt
brovet odd ai bavct stoorg odt tobal ,enotstatedin dove —
~Suit off Tttinleta ot saw onaiq sit od oitit fayeol odd
asi bus sriyit orn stv0d Leqiotnwt edt to tro mabst, bua got
ebomtitts et Poomgbut
CHAT TIA
$91 = 21789
CHARLES HOFF,
Appellee,
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL COURT
vay
OF CHICAGO,
193 1.A. 499
KR, JUSTICE HOLDUM DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
L. GOULD & COKRANY,
Apkellant,.
Plaintiff recovered a judgement for 92916 against
defendant on a trial before the Court, without a jury, and
defendant ——
the defendant, L. Gowld & Co,, are wholesale
dealers in wooden and willow ware and house furnishing
goods in Chicago, and until July 6, 1909, owned and operated
horses and wagons, etc,, and used the same in the hauling of
their goods, On that day defendant discontinued doing its
own teaming and sold all of its horses, wagons, harness and
other teaming equipment to the plaintiff, On the same day
the parties entered into a contract wnich provided inter
Blia that plaintiff should do all defendant's teaming work
for a period of five years; that it should for that purpose
furnish defendant six double and two single teams with wag-
ons, drivers and other necessary adjuncts, for which plaine-
tiff was to receive from defendant as compensation $1,000 on
the first day of each month, during the life of the contract,
There was also provision made for the supplying of additional
teams as the exigencies of defendant's business might require,
Among the material conditions of the contract plaintiff
agreed that during the term of the contract ne would keep the
i.
J
Wagons well painted, have defendant's name painted on them,
and keep all the wagons, horses, harness, etc,, in as good
order and condition as the same were in when possession
thereof was surrendered to plaintiff, and generally to carry
eatin - [@ .
»TtOU
,sellogga
THUOCD JAGLILWUM MOAT TARYSTA
»OOADLHS %O
Ceh ALT cOT
.TAUGD HHT WO MOLMIGO HT GHAMVIMMG MUGIOH MOLTUL .AM
ae
-tosilogqa
genisgs af0S% tol snombul, 2 he tevoost Ytienieit
bus ,vitul @ duodtiw ,drwod ead etoted fst a ne tnabast
| .eiaoqas aabas ⁊
efeeeloiw ata ..00 & bLu00 ot daabietob ont \
potdeiniw? sagord ors oLew wetiie bus neboow at ere L
beszetece bane benwo ,evueL ,38 viet Ilsa bas —— mi abo 3
to gnitvad eds oi emee on? boew bane «ante nonau “bas —J
asi gaiob bowalsacouth tnabnoteh yab tadd m0 .eboog —J
bas seontad ,anoyaw ,eeeto0d ati to {fe bos buns —E
vVab omsa ont gO) ,Tilinisiq oi3 of tInemglups atimsod to. vo
dednt bebivotq doltdw Jostines # otk bototas daltiieq odd
atew gnimsss e'tasbas'teb {12 ob bivoue Ttitolel¢ jedd pile
stoqing stadt tol biwyode st dads jezmey ovit to boiteg s rod
-yaw dtiw amned ofgata ows bas’ eLdyob xis tnaboe%eb sake’
-ftielg doliuw rol ,etonuibs yiseésoon Tenis o baa etevixh , ent
MO 000, L§ noisssneqmon as susbaeteb mort ovieoot ot sew 3
eJostsnoo odd to etif edd gniaubd ,idnom sose ‘to yab tetk? ont
fanoitibhs to yniyiqque eds r0ot shen motetvorq coals aan oxod *
,otiupet Jdaim esontend a'tasbasteb to eotonexixe edt en ‘om
tiiinisiq sostinoce odd to anckstbnog Kebiosam odd
edt qooxt Sivew ef JoatInoo of to wed edt galaud— Sasi
aos mo betnteq eman atinsbasteb evad sbeaniag Liew
booy as ai ,.,oco ,seonton —ER anonan ous aa *
* rare " e
MOLT LB!
as rad
y oh ony 3 a 4
P aN eee
af molseseueg sodw al stew omea 9.
lghuse of ylierones bua aebinseie s
en and conduct the teaming business incident to the business
of defendant in a manner “satisfactory* to defendant, on
failure of plaintiff to comply with the foregoing conditions
in a manner “satisfactory” to defendant, the defendant might,
on giving thirty days written notice to plaintiff, declare
the contract "forfeited and of no force or effect,"
it is proven that plaintiff received the teaming
outfit sold to him by defendant in first class condition, and
under the teaming contract it was incumbent upon plaintiff te
80 maintain the teaming outfit at all times during his term
of service thereunder, FPinintiff claims that he did so, but
oe
- the overwhelming proof is that he did not, \Flaintift's idea
of maintaining the wagons in good order and condition by
keeping them “well painted" may be gathered from his testi-
mony that he only painted the wagons once after he took them
over cinder the bill of sale from defendant - a period of three
years, | The evidence demonstrates that plisintiff kept the
horses in’ an ungroomed condition; that the harness was not
clean; that the wagons were not “well painted*® or kept clean,
but were habitually dirty; that there were many holes in the
wagon covers, causing rain to percolate through and damage
goods being transported in such wagons; that, moreover, plain-
tiff's teamsters "loafed upon the job.”
These conditions, when called to the attention
of plaintiff were not denied but excused, Flaintiff in effect
replied on one occasion that tie could not afford to live up
to his contract, Defendant being dissatisfied with condi-
tions, availed of the right reserved by the contract to termi-
nate it, and on February 15, 1913, gave plaintiff notice that
the contract would be determined thirty days from that date,
Since March 15, 1915, plaintiff has not done any teaming for
4 defendant,
ool AA Aina rd 68 08 OS eee
agoniaud scid of dneblont aeenteud goimees ot soubnoo brs Pe
? nO .tnabnas'teb of “ytot¢osteltiac" t90nem @ ot suabaoted
9 enolslonoo gutogetot eds dsiw viquee os Yiisalalq ‘to omwihs 4
wtipia Soabasteb ox3 «dnabae teb od *“vrosoa'tatése" wanan o
———
7 etaloed ,itisniasld od soliton netiiaw ayab yitias gnivig a
af
",toelte t0 soxel en Yo baw badiotroi* soatsnoe |
‘4 ,
ifn
{
*
gitinaed edt bovieoet Tiidnisiq ted? aeverg et t1
bas ,nolsdihbmoo aaafo Sati? al sasbreleb wd abd of biow 427 fi
ee of Tilsnisiq noqu stnedmyont aaw ti goaxsn00 githonss ony x9
: pa
’ mies ald agnitob somts {te 3s si ysuo yetinne 3 od nletnts a
gud ,0@ bIb od Sexid vitals. Nniaalaa —— im⸗ · %
meds A00d 9A Ted's gono enogew oud botalaq ae od ae
nde Ok
getds Yo boiteq # + saebosteh mot? ofan to ite oud —— tove
eid tqed Wiidnislq sade ‘ eesncéenenat soneiive sat | —
— — 9—
Jon eaw agontsd ond Sans joeidibnos bemeotgaw ak mi
’ .aaelo tqext to ‘“bodniag {few* Joa orow anoyaw ous teddy of
me :
<@
ead nt asfod ynem etew etedt dads pydaes ellaud ides —*
Uy
synmeb bas dysvordds etalosteg: os niet pitteuno sexe v90 Ho; soe
a
—284 T 9
"dot ‘odd roau —RX arosemnos an
auata Aavoo rom , tails ienogew doge al bedroqenert gated
nolinetta: okt od be Liao noaw ,enottibaes seodT |
foot to al YWitntetl ,beevexe sud boineb ton orew tite, (qt
qu evil of brotts ton biLuoo ok ‘tadd —ER ‘eno Per
-tbnoo déiw bettotsasalth gated dnabas tod ——
— — of Joartaoo edt yd bovteaet digit ond te botiava ve j
teds eotton Nianatata eveg ,éfeLl él vanuedot, no.
,eteb tadd mort ayab — — —
702 ‘gnimses ye nob ton aad mere
nue sen pas adil at tenes — a 4 wy, ;
ee ee
bs. i fe
et:
This suit was brought upon the assumption that
defendant wrongfully terminated plaintiff's contract and to
recover damages resulting to him from sueh alleged wrongful
oot \rnat plaintiff neglected to perform the contract in
the respects complained about, is sustained by the evidence
in the record, It is, moreover, evident that plaintiff did
net perform his contract in a manner “satisfactory” to de-
fendant, While defendant could not arbitrarily terminate
the contract because of dissatisfaction, we think the "rule
ef reason® is the “canon of construction" to be invoked and
applied te the condition which the record here discloses,
As ssid in Gibb v, Irving Park District, No,
21585, net yet reported, “Where a contract provides that
services to be performed must be satisfactory to the em-
ployer, suci: clause means that the services should be such
that as @ feasonable person the employer ought to be satis-
fied therewith, Keeler v. Clifford, 165 ill, 544,"
We think that as a reasonable person defendant
was justified in cencluding that plaintiff did not in mae
terial and essential particulars carry out the contract in accord
with its conditions and that such conduct of plaintiff was not
"satisfactory" within the meaning of the contract, and that de-
fendant was consequently warranted in terminating the con-
tract in the manner designated therein, Where, as in the
case at bar, a contract is required to be performed to the
satisfaction of one of the parties, the meaning necessarily
is, that it must be done in a manner satisfactory to the mind
ef a reasonable anil The plain construction of the contract
in the record in this regard is, that the teaming outfit was
to be maintained and the teaming dome in accordance with the
contract in such manner that defendant, as a reasonable man,
a to be satisfied with it, Measured by these rules, de-
— *
tadd moliquuses odd nogu tdaguotd ssw sive aldT
ed bas toatinoos a'ttisaield bedsainte?d yLivtguomw sasbes
Intgnom begelia dove mort mid of gate {ueer ee
ni soatsnos oat ortotteq og bedooLgen ttitaisiq tadT»
eonsbive eit yd beniagveve el stiods bonisfqmes etoogae:
bib Trlidalalq sjads ‘daebivoe ,x%evoorom ,ek $I. brooon en t
-9b os “ytolosteisee” tzonnem a ni tontémoo eld mio toq
etsninies yLitatsidis ston binoo Jnabavsteb olLidw pee
efut" ed aAniidd ow — Yo eeuaood toaxtn0o
‘ Snes bexovai od of “soltsiouttenos to monso* os at “nooner to
O84 ,Jotazsaicg trad polvtl .v ddid oi biaa aA
tadt eebivorg sosisnoo 2 stedW" ,hedtoqet toy Pv ae
—— od bivede esolviee edt Jad? sosem éuuato. aoe 4x9) a
-sitse od of triguo teyolqnme ent noaetoq —— s en 2.
"p98 ,ff1 Gas ebiottito -V go fogr st wero
insbaeteb soeteq sidenosast & as at⸗ Aide oW
¥ bi
esa ai Jon bib Ytitnialq ¢add yoibwtlomeo at bottivent,
oooe at gostinoo eis Juo yt1s89 Bialwoisditaq {aisnuseas bos ia
te
gon saw Tiliniet¢ To soubnoo dowa sade bas anolsibnoo ett bast
-ob dadd bun ,Joaténco odd to gringem ot ntdgiw “yrodon te lies ue
ee AT; ial
-aoo od goiitanimieds ai besdnariew yLinsupeanoo saw te —
edt ak as ,ot9edW ,aleredd bedangleeb tennem ont at to
. odd ot bomrrotteg ed of boxrkupet at sostinoo & vied ta
elirsessoen uningem sit ,eotstisq odd to ane To aolion
«bake ot of ytotostetine toanem e ak enob ed Sagat ok said
_ tosttaos sit Yo aolsouttenoo nialg ont “nu ** i.
ne
end diiw sonsbrocos nt enob uninses edt bas bone
— oldancesst B 8s Nnbtis too 5 — — i
aa , —9 J———
‘fendant had the legal right to abel the contract in
_ the way it did,
; A: i (‘The judgment of the Municipal Court is wrong and
is therefore reversed, with a finding of fact, . 7
he ——— REVERSED WITH FINDING OF FACT,
i. bs Ry es
Gk Jeerdaoo edd odanimzed of t4git oyot out —R
—* = aa
eh .bab a —*
baw gnotw ak —X —— ent to ——— *
·70M40 10 OMLCUIE HTIv qaeasvan
(.t9v0)
va
‘
J
J F
La ; iy
—2
yal beget
oe Uk Or
; ik
meyer
591 + 21789 FINDING OF PACT,
The Court finds as « matter of fact that
plaintiff did not perform his contract with defendant
according to its terms or in a manner "satisfactory"
to defendant, and that defendant had the right to
terminate the contract, whieh it did by giving thirty
‘days notice toe the plaintiff of such termination,
Pie's
wre & '
ae
+s @
: 7
a
— ee er re ee ee I
TOA TO OMLGHL CBE =
tjadd dont to tedtam a ea ebait drvo6d oat
tnabneteds dtiw goatéinoo aid mrotreg son bhp ¥
"vtosoetaliea® tennam # at 10 earted agi of
ot tdyit ont bad tnebuoteb gadd bas
ysttids anivig yd bib 3k dotdw ,soatéaco at
88 - 21964
BRADFORD & COMPANY, Inc,,
on
%
vs. ‘
\
UNITED STATES TENT AND
AWNING COMPANY, a oo, ee é
tion, f
fppeliant. oe
a
favvra. PROM KRUNICIFAL COURT
—
OF CHICAGO,
198 1.A. 509
—
* ra
See
BR. JUSTICE HCLDOM DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
Vin this case the affidavit of meritorious defense
wes on motion of plaintiff stricken from the files, and a
judgment, as in cases of default (the damages being assessed
by a jury under the instructions of the trial judge) entered
in favor of plaintiff for $3,508.03, and defendant appeals,
[ Assessment of dawages by a jury is unnecessary
unless requested, Kann v, Brown, 263 111. 394,
The sworn statement of the claim was sufficient
from which to assess the damages, Weil v. Federal Life insurance
Co., 182 111. App. 522, The reading by defendant of its
affidavit of defense to the jury while irregular was harmless
error, When defendant's affidavit of defense was stricken
the csuse should have proceeded as in cases of default, De-
fendant in this situation was only entitled to cross examine
plaintiff's witnesses in diminution of damages. As applied
to the practice in the Yunicipal Court, the motion to strike
the affidavit of defense is tantamount to a demurrer to
defendant's pleading, which, being sustained, so far put
defendant out of court that he could only cross examine
witnesses for the purpose of minimizing damages, Bing v.
Tyler, 79 ill, 246,
The determination of this controversy rests in the
construction of the contract between the partios.\| saimtatt
—_é
*
\ tans poaa
*
—
GOc .A.I 8er
7— 4 PL J — a ; 9
J Wr
\ aOCLS -
\ of «Ont An cod 4 a7
4 — —
THUCD MIIVLIVM MOAT TANGA, (
44 J
.odaAbino %O vA +
\ a THEY BATATE ©
cy | — 8 .IAIMCV i)
{
.7auod MNT YO MOLMI4O @HT QUAMVIAEd Mod.toH — J—
eanoteb ssoirod item to tivabitte es seso sins yet
s bas eelit ss wast asvioiltte tiidnisig to noivom ne,
bovnouas gniod eegnmah edt) slusteb to —J 4 ——
betes (egbut faint edd to ano ktowssent aid webay veut
-B8iaegqe tushbaeteb bas ,60,800,6¢ x02 tiignio£y to rove
(xasssosnay at vaut #2 yd aonemeb To taomeooeas | |
bes -if1 .v com Jbeseaupot -
gas ioitiwe asw tiinto eit to inemetate mtowe. oar *
ss Siit Lerebed .V' Liev ,@egemab od —R ot dose * rg
ati-to dasbue tod ww aathase ane S86 .qga sath F 23
—5 enw eens tob to tivebitto ettasbao ted — fe
-9f Au to eeeno af es babsaooig even. bivoda easing
entmaxe asotp of belsiias yioo saw moiteutte abdt ab ¢
boliqqs 8A .asynneb Yo nottunkmih at aseaens be —XR
siitss ot nolsam els $1009 faqioing od ak ‘eottoang ond |
ot Tortsmeb « at davomesaed ai sono tob to tivebitte 6
juq set oa ,beatasaue gnied Ad Latw — le et snubs
onimexe seote yino bivoo ad Jady Fiwoo to. sue ta |
a seit -eopaneb antekeiedn to ssoqrwa ont x0? eaeass
ee *
‘ce a a to ne lah a
4—
8 ond ak adeot yerovert ado, wtas Ye otdnntaresee « Li il ie
PWidaiss le eolixaq odd ‘neewted tos a
i ‘ \ :
a) . a’ . ae |
\
contends that it is a contract of sale and defondant that 18
is a consignment contract. Or to put it another way, plain-
tiff insists that the goods sent defendant under the contract
were sold to it, while defendant insists that the goods were
sent to it for sale on sesignment, and that under the contract
it acted as. plaintiff's factor and that the title to the goods
remained in plainti fe.
The material parte og the contract are that defendant
ig to handle the entire line of pillow tops manufactured by
plaintiff "on a consignzent basis" subject to a five per cent
return. frices are stated which are to be paid by defendant
to plaintift 8S soon as Money ie received by defendant from
purchasers; that “a full settlement iv to be made November 1,
1914 for all stock on hand or in transit in excess of five
per cent of the total shipments, eaid five per cent to be eub-
ject to *«" (plaintiff's) "disposition and to be in first
Glass merchantable condition ss originally shipped.” Defen-
Gant bound itwelf not to sell the goods for leas than fifteen
eents advance on the prices fixed. It is not in dispute that
under this contract defendant received from plaintiff pillow
tops to the value of 26,207.69 or that defendant ia entitled
to a oredit of $2,689.66, which includes goods returned of the
value of $324.50, whieh ia slightly in excess of five per cent
of the price of all the goods received by eae id this
computation, if the contract is one of sale, there is due
plaintizf the amount of the judgment. [f it ie not a contract
of sale, but one of consignment for sale for account of plain-
tiff, then defendant may discharge ite liability by returning
to plaintiff its goods to the value, under the prices fixed by
the contract, of the amount of the Judgment.
In construing a contract, all of its parts must be
’ considered. It is not what the parties may designate a contract
tt tad? tonbnotes bas oLae te tosxtaeo a at et tad? abunt
“nisl ,yaw sodtona fl tuq of 10 .feaxtaon fnommgtance & @
foattnes oft tehbsy gashbueteb ?aea shooy oft Sadd atalenk b
exow abeog od tact? atalank tasbaotes elidw ,tk of bfea xe
doaxtnoo odd xehaw gadt fos ,tmommgtues mo ofaa rot tt of tn96
aboog ont of offi? of? dad? San xsotost a'ttitalely as boven |
| wt Notelq at Soman
teabosteds tads exe Toaignoo of? To atxeq Isixoten odl
yd Souvtoetunam aged wolltq te onil sxitao edt eLhaad ote
tao toy ovik «& of Seeldua “eluad taomagtanoo a a0" rene,
tashaeteh yf Staq od of oxe dokide botate gia sookri
mort tnahaoteb yd Sovieoer at yonom as noo ea Trsiat fq 0
A todmeyok% obam od of al taomoitvea ‘St a" dade ye 7
ovtt te eseexe ot thenett oi to Saat no deootea Ife rot
-isa od of tmo0 t0q evit Siac ,atnomgida Latod ond te neo
-setot - ",boqatde eisalgtio ss nottsbnoe ‘etdeteadoven am
noovitt madd seol sot eboog ant? {Low ot ton — — *
vo Uilintealq moxt beovteses Trshaoked toautaoo ee
boltitne at tnabacked tadt xo 83, Yos,of to oxfay orf — ot eget
od? Y0 bowsutox aboog aobuLoat dokitw ,89.080,89 to éhhoxe 2 of
taoo x04, ovlt to saooxe at ylidatla at setdaw (08.2889 to ont
ata⸗ — yd hovtooon wioog ode Lie to opti odd % ;
ovb fi otods ,ofes to eno ak tounta0oo ed? th ,nedteds
tgottnoo s ton ut CL YT mompbul ond Yo damoms on 2 pasha
sstkatq ko tagooos xot oLea tok saomng tans. to eno dad «ofa to
ss qukauidex yd Ytettdatd ats egredeald yam saadsetoh aadt. 2280
Yd boxtt wootzy ont robaw ,ewLav odd of r ekney meg teeta be i
od: Pann ataeg aah. to ffe | toesta00 9.
a. tade #
ae
3
to bo which will warrant the court in formulating a rule of
eonstruction in harmony with euch designation, but from all
the language used in the contract the court will ascertain
the intention of the parties and by construction determine
the measure and rights of the respective parties thereunder.
We cannot conclude, because there was used in the
contract the term “on & consignment basis" that it is a
"sonsignment contract” as distinguished from a “sontract. of
sale" and thereby ignore its other material provisions, which
Glearly define the rights and obligaticne of the parties.
The term on a "“Gonsaignment basis" hae relation to the time
preceding the final date of settlement, lovember 1, 1914,
when defendant oxpressly sgrees to pay for “11 the goods there-
tofore received by it from plaintiff, reserving the right to
return not more than five per cent of the total goods received.
We think thet the reasoning of the court in Lonergan v.
Stewart, 55 i11. 44, is a rule of interpretation applicable to
the instant case, where the court say:-
tnoegh ts bo altered foray tee. coatrest in one of batisent,
Sr tatedaes we etter U2", stu, severe) te’ mate
reeciver ia at liberty to return another thing ot equal
value, he becomes a debtor to make the return and the title
to the property is changed - it is a sale.”
Chhokor ine v. Bast ss, 130 ibid 206.
on November ‘ i914, if plaintit? had demanded a retuwn
of the goods theretofore received by defendant from it and then
in the possession of defendant unsold, plaintiff would have been
impotent to have enforced such demand under the contract in the
‘record. Peoria Mig. Co. v. Lyona, 163 ibid 427.
The contention of defendant in its affidavit of defense
_ that the goods, the price of which was demanded by plaintiff in
ite statement of claim, were goods received on consignment in-
to ofvx 2 gatvalsmrot at cauos edd taarxew Iftw doliw od of
iis most dud s29tteagteod dowe fd be yromrnrt ak mollowxtay oo i
atad aooa⸗ {fiw tos ond toattneo of? mt bows ——— ¢
F— oxhaxod od noktorxtance gd ban eetiray ont to woktret at | |
i erebasetordé eettxag avid oaqaot oft to atdats Bows pruzenset ‘edi
odt at boas enw exedd omvnood ,ebatonoo tommy eo
a ak ti tadt “alead tmoaumtanco & xo” mae? odd Tt vet c N
a gee
to voattaoo” « moxt badalagnivalh ea "Soanrioen ¢ J
dotdiw ,anotatvexrq Intiovem reao atk ovongt ydoreds hen —
eokiteqg edt Yo ancktiagiide bas etdgt« edd ealteb ytxaote
oukt edt of sottafer sad "atesd tnemeg tysoo" & ao wed ont
gbhlOL .f sodmevol ,taomolsies to etah Lanit oilt gathooeng
jo ate ——
— —
4 A —
eeteds aboog oft [fe tot esq oF neorge Fanorees as zue Toh asde .
ot Sduls off antvieaot ,ttitataly mort si yd bovioost sxote? oa
gbevteoes ehoog Latod ait to Jseo coq ovit asd? oxom rae auton .
v Hegzronot xt Iason ent to ankaosacx odt tedd dald? oF ie 3
od oldsotiqqa Holtetonqrod at to ofot w ak ,dd .LfT G8 ——— 4
-:yae tusoo ent orecty ,ona0 tantent ont A
jbresters.ot ot 3: Sovertbe ete Sinead
exodt nertw gud —— tom al y xozere add of oftit J
of? bnew ,ofottue otrtooge odd oxotaor ot soktagtide on
fasps to gaint seddvone nunteon of yuedll da et —
oLthd oft Bae oxetor aft odam of sotdedh 2 gomonod of , on.
“.ofaa o af th - bognado ak yuoqerg add
ned? bose ti mort tnabaotes ud Sovieoos oxototoreds aboog ot re a
Hood oved bivow It7alelg .hCoaan snohaoteh Yo sotsaenwoy Md · i
ede at doariaos oft coda Amand desea boouctae ovat of taotog t |
; Sd Bidt BAL yenoyt wy 92 saul ataeag (0%
| Ganoteh Yo Fivebitte att mt taabaorod to sottaotnoe oat
bh
4
virtue of the contract set forth in euch statement, presented
no defense, as we hold that the contract was one of sale,
The Municipal Court 444 not err in striking defendant's
affidavit of defense end in entering the Judgment appealed from,
and the judgment is therefore affirmod.
AVPIRMED.
— — ok wxe Jon S86 txu0d Legtotamé sat
NOx holseqqs tnomgbat od? antietae ak boa anotos bl th
eT2MAT TIA
—*
—9—
—9
rv
\ ' . f
te —
’ *
‘ hj. —
⸗
i's
. ai
' j if
\ “|
}
ay leg!
; ey (8
re Hh
.
i
7
— i
i
7
« *
si 3
1
te. J
he Ay
4
€ * 4 j
J Ft
ne A *
\ 7 pS 4
t # Ay : j
5 -
, f : , 4 wae, ‘
bd ‘ A Kp a
- few
: ik, SERS a “
—2* M YDS
A me * + — BEER: .
it F ; a tae om *
—V vw Ly j ~*
aed a a Net
37 = 19494
ANTON PAPS2YOXI,
trror
ERROR TO
HYPERION COURT
COOK COUNTY.
Plainther anf 198 L.A. 00%
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICS PAM dslivered the ofinion
VS.
JGN GURKA,
of the court.
By thie writ of error defendant (plaintiff in error)
Seeks to have teverged a judgment entered againat him in faver
of plaintiff (defendant in error) for damajes Sustained as a
result of having been bitten by a dog owned by the defendant.
Suit wos breught June <, 1911 and the declaration
filed on the Sam day. The auamen⸗ wae Barved on defendant
on June 3. On June 19 the appearance of defendant wae en-
‘$ered by his attorney. Ko plea wae filed, Gn duly We ds-
fault of the defendant was ordered taken on motion of the
Plaintiff’ and entered of record, OM October 14, 1915 (15
1 B&ths later) a jury heard evidence a8 te damages sustained
by the plaintiff, ond returned a verdict for $450.00 and
q sont, upon which judgment wes ontored by the court on Oe-
$eer 19, 1912, Naeoution #a# issued on said judguent and
demand made on Rovexber 11. On Novenber £0 motion wae made
a by gcounsel] for tho defendant to vacate Said Judgment and
Auasn the writ of execution, which motion was denied on
_ November 29,
" Defendant, while setting forth many se#¢ignmen te
f ‘of error, argues but, two in his brief, viz.:
jen (1) That plaintiff did not, in his declara-
tion, Set out that he wae in the sxercise of dus cara
fer his om Safety at the time he wae bitten by the = i
aener *
xore STAT
— ue
OP RORRE |
eV
TAUOD gorgerus yt
* ARVO
Arauoo xood Ky
‘svorrQ.at Ps tabalt
SOc AI eel
mt ato odd bavevileb MAT TOIT oman Ry mM .
f an
| _ atew08 ont to
(rorxe pt Diitmelq) tesboeteb r98%re to tre aids y@
roves mh uta Tanks Be heres ae saaanghek « heercver eved of mies
a a6 bestatave —* 10d (ro71e ak tobe eb) rit setete &
tasbnwloh edt x bamwo gob # yd metetd mead gntved Yo ———
aot aaxal dob ost baw £10f .& omy word eow the a
_ thabreXeb mo bovTes saw anomewe dT yah omen eri ne batts 7
~rte 8nW trabaetek Yo. opantseqis ost ef emu ao x
web Sf ylok a0 boLey aan soll On youre stn alist web
ad? t¢ aetion ag node? berebro fawn ser ody te ots
Gf) “fel AA redes00 a .bvocer ve hetetae bas vanaats —9
huntateue seyeme oF as sonnets ve braved yu & (retat a J i.
bok 00.0889 103 tolbrov a bearmtey bas cit tmbelg odd ve
90 28 gO o. one vd hore? ne hee 3 seat phar | Hold ae = a
bre teromyhel bes ne beuaer, aon nok tuoeait 83104 8h 9—
obsm sev moksom O8 rod evo nO «ff xednovow ne, obem bi
Sow tno pit hae atnosy hdl Inebreteb ont x02 Kosaee ¢
m belaeh wew mottoa dot ste «tol tv0exe to thrw oft dt
08 x0dno —
——— Vise Aor gakstes elldw .tnabaer ol a ‘i
realty ,leird eid af ows dud — 9 75
-eraleeb @in at gdon LLL WLsatelq ted? (f) ‘ * raat a
LAF
oxrao evb to esiorexe of ot saw of tent we tom * 24 ae
*
odd Yd motthd ew ot omkt eat * xtetae * J
J if ee
—
“o<
(2) Defendant's appearance having been
entored, the court erred in aéaetging damag oe
against defendant without netice to hin.
With reference to the firét sontention, our Supreme
Geurt in C2 A.R.R.Co. v. Kuckkuck, 197 Ill. $04, held that
in the case of domeatic animale which are not naturally danger-
unless they had
ews, the public are not bamd to exerc ive care or cuut lon/mithe
wEAXNOt ve ef the vicious tendencies of the particular animal;
and in arriving af that conclusim Stated, p. 510: "it is net
necetgary for a Plaintiff to aver and preve the exere ive of
Gere and oaution for his ow protection, but it 16 matter of
defoense.*
With reference to the second gontention, the record
Shows that the Gefanlt #26 taken on July 12, 1911, There is
nO Glaim that Such defaalt wae improperly taken. The damages
were not a6Se8eed wmtil more than fourteen months thereafter,
There ie nothing in the record to indicate to thia court that
the a#seteanent of damages did not occur when the case was
resched for trial on the regular call salendar. “Shera nothing
te the contrary afpears in the racerd, it mutt be Presumed
that the cate was tried upon the regular ¢a1) of the calender,
Under sush cirgumétances, the emtentio of the defendant that
Hetice 16 necessary after default before the court can hold an
inquest for asaeeaing dasage’, i6 without fores.
Pinding no revereible errer, the judgment i8 af-
firned.
APPIRNED,
ae
need grlvad eonarseqae e'¢nabaeted (8)
apgemsh pateteese ak bherre dawoo eds ,betetae
wats od wolton svodtiw tnebeeteb sentsye
euerqu® wo ,netfaetaos tartt ad? of ooneteter dalW
tet oLod (POE .U1T VOL whowddoud .v .00.9.f.A 8.9 ak sswoo
“regmah y{feqwitan tom esa dolde olawianes obtGemeh to o@ao oaf ok a
bent yodt eeoltny i ag
xitzx\nolivso ro oreo eatorexe Of bod tom oxe olfdug odd ue “
tiomine tealyoltxseq ed? to Solonehne? avotoly eff to eolpomxxaa
gon @f 22" OLE .g psotdete® miaylomo ta8% te goiviwe ak bas
to eatoroxe end evord bee reve of Dildabalqd a2 xe? — E 9
to roftem Gf fl Sud .mobtootory awe eld vet o baw oxa®
7 * .ceneteb
brwoor odd qnolirotoeo baooes att o2 eocetetot ATT. “
at ered? .{f@r Af ylub mo nedad aw Heated ont tedt eone
tepsmueh efT otad yLreqorgut sen tlusleb dove tad? atelo om
erosiacrteds aftrom meet wo? sends orom Ihtav heskesae. ton oren
tett twos abdt of eteothnt of brooor eft at yakdton &t ered?
ane ets od mode mone ton BLE Boysmeh to Inemudeuke ond
polnten oxvecW .wahooles (leo raingor edt am faba x01 bodoser
hemrserl ed Sau tr ,hreoen off mk wnsoqas yrersneo ot oe 6
stabrolso edt To (lao waluger edt moqa bebsd eew ona et tedt
tent tonboeteb edt Yo whiaesmo oft ,deonstomuno deve reba
na blod meo Pwo off ewlod Musted teks Ytsee Geoen at oot tos ' ‘
-co70% froddiw ak « 80 — aoloéesae rot teoupat
“la &f tnemgbet edd .retre eldharever on gakhat?
baat?
ATALTTA, |
12 - 206423
WARC SHERWOOD,
Defendant if Error,
ERROR TO
( GIRCULT COURT,
FF. 0. such
ULRIC COOK COUNTY.
MINING &
I.A.508
WH. PROSIDING JUSTIC® PAM delivered the opinion
ef the court.
Defendant in error (complainant below) filed a
bill against plaintiff in error and others hereinabove
mentioned, te declare and enforce an express trust ime
posed on certain personal property secure the payment
of a loan made to the AmericaneMexico Mining & Develope
ing Company (hereinafter known as the company); which
fund the bill alleged cawe into the hands of plaintiff
in error and ¥. GO. Smolt, two of the defendants. below.
fo this bill anewers were filed by the company
and plaintiff in error, to which anewers replications
were filed. A plea to the jurisdiction was interposed
by Smolt, to which plea a replication was filed directly
traversing the allegations therein set forthe A Grosse
‘bill was filed by the company against defendant in error,
which was afterwards dinmissed by stipulation.
Upon a hearing hed on thie bill the issues
were found for the complainant end a money decree was
re tals”
entered against the company, Snolt and plaintiff in
g torr 1
OT AOKAM
~THUOD TIVOATO
eXTMNOD NOOO
806 AL
nvinigs eat? bousviteS MAL ROLTaUTL OMI LETHE St
ef tee ons to
® boLit (wolod suatialqaos) tor al suabas'ted,
evedaniorsd atoido brs torte nt Iiiniasa tantayo iid
ah teuvtd anerqxe ne sodelre baa etafoed of botrotinem
tromyad ody samena ct ystoqerg Lanoateg miatres no benog—
eqoleved J guinth ookxoMenavitems of7 of obam nael a To f
Holstw ¢(ynegeen elt ae swan ‘tas tented) YRsqae? grt
Wiiniealg to absad ols osnt aus boyelis (Lid ost baw
90 lod .a2sabao tod edt to ow’ ,tfoml .0 « bas —J coe : Ks a
-—ymeqmon ol? yf boli? exow axewsan [Lid etdd oF |
4 anoitaokiquy etowenn do kriw of . Torx ak Naen tata one ian
_” bewoqueint naw moltotbartnt, ont ot ta ——————
eisootkd bolt now mobi tiqat ws aotq Hp tilw of at hone w
(sua0xd A eifdxo? sou wierd? emo kt ages ⸗ * "
;
F
ce al tx" ees ha ri 7a
Pai saat eS we
nouns ot Like elds a0 bat aan 9
ta eh ’
ole
error, for the sum of $7,725.00, whieh decree it is
sought by this writ of error to reverse,
Although there are many errore assigned,
Plaintiff in error relies upon but two, viz.:
1. "The court erred in not setting
aside the decree,
2. “The decree is not supported by
the findings, ond is erreneous.*
We will take these up in their inverce order.
The record in this court (which was prepared by
the plaintiff in error) contains no certificate of evidence,
It must be presumed, therefore, that there was sufficient
evidence aKexmk to sustain the finding of facts recited
in the decree. ‘The question is, therefore, whether or
mot there is a sufficient finding of facts to sustain the
deerse.
The bill of complaint alleged that the company
wes incorporated under the laws of South Dakota; that it
Was engaged in operating o mine and smelter at San Lorenzo,
Durango, Mexico; that it was in gresnt need for ready meney
for the purpose of smelting certain ores which had been
mined and were ready formnelting; that F. ©. Smolt was then
superintendent and manager of said mine and smelter of the
company; that Ulric King was cashier of the said company and
wae in charge of its financial mattergg that the said Smolt
and the said King (the latter also m defendant below) ree
presented to complainant that the ore wae of the value
of upwards of $15,000.00; that if the company could obtain
& loan of not to exceed $6,000.00 for the purpose of smelte
ei 4) So190b dotdw ,00.480,1¢ lo awa ont tet ,toOxme ©
-9ateve% oF torro to flaw aidd yd selgwee
,oorgtees etetre ynam ote eredt dguods LA
temiv ,owd Jud moqw asifon tone ni ———
yoltton gon ni berte sivoo edt" ot
“.oox00b odd edblan
yt bettogquea ton al setonh onT® 4 |
*,avoonorr al bao ,agribait en7
“robto sntoval todd mt qu onond edad Litw ow
of hetsqeiq saw doistw) ¢tven aid? ak btooet edt :
onebive to efaoltidises om amiatnoo (torre al Tit¥olaly oft —
dmetolting enw oxed? todd ,oretored? ,bomusiorg of taum #1
Setioos atowt Yo goaibait? edd aletaue of tompetibo eonebive :
10 tedsedw ,oroteisdd al nolteoup eff .eoTdeb odd ak
eit misvaue of agost To gutbait gnotoitiwa # ek eredd ton
| ” ,senp0
— Ys) orld jade boge lla duialemon 190 Like oT
oh sauté pas ovind aiveR to ewsl edd «ebay boseroexoont & aow
ennetedl asi te tedieos ona enin « gaistateqo ni heangne sow
Yonen ybaot 10% been suoty mt aaw Ji Jad? jondxok operas
nos bad tiotnw eete mists. pakd Lome Yo esoqiuug sls 102
ont wow SLomG .0 . dadt janie tomo? weer orow bas bomber ;
edt to tedfeme bra enim bla lo te8yanan bas aodae· atuoaua
Ls Weaqaco hiaa on? to to hitaan e au ahh o butt tart -Peuagios
Loma bisa os dacs GOI Fans {alonantt e&& Yo optato ah nsw
_ set (woled tnadneteb » ocala total outa) va biaa ont ca .
ri sulny ont to ame ato outs daxtt tanta Lqsoo ot botnenorg a2
nieddo bisoo ynaqeoo odd IL tart 1004000, 058 to tial 4
~) Loma to exogruq ovis 20% 00 000,88 boooxo ot ton to nol @
=3e
ing the eaid ore, it would result in great profit te the
company; that complainant, together with plaintiff in
error, G. ‘. Penwell, J. R. Morris and Fred Watters (also
defendants belew) advanced to the company the total sum of
#6,000,60, in consideration ef which the said company, by
ite aforemaid officers, Smolt and King, agreed to held said
ore, the product of the smelting thereof, and the proceeds
te be derived therefrom, av a trust fund to secure the ree
payment to the defendant in error and his aforesaid assoclae
tes, the sum advanced for said purposes. The bill also set
forth the macunts advanced by the various perrons whe pare
ticipated in the lean te the company. It further alleged
that the company entered upon the smelting of said ore, using
the advances made by complainant and his associates for said
purposes, and realized therefrom a large amount of money,
to-wit: upwards of $15,000.00 Mexice silver, equivalent
to $7,500.60 in gold coin of the United States of Americas
that the company also sold cutright upwards of 40 tones of
said ore, valued at $4,000.00; that the company still had
on hand 600 tons of said ore of lower grade, valued at upe
wards of $7,500.00. ‘he bill furthe set forth that upon
completion of the first smelting operation and tre wale of
the product, complainant applied to the company for an
accounting of said preceede and fer payment te him and to
hie associates of the money due them; thet a similar ree
quest was made upon the subsequent sale of the said 40 tone
of ore; that these requests were made upen the said company
and ite officers, viz., the superintendent, and plaintiff
in error, the president; that the company, by its said
officers, Smolt and plaintiff in error, from time to time
promised such accounting and payment of the moneys so due,
but failed to keep these promises,
fn
edd? of Sitonug gaetg mi Pfueet biyow #k ,oie biases ont gat
at trisgnialq ditw tadsegos , iran lalgmos ari⸗ i AGRO
oals) sxeetall bet't bos aitzoll oA .b ,ilewnel .V .o , torre
' to awa Letod edd yoaqmos anf of boonavhs (wofed asasbno ted ;
Ye a yeqnoe bisa etd co bew to solvatebiencs mi 100 900,08 a
bias bLod of Seoxge ,RALA bra sLone .eoollto bingesole otk
aboooorg ait bas ,osiost getsiowa edt Yo Jouborq emt 490
-9% off o1voee of baw? sesad sc oa ,mortered? beviaeb ed of
esiooasa biasetote ald bee soxre ak tuabaeteh ols of Inamyag
foe sain Lilie ox? .eoacgtuq bisa 10% hbeonsvbs mus oct ,a0t
“teq odw econreq avoliny oft yd boonevba adawoms ont doco
boyetia tederwt ¢1 .yungues ott of maol oy at boteqiols —
niow ,o70 blea to guidloma ate moqy betetne nagqmen oft Jadt ;
bisa 10% astaiocaas ald bra snankalqmoo YW ebam soomevba ons
eYeriom to gavees sgial a moxtoxodis boxi isos bre aonoging
gnoLavivpa ,xavile cokxol 00,000, 6L8 to Bb wwg stiweod
gaoirtamA to socvat@ betint et to mios blog ai 00.008, ¥¢ ot
to anos Of to abtawess Sriglxtwo bloe oslea ymaqmon of? sad?
bad ifita yragmoo oft tans 700.000, 9 ta boutev ,eor0 bine
wai ta boutavy ,sbary towel to 910 biag to anos 008 baad 0
moqy Jedt dicot tea Radiwt Lid edt .00,008,°8 to ebraw
to éiee att baa nottaceeo qiitefonm g¢etkt eA? Yo melteLquoo
ois 10% yRagmon oft oF hotfqgae Snanialquoe ,touborq ond
of bre mid of tremyaq sot bus wbeosoesq bina to guigmwooom
«ot tallale « jad? gmorit sub Yum att To ea at thn !
atto⸗ Oe bison edt to ofan tnoupendue edd gogu sban aow dnoup J
Wiaguee bias odt moqu obas ot9ew ateoupet seedt saris porto to a
Ytitmlely bas sinobnosnizequa ot , aly saip0kTo att i" 4
7 bkas athe yo wraqmoo outs tadd jiaobleeag es? * 9
«sob 08 aysitom edt 20 siromyag * —2—— —E is
ahe
The bill of complaint further alleged that ene
payment of srid smelting operations was collected by the
paid Smolt and deposited with the American Smelting &
Refining Company in his own namey; that thereafter the said
Smolt remitted a pertion of said fund to plaintiff in error,
whe wae at that time president of the company; that the
said Smolt and plaintiff in error converted and dissipated
the said funds, or the greater part thoreef, and failed te
account to complainant therefor. The bill of complaint
aleo contained certain interrogatories to be answered by
said Smolt, plaintiff in error and the company; and cone
Gluded with a prayer for an accounting from all ef the
defendants, and that they be compelled to pay over to the
eomplainant and his associates the amount equitably found
due them,
To this bill answers were filed by the company
and plaintiff in error, For the purpose of thin caney it may
be gaid that their answers controverted all the material alles
gations contained in the bill of complaint. molt did not
anewer, but rested upon his plea to the jurisdiction.
The decree vet forth that the cause came on te be
heard upon the original bil! of complaint, the answer therete
of plaintiff in error and the company, the replications to
guid anewers, and the plea of Smolt end replication thereto,
ans aleo upon the evidence heard in open court and documents
adduced in support of the issues by the various parties, and
upon arguments of counsel, ‘Then follewed the finding of facts
upon which the decree was based, The question arises, whether
or not the finding of facts sustains the money decree.
ade
ano tad? bogeiia redtuwt talatquoe to {iid ont
ett ye beton lice amv enoltareqo paitiona bisa To seomgeq a
& gatiinme neokvemA odd ddiw hesteoqed bee # Lost bisa ‘ “
bine edd tet tantent tat geman nwo ate ai yaagmeD yabatton
ovr ni Ytidmialg of baw? biaa Yo aolstoq # boss ter $ fom
edt tait pyueqaon sd¢ Do soahdewrg omld tadt tn oaw ovtw
hoteqiaakh ban bottevnoo uo98tre ak Piivaiaty bra t£omiy bhava oat
dt belied hua ,Yooredd s10q sedadry odd <6 ,abnwt has ott
tnialquos Yo [Lid eff .tolevodd dmanialomod of tmson0s
yd hetowuns ef of eoitotayotietai alatiee boniataos oats
ooo ban pynsamos edd bem sotto of Wrktmlialq ,d Lome bine :
odt t@ (fe mort gn ténvovos na tot ze yotd o dtiw beby to “
odd of wove yaq of betiequoe od yond fads bas sadtabno teh |
haus’ ere trom ont godaloonea a hat bre Jus a tenon | ‘ . ‘nM
| wots oub — — )
—— an? yt bofit exaw atewans itis whlg oT
m tL geano abet to saaguug os tot ,tomxe mi —XRX bas
Lo Indrtos aos odd Ela bedxeversnoo oTewsns sets? david bios ot
gon bib t Lome etn lalqame to. {Lie of ah Somiadnoo anoltag
stolsotbaiwwt odd of agiq als mogy botaot dud towers J
af ot no omn0 ses oft fait Mito? son eo109eb ont eid
exodt tiwenn ost .tutalqnon to [Lid Lentylno oft noqw braed
ot unpivaotiqodt ald ,yiaquod odd baa tort ak Vitsenielg to.
ofoxrsds moitaoilqex baa tLom) Yo aelq ons brian yarowane bkew A
Jromook ban sis00 aeqe mt Disot eomebtve oft mnogu eats: ane
ne ,wottieg aroliev odd yt soueek oft to xogqus mk beoubba
‘YO yuibast ont dowolfo? wed? ,Loanvoo to atuonuryte | —J “a
* sH0elta “oliaoup ext .boaad sow eaioeb edd cnt ——
sf" 2901S Bh genoa on? entataua urea * wer tbei tt out oa | ) ae x*
mie es re |
oe
While plaintiff in error asserts that the finding
of facts generally ie not sufficient, his argument is based
mainly upon the contention that there is nowhere any finding
in said decree, that Smelt and King were authorised by the
company to enter into thie trust agreement. As we read the
decree, while there ke no express finding te that effect, yet
it contains a sufficient finding ef facts from which it may be
reanonably inferred that the court did find as a fac that
Smolt and King hed authority te enter into the trust agrete
mente The decree finds that these men were in direct
control of the company's affairs at San Lorenzo; that they
had charge of the output of the sine and of the reduction
of the Gre; that these men had represented that it would
be to the caupany's interest to smelt the ore already nined
and therefere requested defendant in errer to adyance $6,000.00,
The decree further found that complainant and certain assoc ie
ates, among whom was plaintiff in errer, did actually advance
$6,600.00 te the company; that the company used this money
for the purposes for which it was advanced, in consideration
of which it was agreed that the product of the smelting and the
cash preeeeds thereof would be held as a trust fund te secure
the payment ¢f meneys oo advaneed, The decree further found
‘that upon the completion of the fret smelting ecperation and
the sele of the product thereof, the complainant applied to the
company for an accounting of the proceeds of raid sale and for
the payment to him and his associates of the moneys due them;
that similar dewends were made upon the subsequent sale of
the 40 tons of ore, for which the company received its payment
in cash; that the demands for an accounting and for payment
were made upon officers of the company by complainant. There
wan a further finding that the company, Smolt and plaintiff
| ol
garhbmit off valt a¢vonax toxte od Yihsnlalg oLisw
boasd al snoswyta ald ,tnoinitiwe ton ak ylievenog afoat To
hbalt yns exedwon ol oredds Jedd moitnetneco odt woqu yYintam — ;
ont yd bealiodtue otew gnit bus #fLomt tant 90970 9 bkpe ak 4
edd baot ow 2A .dnemeotge Sautd eins ofml xadne of wrsguoo
YX atoetts sarit of gnibalt exozgqxe on sd oxen? olLidw x08
yan $2 so keiw ott atost to gaibakt saotoltine « amtagmoo 2k
toit bal s aH baht bab stw0o ond tadd bortro9'Int yLdewonaer
eorrns teott ed ofl tetme of yelredtoa bal galt baa $ koma
soeuls ai otew nom oaodd Sade abril setoed eT sino
yeas dads ,ounotel ma te etislYta a'ynagmon eff to Lowsorod F
moisdoubex edd to bam onie orf to tuqive ods to egtade bed
binow si iad? bestmoariqet band nam enedt tact pome only 20
bentn ybaetio eto oft tiene of teot9edml atyisgmo od oF od
90,09 soaavba of roti ak snabneted betseupot oro tereadd bn
poune misiioo bus Inaniafgmon tent? bowot tostdiwt gotoek of
novbs yifautoe bib ,xo 1 oi Vilsninty sew modw geome ,seca |
won eid? bean yreqoros onl todd pynaquon edt of 00.000,a¢
oltarmbience ai ,hoonavba saw $2 Aoinw vol adaogtig ond 10%
brs gridfoma er? To towborq ot tad? beexqe saw 32 do tdw To
one of Saul taytt « 86 bLod od bluow ooredtamsedeoty deap
mor tetivt soxseh ofT .boonavhea of syenon Lo dnomyag ods —
ia noivatego wld Lona texai of? to noteetenoo ott soqu taht
ot bolleqe tnaniafgmoo oft ,toereds somubotq al? to ofan ot
| Sie efee bina to abosoorg edd to palinvoson na tot ynaqmos
mons oub Byonorm os To eetaioonna ain boa mid of Snemyeq esd
‘te au tnewpeadya odt moqu ebam otow abcameb ta limia pace
maya uth boviooox yYraquoo ont cio teiw ton st ro anor op ond
tnonyag ⁊oꝛ brs nat oauoo va nas TOT advan ont au⸗ jane Ce
one / staan taLgeo Ye Yiaguos ott 20 axook ito noqw —
- = iA ae iN J
of=
in error, had from time to time prowivod an accounting to the
conplainant, and the payzient ef moneys due him, and that they
put him off with such promises and representations, up to
and including the time of the entry ef the decree herein,
From these findings the reasonable inference arises, that
the court slso found ae a fact that the sot of said Smelt
ond King in agreeing to establish the trust fund to secure
the payment of moneys advanced by the complainant, wae either
autnorized or ratified hy the caapany.
fhe court further found that a sum of $6,000.00,
realized from the sale of some of the products of said smelte
ing operations, was collected by Smolt and by him deposited
in hie own name; that subsequently the said Smelt remitted
this fund to plaintiff in errer, who at that time was presie
dent of the company; thet these two men (Smolt and plaintiff
in error) hed dissipated ssid fund or «a large portion theree
of, and had wholly neglected and refused to account for the
fame or any portion thereof. The decree further found that
said $6,000.00 came into the hands of Smelt and plaintiff
in error as a trust fund for the complainant, who was ene
titled to same with interest thereon at the rate of five
per cent. (5%) from May 31, 1907. Clearly, therefore,
the court was, in our opinion, fully warmnted in entering
the — decree against the defendants, one of whom was the
plaintiff in error.
The other point raised by plaintiff in error is
the refusal of the ehancellor to set aside the decree. in
opening his argument for reversal on this peint, counsel
says: “The merits ef the case lie in the affidavits pree
sented on the motion.to vacate the decree.” As far as this
record shows, neither the verified petition to set aside the
adhe
+ of guistnvoces ne beoalmotq emit of amid aot bad ,terve ak
as tsads bus ,mid ub eayonom to Soeuryaeq eds baa nacr LaLgnoe f
ot qu ,anoisadneeoiget ban coulmotg dowe ddlw The mld dug
etlorond sexoeb oft ‘to ytd aafy Le ems ot puilouvlont bie d
gadd ,atultea oonoteint eliancenex ord syuibsit eaod aott
#lomi bias to ton ocd Jat toad a ae bawet oale tavon ond
oxyoo@ of bawt Sawtt oft dalidatae od yoteetma al gait bre
dtio saw ,inentatiquws ef? yd boonavha wyotom to suemyaq wit
sYuagno off yt boltitet to beaitoulue
«90 .000,9¢ to mua o sand bayot widiiut Prvoo out?
fema bles to atouborg odd Yo emo8 To Ofas ont noxk bostinoy
bet inogab mid yd bae tLome yd botne (Loo asw vao at aio qo pat
bottincr sLom ding edd yLtsoupeadue sastd youn owe a tel eh
ke ong ate ould Seed ta ocr , torre ord Tittwlalg ‘od betwt abit
thintely bes tion) mom ows onodd sunt punaqmos odd to snob
oiedt solfieq eyxal « to bmw? bise betaqiaalb bad (sor29 mth |
odd 201 snvovea of heaton bne bosoolgon Vilorw fast ein ato
tant : beret toattiyt ooroeb oct , booted? noteroq yas “9 XR
tiisvaialg baa t Lome to ebmssi od otek omamo 09.000, 06. bins
=i Bae Oxi since Lqmoe ond “10% beast dautt ea rorxo me
ovit ‘to otut oft ta xooredt Javrsted dhe oman of boLsts —
| ywtotoredt .yLaaeso TOOT £8 ye mozt (RB) .tno9 10g
guivedne mi bo — yi kurt ao derauo 190 ak 1808 ed ot
d+ eaw mow to eno — oat sonhags —XR wonon edd
totte ab — *
ak norte nt attintate xd boakar tnboq, woo ont |
(t- ahotoeh out ghiua tou of tof feonato oud. 0 Loawtor out
—— Loanyoo gsakog ald? no Laaravoꝛ 0 toomgta abd —
had adivabstts ony mu ort eae: ond xe agkcoa — * aay '
ala⸗ ao tH% BA —E oud ‘ednoay od, moltom odd i *
27
decree nor the afficavita attached thereto, nor the affidave
4te prepared after the filing of the petition, appear in
the certificate ef evidence; before this court ean consider
guch affidavite, it must appear that the afficavites were
considered by the court below in passing upon the motion
-te vacate the decree, Thie fact could only be made to appear
by making the affidavit o part ef the resord oartified yy
the judge who heard the caus@, The record in thin case is
merely the cornumonelaw record, There is no certificate of any
kind attached to show that any affidavyite were considered
by the ccurt, ant in the absence thereof, it must be presumed
that the action of the court in overruling the motion to set
aside and vacate the seid decree was correct, nothing appear
ing te the gontrary in the record, This rule of law was
Clearly met forth in Lange vy. Heyer, 185 I11, 426, wherein
the court said, p. 4223
* ne affidavits copied inte this record by
the clerk, and which, it is claimed, were read
oi the motion to set aside and vacate thedecree,
are not made a part of the reserd by a certificate
of evidence, and are therefore not before us for
eur consideration, In Pelt. unos 58 Til.
145, it is said, p. 146; "The —*— ant secks a
reversal of the decree in thin cause on two grounds:
First, that the court ought to have awarded a new
hearing on the affidavits filed in sid of a motion
for that purpese. the affidavits to which reference
ia made form no part of the record and cannot be
considered by the court. The appeliant, to obtain
the benefit of the affidavits in this court, should
heve had the same made a part of the record by tne
certificate ef the judge who heard the cause in the
girquit court.’ The wertificate of the Judge ate
tached to thin record, that ‘it contains all of the
record necessary to a full and fair presentation
of the errors complained of,’ is not a sertificsate
that the affidavits were read aw evidence on the
motion te set aside and vacate said decree, and
isn wholly insufficient te wake said affidavits a
part ef the resord,.*
fo the same effect sre; Du Gusin Water Borke Oo., vy. Parke,
@07 Ill, 46; aleo Bellinger ¥. Baraes, 223 (11. 121, wheres
ot om
vebktte off com ,adords bedontia adivablTta od ton oe tomb
ai tanqya ,wolditog ont ‘to gakLilt odd t0dta boxaqorq adh
sebiance mao txvoo athe sueted yaomabive to etax titers wag
otow ativabliia ont sadd cemgua Saum 22 1d tyeb)3Te ioue |
folsom on? nogu. yiinaeg ei woled g4xuor ocr va d⸗ aob daaios
as Aqe ag nbam.od vine binoo dost ekdk .ootond edt ‘@taoay ot
WEDERTLS 109. — — ont Io tuag 2 tivabl te end’ gecksam w
gk anaes aidt mk broowt edT eOuswo ast braced odw ‘eybut ols
is to afaoktisces or el oxed? .byooex walestommon eft ylortem —
berebtance s1ow ativabltte yuan aale woe of berdoatts bak
paynorg ad taupe th ,tooredd conenda os mh dan ,txuon ond yi ‘ |
pox of moison odd gutlurimyve ak dus ond “to mites oc? taht —
anogga yaisivon ,tvext09 aaw oor09b bisn edt os¢aoav bos obies 9
gow wal to oun wit .dyonex omy mi yeotdmon of of yak
thoredy O88 . (11 OOL .29NO we Das ot Atco? dan ytreeto
| 38BA 1g , bine styon od
YW buooer aids ojni boigos ativabilie ofT®
baot otow ,bominlo ai ti ,Hoidw bas ,¢aeto af? :
.eotcobeds elacasy Sue etken toa os aoisom odf Ge
dug ttiicoo a yd brooet oct to. d1eg 8 obam Jon etm
@ot aw oxotod Jor —— — — to
»ffi 6é pees iiss - tolsanxe 90
a adpoan srs — o .q , bine oi 3k ,
iebrvet_, ows mo Benen aiid eb — — sid to Fh
‘wet s bebiewa evan at Jcguo duuon ond tale ,tarld
soitem s te bia nk boLit ativedltte odd mo guiamed
eonexetet doidw o¢ ativabliYta oct ,gaoquug tens cot.
ef gonmao bra breset od? Yo diaq om atot ebem al
Hinddo of ,ielieqga edt .tuwon els yd bowwbienos -
biveda ,$iweo afdt af ativeabitia ect to sitened end
add yd bioset, ot to dnaq a ohem oune ect bal ovad .
ot ak guupo ot Hreed orlw ogbut, salt to pteckthixos —
90 ogbut off te etauiilsvem of? '.duu00- Sinortlo. —
od? Io Ifa anlasgbo tl’ fait? ,bicoer ait of barloat
| molvernoasig tie? one Lint « of (reaaesen ‘fiooet, ~
ataokiigtes o ton al ', to bonlalquoo atorre odd to |
ett mo senmpbive sa basi 21ew eaivasitte ods tnd?
bee ,oanoeb bias etadav bane ebiewn Jqu.od moljon
a adivabhiie bisa even ot ao ott twaak Yiiouw al
* D——— hs —
esa ae “98 atzoh wont ahoup wh 3928 doeTto oma oat
+
Ds as rae rey Bem «asnseewe? PPA TY WR, ye a ‘hie Bie | —— ae
abe
- Am the court, in pageing upon thie point, said, p. 1243
*In our epinion neither ef the affidavits
is a part of the recerd proper, and the affidav-
ite are therefore not before ue for consideration.
fhey are not preserved by » certificate of evle
Gence, and it does not appear fron any order or
dearee entered in the cnuse that they were eitaer
read or conpidered by the court in parening upon
the respective motions to dinmiges. Under such
circumstances effidavite do not become part of
the recerde"® (citing Lange vy. Heyer, supra.)
Plaintiff in error urges, however, that inasmuch
as the petition was sworn to, it stands in s different
eategory than affidavits. However, the verified petition
and affidevite attached therete become no mere a part ef
the record in a proceeding of thie kind than an ercinsry
affidavit. This precise point was passed upon by this
court in Ford v. Pore, Gencral No. 19899, wherein it was
held that o verificd petition for a change of venue was
in the nature of an affidavit and under the rule announced
in Lange y. Heyer, gupra, could not be considered by this
ecurt unless incerporated in the cettifieate of evidence
signed by the trial court,
While plaintart in error also alleges that the
decree is erroneous for cortain other reasons, viz., that
the plea of Smolt was not disposed of, and that King,
although a party defendant, wae not served, yet after carte
ful consideration of the argument in support thereof, we
are of the opinion thet his contentions are without merit.
Finding no reversible error, the deerce of the
Circuit Gourt of cook County will be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ae pny A ——
ofa
tO8L oq ,bion ,tniog ald? moqw gaiansg mi ,duveo ost mh ny
P OF ails
atkvebttta od? to testdion weimigo two mI* ,
«vablt'ta efd bia ,teqotg breeet eft Yo dtag a ab
snoiserohtamen to% ay ecoted ten sicteteds ota atl
elve to etaoitizroo «a yt bovaeeetq fon ete yodt
40 X9b1O Ya wort Teoqqa fom ageb 3A bua « ;
tedtio oxow yort sacs oauno off ak Soretno soroeb
aoqu giiegeq olf disao oft yd boreblaace 10 baer
fous tebe .autmalh oF anoitom evidoegeet eld
to Iraq smooed gon ob aflvabitte azo⸗ amwoxlio
— .Z9YOH 2¥ Sanat gtivin) *.btenet oat
doummanit tat ,toyowor ,sogius torre al Thlentald
} toereltib «2 mi abradte J , ot miowa usw aoisisog sit ss | |
molsiseg baltiney off ,tovewoH eadivebitte madd ytogedao. —*
to dxaq ia om emooed odmions borowtia ativabitie bua a
YiIonibto ma mesg baix aids to guibosserq a al bsoves ona | |
abs yd moqw benesq aaw jntog saloerq aldt etivabitts
now + dhotodw ,0@8@L .of Lotoned ,dz0% sy bxot ai dxs00
saw sunoy ‘to oyiato s tot soltiteq bektivev » tedtt bhof
Tigi
boonwonns ofgx oft xobny ban ¢ivabltie oe To otmdan sdt ak
aids yd borobience od tor hives .waque Oxo av gamad mk —
oonsbive te staoltigtes edt mi begeto~rseni aes law tive i J
siiwos Labs? oft yd bongte
wy ee
off add segotla oule rorre mt VWitntaly feet
| tad ,.aiv ,emonacx roto aiaedioo 10? avoenerts al ——
epatht toc? baa ,to beroqakd Jon aaw #Lom@ to aelq ont —*
hte costs toy ,bevioa son naw ,inabso'toh yeraq 8 steroid ke
t ow ,Ttooredt Pitoqqua mi tInemsgze eff To no itexobtanoo it *
J stixem juodtiw o1@ anolinetmeoo ak guilt moinico ont te ome
tf —
shomritte of Litw yseuwed Aood te ae | |
ie i nt a de
| —— tee
6Y » Z1LOS5
5
TAMES ¥. ALG Hl. %
Defendant in &rror,
\
4 é
BiW ENGLAND CASUAL COMRANS » J f
& Corporation, :
—“ in *ror.
WR, PACSLDING JUSTICE PAR delivered the opinies of
RRKOR TO
Fhe
MUBISIPAL COURT
GQ? GHICAGG,
the cGurte
By thie writ of error it is sought te reverse a
judgment fer 664,00 and conte entered in the Munieipal Ceurt
of Ghicage in favor of defendant in errer (plaintiff below),
againat the plaintify in error (defendant below).
I pistestesti #tutement of alaim was for $90.00 due
ao wages for tie menth of August, 19234 which cefendunt ree
fused te pay althecuch often requested to do ao by pleintiff,
in the affidavitef merita it wae denied by the defendant that
there was any seney due the plaintiff as no services had been
rendered dura mg that month and becaure plaintiff wae dice
charged from the employ of the defendant for good cause during
the month of July.
Plaintiff's alain $4, upon the theory that bee
@ause he was paid his walary on the Lith and 30th of each
month, his euployment was by the month; thet he was not dise
charged until Auguet lst, hence defendant became Liable fer
the whole month of August leas such sums as plaintiff was able
to earn eleewhore.
Plaintiff testified that he Went to work for the
defendant company about December, 1915 and continued in its
OY HONRE
THOS IAGIO TOM
% —D = poet
J mi ir saa
sOOADEND FO
J f
CJ G 4. 18 oO Q | ; | Su he! Shas
Yo nabmiao oid benewd Lob BAT MOETAVG COICO AS —
& wAxHVEX vs diywow at gh 201% ‘to oid. we
sawed feqioknusl ol? mt boxstae atuoo hts 00,900 10% —E—
Axroſod tiigaleig) Tanxe ah tnabeotoh to tovat ak oynn be we
» (waled snubne teh) s98%s ak Tidntad odd frontage
Sub 00,008 wt dow elato to ‘gnenetodn orneisniain ||”
eet dnubreted dotdw bLer —RX to ‘sides ond tot * a
oVhigmialta yt om ob of bedaeupet norte dywosts Lo xa ot boawt
gad) tnabated ot? yd bedwod wow ah atiroc todivabst te oid i> a
goed bad apolvies on en wrhenitede edt ub vonen wie oon ——
“seth caw VW2osiaty dsuased ba — — pili bow ,
—— oauad ‘pees ‘sot ‘g¢umbie'ted ould te yolqua au⸗ aoxt |
onl doutt rons ost HOLES — —— —ER
Aoas te 208 bra AtOL oxtt no vratan 92K biog say 0d 6
waid Jon anw of doetd jasianm ont et one Farmmyolgors ait
. 20% ofdart naanod Inwbaetes adaiaci tas. eau⸗ Litew deg , ”" ie
“olds onw an tata a2 wae dose, aod —* eo , re am oLoctw, ext ia
Aye
“eitt ‘x0? ecw oo ste oat sais —
=>
eaplhoy up te Auguet 1, 1914; that he wae paid twles per
month ( om the 16th and last daye) at the rate of $45, 00
for each oneehalf wonthg that on August let (Gaturday) about
10330 in the vorning he reacived notice of his diachurge,
in a written comaunication addreseed to him and signed by
Thomas 3. Boas; that he also, upon that day at one o'clock
Pelle turned over papers still in hia possession and belonge
ing to the defeniant, for which he reecived a receipt from
the said Bows on behalf of the defendant company. Another
witness on behalf of the plaintiff testified that he saw
the plaintiff apparently at work in the office on the morne
ang of Auguet lst.
On behalf of the defendant one Geerge KH. Jones teste
tified that he was superintendent of the exesutive department
ef the defendant company and that he was the immediate superior
of the plaintiffs that during the last week in July he called
Plaintif’'ts attention te the fact that he had not handed in .
his reports rogulkagiy; that plaintiff explained to him thet he
had been in court on other watteray that he (Jones) then made
his report to Mr, Bess whe hud control of payroll auditors;
that the letter from Mr, Bows discharging the plaintiff cane
inte his hands on Friday worning, July Slet and was given to
the plaintiff; that about 4:30 .u, on that day, plaintiff
talked with bim ne te the authority of Boos te discharge hin;
that he (Jones) told plaintiff he had ne control ever that
question and advised him te take the aatter up with Ur. Boss;
that at nine o'clock the next morning pleintiff presented
himself for work; that he alse did se on the Monday morning
following. Jones further testified that he paid plaintiff
en July Slet and that the receipt was signed by plaintiff on
that dey.
a ae
goq eokws bheq caw on Jans pe0OL ,f tauqué oF qu
00.699 to osmr ort ta (ayeb saat bow MgOl ott mo ) dome
tuoda (yaouptead) tal tawguA mo tak? pdduom Blaleono dose 202
eSnxadoalkd sisi Ya solton bovieoost of yaulaton oid fe co a
Vd botpie bon mini 62 beanothbhes moisnoleummes aesd haw anh —
deolo’o ono ja yob iat? moqu ,oalw of tadd jeaol samedy
egrolef buna moleaseanog wif ai Liiva ersqag eve besrtsd | tall :
moxt Iqlevet « boviooes od dotdw “ot .Snakneleb ons oF, aa a
telson »Yaqucd gasbaeted edd, to Piaiied ao sao biew ont J
wae od fads ban Ttitnialg edé Yo Beaded wo sans ;
eatom ost wo sotto odd nt atow ga Vswerwaga Tigadele oi ‘
otel tates to pak
ones aemol »f onto00 eno Snabuoteb ais To Basted 20 :
Jnemiraqeb evituooxe it Yo tro bre gntieque aw it suid portas
soliequa eietbennt oft aaw od sadd bas yYnaqmon gnabaeteb ‘ond ‘on a
belies en ylwt nk Moow Seal orld piritud 3 odd gridtnlal, ong we
2 Sobral fon bod of texd gox't odd of molaomtén gh rTht ng
(on taut mkt of bonieigun Witnialy add pytamdegon sacoqet ou
@bam nadt (wonol) ed tad? pevetdan todee mo Pus aa rood ba
paxotibua Liocysg te Lortmoo bet ow avok of tevgon wid f
(Gaao Tidak aE oid yRagtaroeho suas eM wOT xogdet ds Has
of nevis gaw bra felt ylul ,gotecem ysbixl me abnad okt nas »
Pisniale .yod fad? mo ole OFS suede tadd sYItahetg ode —
Pid apteiowtd of ago to yttiedtus ol? of ao md asiw r te
fal? cove Locime on: had ot Xtthntate akeb timed Ween
jooo0d .t Adiw qu teddam ole soled of mid Doakwba bane mold: *
a j bos nonere Vitsalala aaleson dxon ous atvoty*o oats al ‘ |
" paket yabnok eld ao ao bab on La ous dots phiow x0 ton
m⸗ntala hag oe fads boittsaod ronda sone
: a0 neaiata Ww domi ann dakeown * ban —
hy pou Nh) comet —M Pace Rie
oe aw
Sr. Bons, also culled om behaly of the cefendant,
testified thet at 9230 Aces on July Slot he handed o letter
to Jenes, whic Letter informed plaintiff of his diacharge;
that plaintiff’ qaaue to him on the next day (August firet) «
few minutes after nine o'clouk, ani asked him for work to do,
end he tole plaintiff he bad no werk for him but at that tine
plaintiff did turn ever papers for which ae (Bows) gave ree
eeipt te the plaintiff, Me alse testified that on July 29th
he took up with plaintiff, in the presence of Jenee, the fact
that plaintiff had neglected his pusiness ami that he informed
him he would haya to ooumunieate thie fact to the president
of the defendant ecexpany. Defendant endeavored to introduee
a letter from the president, directed to Boes, ordering the
discharge of the plaintiff; this, however, was not adzad t ted,
in evidence,
_ Harry &. HeConnell, another witnese on behalf
of the defendant, tentified that he euployed plaintiff? without
any definite agreesent ag to the tine ef espleyments that the
first exploysent was ucrely temporary, and that when that was
gompleted, plaintiff asked him to arrange more work for him,
and he informed plaintiff that thexve wan nothing of 4 permanent
character to offer, but that thore were three or four audita
that he might go out en, and that in thet way he continued in
the ouploy of the defendant company; that at firet he was paid
$25.00 per week anc later eon he received an advance of some
$5 or $6 per week,
There was no denial by the plaintiff as to the cite
cumstances under which he wes employed, nor of the fact that
fault had been found with his for hie failure te attend to
yde business during the last week in July, nor any denial of
the charge of negligence. On thie state of the record the Sour
oe
strabneteh oda te tLoiod no bolino ents «suet anes
awitiel «a bebuad od sult yiul HO, eileA OEE sa. Saslg * — —
ox ovay anottl) on oldw xo% exeqeq Tove mts bib vraant La Le —
4908 ylut mo tad? belthewd oaks off .Tatakelq ond of tateo ti
oat out sen To BOIToM ote edd mi ,ttidakal déiw we Moos « r
—X ed gent bas ueomlend ald betoe Lyon bad nirataia
— E ode of ſoat alii? ofan invenes o oved. yer ox tiew od a
eauboussl of bexevechne Sambi ted Via od tnubaetob ‘out ; to
add? guixohvo ,aeod of betoorlb — EXX o ot wort norton Ms
hesiinbsa jon aaw ,tovewol ,aisd gTiisnialg sav To sycoitoaky
soonmbive wc J
TLerted ao anentiw xolijoaun ,flonagdoH '.u yasell st —*
uous kw Naientata beyotque ov tacit DOLTLenss adnan Yb wit wm A
pat Sastt ze mreunga Lome to wwid wkd os Be Snenpotye aginiiob ¥ ‘ ‘
ye Sat) mode Sond daw ,yumroqmed yLoxos aaw — tat
gunn 40% Sxew oXLOM OgueTta of mtd bedas WiivndalG , af der
Nemxog « To gatdton maw oxstt sand Trkentele sabia
athbys cuo xo sexs giow otedd add Sud toto od ——
u haunidnoo on Yow Sord ak goad boa no uo 0M Satya ok att ‘
J an od duxtt ta tedd gynaqnon $ausbmatow ext to — uit
fei —*1
sleow x9q ne ‘ y
: J—
wih ot 07 wa Ttktnialy of? yi Latneb on aew ovodt
sats toatl oft to som ,boyolqne saw ost ao dite —
* OF bavtse oo oxuLia® ahd wOY att au ka — need a
—R Wit ab oo 1 of oid
ae volta oa Thee al ey Aries —
ote
entered judgment for $54 and.costs in favor of the plaintiff,
this being one nomth! s galary lese what plaintiff had earned
in other eaployment during August.
in view of the feregoing evidcense, it must be conpide
ered that thore wasno hiring from month te oonth, and even hed
there been, that the plaintiff wae discharged for good cause.
Purthersere, the evidenos ehovn that plaintiff? wee o ehuelly
discharged on Friday, July Slet. Tho rofore, if he reported
there Auguet let and did work thic ware purely voluntary on his
part. Under all these facts and clreumstances, we are clearly
ef the opinien that the court erred in finding for the plaintiff
and that Judgment should have been for the defendant. The
judguent will be reversed,
REVERBRD»
Finding of facte: We find as a fact that there
wae no hiring by the defendant company from month to month;
that plaintiff wee discharged on July 31, 1924 for good cause;
and that the defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff as set
forth in the statement of claim,
* 74 — ‘Pie Vee 7 a ue, iid
| | “ g lit ,
abe )
ettistaisiq eft to tovst ni ataoo-bns hag tot tmompbur, nee
bentae bod Ttitaialg ¢adw aeel yrslae at dtnon ono gnied nh
[ efargua yaitub —“ “ yal
ebiason of sao th orshlve guieyotet ots to woiv al
bast move —E Arian of Ainom mort paten om asw oron⸗ salt
sdunao boog 102 begiotoalh gow Tiitnial, ait saudi 90d .
vilsuies saw Tthintelg tad? aveda oonebiys ate Xroeruon
bedvoqet of th ,oreterenT L — D no o wa oue⸗
aid ao yretautov ylotwg sew aids draw hiv bea dal Saugua ¢
ylraelo o18 ow ,evoantemiorio bag atont ogodt Ila cob! *
Vitintaly oft tot gadbakt ai bores txuoo ond fais molaiqo —
oAT te Tod ed? tO? mood avant bilvoste Soumya, tai baa
sboatovon ad SLtw enon i
My J
pte —
ary vaR
atedd Jods font B ‘ea bait oW¥ tadout re paubart |
—R os d$nom maxt eanczaoc dnebawtab mis yd pute tit on 3 7
teaues boayg cot ALOL , £8 wit ao doyraden th maw Watabety pe vf
fen aa Tiktwlats sed at bodteobeee Jon as Iraxerp tol ong tad van
_emtalo Yo gmomagate oid ak am
TARR F
88 « 21663
BARTHOLOMAR & ROMS ING
BREWING & MALTING CO,,
a Corporation,
\ Refendiant in error ,f
\ @ EAKOR TO
va BURICIPAL COURT
f GP CHICAGO,
CHICAGO RAILWAY) Courany,
a Corporation, and
LAHGSMVAN TRANING COMPANY,
@ Corporation,
98 I.A. 512
Bn
y
LANGSUAN TEAMING COMPANY,
My PRYSLOING JUSTICN PAM delivered the opinion of
the courte
in en aotion brought by defendant in errer againat
the Chicago Railways Gompany (hereinafter referred to o@ the
rellwaye company) and plaintiff io erver, for damagem sustained
in a aollisien, the court sitting without a jury dismiased the
Guit ap to the reilways company but found the plaintiff in errer
guilty ond agseneed defendant in error*s dawuges in the sum
of $79.66, upon which finding the judgment wae entered to reverse
Which this writ of error hae been prosecuted,
the evicence introduced on behalf of
in-erreg, showed that a beoy wagon having om it a lead ef 26
barrels of beer, belonging te it wan otonding on the weat side
of Wextern avenue, facing south, about 25 feet south of
seloon with which | y ate business; that
directly behind thin wagon, and in gf mt of said saloon, was
& wagon belonging to pear? onal « Slee facing southe
“This wagon pulled out and proceeded in a southeasterly direction
— : i ¥
é
409 — — —
es A geet ech Sede hed |
OT AONAR §&
PAYOO JLAZIOIAON
,OUADIED TO
Ere AT 8e
faniags tora oi Saabsotoh yt Iiyuotd —RS * Bay.
ont ac oF hoxxe key vor'tan tered} viawioð⸗ — ows be
beaiad ava angen <o% stort ik Niraltata on —
— my a ‘ak —— —————— rk tmabee0® bonuses van
e tae8 as to wrabaote ew an ob cic ale stood
1% Man suede itu — 5 rt
0 ee
a
arid mi ter
in order to pase the wagon of
geiting on to the gar tracks of the railways conpany, was
struck by a oar Owned by the railways geet The evidence
shewed that the wagen of — — o natruck at
the rear wheel, and the foree of the impact kmocked off several
barrels of beer, the cmtents of five of which leaked out. It
further appeared from * aeno⸗ that the omr struck the wagen
a 1
cay, just previously to hitting the wagen, was going rapidly;
at abeut the front wheels, and that the
that at the tine ef the collision the horses attached te the
wagon of = were at the rear of detendent—in
exepie wayon, which, — this entire tine, wan standing
etill.s 5, wae alae introduced ae to the damage dene to
the wagon, to the barrels and ae te the value of the beer that
had leaked out of them, The evidence showed that the total
amount of damages sustoined was $78.60. |
At the clese of the defendant in error's cuse, both
the xseilways company anc the plaintiff in orrer meved the court
te dismise the cause, The séurt granted the motion es te the
Yailways: company but denied the action of the plaintiff in
error,
4 [ane jeatimony offered on behal@ of tun pleintidciiig
@rrer corroborated that effered on behalf of the—defescentiin
wi respect to the position of the wagene at the tine
pulied cut to go south and —
the wagon ef <a
pase the wagon of, — — EELS 4 There was other
testimony on behalf of PUAN T II, 5 that the rear
. of ite wagon was struck and not the front; wie that when ite
wagon started te pull cut, one witness stated that the car
@ausing the accident was some 200 feet away, while another
ale
is tO Moysw eet anmy oF sebue
Saw .yosquen ayswiiex edt I wipers tee odd oF wo gate. ;
sonebive of? + yragmoo ayewlian ond yh bone tao 6 deere
$a domita a — — a
fatoves Ito belsont Josqnd od? Yo votot act baw — —
| J |
Uibigat yao eaw Mopew off yrideld of viswotvorg sau ——
od⸗ ot bomoaitx sewtadt ef3 nelailles est to ona⸗ ead * fa
seh. tah ty ynex off ta ot0w ;
witbaada aw ywene ativne uldt 2 — 2
ue
ot ood egacwh ott of ae beoubotiak cals sew eomebhve —
taste teed edd Yo oulay oft of aa ban elertad od os moyen ene
fatot ond Jadt beware sonebive oat. sina? Yo suo. belaok baat
[.oa,ere caw houinsave avgameh to —
Hie "a
déod ,enae atxorse at gnabasted on? ** sails odd th ——
oxuoe ott Seve ⁊ar as ug Walely eid ‘baa raquo —E— = |
et 02 an twoltom off boauurn fuses oat —XRXX out . * oo
J A Wtsntate vad Yo nokgom ods bakawb sud wiage09
: r ; :
i Ri tanbasdobodt. to Yaded no bexeTRe sade —
‘asa?
waht ot te anager: 9
Te no Naov ois OF OeqGReT «£
bie twee og ot 409 Doda | “te moyen 8
_ Fett: bey erent Rs e es ato mogew ond |
‘THT oud — —— i
iat sac Salt osle south sais Jon Suna alpytia aav uog⸗a a. | 3
ot Pale betaty soontin eno * oF beseate *
tone Slicw ,Yaws 300% OOK omen eaw *—
eee Me WIR Li ah Meee eee ies aan
Aron iy
i, ha?
*234
Witness stated 2% wae 100 feet aways that it wae coming fast;
that it did net slacken ite epeed until it wae within ten feet
rae EE gy
‘ bath "
of the wagon of : |
|
On this state of the record, the court entered the
judgment somplained.o .Paintiff in error urgee on groundea for
reversal, the orree of the court in failing to diemioe it at
the clone of def ndant in errer’s exmey; and further, that the
evidence ahewed that the accident wan not due to any negligence
on its part but was due te the negligence of the railweye companys;
and urges further, thai even if it had been gudlty of aveligenue
in having ite wagon on the car track, yet this did not relieve
the railways company of liability, since the railways company
had the “last clear chance to aveid it.*
As far ae this verdict in eonesrned, s12 that the
defendant in error was required to show was that some gaat of
negligence ef the plaintiff in error sontributed te the
eolligion whereby the dumages im question were sustained. There
is evidence in the rederé from which the court wan warranted
in oonGluding that the plaintiff in arvor was guilty of neglie
genee which contstbuted te the sagcident in question. While
plaintiff in errer introduced evidence in the cose, it was of
& ¢Gharacter rather to show that the negligence on the part ef
the railways company congributed te the secident. Such evidence,
however, would not absobve it of reapomsibility for ite own
act of negligence. Being itself guilty of negligence, plaintiff
in error in ig no position te compjsin that the railways company
ghould also have teen held liable. Tne rule of law is that a
person way recover against one er o11 joint tort feasors in an
action of thie kind, ‘The defendant in error should not be called
‘ upon to suffer a reversel in this case merely because in the opine
eon of the plaintiff in errer tie court should have found the
fe
{tant yarilos Saw TE Tadd” yes sow? OOL wow sk dotode omonth
fowt nod nhitiw saw $k Lite boodu odh nexvein Sou bab 92 9 7
[. to mopar odd Yo
i Aut
aid horogee dxuao one stoop odd Yo abate abit nO > ae
701 abnvoty #8 aogu torse of Tilsaiali. D,bomiasquos —D :
ga 2k aginelds of gnitie® ak given add le sours std etawroven J
ould vectd groddiw? bea towoo eto ab dumb tob to ouose oxy
somgifyen yno of eu Jon saw inehiova off sods boworle oomebive
magnon ayewlias oct to vomeyifgen ale oF owh aaw sud diag ath so
gonegitgen to yeilwey nood dan $i Th move Joe geottiwt eegiy ona |
erpiior fon bib shit toy gxowrt tao ois MO Moy atk wet va J
edt tedy Lin ,berinonom ai tolbnov elds an ae% na
to 208 emoa faded vaw wore of bethupet aaw 0188 md dnabaoted
ode of bodadatdaop avwxe ak Wiiminky of? te voneattgon
eed? .henlstaun oxow sotfavup ah apes ote vio voctu notaries —
ss bedaartaw aaw fuwoo Ad dokew moet Sreoet ele ak eonebive ab
ekigan to yPileg aow terns a2 Peiswlele wade dant ar Lhe Ro an J
olinW .moissouy wi tnobioon odd of dagunibetuoo ip hiiw v —
* to sow ti ,euen off at eon bave boouboutnt Torke ot uania ta
*
te dung ett wo soomgiiyn oft take woda of toga 1939 *
vousbive tions .tnvhions ods 92 “bedi eAGGD ayaw Liat
7 ftwo sok Lot yl Midianogaost Bo oi evienda Fon bLvow ote ve 3
lendaſg ,sormyligen to ytlkwy Teats gat of socmegityon Yo ¢
X eyewliot od? judd alafquoo ot moldkacq om mk ok ⸗
# tad? at wal to ofux od? .oldetl biod aned ovat outa bivorte
an eek wxoua? $103 tHiot {fa to ono Sontays awvoues eat tr:
ed Jon bivode tore wk thadantod att beck aise 20
(ety 3 aa
td * ere — Snap one wh a wert
l4e - 63118
BERTON FARDER,
Pofendant in ror,
va. ERAGR TO
MUN ICTPAaL, COURT
in Error, 1 9 gr En ae 2 1 4
MR. PRESIDING JUPTICE PAN delivered the opinica of
*
%
¥. J, LAKE,
the court.
By thie writ of orror it is Sought to reverse a judg-—
ment for $71.53 in favor of defendant in error (plaintiff be-
low) sgainst plaintiff in error (defendant belew), for money
@lleged to bo dus for grocsries and meata old and delivered
Dy Plaintiff to the defendant, during June, 1905, after de~
dusting a payment of $5.00 made by defendant to Plaintiff on
August <3, 1909. The affidavit of moritu alleged by way of
defense, that the account in question had beon wiped out by
defendant's discharas in bankruptcy granted on the seventh
day of Ssteber, 1907, Plaintiff's claim having been eohed-
gied among defendant's debte in that preceeding.
| the mly question in the nso ie, vhothor at the
time of the $5.60 payment (Augwt 28, 1909) there wae an
unconditional promise by the defendant to Pay Plaintiff the
indebtedness due him priecr to the discharge in bankruptey.
There were but two witnesses in the gate - the Plaintiff
and the defendant,
The testimony of the plaintiff fairly tended to
Show that the $5.00 payment was made an acegunt of the old
indebtedness and that defendant had, at the sam tim, made
an wioonditionsl promise to pay the remainder of the indebted-
ReeS due Prior tohis discharge in bankruptey. Defendant tan ;
Ne: i
om .
+
7 . — —
err mogrene
“PeuOD AST Ox ute
porters
3
-pbut es eeraven oF igo 8 at yt roT10 te roe al a⸗ eo
~od tit gat sf) norre al dusk 0% ab te rover at Pr | "50
yorm tot . (woted # nab 0d ob) worse al Wi et ata santa
* : hevevi Lok baw bios Stam bow Hot rec 13 wt eh. od ot,
“web rete .208L corm gn nuh —E— oust or ate |
aso Beat sig ot srmbaeton yd ehen OC a} to —“
to yaw yd bogetla uivizvom to tivebitiu oT
yd duo Beate seed had noktauup at dmosoe ent ae!
dfneves ed? m hotnarg ——— mt we gat atte *
—————
ett ta seditodw et onao ond at mlifeaeup yim ot |
ie Ge are? (oes SB gee wa) tsa eg 00.4 eit *
ae 2untala yet oF Seebneted off yd ott mosq tenak ate
i. evosUtdaad ak egtredoeth ed? of vol+1q ma eb —R ‘e
| Wlgatalq ott — easo ald st Boe tently ont ud ener a
.
: etheeoorq tant nt Stdeb &* Saeboolod gnome Las
2 ’
i
=
git
* ba — ai bee el pr SCN oe noe
tified that the $4.00 was net « payuent on Badd account but
to invoke the good will of plisintiff to essist hin in 6 o-
ligiting life insurance from his (plaintiff's) orether, and
that he did not enter into any promite or agreement to Pay
the indebtedness that had already beon assenarged, |
The finding of the court for the plaintiff end
the rendition of judgment therem@ mut be taken by us a8 &
finding that an unconditiwmal pracise wai made by the de-
fendant at the time in question. Mardhall v. Tracy, 74
Tll. 378. Wo cannot Gay that auch Cinding 1i# clearly and
manifestly againet the weight of the svidenee, hones the
§uagment of the Municipal dourt of Chicago must be affirewd,
AFFIRMED,
gud trsooos Hket oo tremyeg # ton Baw 00 tt ont ‘tade
“Ot at ald tales of Ttltatalq Io {fhe hee yg ont « si .
bow yrodiord (a"ititeatela) Gta most eons ant exit | whit
YI of InoweorRs TO oulmort yaa ott tefne 2 0 bee | ,
bhoytasoeth need ybsorls had tant naonbetde , X
bie TRFalelq edt wt sweo edt Yo yokbett ost y ei
A as ww Yd modet ed taum moredt tmemgbut to nok sn a
_ eb oft yd ebam Saw obkawrg fem titbroon mae fade sail
aT gyoor? ov Lfadurey wohtoaup at aut? odd te tne ia
bas yfiselo Sf gakbot? dows tadt yee tonmmo ov ane.
edt oomed ,oomebive eft to tdphew oft tent sys vite sort
sbewrtt te od ttum OyeolAD To sus0d taat ol mM eat Yo |
oTRMAL TTA
J
a
9
vr
J
J we ‘ yh
i
5 ight J
vd ; 1 uf | j mak a
* ore “7s @. Sin & :
ee tay aa Be 95
⸗
612 e “ehgae
}
PROFLE OF THE STATE GF
ILLINCIS rel. Hettie
Zimmeraan >:
VSe x
ARTHUR RHCROR
e
\ Appell
*
MR. PRESIDING reon PAU delivered the opinien
Appellee, EAL FROM
MUNXCIPAL cQURy
Ci? CHICAGO,
198 LAY ese
ef the courte
This is a prosecution for bastardy on complaint of
Hattie Zimerman, the rolatrix herein, Thie case wae tried
twice, » first by the court and jury, and the seeond tine
before the court slone. Both terminated in « finding of
guilty, and judgment having been entered on the second finding,
the defendant hae presecuted this appeal, in urging « reversal,
defendant contends that the judgment is clearly and manifestly
ageinet the weight ef the evidence.
Yhere are two questions in the cose, Vine; (1) The
date of the firet act ef sexual intercsurne between the parties;
and (2) Was the child prematurely bern’?
| Retatrax testified that en a Seturday night, sone
time during the month of Gctober, 1914, she and one Bligabeth
; Kaiser attended a dance held at a place known ag the Lincoln
Turner Hall, in the Gity of Chicago, where they met defendant
and one Muehlke; thet some time Later the four, ds @, the
=
Ls
t
elatrix, dics Kaiser, the defendant and Wuehlke, went directly
wy
(
wear mute’ %
—2— aio
MOAT TANG 4 ‘gtelingqaA” 9°)
TOD tagzormuM |
eOOAOIHD WY
See Al 8er
* ———— ao — ‘rat — a ‘a. ana waa
point wow saan aay - —V — xii olor pelt —
* brovoa orld bam Yet bas auan md ya feud «
te gathalt —W boran lario⸗ Agee .onoLa’ ‘renee: ‘ont
, Ky
ce
asd oo ok wiet ont —— “*
pRad Som itcw ai bw, Snadie2ed, 9d a)
— amt Ki hey 4 9 3
ay , is
— he be J coh a 9 ‘eh “1 ven ees 9 + Ay : |
from there to the home of Misa Kaiser, where they romained
for Som time, during whigh pericd she (the relatrix) and
defendant had Gexual intercourse, a6 a result of wWhioh sho
Conceived; that thereafter the defendant vocam a@ frequent
visitor to her heme, and that illicit relations sent inued
intermittently until a short tine before the child waa born
(June 87, 1915), She further testified that after her first
intercourse with ga fen: dant, her feriod of monstruation
Sessed until after the child was born, aad that the child
was & full term ohild,
Defendant testified that he wet the relatriz forthe
dat hd rmrotna “thy Bona s
first time on poeta ¢ 1B14, at 4s dance,
Sey Cth oes wrt
— — mm this point cenfl ia
thet of the relatrix only aa to the date on whigh they firat
wet. ) It iG important to fix the date of the {iret mosting
between the reletrix and defendant, ins@mush ae it i9 sontended
by the relutrix thet it was at their first meeting that sexual )
intercourse took place,
The only testinony, other than that of the relatrix,
offered On her behalf, wae that of her modher, who testified
that she saw defondant in her hane during November, 1914 and
that she sew him frequently in her hanes after that time. Cor-
roborating the defendant ss to the time of the first meeting ,
were four witnesses; Arthur Rass, Elizabeth Kaiser, Harry
Tushlke , and George Throne,
Avthur Haas and George Throne beth testified that they
, net the relatrix and defendant on Deseuber 5, 1914 «at a dance
- ~‘Reld under the auspices of the De tux Athletic & Benovolont Aeon,
Al
oe
benlawet yor? ovurtw (reutaN sek to eso edt OF oted? riod
bee (zivtaler oft) ea bolroq dol dw pad wh ent? once Tod
¥
“4
oe Moldy 2o tiveey & ae ,onmootetes Lauxed hed Saobneteh aa
Seouperd # axsoad Frebnoled edd tesiworet? tad? iboviovaeg
houatinos «motteler sholfit tect base .omod red oF wedteky i
mxod Aaw DI tdo eft erotod oat? froma a Lk dom invest taretat, e
axl sod teste tad? heltiteo? tedium. 06 AGIGL ve ome), |
Hokinerdenom Yo kobwey ved gtnebacteb Ay somogratak
biiso oft tad? bee qntod wow hikde oft settle Lktay beanee,
soko wret SIR 9 ony,
eiitisot xtvdaloy oft tem ed tons Kektsieed fnebacred
— ph Teague rbd
— ate BLIGE ——— a Poh} gees *
ON pe —
— flnoo tetog atte no —— aii
turk? vert okie fo efeb eff of as Yine ai xtuloe ett 40° baat
antteom fart? off to efeb odt 28% of Someroqms at at (V2:
beh watnoo GL ti a8 dammaent ginebootek bas, xkitaler, ont noewted r
Apuxen tedt gaiteen tout thedt ts saw th gust sbutalow oa⸗ we ‘
‘
stonld dood ome oxetat
<ubraalor.od? Yo toast ood? rodto ¢yoomtdaet yIno emt 3 a
batt teed © fe Todd i ted Yo tht aay cl fadiead zed no heredto. |
bate pler toch ovbn on wih ood tod ok Seabroted wave ote wat
~109 sack? tat redte oad tos at eltooupert mbit wie ‘ofa — |
«ant toon test? oitt to ek? eit oe ae toabnoteb ‘ont ‘patveredey |
“rie oreated dtodenk iy «uel ors Ph seeaondie trot ore
“one Ta? | — 9*— ————
at the Lincoln Turner Hall, and identiffed the danga program
used on that occasion.
Rlissbeth Kaiser testified that he met defendant at
the Linsoln Turner Nell the first Seturday in Dacamber, 19143
that che and the relatrix hai gone there together unaccompan ied;
that they were introduced by Harry Muehike to the defendant, and
that they danced with them; that the four, 1.6, the rolatrix,
defendant, herself and Mushlke, left the dance hall at about 11350
PK. and rede on a Street car te Belmont and Lincoln avenues,
where the four stepped off for chep ausy, after which they all
wont to her home, arriving there about one o'clock in the morn~
ing or thereabouts, shore they spent gone idersble time in the
front parlor, the two couples sittimg m oppotite olisa, with
the room in darknesG. Mins Kaleer's teetiuony was corrcborated
by Harry Muchlke sho also identified the program and admdaoian
ticket wed «at that dance.
The relatriz did not deny that she attended the dance
given under the auspiess of the De Luxe Club; in fact, har tos-
timony is in full accord with that offered on behalf of the de-
fondant except a8 te the date on which the meeting took place.
The relatrix, moreover, iné dated that the danse at shich she
met defendant waa the only one che ever attended with him, and
that it wae on tho Game night that the first act of intere curse
took place, | oe ere aatiefiod, from all the testimmamy in the
Cake, that the dence at which the véelatrix mt the defendant
wes the me held on Deceuber 5, 1914, and that the relatriz
firet mt the defendant on December 5, 1914 and not during 9c-
tober of that year. It ie fsir to presuue, in view of the i
t
fects and circumstances in evidence, that the court in finding
j — guilty, Proseeded upon the theory that the firet | 7
‘ ve⸗ in Decender, but that the child was a seven monthat
=
<a
~he
maxpony eoorh ed petits ret Reus sf iat sect atooak.t ont ta
s snot e000: tate 20 boas
ga tosbostebh teow oft tadt belilteot tested Medsakia
yeL2L ,reduooed ak yahrvtel gaxkt ode (fell yom? clowskt eft : ‘
thol nuqmoogans tedgepo? oved? enon hed ahataflor el? baw ote ae d
4 ie tnabrotek eft 99 otldeuk yrtal ve henukoxtaa ore val⸗ todd ae
exittelor ody «tel wot oft tent pene anus beoneb vede 9 — 9
ff toda ts {had eonsh aud sof « od LitouM bas eared ctoabaoteh =
_ Banmovs mMoonkd bews rromfe ot 128 teords &® me obor bos att
{ra yout rok awe ‘othe eyoue qode 0% 20 beqyote 0% edt ovady
-myom ef? ak fneloto ane tuods oredt gatvirre somot so ot toon
——
odd mk owt? atderent ago 9 Freq 8 yet @ TOs — stuedeoredy ——
WP Pia
—
ew «Bobs a wat —2 pot tiie aelquoe owt eas soled ‘tooat
— ———— Yoon? tae i zautak ent Jauendtab ab vor on
minsinbs baw sis TOE amt bortetmobs ets © ster oka out J ve
! | .goneb seat ts bow toxat
. Bindi — 4, abil Re
eoneh ad} bebaotta ede tad? yreb ton blb phates ont
sot xref ,toet of ould ext of elt te aeobquwe ai? weber. ——
~ob oft t¢ tLeded ne horatio ⁊eela dtie bre oom “hhh mt ot Yom
— -voaly soos. aedjoom off folie ee etah edt oF a8 sqooxe. soahme®
edu dotde ta oornh ott ted? betel anh. yroveowa extiutelor eat |
bra .aks dite bubsette reve ede amo yfno edd tow tonbaotoh: tom”
serv OTeraL Io doe Paykl odd gadd MAphn emes ext np saw th tade
; ott at yoomttaot off Lia sort bot Pat fae ere oF oata wet,
tnakaeteb odd tom vixtelet ef? coldy te oomeb odd tants 20800
xixtolor edt tany. be 4ſat ef reds eoet ite phot om oat al y
-00 jakwh ton baa Der 8 roa sot v aaeb aei ob odd te tout |
oft to poly nk < Saw B07E oe ‘glad al a —* sonia 0 recor
— md too odd vada .oomabtve nk ‘eeomtucuorte bow crue
* wa ‘a
Sa ee
Pe ie BN Ce 8 tk? a ee
_—_
—
4
y
ae odd? tact? ena odd nogu beheasesed —R saabaenes
4
The question then arises whether, under the evidence
in the ¢aue, the relatrix Sustained the burden Of proof on the
Qusstigm whether or not the child waa 4 Seven months! child,
In determining that question, we must eositer not oly the
expert testineny in the ¢a66 but 4180 many ether facts and
Circumstances appearing in evidenes on the trisl below.
On the aquestion wdiether or not this was a full ters
Child, two Physicians testified for the defendant and one (Dr.
De Lee) was Golled by the court, On dSehalf of the defendant,
Dr. Regkor testified that he was im attendance at the tise the
rélatrix ead cmfined and that the child in questian was well
developed and posasseed overy apponrance of a full term child,
4.6. where the poriod of gestation coversd ning months; and
that it wat in fact a2 full term child. Dr, Hoje, who saw the
@hild within a maith efter birth, 215¢ teatified that it pre-
Sented every appearance of @ normal full term ohild, sxceptimm-
ally well developed, and in fact was a full term onild; both
deetors actting forth the facts upon which they baded their
Genel ue ions, Re, De Lea, who waa called by the court, etated
that when hs Gow the child (shich was about two monthe after
its birth) he could not tol] whether it was a full tearm or *
Seven monthea’ child; that, however, 4 ohild born within
f Seven emths might have the normal devolorment of a full term
4 Ohild, He, however, did state that that ws6 unusual and the
exception,
| Defendant insists that newt only doses the expert testi-
‘mony show that the child was not prematurely born, but that there
other facts and circumstanoss in avidence shich show clearly,
oonob t vo oft rohew , todd ody agal rp aoa⸗ ad Sou ont |
ait x0 loony IO nebwd edt hontataye — ou⸗ ‘ene, eat
biido Vedincm aeveo « bev hitdo end ton To todtede —
oft Vim ton tebl ams * ow efols soup. sade prteimrogeb af
bag @foet tedte ynem ocala dud ane edd at yout ined 9 »a⸗ *
ewolod falx? ed? oo eonebive ok pee saeqte aronst a wort
wrot (fat 2 sew ub A? Jon 10 redtode nat penio one “|
270) ono Dow Seabmateb ot 0% Betti seed anak ol ayay ow? |
\tnahoetob ef? Yo tiaded m0 twoo ett yd bef teo aaw (ood @
itt est?-od% $8 eonshavdta ‘nt daw bd tart pettbroed roxoot
ifor ee mEvaorp at DIL do ed? stadt bea beattooo asw ut E Ler
“ebikdo mrot ifet » to wane — — Xrov d os aas vog bas beqote ,
} bos udtrom ‘enki bereves mM ltesaep to bol ret one ovedy — y
| eid wee ode .oteM 7 “.b{2 do mite? {fot a toad at — cee .
Ont th fede beILde0t oefe cifutd roste Ata aw at an⸗ Lk do
emitqeoxe (bitte sot (fut Lawton a to somaseaie trove’ |
Atog (BIkdo mre? Liv? 2 ew Pork a2 Bow sboqofoven ffe
stot botad yodt dabite goqu atpst edt dtwr anbdsou om
boters treo ott yd hollen sew ote <eolt of yet / anki te |
eala add nom ord tioda saw dobdw) Dito et wan “ef mote te *
2 to wet itu’ x wow Pt yesttoitw (for tow biwo of (arads be "
mitiw avod hitdo # .revewod , toda th th do Yor? rom kai
mret (fe2 a to toamolovel Lemwa edt ove daigta meds ae *
ot? bea Lavavey sew tote tect atnge blk eteveNo d son
—* salen — —J ot “noone tonu ork © baw 4
a Noves A Gay abet teat font ate otdademtat 6
tant awe ® ylrsero ooo ott ve apes, ‘ we
pas ; wy ¢ 8 ee — tm
I¢ would Serve no wiefal purpess for ui te ast out in detail
hore the facts in the record upen which we base our ¢ mols ion.
The record shows thet Fre relatrix met other men with Miée
Kaiser during the months of Septesber, Ostobor and November,
1914, under the same aircumstimess, and repaired te the home of
Migs Kaiser, weupying the same room in the same manner a6 she
did with the defendant at the tias she olaimed the iret act
of intercourse took blaca. Thers iev'Stne avidenes in the ra-
cord that she met other mon during Septerver, Osteober and No-
veeber at othar Pplnces, whe acc Qupanisd her to her home, under
Circumstances which indteate’ she was no particular a8 te the
manner in which the met these wen or the character ef the man
thosaeives. | ’g are Satisfied, from an examination of the re-
Gord in this casa, that the finding of the court i# clearly
end manifestly againat the weight of the evidence. In arr iving
at our conclusion, we are not unmindfel of the fact thet the
Court Sitting se oourt and fury sav ond hoard the witnesses
testify and waé therefors in 4 more advantageous pos itd on te
judge of their ersdibility and wish their testimony. However,
we are genetrained to arrive at cur ¢c@mslusia by tha testimony
Of the relatrix herself, whe inaisted that the child was a full
term child and that it wes omoeived during October 1914, and
that she never at any tims notified defendant of her pregnant
“e@ondition nor oharged his with the paternity of the child until
after ite birth. Being Satisfied that the finding of the court
* Glearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence,
he judga@ent must bo reversed and the cause remanded,
Wa | REVERSED aND PrMANDED,
Bay: .
4 af . *
i -"s
\@
PTs
tw, | . =a i
i aft 7 4} i Tissier s eR iL 3 ; le
y Ab, 8 „ nt y a i i vt Ms a
Ri. ‘ ’ —J
ih
at
okie
fistet ot tuo toa oF ay rod sseqwge feteas on evTes. bf
molasinme two sasd ow dot de aoq brooet et? al edoat ott
@atu iiw oom vote tou xi awalor oP foe avode bro: J
ctocnove bee rede? ob a Todaesg eS te aAtrom odd gakws x “
J M be
to oad oft of bowleqgot bos , eoomtawornts anse off —
os Be rena omsd ot Ak moor aman ons sanyevec «rodted ae at
tow fankt sat bomkalo ecu emt? odd te foabmeteb od —9 —
267 odd ok eonobtve outs ras ered? .ocelg dood weno ora:
~oK bas radotad ee yelwh nem rodte 2 ous ene tase
stebew , cued rad ot tod Delneqae oon ode .eeonla wodto te —*
omg of ae raftwolicsg a sow ate “etaathat Sok ctw wooed
ane ‘he att to tetostedo oft mm nan ebed? tom ane dotdw at sem
4
“OT edt %o aolftsnlners se mort vbot act aa⸗ one —
yYlueato at to 0 eft 3o gothalt oft tadd ,ewao ubde mk R
patvirre of .eonebtve eff to tiytew oft tuabage yseee32 nites re
edt tad? toe? of% 20 Luihalnny fon ora ow . nok aw fone we tA
ass son? ty ef? braet bae wae yuk bas ?s4P © ee pakaake 9 *
ot wo kthsog ayoupsiooavha oyom a nk ero? ovedé —7 gue
EMW2 & wae bik do oA? Sedt hetetant oie .doored * *
baa tet redotoo ged muh bevi sono sow a bass. bas ot aco a rei
Irengery red to soahbaeleb beltiton euls yas ta coven one | si
{tte bitdoe eA? Yo Winredeg edt Mote mtd boyrede om wok a .
_ true 0 od? te yabbat? edt tent hebtak teu gnt ef *
- gtonehive edt to tigtow ext fonks ye vsveltinon baw Ais
hobaewox eavao odt bas — od foun § ta : oh
—
acuuuan OMA aaamavar — ot
ERROR TO
MUNICIPAL count
}
|
.
OY GRICAGO.
“TOST.A. 5A
MR. JUETION GOODWIN Aelivered the opinion of the court.
Se — So oe
= — a
-z —— “4 2
Ke ~ *
Thic ie an appeal frem o judement aminet
J the plaintiffs in error, hereinafter referred to as
ee the defendants, ir favor of the defoniant in error,
4 hereinafter referred to ae plaintiff, for (446. ‘There
vas avffietont evidence to sustain the pleaintitr's
Glnim that che had left with the defendant Pauline
Sohumior the aun of $206 on one oseasion, and i240
* F en @ later cocasion, that the money so depeeited had
2 been turned ever to the defendant Louis “ehurder and |
ss amet for the Joint benefit of noth, ant that only
Ba.) (4.00 ef the amount so deposited hed been returned.
be It wae admitted that (240 had been left by the plain-
| (titf with the defendant Pauline ‘ohurder nome tine
in vay, 1922, but 4t mao denied that ony portion of
‘thie came inte the hands or undor ‘the sontrol of the
Aereraent Leuls Cohurder. In regard to the latter
F — point, and in regard to the question of whether it . J
9 ‘wan $240 or §260, the trial Judge whe hoard the ease
sw ra d
wae Marten. she loft $200 with the defendant ‘i:
| | eer’ —
of Levis Sehurder, ant we
— ot the dafind
—A i y
“a
has 4 agi * ies F aM
OT MINT old
ert. JATTOTITON av
LIVAT bere UND orves
,ORARTAO eM J ee ROE
— 8 Q | *
todd ‘oats vonebhve af orads hers ‘7 a! wu
7.
exodt? +Beny wot .Vikinkale as of bovietet tes
sro arft to woleiao act hovevt leh Wrivdnon wryurn Mt ty Ma
tanken« Serom bert 2 ae —— oe ot — * A | wi
ns of borretet sof tonto! stone 2 avrtinkata dd 2 me —
torre. gh tiabeotoh ott to mova? of adeaberotat ous a)
at ratenteta ext tat auua od somobive snokorize aa Me oie
omk Lira" srabeyetoh ode délw es hed ode sods state ae
,, baRe hers Ao tasooa one a0 9089 Yo nase ott “otra oS ad
act hod tas rob om Yous edt dadt »wologooe todak ⸗* —
bets —2 etue tnabmo'ted oft of teva bord weed, " —9 9
_ hae gad dite yittod “to dP ronod dettot, edt aot beau - : am
dorrarsen mood hart bedgtaeqed oa tose ott te 00.0) 9 Ma
~nbole pdt yd Hot mood Dad OM) tadt botetuba eae. 1 Me
ant? agen tobsiio” onkigaT Seabsro tab oh gto * J
⁊o ao tarog wan oar⸗ botwob eae dh sud «tler vail ok
ond, to Londo ont seobetir au alitest od? o¢mh enag std ii
sofinl ody ot Dragan nt robo” etued saath es a 7
tt oddadw 20 maktaauy att 99 daener at bua dateg J
oasao od⸗ daaoct och on bat fairs orks 08m} 30 ose) wow enw ee: i
wi⸗atata ont 49% beso? ‘einebtve east a —
“qe? at omkt enon 3 nt bektttned oats moatata of? ‘
proved atary ov? acid quot —7* ⸗ toot stad
fantereton ont athe 90nd tot oda — | ew toa
aun —*& (robert alvet to mots aay
at? saguahay tod oft? tp, ¢tomed gute
ritaei ttooge shvabltts «trobunion @ :
“nedmosze% to inom add ak CORD ont
—
1900, and sald that {f any meney had beer leaned her
price to Aneust 1, 1909, it wae outlawed by the statute
Sf Limitations. We think the ovidenes diveloesd that
the #700 wae advanoed mrieor te Aucust 1, 100°, ani
the question therefers sriges as to when the statute
ef limitations began to run. The plaintiff we the
nother of the defendant Pauline fohurder, sho wae the
wife of the ‘efendart Leuis “ehurter.
Tt oloarly appeare from the tostineny ef the
plaintiff? that she left the money with her Ganghter
with the copress understanding that ¢oefemfants should.
use it for their om benefit, ant thet they were not te
return it unlese she necded it and asked them te 4¢ gos
the {260 loft with the defendant Pauline Sohwmier in
1 wae Left with a cimllar understanding. Apoarently
no demund wee mnie for o returns of the money until 1914,
when rlaintif? wrete defeniante, waking 2. formal ant
explicit demand for the return of the money. 4 tn
¢leariy the law of thic State that where one derecitae re
| money with ancthor with the un@erstanding thet the rer- a
pon pocoiving the came shall use it for hic om benefit, —
i; ard roturn it on demand, that thers Ie no duty or che J
Ligation resting upon the persen receiving the money
te return it until ® demand is rade, and coreccusntly |
the etatute doen not begin to run until the retum of
the noney haw beer dewanded. This hae been dscided by
our Supreme Court in Selleck y. Selleck, 107 Til. sA9,
ee im all moterial voenantny: |
oo me
‘hae Hi n
tad homeel cond thine yorvron vase ‘th tad? Diao ——
odusate od od howalsue eaw 32 PORE of taped oF tote
tant doartoeth vaandive odd antdt of sanotsadiuhl ,
LO0OL of SaunuA of tolwr Beonmvhs aaw 9095 ote ,
esutasa odd note of aa noelte etotoreds ok Saowy at 28
etd vow Yittntale of? omer od naged ano bted beth t to
ont 20W oie J— orth ius? anahetu dod ont? 20 tod Som
tatennte® atuol srabrotes ola * *
oi? Yo cnoabgans ed? sont aveotqa eineoto a.
roseiguad ‘mdf Kobe yonen etd Hime ote Sots F.
Dfuote adgewinete: dott qakhowdewbe seoeteo ond J
of fon wrew verdd ae Sas .htened ows viadd 40k Of ean a ;
con ob of mots bolas Bae St Sobean ote anolaw ot wrsee 2 a
mt robaeto’ onttoa’ froheetoh odd dziw stot cone ott —
yltersercé saatterad aroha “atixke o athe fel er fret.
shLor Ltdns yemon offs to nauges «2 tO? oham anv tacaot on
tee faerro’t. o poioles , ofnaineteb otors — — — rent
at 32 .¢onom etd 0 ivateten aitd Oot Reanemd pukilane
odtuoreh ono onortw tots ofad? atdt to wal oft yfeaete
— elt fats aathestanohen ond attw todtons dtte tenon |
«titomed aw: atd tot $2 cow fade exan ott sitvteoet ton ‘
«#9 0 vob om wt orectd Sers chewed am ob erardow tena
Yonot oft uatvtesor moaney ott aoqy paktaor mokinght
¢dreunosno0 ben yohew a! Bemmoh o Ltda ok tmeton ob
tm cautery eft Ebdon ate of atgod dom neoh odutata ont
vd Hebtook mood aad att? .bobssstoh need sad yoror ert |
«08% . LET VOL footie? · x Soot ton ak gm0o omar? “ms
eimky ,atooqeot Latregan [fe at .otew atest od dotde at
ono .hotte ease ont mi stad te oosn edt wt onods of awl
ost at Ytitrtal igiv akeod atest betisoqed beqy ant it. J
+ oft” ,btae of dotdw x2 tqtooot a ovag ‘of dtotity x02 eo 2
oe of «mofoacneon qa af oftrtw ow ‘i rand og of tal —
7/7 +s 4 4* Ane "
10 ame
aelivyered to her whenever called for.” ‘fterwarde, with
the consent of Mare. Somt, he oold the bende and weed the
money, ‘“wenty years afterwards, pr@cerdires vere hat te
rooover the walue of the bonds, and the statute of Mmita-
tions wae pleaded. The court gcd? at rare "OKs
i "It was clearly, in this eace, the arree-
a! wont of the partics that no duty te return the
4 money or the bende ehewld aries unt!) on aatual
—4— wi demand for the scane shevld be made. Under the
4 erigizal contract no astion seuld heave been waine
ted! tained by Kre. Yood for theer bonds witnovt an
; a¢tual demend; and the proofs tend to shew, ord
J— we think do shew, that the money for tho bonds
—3 . cone net payable until actually demimied. The
—9 iseion by Ero. Yood te plaintitf in error to
mu thin morey eont trated wntil the time of
(oe * death, arnt the lapee of time airme hor doath
i had not boin suffieient to bar the claim.”
the eowrt also said:
— ee: | "It may be that 44 wae then her Inten-
oe. tion and expectation that the bonds never
eb. ep ag galled for by her, but 1t le eavally
te plain that che intended to retain her rt Mite
J eall for ther if clreumetanees should '
npr that course desirable to her.” | .
4J
ae fea We thimk 4¢ de equally clear in the case at NOLS
2 ie ‘bar that the plaintiff @44 not intend to make ar abeolute
: cud but! that there wae no duty saat wpen the deforndants —
| te voturn the money Wahti che demanded it. Ae no demanf
ae wae made unti2 shortly before tne awit wae becun, the
— Stetune of Limitations bat not run. ¶ o there was eutr ·
i) . ‘Alesont evidence in the record t¢ sustain the court's *
the fudgnent must be affinred. .
dsie ,shrewiesti *.t0t Soften soveroiw ted of Sewvites ry
eds hoo has sived ed? foo of , hood -et te gramme ont
of hod otow annlbocoory ,abtewredts esaey yinen? _ “yom :
<a$inkl % odudote eat hiro yabaod edd Yo eutey adt revert
120" eneq ta Stow drv0e ed? -hebasle aon anots 4
a off .oaas atde of cx ase #r* may! J at
eit — — om — — Pe ——
Leston wn Litas oalta Bigoie a feaod on
bys ,wods Of Beet et a |
abaod aco 192 yerom Sud? 4
ot” »Dohromeh ylleuten titel eid 17 Bg
ot vorce mt ttttatalq 22 hoot -ett of te sotonh
. Se ote ald E2daw teehee Ry
Ageed dl oonts ete 20 oar — 54
oi bake ed? tad of — font ;
| thhee oaks duos od? a
— ved pid aow $8 tatt of yam rye
| soyanr abetod edt fat? sottatoeqxe bea cokd
' eflawoe at st dud .nect yt tot bollac od BL
. os pear’ Sas Auntes 9% bebaednt oda tedé ov.
0 bſwora — ——— t! aed? got J
xo o¢ vldaukash owen aa⸗
$n onao od? mt neko xttaupe at ok atebde om ae ae
etufonda na stam ot Beogist gow BLb vt⸗atat; edt gd” eed a
sinobaoteh od noc Jano xiub om aaw owodd daft “suc itty ‘ a
frromeb on a «92 bobrramet ote ttanv yontoer odd nuston of a
ants ceniged mun tera ag? ono'ted —— — — obam tan
“tim sew omndd as smart ton bed anoktestatt Yo otudate
a'tuvoo aft bed ane i$ broven ost? mt aartabive omokok? ‘
sbemrty2a of seu dmommbot, *
e OTUAISTA
} Wis p i Fu <b" ‘ J
* i ? —n——
Be *4 a tie 90 fi ait
wie —9 aa, ie. vith —* Ve ay
— 3 * PS Oe Say at 9* My wat”
i 4 4 i 4 ye mA —* pie ; 7
en See ee
—*
*
an⸗ 21191.
2 Gorpera tion, se Aw
PRROR TC
in ~
WUMTCTPAL CONT
Ve
PATRIC” CtRALLE
Piladiry
-
—— — —
CAGES »
= 98 L.A. 549
uh. SRVETICR GOcOWIN doWivered the opinion cf the court.
f '
The plaintiff in error, hervinatter referred to
sae the defendant, sve? out this writ of orrer to reverse
i : a fudymont recorercd by the defendant in error, horoin~
A , after referred to oo plaimtitr, for 790.%4, for yainta,
X ells, end vormishes, The satan wer heard before the court
ih without a fury.
! . The only somversation hat with reference te the
-« @emtract between defendant and anyone reprecentitie the
ie plaintiff. wes ever the telephone, one of plaintift's
9 witneswes testified to s conversation with defendant, in
"whieh defendant agreed thot the goods in question, which
were orfered by a painter, should be eharged to ims he
also testified that tho painter had freqvently beusht patnt
of the plaintit?, end sowetimes on credit. Defendant de-
-nhes thet such a sonverantion escurred, tut enid thet at
| an later date he hat a conversation with reference to the
f goods being lott at bia places. "eo testifies further that
thee goods were not used in any work of his, but in work
eo for the Indenemfent Brewing Cempany, the lessee -f
ce. although the painter had
—9* aAons sone werk for him pricr to that time.
ae ‘Tt appears thet the materiale in queetion were —
i —— the dofendant sprit °° and vay 9, ant that on
i ee a. ee
Oo ee J
- Ferre » &I2
LTRATHOD ACQIONYAN 6 ROVER |”
OF OREM 8 Ne — ————
THEO TJASGTO! Tou J ye bs ie F i : 7
«av
/ODADTHO ° —
TANS YORRTAT
ene he I cere * a —— —
— off 0 witatao off bevov tes txwabo0 OITA 4
—*
of horretes veftantared «torte nf Ntortat ett | oe 4
enzever oF were to tier aide suo have —E— ** *
| onkomed qaontp mt demhdeted odd et Rovevener mom kat a 7
entan tot B66) cory Mibdetate ao oF howe ter, ae
smten ad oroted Byced cov ostne of? «netiaternty Dra «alto
| vent, dort tw
ods od ronenoter dity fat nokteenpveeo yao edt
ag? oaktcovetcet exoyne dna tnadne'teb acowted tometane
atttitetat: to eso +emedqelod edt wove pow . Yhiakelq
aE ctnabrioteh tate coktsereviee a.of Dottiteer seasons hy
doidw «aokivote ot aboog edd test beara dmahae os tonto
ad amit of fhentedo of hives .tednier a yd bora tro omer
Seatac arciwod wLinoupert hat todmtaq ond tad? hokttteet oats
-oh tnabtoto’l ethos mo aantionon baa ,Phtintal¢ edd to
$o tails Sten gat . bernince cok samrern09 B down sodt aolts .
sit of oorenetor Goly molinatevmeo 4 Sad od ofeb wogal a
gals vocsrut aoltigaat of .eoaly wld go Sef gated aboag
tow at tod .atel to saaw yore ek boow don ovew eboog engl?
> ooonel ocd « of axtwor! gvohmecohal acts 0% —
had tedeked odd dguodtia .atd yt bokqvoce aeatowrq ott |
vomts tarts of water mid wR stor exe enob J
‘ tow noktacup of alstretan ed} sade exwoqqa #1 |
no jadt Sere 4S Ya Bam OF Lbaqa smaheah OAt MERU GENS,
On Bhar sef meade tot [itd » hovloovet tmabroted taf oma
hovioons of dmomesatw Lao odd eaw St -datd 18t of mobtwesse tig
btwn .ot oo — —— boatvhs one At tat tes a
— y
ia Toned
wn
- -
was broucht “ovember 19 of the sane year.
Counsel for doferiant elaim, im «fect, thet
ao thers wae ene witnese tentifying Gpon one side, art
ancther witness testifying direetly te the contrary, there
was mo prorondorance of the evidence. “hic wight well he
so if the question of the prependerance ef the evidenee
Aeremiod solely upon the number of witmecses, but 4¢ hae
been repestedly held thot it does net. “oreever, whtle
the fact that whom a 6111 war ecnt defendant for the roode
delivered at ané weed to dooorate his place of burtnens
he 41d not repudiate any Liability. cipht net in itself
be auffiefent te warrant the inferenss that he admitted
responsibility for the 411. vet, that fact fe « ¢ireum
starce whieh the court had « richt te take inte considera
tien in deterwining the qwestior of the prepenteranes ef
the evidence. Ag there ven. ouffietant evidence te support
the finding of the court, the fudpment must be affirmed.
APPIRUED «
——
ee
\rnoy eran edt "to OF ctedmewell 4
dart gtootre mt qmtalo frodmo'te ro% torcuod
fra ,ebta one sony astxt av⸗ anode one wm ie
otadd .yrextinos off oF eitoonth datertaass aeong tw sett .
o¢ tton srint: otst” soompbtve ett soasrabaoront et «
oonedlye wit to ootershaoyery mts ‘to antsaoup “te ;
aad St Sif yooarcnttw Yo secur ods moqu veto d To
ot beter rtovaare" . toot anol $t ftoctt Lot wEBe
chaos od? tot dratmoted som saw Ihtd » mode tats Som
duomttawd to goel7 atd eterooeh of hoa baw te Borys
Meadt at Yon sithts .yIEDtatt ys etabbuqwn don
hotatoba of tnd oxmoretat edt Smart of de
«miprto » wt Soar dadt ,dor™ ttr⸗ ott wot w rie
are odnt ettad of. —8 a den wer ote fata 0 ‘oi
yEMALTTA * ie tant
Mt a ti
i A vices!
J——
athe eee
aL
J 4
Jl
PEG « 21°87.
VADRTOE 3323 19 8 I.A. 5 5 O
vo. WOMICIPAL COUNT
TVELYN MEYER, ) OF CHICAGG.
Plaintt }
MRs JUSTICH GOODWIN delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintifr in error, hereinafter referred
te as defendant, prosesutes this erit of orrer to reverse
a fadgront ageinst her, entered in the “wnietral Court in
faver of the defondint in error, hereinafter referred to
ap plaintiff, for architest's foor for services alleged
to have been performed by the risintiffr ot defeondant' a
request. The defeniunt's huebend, who, umier eeotion 5
ef chapter 51 of the Tllimoie Revived “tatutes, was a
competent witnors in thie cause, was galled a « witness
in her behalf. Upon quoctions beine rut to the witness,
the court custalmed em objection. “hat cecurred thereupon
io recited in the record as follows: |
"iy. Moses? ALL right. “o offer te prove
| by the witness ~ The Court: You won't offer to prove
4 anything by the witmoscs. “©. “Moment « the substance of
J mat hae been testified. The Court: Bo, no. Mr. Nosesr .
That the testimony mentioned in the proof - The Court:
‘ait 0 mimte, don't start in on that at oll, eal) your
hort Witness. Yr. Noses: I have no other witness. Mr.
‘Gatlint No evidense of agency on behalf of the musbant,
yond abeand tr. Memest ALL I want te do is te
“ave my reser’ {f your ener please. Your Senor will at —
lea st give me the privilege cf saving my record. The |
i) urtt No, i would not let you do it on thie record.
— r+ ewes: May I write it out at tome other tine, the
Ofte to prove? she Court: You won't prove anventing
— al 4d — aie ——— ek) 7
DGG ALT 8 Qk | Nowe at onipeomea’ OM
TRUOD JATTOLMON |
»OOKOTKO YH
«dute9 of? to ttolntao edt devertiod ameaope — —
boristor vottantored ao ah Yihintsta et?
owtover o¢ more &o der alte aotvoenor —E aus ‘ot
mk dave Las te tet: ode mt porodae ato taciega trom tart, a
od horre'ton codon ornedt eromna nk gn obevoteb att 0 stove
bogota acotrros to? aco ot dont Morus 19% Ni⸗atat⸗ aa
n draberotob do tignbale ants ed hoarrot19¢ —XR owed of
8 moktosn telens —R buadeunt eV srstroted orf? ·⸗aouve
& now snags i.ag” houtvet otomttey ote * mn nodqudto to
agent o en batlLao sew —E atdt ak —E trvtoqzoe P
stinertiy ectt of dug anted awotgsoiy mes — » tasted tod et
mauertots ‘bomen ad mottoctde fei oma dati suds, art
rawolfo® aa brooot ont wk
ever: o¢ twt¥o of teigtes LA teen ai a
every ot reTto snow uo’ ticu09 edt ~ anomie ont vd
to eormatadue off + reond!” * —— ott wd aataova
— i — —— — rueh ott sbolttenes mood wat toda :
tsrued ot = Yoong ond ak Sowmkivex yromktaot oct tat?
moy (fan ffs ta tatd mo nt Suet te0d codumctn 0 Sha"
i .enend te aedto om ovact t — snaorttiw oxen
— ot 0 Recodo Yonah 20 eomeblve ot HnRbtad ye
nd at of OF dum T tk vos! sat toosq aad siete a
ds tite swore! mor YY sbasoly ‘nonoit soy %2 Shoes ye eae r
“ot? Drove qa gittvan to enotiviaa ott ait ovby *
‘ ¢ i 4
#45 mt an n'y J 5
‘i | {manor ald mo $f ob voy Sat Soot bkvew.1 gen een
odd ,ort? tedso enoo da jue 22 Cd 1 ya J — J—
ve zataareia oxoug ttao YoY —»— rawone of io
| toe exe remnted for 6 new trial,
nied a)
this wlinees a$ all. This ie the husbard of the defond-
ant. Hx. Mewest That ie your Soner's roling; | ovbrit
that ruling is not correct and { want to make a record
from + The Court: { will stend om the puling. ‘here
won't be anything fror this witnoss. You won't offer to
prove anything. ir. “oses: T only wart to make an offer
to preserve my record for the - The Court: Don't waste
any time on it. Ur. “oseat - Appellate Court if your
ener please. The Court: Ali plight. You have got
another chance with the Appeliate Court. “rr. “ospe:
T know, tut for the purposes cf saving the record in the
Appellate Court « The Court: “ave you anrthing further?
ty. Mosest I want to make an offer, that thic witness
will -« ‘The Court: The witness will. rot testify to any-
thing. ‘the witness is objected to and the objection ip
guateained, on the ground that the witness is the huebeard
of the defertant. (Sxeeption.) Mr. loses: I understand.
the Camt: That is ali there ie to it. Me. Mosemt All
I want to do ie to save my record here by telling your
foner what the witness would teatify to. “he Court:
I 4@on't wont te Imow what he will testify. “%. “‘osest
So the Aprollate Court, when it mote te the Aprelilate
Court will know what 1 expected te prove by this witness.
the Court: They will never tmow that way. (‘xcertion.)*
XKMKXKAKAKKAX X AK KAAAKXAKAAKAAK AK AAKAAK KAKA
Souncel's.
eontention that the defendant's cffer was but to prove
what the defendart herself had olready testified to, is
without merit. Defendant's counsel was entitled to have —
an opportunity to make hie ¢ffer fully, amd thie was @
him. Yer thie reason, the fudnont must be reversed ant
d
~froteh oft to Bendaudt ot of aldT «fle te onenthe ofdt
dindie © tanmkiut e'onet awoy af gad? tageoi «ail =|. dna
bxooer 2 ofan Of draw I Bae dowrioo font al athlon sade
ortect’” saokiue att no Deete Lftw I reed ef? < mogt
of setto #'’cow woY .oacndiw alas uett gokiddvues of "mow
T9%%O a ohom ot dvaw foo I teseo .ei | +gakdiyas eyvetq
edase s'xol rite? oft = add rot brooet wr evaseget of
etiay 2t due otalleggs - taeec! x 4ét mm ont wen
tom ovad coY .tiyta ££A tomes od? =. onaoly —
— 8— to do? etaltogqs edd atv oenmdo sedsoms
et? ot Bxooet odd gttivas to eaoqmg ed aot god ywont T
Prodiwt ative voy ovnl! tfaued ed? + dnmd oFalLogeas
nnorsiw oft tad? .s9to as efax ot dnew T taenoll «it
mite of Ytttaed tor {ftw aoongiw ed? roa oft + ffhy me " :
at nobtootdo off fem of Bodootde at vaondtin ed? «guide 7 |
teow? od? at anantiw ot tet favo ort mo Renfetemm
feetavober { taeno! «tt (.noltqoext) - dnoferatal ode x
CfA tooo’ .2! sk of of wreds? Ife at dad? tga0ed eit
oe nalilod vd oved Brooot yo eves of at ob of damm I
r#meo off +0¢ ytiseod Aivow ematiy edd dace Toner
tnomol’ 1 «oytttaad ftw ort duchy wordt of grew ¢'nod T
etallorqs aff? of atog St coctw eftwod odalkeqqa of? 03
sanondiw atest yd evowy of bedogowre I date wort Ifkw ded
"(.coksroox'!) .¢sw sould worn! rower ftw edt tdemmd ont?
evenq of dud amw teTIo at deat toh arts —
at .od holttiues ySeetlo bart tLoated smabroteh, ant sate
ovat of hofstiae aaw foamsoo a! tmabroked -thvem tuodgtw —
sEugoh now atts boas LLIN oY alt orton oF YPEeosoqTo mA
as bowsever of tutm Seromp but edd procses abit wot alll
IDA OCLEERG, a minor, by
JACCR OSBEAG, her next frie
Appelleg, APPTAY PROM
SUPERIOR coUurT,
wren —— COMPANY, eoor covrry,
198 IA, S59
WRe JUBTICR GOCDe delivered the eririon of the court,
thts appenl wae taken from a fudement against
the appellant, hereinafter referred to ae defendant,
for $5,000 recovered by appelles, hereinafter referred
to ae plaintiff, for personal iniuriecs alleged to have
been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The
éeclaration oricinaliy consioted of six counts, but
prier to the trial, om motion of plaintiff's attorneys,
4% wos amended by Alomlering the 4th, Sth, and ¢th.
The firet count allered, in general terse, that the
deferdant carelesaly and neglirently drove ite auto-
mneobile truck, am! in soncoquence the plaintiff was
struek and run over: the second count charged that. the
defendant carelessly and negligently drove the truck hy
at a high, dangerous and excossive rate of speed, to-
wit, 40 wiles an hour; while the third count charged
that the defendant failed te ring the bell or seunt
the horn with which the truck wae equipped, or other-
wise to warn the plaintiff of the danger.
. The ovidonee Aisslomsd that a chauffeur and
momen raed, 0"
ravo NOLAND
—D 00.
far68m ont %d golnkao * bovovifo® G00 apenas ae
it's derow but a mott meted naw Laaqqa aia
cdnaberotob eo of herteter toetanlered fost Loqne og
herrreter “odtantore:t .vellerge yt herwvoped 000,84 we
‘evant of Benotls oe bettst od Laneover X At as of
ad sdoaberotes estt Yo oonren Rip of mie yd »a auas rood J
‘gud ,»atemee xo Yo hotetasmra eiLentn bo ne tiscatood —J J J
-syowmdts o' tat satel 2 molten mo takes ods ot vata | i
Af i trea etd ae ord vmtuatnans td ‘baboon: oom gh
‘oft dott . erred Laetemes at «hom Lk treo. toate, , ae
“osu eth. evort yldmrog d tn oet bere yiavetonsa. deatretied
ane Ytkintola ods oowoMpeRAee rod See towne wl keer
ems doit honsitte gooey haope ott. Lwevo curt: “foe spurt
wound off avoth elation Lis or bere ‘ylano forme saber reh
<ot ,hacde to eter oviasonxe bee sponsyrah: vita a ta
— honererto Senso Naked ott oftnte yemvedt ia aut tu atte
fron te trod ant gate ot bol te? ‘drahensed sat testt
mdetio 0 abeachane new towed wdt na tate ovat oie
‘temtnh add to Vton tat mi octane ot Bast
‘fas qe Ytwata 4 darks bonofoath genohtys adh’,
* Qetv ich ou — D —— ond ~~ oie ont ae. glad
tuodn dtbw babmot x whheenr er ‘bn. tute witha toi Se ———
ads Anata —D—— eftedaer a nt Sagi: hs) end ov
onto ers aerate wth soos agmtson ‘to BEG Wren i
abe bad sorctw .taee horevos v doe wt at hoagon enoe wal We ,
saebdta edt ta neyo tod toot hea tne antes hes 9 oe
Tee
—
—
ii
girl ran ovt from in front of the herse attached to the ;
he slowed dewh te eight wiles an hour. je we —
iv} a
Hea CF
Tite
aid that he did not see the little eivl until after
i
{
The back curtain had holes covered with celluloid about \
twelve inehes scusre, but there war no tentimeny ag to
how the front curtain wae constructed.
The true? entered Tastings etre»? at Loomis ~
etreet, in the vicinity of Laflin street: on the nerth
side ef Hastings etreet, a SCermar band wae riaying»
and there were children runing abewt in the street.
About seventy-five fost from Laflin streot, the plain-e
tiff, a little girl about four roars of are, ran out
inte the street arm! was struck ant run over by the
truck. As o reoault. it became no¢covsary to anputate
her left arm about three inches from the shoulder.
The testineny of #13 the tltnéases substantially
agresa in regard tc the phys! sak condi tion of the
street and the prosencs of the children im the vieinity,
but there wan o confliet in regard te the tate of opecd
at which the truck was coing, arid the question of |
whether there wore wagons and « Dugsy slere the north .
wide of Maetinge street near the ourbstene.
The chanffeur's teetimeny war to the efent —
that there were two ragens and oa bugey?, the littie ri
4
bugey: she was about el cht feet from hir when he saw 5
her: he used the emergency ant foot brakes, ant aid
all he could te stor the car; he covld make an omerreney
atop in about twonty feet; che vac about ten feet behind
the cer whon it stopped; his helper was blowing the ne
whistle; when he ontered Hactings street ho vas going —
about twelve at aes an hour. but before the aceidont ee
—99
voted by the testimony of hie helper, who, however,
fle
Jods btofullon dtiw hovevoo wofod had alatwere toad aft
of ea yrontteot on naw eros tud ,otampa sorted! eviews
sbetowrstaneo sew oleisia Soest — wod
weimood te syonta agnided? Sony ayo Aouas erft
feror oft no téeexts wiita!d to ytiakotw anf at , sowtde
polyester ae Iead vane. 2 .deetde agnttaati * obta. ,
sdoorta ott mt uote atttarss sothiide omw onredd fess td
wnmtsia off ,toerta mifte! nowt soot ovtt-ysmeven duods
due ret .o98 to w2eoy “nro geda fake efddtl w tht
att ve Tove cue Xa Youria cow bos feotde * odnk
—XRE of vansacoed ommoed $f ,Sfuact a as - Kowr3
stohivorts wile J gorlarrt ownts tvoda wa stot tod
ctat aastoun sonnsid tw oa fie Yo yrduttoaed oft
end 0 mots tte favlecide 6 eit of Peraen mt ——
Jimtoty ont at mexbfide aft to eomeaen oft hows towne
wegn to otat oft of Beanet nk Jolie a aay orteut? ged
3 eottaorrp etd va «qatar now towns onlt diptety to
fdton ost gaot⸗ vad u » bee amegew eter errors sedtdecte
-ootadtte oft seum teense anek ion! to obin
| * da07?o edd had * tromktcod oF no Yuta at?
—9 ot⸗⸗tt ontd iene! 4 bes anoyew ows engin oneds tart
«tt of hortontts oot ota to snort mi movt gud aot fats
was od mode nts sor? deo? tints $1eds saw ede iasee
bth tera .sedaxd toot Nevis qoneprem ott Soar xf ted
monte ra eax bfuoo ed ase oct cojm o¢ Bkwoo ert tLe
iifed tost med Juoda saw ede ticet yinow? deda mt qodu
ott antwold ome sofort atel tReqqota $2 mow xao oft
anton av of toorte ogmtinet heremo edt meutw tofietdw .
“frobhoos ond oroted tut qwot an eokte ovkowt smote
odorroo naw o” rusel mm sefte digte of Awod Bewole od
* sevewed .odw .tortet alt to wnointiaoe ont yd betet
tot te fitter forks extant elt aoa don * od sade vera
the socident. Me was sise correbersated’ by a policeman,
whe oaid thet the touck wae soing at a elow rate of
speed, anid that there was a large cromd of little chil-
dren runmmine ⸗⸗ the etreet to hear the band.
The — itein, for the plaintiff, tooetitied
that there were no warone or bugey near the place ef the
eecident: the little girl was about ten feet from the
ourbetone when che was etrvel: ho dia net hear any horn
or belly; there was a bam! playing on the other side ot
the stroet.
Alice Pughhols saw the aceldent from a window:
eaid the ear wae going ten or twelve miles an hour: there
were mo burgice cr vehicles along the north ofde of the
street; the truck ran about fifteen or twenty fert beyond
the place of the scefident. er testinony was gorroberated
by that of one ‘effman.
| Couneel for defeniant contends that the evidence
Aid not establish any negligence on its part. “he un-
Ai sruted evidence chewed the cross weicht ef the leaded
trusk was about nine and one-half tons,/ant ite momentum
wag, of course, the product of ite mage by ite veloeity.
The latter factor ta in dispute, ni] plaintirets witnesses
ony 1% wae going from ten to twelve miles an hour. while ‘
—s @efendant's say it was going fron seven te eight wiles a
an hour. All agrees, however, thet there were many Little —
ss @htRaren dn the street in the vicinity of the truck,
—* attracted by the playing of « band.\[ the speed at which
& trupk or cther vehicle may be driven without merit om 0
rust dopent in cach instance upon the fasts and otreume a
* stances of the ease. Aa there was, in thie ease, a on
¢ a rꝛaoi in the evidence, and as the question of whether t
4 —J— J
onl
«sanmmokfor a xd hetenoderto onin ssw of + srobkoes onft
to otas wola « te yatoy sow Morr ed@ Sodd bhaa ode
ids at⸗⸗1 to brord optal.a saw ona s sant thon bower |
beast od? ‘sa vet e# sootia ody a @ waters mor
helttien? .Vttsntale ef? vo% ntoze we ot?
Mis te enate ond nen YaZed to UMOZeW ON OTOW ered? sald
ad? mort foot mot stOd_ wow Ighy ofttht ond ‘dehtoon -
masd ton ened don bth et towne caw ede sede eaotedzua
Yo ebte tatto eft mo antvate baad a aow omer ¢Llod 0
-Soetta oxi?
“probed # cov? trobloss edt van skoddovt eolfA
reds sawort ma wetter, ovtews ~~ mod anton ane tao edt bisa
any ‘to shia dito od? yools neloleigvy to aekggad on —
vro toot vxnev⸗ ⁊o mood? iuods mat toute ods teeorta
lerogonroo sey ymoutsaot reli .anobtooe aft to goats odd
+ MamTFOl gee ‘ho * wd
porrohive. oft, bast, aheis acroo dnetsto%eh w% feemo>)
ol ad? mo aqeton d taon utes dakidugan ton fab
babaot edt to sfatew aaoty ott Doworte vomo hye Dodmre th
mero ait dan | mand “hal-one he J sued wow toned
Utleofev att xd ae⸗w ast to audor odd ———— * Slated
banonrd iw startiekate a [as pita ok nt 0d oa? nosins, ad?
— od sm alter sviow! of mod — nates saw tt wa
_aetin tints of weved moet naton oom ot Yom a! trabeoteb
Peskl ynas etew etadt Stadt erevewod —R ifs cost 8
Aoirat ott to yetmtoty edt at. tounta ott mE ceBE ito
folie t2 hoor — —
onion bt ont tetas! tw nevigh, oft (ax olatde ‘tod to. J eens ⸗
—worto bee atest es mod eonas ast dome at tmogeb aue
wme a ,oang aidt mt ,oaw ateds ah vom: — to * t
AY sodtocte to nektaody att am has Mny ish it mk gon
t0I0b one to ono UtoqOT saw ImUR Ahem Baw
ih wodte’ cebieae eee he setegiil ial J
~
Pena
careful reading of the evi‘'ores as abetructed, to eay
that the verlict war againet the ¢lear reient of the
evidengs. we cannot cet it acide 4
hefergant next contends thet the fmwy should
have been Instructed es to the 41emieeal of the lact
three counts. A genelueive anever to thet contention
te that no such instruetion was asked, snt that the
deciaration as it exieted ot the time of the trial,
consisted «of three counts omly. In this eave senneo-
tion defendant insists it oe error to eay im an ine
atrugtion, “If the (efendant garelessly and neeligently
Grove the suwto-trugk ae charged in the declaration,"
that they whowl’ find the defendant gulity, inelating
that thie permitted the jury te find the defendant sulity
on a count which hed been dierianed. | up Owprene Court
hae expresaly held that eueh an instrustion Le prener
if there ic evidence sustaining any count tn the deelara-
tien, even though there be other counte whieh are de-
fective or are net sustained by the evidence. (Chicago
City By O- vy» Foster, [Ff TIL. 2M: | “ehlauter ¥-
Ghiguge & Seuther® “rection Company, SS" T11. 164.)
Meroover, the declaration referred to woe the declaration
an it existed at the time of ‘ne trial.
One of tis
Defemiant aontends that ,the tmetructions #Hesay
dheetidtt Le ortoneeus Tyee allows 2 resovery “for all
demages, present and future, if ony, which trom the ovl=
dense can be treated ae 2 nesesnary ani direst result *
the injury complained of." Clearly, however, the phrase
"ean be treated as” is a limiting ant omlifying phraee,
ami Limite the damages to theese that ean be treated as
& necessary and direet result cf the injury commlained —
t
une of (dotoottedn aa vond live otf to gakheot Lvtomo
off Yo tintew umfo ect tankaya seo tobirev ons fait
[.eBfun $2 fon tomene ov ,oamoblive
fitemete eat ott sand obrregroe dxen Jnntereted
goat off Yo Emantmeth aft of an batowssant mood ovat .
cotdwaiaoe fact of tewane ovtuyLotiog 4 . xémob eomt?
odd tads fra . betas new aot touted ctotte oem tote ot
_tnbed oct ‘to ents off da Begala t2 aa eotdanatoed
=perrrog eee ebrtt at .¢fce atmueo sends to bode tanos
ent ne mt toe of tOtTe new oF agetamt gnabosteh nots
eLdmontinon Sa yLaselonas txabaote> ode Sh" ,moldownen
* notterafooh odd mt hantade a6 townt-ofwe odd wyexb
‘gebintont .xsituy detabrotod astt Bett oLvodia yous dadd
v
ohare tadbavtob out Barr of wot et Bodttwseg abd? tet?
$x energy i tO 6. bometuath mood Bad detde seme a ro
‘merorg at nottorrtan? se tose Sorlt hod yluaotexe andl
anfood etd nt Saude ute aniebegaue emrobive wt wade tt
-oh on cote otaves tedio ed érect? tqueds acve «mete
oyectdd) cemebkvs ott yo hocithanen tom ote 26 eviton?
‘Y ct tes Eat” pant net ‘Ooo deol wy 629 xh yan
(cept Inn nat — § enaptto
Rearat ooh ect? saw ot bowtetor soktsrelooh edt —
Ea at ot) %ovomts As te hosabeo $f aa
i to erro
ma a rooamtant ‘oat, date” — —
fis ror" raevooun # avells Pepsin —53 ————
tye etd wort dolce yen Th qoriet Bie tnoawiy” ~aégameb
ty #fueot Sound ra yranmennir 2 ‘oe beahwsd of sme eerie
parse odd provewol cytrnats Ro honkatenne eorhat oft
enate antytifuare few gatelmkt a et *as hednend of sao”
* ap nd tag tadd ovcst 64 wogamad ond adin tl haa
— — ‘onte "to ——
hal ee BT
* ery
— beoauee “it purports to tell the jury whet they
*
or» ae Gintinewl shed Cran: inmagee which right be the
indiyeet soneouverss thereet. “he evalification wae
proper, ard favorable te the (efer lant.
Qmitioiom that the ineatruction thet 1f the fury
believe “that any witness hae wilfully ard imoewingly
eworn falsely to any material olerent in thie case, then
they have a richt tc rejeot the entire tertivrony of this —
witness, exaert in there matters, if any there be, where
hie or her testimony ie corroborated by cther oradible
evidense or by feats and ofreummtances erpearine in the |
gase," on the crounml that 4% doen net leave the fury free
to rejest it in ite entirety, 1s not well fownded. The
inatrustion ic one thal io cometentiy civon, end han al-~ |
meat wniversally been approved. oreover. ve think it |
ie net subject even te a teebmion] oriticles, for while
the jury have the right utterly to reject the oneerreberst
edt tentimeny of © witness whe ban testified falsely in | }
reram te a material matter withaut weighing or conelder- |
ing it, it ham, we believe, nro priest te rejeet hie ——
mony upon a point where be haa been corroberated, a1 —
they have, of cewuree, the right, after weishing it, te —
gay that in view of the fealeity ef his testimony on ,
ancther point, tt in entitled to no weight or credence:
there is an sbvious difference between rejecting ant re-
fusing to consider at 11 the uncorreberatet tectimony
ef o witness who hac ewornm falcely in regard to « mater4
point, ant ite right, after consideration of hin oc ,
rated toatimeny, to say that, in view ef the faet that .
he had evorn falesly, they 4o not sive it veight or or
dence.
Counec] fer the defentant oriticise an
| tne tot snatartion in coterie on wie oe
—
ed of diate Motsw sogamed aot? Doda tagehseth.ee «BQ
cow crotsaytatiaup of . «Tested? aometpeatoe toonttert .
? -Sualere'ted oft OF oldateval ina etOqOny
ane ats th godt potiowmant edt fats motekebead |
yfgrtwort fern yLtetliw sad avendiw ome dade” avatled
ons young olds mt deouake latved¢an yaa. od qloalat mtowa.
tt 2 cnoskteed exttm add goepat ot tate a ovad yodh,
steoctiy 4 cxf eat? Ye Tl, .awvetian eaadty ak — », BOR Bw. Pa EY %
— sadt> wt Deseroderrio af ynomtiesd red te mh ey
oft wt anttvanqes aoenatanerko bea etost ed mo senebive - :
st cork aft ovaol ton coob JE tat? Inwor, ed? ao “ponen:
od? poker Low tom. at tomlin eft ak tt seoton oF
fe and hors provin yldeotenon at tats agg of moktqwetenk::
ft Matas ay .aemote! .bevoaqqa seed yf Lawyeviaw .teom . -
efidw an’. ermtolsian Lactedoos a o¢.seve Sooteye tom af
edorroon: oS tooker ot winustin tty ht acid oved emut wat |
nit vLeaie? bokthsead sed ody nepate 6 te. eromkiasy be
eh tanos 19 atidytow duodtiw settan iatueden « of beg ors
duet ald toctert of dinty om govellad ow. amt @240h gah
pAtle » dosatodori-» oad sek oe auutlat tet hoa noe ee ,
of «dt antiytow wettu <digde odd, poem 29 caval orth
AO ywomttaut atd to wheter ad? 20 webv mk feels yen
taomotens ‘To sty tow of Ot boftfews at Ff ebetog tector: «
ot boa anktosten seowled comune ttif avetvde. am at ones
Uromtions heseraderwsan ott fe de mohtenee od pekau'h .
aoten @ of haagen mt yiealea? wows pad ose aeoertie a to |
dowias ald % sobtetob tana. cette <tiyts ast hme tated.
‘fost ton) off ta. woly at ated? an of. -yromttens Redon ©
ono to figtew #2 ovin tom.ob ods «ykeaLet omrowe a
Homisant na oetotstre Inahewkeh oct oR. foeaweo Oye’ 1
Bivora yous tortw vast odd fed of —
at ebta Adtein no gulnbrieteh st coktexehtames ofmk ofee
set — —
the preronderarce of the evidence, avi refors to the nume
ver of witnesror textifying, without referenge to the
number of witnesres testifying for or arainet the vartous
ecntested prepositions im the eags.” Just what mooning
the Jury ceuld have attached to the otatement that they
were to take into concideration the mumber of witneasen
testifying, unless they urelerstee’ if an meaning the num
ber of witnesses testifying on one afde or the other om a
4isruted question, covmsel does net roint out. We think
the criticism of this instruction and likewise the —
isa of the other lnsirustions are T12hout erst il
Defendant alee conter’s that the fury shewld hevo
boon inweirustet that “ff the ohtid wan in front of the
autemebile en msidenly that the driver had ne metice of
—J
any danger,” ete., then the
instruetion was clearly bad, for it, in etfeet, limited
gamnet recever,. he
the question of the driver's care to She very moment pre-
seding the sseident, am! Leaver owt of view the question
of whether the aceldent was the weet of ough negli cent
@riving ao made £t inpossibl: for the éeferndant's chauffeur
to aveld the accident after he saw the child.
Deferdtant * s witness Pyoet, & oarponter, was per~—
mitted to tertify in recam!’ to some measuremente he had
made im connection with the bullding in whtoh the witness
Bughhels wae at the time of the xeeident. ‘e was then
aeked, “New trem the point that you steed bencath thet q
window the fourth wintow on imflin street. on the ceuth-—
east corner, ant leoking tovard — in the @irestion of the
_ @lestrie Light pele northwest, will yeu toll the jury
| ‘iat dart of the prontoes om tho suuthvest corner vere
54
eon of? of ove'tes fon .oonehtve an? to eanetebwoqedq of?
eng of ooctevetot fvodsiy «anktitises ososondiy to ted
avotyay oft ganfena 10 s0% nakyttdacd seeaendsin ‘to teetou |
_ grieoem dete faut, ".ceno off ot asoktteoqent hodaedeme
yods Jods tremetage oft 69 pedestta over bisa yaork adit
ueumontiw to tedium oft coltavebfanreg cist ortnd of ore
as.
oS
a
-mim wd? gutnnew ae $f ootershay yodt aaoLet -aatytitees 0 -
a m6 toddo ett to obfe emo mo galyrttans noasont in to sed. - a
Unidt oY .d1o fated ton eaoh Leamtoo ,.wohicoup hetuqakld
pi fea’, ons calwoxtl s notsoursent eid to wer ote Emo, oot
ere gs
—
4 —
—— — F
a, So.
—— Peete ont 0 mato
ovat Sivede wet edd tet eleesoon onl —— ⸗
edt to daort mt mat bitte off TR" sade hesewrtsemh moet e
‘to eolton om had tevi<b * ted? yLoobtani oe elidowos im —
Pre arotictw c *
eo
tttdotel a
of’? «stevooe: fonnas “add mete code “qttoqean vate . F
— mt «tt mt bad vinesle aaw woksemrzant ae
ety Seams wry od? of otas oe tevith ont to moksaotsp. ont? 9—
sohiacyn edd velty te auo wovand fece ydrtebloos one antbos
Srv tfeeor dom to $iveat oft new tmobtoos ess stectd act te
eYimuto ot tzstrotes ott wot oLetewaqsh t. obam as getty tent
. Biko odd wen ot —J jnohteee odd hhova of
“fog anv ,.tosmoriae 2 .fvoxe! anentiy o* dnphnetel
hort ott adnomomenes ante of Mamet mt YRttaed of dedi tm
maemthe off doltdw mt aerkpftud edt teiw moltoenmtos mt ohas — |
add asv of «6. trebtooa eit to omtt edd ta acw xferdont
dads ddacnot hoota voy Sartd gottog od? mow? wer" ghodlaa
—— ort oo .doerde atitet ao wobrlw Adraso't, ott woberbw
of? Yo nolsoert
wet od Ifod way Lille «deewdiaom ofeq tty ht obxdsefo
orev toroo taowttuon of? me seoknesy aig to suaq tarhe
ats of nottootdo aod! "Témtoq sad? sox? uog 09 ofdtaty
overt of duor I* . Blam Learwoo «dentadawa aorarev⸗
J
wo"?
by thie witmecs thot from a point 4irectiy bonowth that
wiridew, looking in that dire: tom that ne part of the
gi¢ewnlk in front of the tutcher chop io viethle from
that plage, and I believe that fa the only way that oan
‘be proven." leferdant van permitted to shew the phystenl
facts in connection with the lsention, and the court ine
Gieate! that ne Lint tation would be put upon the soope
c of teatimeny offersé for tmt purporce. "os do not think |
the eourt corp) Tnacctenatee the imeviry to whet cas
“visible” to « witness at « certain point, partievlarly
when that point. was mot the point (row which the secident,
wae viewed, The question of whether there wae anrthing
to ohstrust the view between the window frer whitch the
witnoes axe the accident, and the place of the acoident
or geome other place, ceumadl did not shoose te ask, al~
though such an fnewhry would have neem entirely within
the scope of the court's ruling, “oe do net think the (
court abused tte ateeretion in Lintting the agepe of
tho examination to the physioal facta. —
As we, find no reversible. error .in, the. record, h
the judgment must be affirmed.
Pa) avn ; APPTANED .
by I ' ;
Ne he ae 2 ; dibs ht
— hl aw“ Aa —— , ie oy le re
be ‘ J J 9 9 Ae)
4 { = i Mi
{ lt.
‘ tae tls
‘ane Aaa
™ the , J @ . Milt
; 4 ay
J a F —9 J 9
— 9
4
J—
J Jil © | '
’ — * bs ae
we — — — Pu)
7
>, ‘ * 4 J
tats Vistdorkd Into a mort. dats aunt ty —
ostd to suet om tacts woktooukh smelt nek gehtoot mabinte J
mov ofdlaty ot qoda vodosmd ol? to Sewn ok — a i 9
ty take tow tle ont of tadt evelied 2. ens «oon ‘tot
poboyiy oft worta of bade tarnsiy ase ireberotot *, mo vorg ad
ent dion vd) fre .noktseat ont? ditty wobtocanmes mb peony
aqoos oft coq Inq ed hlmor motsad inkl ent “tant wi
Mmtde ton ob oT. soamquny 4 xf? “10 boterte ‘sonttuot 20
; auw dade of wrbepert ety —E— crak fonts. eso ote
uinntsntieny trtoq thadwwo a de agomtle a of "oldtaty?
robteon ef? cody mere tated orld «tort, nan ⸗a bio Sarts —
akon. naw 4 siete 20. nat · acum edt sbowety ear
eke utolite woah wotetw gett —— wat act tears mito cm
tiktoon belt %o- ‘onal ode Sore einontoos witt Mad sxonhhe
«fn «ter of ‘ganodte dete bab, Lonimos seata —X sane *
mbttte vEdenn oenn nase ⸗vraa Dhaow eka or stow syd:
ext? derbetd ‘shone’ oh oW sgmktom — — — oxy to moos ote a
to exon edd parte tubt vt nokteras th oft heads rae H J J
* “eaten? — pelt ot —— wah | |
f -broget, edd st 07 19, elds ba £%,.0 oe
29 «bel gane nn Sum gt erid 4) |
?
. * —
Mee: F ; en
Oi eee
\d —e
J
—— |
6
—
IJ 1
— Pr PN V
1 4 ete ry
: j . 9
i ' ial) Ona
, nit —* A
ha F 4 Wei
re y 9 —M
| , ue Ail Mera °
t Ay ‘ ay i
. bel ‘! A iM
i i ) | :
J —
—* ty }
i. a j oe é
3— 1 Mae —9 f ( oe
y \ { Ae
: A - un Fina ‘4 f i
‘ ' ‘ay 4 Fi ni
9 UAE!
é ish, A” a
i sph it ‘0. P
4 eG, q
2135/
Be6 « T1BS1.
PAUL A. HART: @ “owe by )
GRORGE A. FANT, hie noxt ) —*
friemi and jAPP AL PROM
SUPERIOR
)
)
, coor commrr.
)
)
| This appeal was taken by eerrisinant below
— from an order allowing the def: t. tomperary ali-
i nony and solieltor's feor.Y Complainant, a2 miner, by .
hic father and noxt friend, had exhibited hie Dill of
complaint reluting thet he wan 19 years of are, that.
while unter the are of 18, & warriare ceremony was waned
formed between the cerpiainant and the sof tmiant, that a
immediately upon the performance ef the seromeny geme a
pleinent ard defeniant separated. that the warrtage won
never eonourmated- that the partice never entered into —
the marriage etotue ner lived tegether ae man and wife,
and that said carriage was never ratified by eorplainan
in any manner theresfter, and therefore ne asked
that the marringe be declared null ani vold. The |
ef the defortant admitted the marriage, ascerted ite
- walidity, avorred thet defentont and plaintiff lived
together an man and wite, anf that os 2 result of the
marriage two ehildren wore bern: thet defentant wae Liv
ing separate ond apart from complainant without any fa
on hor part, that complainant had abandoned her and
ggu naa and refused te contribute to the support |
i
mone tametat
NOD J
THOS OOS 4
GGG .A. | dys:
PB ae tao) ott? to stohutes ots oer⸗vitod —* machine, «AM
weled ——— X —— saw Lasgen atett
tCa yimtoqmed tnabneted odd qstiwo tts teh 1 nor
xd poesia & ,doantalqesd VY: eget ataotiokfon baa wren
to iftd abs bod kd tdxo had , beret yt Jamon Secs stots at ota
| tadg ene to areet oF caw ard dads gata olen éntalq=ae .
“797 nay gHoreres egairtten & ,PL to one ont “te hens of tdw
fant toate toh edt baa Inentalenoe add aswutod bent
<70d Yrorngteo odd va portato Sto owe sows et otathomnt
aay onotrian ott — bogausaos snsfereoh rts tmantete
efeak hateine sevon —J— ors tanks bod scmtrao9 seven
potiw hes ag" aa xortdenos hovil J augata onatesast .
matkalenon vd bokthiet roves ame ogatetam bien dads tne. F
_ betes edt) erototodtt hes tod toro Terria vera at Me
jeans ot? .Btov. tna {lus Setetooh of onatarem edt gach
mgt bosamase te brtom ou⸗ hos date aadas koh ats * Bet
bevtt t⸗atata heen —E — todd hortewe wttbtLay vs
ef to diweet o ac ‘tacts here .othw Bevan Saget as wa⸗ono⸗
VEL on ‘snabsoteb back? mero anew mathy tite owt —
ee? vein duortt tw mon iataros sont duane boo ofungea gat
haan ‘soct donohenaca hed tram batqnoe gant <eog toot m0
* frome ots ot | edudtatmoe oe gents baa serontacn
puidated by the cowplainant.V his contention cannet- bo
for her evppert ant maimrtencmee and for the surpert and. q
raintemmnoes of enid children, amd alleged thet she wae ”
then dependent for oupport wpon the charfty of her friends:
that complainant was erployed ae a hank clerk, reeeiving
at least °C0 o week, that he was a stront, healthy man,
able to previde for an’? auprert croce-comrlainant and — ‘
her children, and seked for soporate waintenance and for -
temporary solicitor's fees. ‘he cross bill was ewern toe |
The affidayite of the serplainant, hie father an? nother,
Pery strongly \|sustaine? the allegations in the bill, oid .
tended te show that he was attending ochecl, and not en-
gaged in any busines. *
Uren reading the bill of eceplaint. crese bill,
anawere and affidavits, the court entered an omer allows
ing tecrerary alineny and eoliciter's feos, trom which
the cempleinant arvealed upon the sround that the court 7
mas without autherity t onter it, for the reason that |
defendant war not — re, becausethe marriage —
wae yoia, ani if only veldable, had Jeng sines been re-
pustained, «ds«. the werd “wife” in eection 15 of the ;
Diverse Act, whieh avthorizeas the gourt to require the
husband te pay the wife eveh eum or sums ae may enable
her to waintain or defen the suit, and alinony during
the pendoney of the cuit, where At 1s just ond equitable
has been construed by thie court im Jrow, vy. Drow, 1%
TLl. App. 448. te be a senveniont werd of designation —
ee — Tn that eace,
ae
fern drogen otf so? baw eortsvoteken has sroqgva wed a2
now adn doxtd Hogetta Dem .owrheite bier Yo wenonededar
okt ret to ystrerte oft moa drow 16% sem im ogubd —X
atyteno tele Attac ba huyeleore ann $rean haf — tatt
«tat ytdtnwd .nrotte a caw Od todd Moor 9 ony dower. ta
bem erate lpwoo-noon seoqne Le aot obtvent oF olde
ot frre oomanodetuc otetaqnn wt dodan bes .moththte wet
io oowa naw Chid apo et? .age't wo'tedtotion yurroquad
otsow fre vedtet ald drake lqmoe ad? Yo afivablht te. edt
mn fthd oft ct wodiagetto oft homtatauelEtynotte ved
me tor bes ,foofoa prtinetioa naw ed jad? words of babeed
sovattkeud yao ak bones
sfitd neoto .dnkalqroe Yo Cité od? gather mot
oti vebno mn Sereine taues on3 OahvablTIo. hue antowan
Aoldte vox? ,goe% a'rodtotion Bas yaoukles yuesomes yak
ruoo ont tadd Recor oft mnogu belmeqnm an autatanoo aad
tortt moaned, offs ao «tf somo of Ea trediue dunt $b age
mater ot? oersded, oti a gman tatcane fon saw ——*
~wx moed ooate grol hard efdebtoy tine tf fees , blov ome
od -Stonne noksnestoe ott Vi tnantaterog ett yt hotabbeny
off to Sf maktooe mt “otiw" frrow of? dveee ehonketaua
ang entvpon st Adoo ott aectrorltue aolav tod ootov hi
- eidene (ar en ame to mum done othe off qou of heracuuuti
aatwb ynontle baa . die oft Reoteh w aketiban of ter.
dations ben taut at tt ovece <ttue ext % yemoheod od
Of cement -y miter at dmroe atts yo Boiratenoe mood sad
“ motdommtneh to bygw smokwovitos a ad of BOR oogh «LET
ound told oT «Rebeca yoiertwal ewodt ot honk don.
te todd benvom oft ma eorovth & dotyisoe dea bateso9 oct⸗
erty <osttons bart snshwoteh oft opal wast YO. omy, welt
“tatotfoe yar oF aabw mo meet belaogia Sunberoteh yyetves ;
afede sow enatewrm ett aa tact baworg off me soe% atang
Bi da eas ai aan
oe oe
hughand amt wife. ir. Juetioe “eAlliater, In affirming
the omer, eald, Pe M7
"Yo are of opinion that section 15, sfore-
“nid, not only in terms arpliers to all eases of
diverec, but that it ens tho intention of the
legislature to center uron the court the dir-
oretionary —* a * allow omy ah —* aed
temporary alimeny im any cace vhere o deoree of
diveores io authericed by cai seotion ome. The
weeds ‘hushant'! and twitet used in eeotion 15,
ore wore of desigmation. “hey are soretinmes
from necessity or “‘eonventiones enployed in that.
senee when there fe mo lawful, but only 2 de
faeto relation of huctani and wire oubsistin Fite
eo in the etatute defining bicarny. 'ho-
ecever, haying a former husband or wife living,
warren another persen or continues to enhabit
BE eee ee ey eee te this State,
the gonelusion ef the dictineculshed furiet i# clearly
eouml.s It may be noted algo that tha word “diverse,”
ae used in the statute, te not semfined te the annuilrent
of lawful marriages, but embraces cults weet to fe~
clere the vullity ef illegal marriages» even when goad
ad inttie. An examination of section 19 of the statute
HEE, chews that the term "rife or wives" there used,
inelwies these whe have entered inte veld marriage son
tracte, owhila:’ section 16 iteelf applies te 411 sagen
of divorce, awl to not confined by ternn cr reanen te
ville brought for diverse for the causos eet out in
section 1.
Corplainant further sontenda thet the ehancellor
wae not justified in allevrire alimeny. rene solicitors
*
foen upon the showing made by the Cefontant. aeetaavite
:
4
~~ me
ne a ae
were presented upon the side of the complainant tending |
to show that the rarriage was invalid. The anewer and
—J erosa vaaa of the defendant set up a estate of
widely ie trun, would have ronioned the marriage of une
oe :
antorttte af .tetatlito” eoftey, .% oti Bae baadent
17h og ~ bee ,eelvaa etd
2* —V ⏑⏑—— peor po ta p>
aonen [fn of achiare enred
at? to woltcmsal oft saw ot ph ay a bias
~al ed? gtyoe oct. meqy steiner of ———
a * — le nag wok La ye
eexnoh « overte peso THe &
ot? one wold ae a —
sat mokgoes mt boay ‘etter’ |
aomifenon ota ved” -coks 9 yy OTE
Sods mt harvolqwe eanelinewree to ————
da vine dud , Foe hie nde poner, Hey
sanisatadya othe bao beogend to woltelen
-oi'' «weg td amintteh esutata of? ak om
egttiwtf otiv eo. Aerncamt seers? 4. Pie
idaioe of es. To Goateq tuts
-ofasa akds gt ‘Gate 33 natoa pect, dose
ulimeto at dato bodetsmettath ett te motautecoo ott
*,eorovih™ hvow orld sacs Gale botom od yan tT .Bewoe
brentucee etd od HetePmoe ton wt ioc afd mt beaw an ~
-ob of ftyword eflee aooendas Jud — E —— to
Bioy crxtw rove 1 ne atertan fegetti to etiilenm ont oraly
edutads ott te @f ankdoes ‘to noltankaaxe aA eotiint do ary,
ahowt oped? “aoviv im otty” waet oe duce weds AEE is J
«noo an blev o¢at teotedro ovad onw oacris eobeLonk j
nouno {fn of soblqye Thaads Of cottosa (yélinms enfomst “af
of moseen to acted ve hemtiaoe fom ah fen peotevEh to
mt tuo toe asauaso old 10% oomers® «Or Sewn aLihe
-f molsooe
solfeoratn ott dest — aeons Secorehas qos ;
g' tos tet ton fawn. ymoeikLe witwolla at Donate, ton saw
sttvaSIYtA sapmiaotted ott. vt ofan get bwoda ocd moqu ane
gntheot tromtafquoy: ont ‘to obs. ont croctu bog moony: omer
Sa tavene of? .Bitayel aey-egatwren off tect) wore of
tox? to otetn a qt ton dnabaeroh efd %o LLAd-eaore werows
matty I onatetan wit? Hotehon eval. Mvow «oad Mt ytgtow
‘datdt ew trrages oft W-ededa aids at xathttax beadsso
tod yd homtatase (Livy st yoLleenade edd ac not⸗v· etd
qM@, LIT LA2 qgobhontoutted .y. ærieaniei mt Bla at 7
a | \ a in
where the court, epecking through ‘rr. Jucties “arter,
said:
im go contends that the —* court
' cr ordered the payment ef
alimony when the feet -f the Ah Bogen wae in
—* Appellant's answer te the rule to shew
gauss why he should mot pay thts alimony adtnit-
ted the fact of the marriage core every hut denied
ite validity. ‘“o Siliweny nentonte lite
Tay be allowed without a carriace
though a facie cure chowld be required te
Do. shenm St the wife. (2 Amy & Ergte
,Smeys of Law, « an ed. = BP. 101, and eases
J ho erriace ceremony being ac-
mitted and only the lopality queationes, the
court wae tified in 33 temrorary ali«~
mony. It ie mo objection to the allewanes of
— the wife's bill for serarate
mintensme that the huehan?t denter the faste
alleced by her. “he court may, if 4t deem
necessary, enter inte a sutitietent evamination
to det me the comt faith ef the complairant
in exhibiting her bili. which will oréfirerdiiy
be ir ewegr to an inepection of the pleadinrs.
————— Rardin , Eos Tlis BAR: Cooper y.
The propricty of the action in allowing alimeny,
then, 41d not depemi at a11 upen the question ef whether
there was cr was net « valid varrlage, but only upon the
quention of whether a prima facie showing hed been made.
in Yornum y- American Ronding § Trust Co., 18¢ 11. App.
my: Soe, the court said,at page “09:
| i Ain 4, does not Legend that beoruse the .
atetict © J x, Jontine, o1 Til.
— BEABREEEo
J witheut jurisdiction to enter an order tn personas
without sorvise of process on the crose bill for sep=—
arate maintenance. ‘Te think this point is clearly
vn
<tefta eotfaut ot devents aniteoce .dtwoo aff evecto’
dan
drsoo —* ets ad⸗ ape yg ody ry yA* F
vtatoqves Bo grroarzeq sis herehse Ia
wf gow oneiviax art⸗ꝰ Io. Saat oils —
worts of ofut off o2 tweatta afrerra ſ age sesmunkh
~finhea vnomifs a?*df var gon Bblwada ed viv dames
belseh dud yrontoteo snalwtes ef? to west edd Be
sil sinotson ytorkla yx T oydiatiay ast:
hevowy enelrian a Suoddiw bewolls od yam
of Bexlupet ef Sivore sane stost m Sawody
ome 8 sah 2) .etlw of? 6 swore of
acoso Bee . fOf .¢ + «Be BP ~ ywal BO vgend...
~ha auted wrometeo onaittan arf" i ,
ef? ,horolhiaawy yilLenet od? vine bee bodeinu
-his yvtat0ecmed antwollse mi beltt? esw Suve89
to sorowplinc off o¢ anolgootds on @2 #1 -grom ©
etataroa Wt [itd a'etiw odd ankivver yromtla
atou't off sotaeh Sadat oft dat? oonaetnian
wroob $f ti .vae dantoo off «god wd begekia
polsanicexve dretettivsa a oft t9tme , rteeaseon
tnasttaloqnoo adj to fé#fat boos att onievedeh of
qitvetine {fhe dotew [ff wet za ml
sanrthaels oft to noliooqant ma of beaPinoo od
“V Meroe 199% «LIT Mot . bial +¥ —
wpa : = a 53
YWrontia uriwofl{s nt solton oft to yseleqong edt?
ornterte to molioewp afg weqy {la te tereted sor BLD \ oct?
di moav vine gud ,onabvane Bifey « fom aow 1o naw wred?
oban sood bat aniwoda stos? onlay @ tediedw to soksneup
qqA .f£f1 SAL , +80 taux” s gatdoos mo ixvomA «yy sutrgeY aT
1900 ova fe. bisa dune edé ,908.
att? ouueced gard? wollot tom aeeh ti*
tnanltalaee od? gett Soblood deed shod
snatiogqa Ge ethw eft ton saw seae Sod? at
era yorocttia yierorres Tot sebro ec? emertay
-berxesno vyiteroetat aow aeot a’eodgtetioa
od owt fom avv Teovrsl? towoma aff Jad? ao
-%0 saw sotood Lert? edd wodw Yiltéeskale ond
«LIT £0 <ottvot «vy amktoet ganfsto) *. bevee
Cpigve «worl +y gw] fem , VOL
ob FS7b SERRE SOFIE TRieRoo dese fonmue®
stenoone cf cefie mo rete of moktekbalwwt suodtiv
_“7e0 rot [f[itd aserts eff a9 anoooty to eekwroa gueddiw
vieaelo ef tmkod abts Mnidd ef .comanodatan esate
titay o rood bart ofw ,frentefiquee of” +dheem dwodéiv
vtoorats vk [fd td hedhdidee ,ymouereo onateren a of
*
ie P
at ee ee
—
vine | ae
Which geught te heve the marriage amulet. Th de «
fonilier pringiple that mo ome may invere the afd of
& eourt of equity without submitting himesIf te ite
juristiction, ant «a neeessary incident to the fling
of a bili in equity de the right ef the detertant,
after anewer filed, to exhthit » crosy bil) aking for
affirmative relief. The complainant haying voluntarily
subjected hirmelf to the furiedietion of « court of
equity, the chemselios wae ompewered by ceation 18 to
enter proper oriers respecting aldmeny ant nolledterte
feon, notwithntanding the minerity of the sompladrant.
rer the roasom: etated, the order must be aft-
firmed.
APPIN.
| s of 40 -Bbaltuets soaker ald oved of Jreeoe folie
to ble off ostovet “gn ort On dett alelen hry —
agt of Monartd antédticdre sreditw erpo %o $989 a
~ettit odd of teoSiert yasesooen « fan ,wekeadte bart
<dcalereted ats to ddsta odd of ydtope of? Tiida a
109% pritas tfid waow « gidiixg of ,HoLlet owas “soe he
yitsaiaslov on tvat fnuentafoened ott to tient ovl tartht te Ai
* usn 2 ‘to mokton! vn bona ots oe “eLomatat ho doatdve
of BF notices “d Horie. “he naw ‘anffenasto watt Us ape
e*sodtellon Ina yrociis eabiougaey wretis — TOsste
sdaantalares oft to ytinonie off gathnaiaddiwion 00%
-ta ed ten: ob ·r on} ,hodata. ermaannt ok? sot
« GMA TTA |
41% ~ 01400.
ABRARAM *SIERLER and
YETTA FPIRDLER,
Appelicer , PRL PRO
va. NUNZCTPAL cour?
SAMES Fe BIRLOP Ow (RIGA.
Adwinie trator r
Leteake of AMA
Desensed » & :
* to 198 T.A. 558 —
MR+ JUSTIGN GOODWIN delivered the opinion of the court.
D wat spponl ie prosecuted by tho adeinistrater
of the estate of men Lietzau, cecensed, who was the dee
formiant below, to reverse the setion of the lunioipal \ ;
Guubl 2k Memitng hin mosdenSe vacate & fodgnent wieeea
“August 6, 1915, by confession aysinst hic decedent cor
BR p8OR and $200 attorney's fees. on a fudewent note datet
—, Ghiemgo, Auget 5, 1915, for 62,000, payable, 80 faye after
oth date to the appellees. An order was entered Setober If,
i * 1914, allowing the ontey cf « methen on behalf cf de- - .
: ferlant's aiuiniwtrater te vacate the judgment, ant sot- ;
: ;
ing the bearing for Ustober 35, 1014. on the mame day
‘Piied hie petition reciting the civing of the
Judoment note by bin decedent Aurust Sth, 19325, for
= $2000, ext alleging upon infermtion end belief that
| — his decedent, om August Sth, 1915, and for a lone time
doy ogg ant fron themee until her death on fugue
RAE Se Hs tnt cnet ond under medfenl
eo) t therefery thot on ald "th day of ‘uguet and a
— —— —9
—
i,
ont — + te eae
b J—
oorta · BED
Sug IDI MANARE *
fH IAT ime oe
tes INTEORene ge
ohapret 0 ts ——
e , — —B
8G G A 8 Ser ; J—
-Suyjos of} to mokniqo ody Sotevtt
stariatntmbs od yd hetucesotg wt Lacyya ald)
dh ong bow osty .Deewape® ywandoht such to obadeo aff to
Enqtetens( ext to n@kiec ond easover of ewelod Seater —
—— trem but & odeesy od\makdon wht gatynah mk dated
tot deobeoed sid gantoysn sotnad*tnos ed erer 18 Pasmk
betah efom sro iat 2 mm . soot al genmretde OOT3 Daa 000,20 *
eftn ayoh OF oideyeq .000,85 wot ,efol «2 sams oqnotas
‘Wr wedose® Sovsime eow tobxo aA auekieqas etd of egoh
~9> ko Biaded me aokiow a to eudew odd gubwokia bier”
-toa Ita ,dmmanbet ot otasav of todosteininte tanto a
(ah ouhm edd oD BLOL .M0 wededed wot gabesad of Rake —
ott to gitvis ed? guittow: molstte, old botht Dane « 4
mot GEOL ida dao dnobesed aif yt avon sromsbut ae
teste tohfod tas soksanrotnt soqu galgetio tas 00% 4)
oaky moot wot tne ELOL aan suus mm yteobeeed ath |
Seangert no iteeb wed Cidew oonods weet fee oforasdte sober * a
Kaothon robe hee Decor Lemdidet te wow ¢8tOr a
ete. smerny To yab 30 Raw m0 teed aivtorteds Swomtawns
nod Itty odd sort Bra atesodt woleq exh? gab 2
woh notord mood ener Benes heer man i if
— oots weet © tO dat — E ut — XX
Snrts bosootxoset <tavownt sno tre YLdrewper? 8 ‘
sPongato vd of St came vo oatt waiitesets ¢ mt ED
'
4
fal
to August (th, her condition had been such that shoe wae a
unable to leave the flat: that appollees supplied her : ‘
with intoxfoating Liquere and — ve condition was ,
sueh that safd appellees muet heave Imeorwn that ehe was *
about to die shortly theresftery; that she aad ate on :
Auctet 15, on account of and hegnuse of the exceccive —
use of intoxicating liquors. of eirrhosia of the liver?
es that ashe war, om the Sth day of August, mentally ineom-
| potent to exeoute the note in cuositon or te transact '
‘ “buetnees; that at the time of eipemtiie the note che aia a
not know the nature of the imetrumont ciene? br her, and :
thet 1t woe executed vitheut any Valuablé eoraideration —
given therefor: that she did net theresftor rememvor that —
she had olgned it, ord that said note wor fraudulently J
obtained by the appollecs. Petitioner Purthor represented
that hic firet information or krewhedes of these fete J
wap obtained in July, 1914, when the atternoy for one
ss Cmeille Breplin, a sinor, and Louies Lietrau Seler, the
My hedve at law of the deoodent, informed hin of thems
that he verily believes that he has a got defense, ant —
9 asks that the jodgrent be cet aside ont vacated, and that
D2 je hewe-Aeuve to tite on acritavit of defense, ant tentens
Bi. + the tm of 90.00 conte tor a fuwy Vv
yu. . Richard i. coler's affidavit states that he
J | Ae « broter-tnetaw ef the denedent; that she died At
i ae, 1918, ani had boon for anveral nonthe prior therote
ke aaaaetoa to tho habitual use of imtoxieating Liquors ana
‘ awe that om Ausuet 5, 1915, her condition of rind
oe ody was gush ao to wake hor absolutely tnearable
paw octn fadd deus mood had roks Bree wit 1439 forguh of
Tort ho lferntsa agellonen Setlt 12af% off ovael of aidany
how notsiiuee ved tect bug aroun hl ants ootnosns dade
ecw ote tant swoent ever Saum aeotleqya biom #at? dene
no okt BRD ode Jat? prosttaotedd eLtrosta okt og suckin
evivceore off to ovuraoed bee, “te tavocos mo .6£ sam
ttovti and ‘to ataodrtty % to erroup tf — to ents
~tne poet eliassom ., daigue * vat A⸗n etd “0 , J dad
_ Sonunaxt 92 s0 soksnenn mf atocr ott —E of smozeq
BER ode eter ort? an tem te to omit mid de sats aaveit aus
hela wed vd Herm be derenmres west edd to rats at od? wort ton
soltioxehtanos efdenloy ite Suodiiv hetusexe aaw Bf saitt
fads eo%manoe —— ton bth orto socty ‘potomeds rovhy
ulsenivhues? 2 w~ ogon Diea .tads baa «ot herty ta hart ote
watrapuTET “se sige morots tier -aoolLogqa ods ed homtesde z
| 402 aged? to onbelwort xo soltamrotat ⸗a·ata ald sesit :
eto, at. omnes te ers — tor viet ak bonkesdo ase
ot $ ,tete wsstolt ne bere! hae « “som ds a EEG OEN OLE tenn
twos to sid Searso ust stone 90h und to wat de anton eine
Des <oarroteh boon A aarti ed Salt aovol ied yEtov oct $ ont
Sed? tia .beseony Aes oblas tee ed jrannivt ed? tach utes
tinhen a Keres 5 mater eROB to akvabr re me of2% of overt overt ont
Vault 2 st afaoe oo. Hi to muse oft
od tats oodate thyob?Yts a’sele” «fi arot⸗
feurmut Beth ofa serle tinoboosd ef? to walwat-tediomd a af
osetert+ wiry adines letewa <o? rood Hark fra fOr .Bf
‘poe artmtro bt aerkteotuogert ‘to ons Lautidadt edt of hotottha
| —RX soltiinon wat Zueot erinn oo Sait pedaieb
ofdecean!? yvfosufoads tod ofer of 2a town am ybot baz
> beger ‘athnin -Lenovon Oo? ttovodat overteud (ne gebiesanda
* qo owt To alevtetal to ted waa sSnakRin 4htaod aed of
‘sobre now acta erotmacoo bine to cozc ep ieen .toew # womks
a3
————
* A
the influence of seem intoxieant, ant at mo time mde
any mortien oC executing the note herein wue? on; he
knows what her finaneial elreumstaness vere, antl vertly
helieves that she wae not imlebted to the oppellees or
either of them in any smount whatever} he ifn ieformed and
believers that shortly pricr te the Sth day of August she
diyeotes the drawing ef a wil! leiwing her ontate te her
nelee ont sinter, and the only rearon anid will wme net
executed wae thet for shout ene woe? prior thy on-and after
said Sth day of Auemet, 1915, che waa montaliy inearable |
ef trancasting business and was not ¢f sound ant diepeeing —
wind ant semory: thet sho had "800 in the bank at the time
or her @eath: that rlaintiffe hat Srequently tatron ——
from her flat without hor consent, and within ome day of
mile Renda,” Gas RGGuE Wy Withoct motion whatever to hee
sieter Louisa Geler or this afient: that neither he ner 4
his wife were avare ef the execution of the note in son« r
troversy until the last week in July, L014, wher they were
. informed by their atternoy thot he had juct ascertained ’
_ that a olaim had beer allowed in the Trobate Court based A
en said mote: that affiant dmredicately began 2 diligent —
. search for evidense bearing om the exceution of said note,
* ard on August 81, 1914, ws appointed cuardian of viꝛae
‘ay | ye a winer, by the Prebate Court.
WP
ron the affidavit of custay Vedel, a phystetan
and surgeon, staton that affiant attented the deacared
“during the year 1925 at vartous tines, among others,
ee
—
ABan ontd om to Tem .dreetxodet enna te conomttak ote
of tao town mkoved efor odd ga btueuxe 0 Modo ete
wiitey fon .etow svotatemotto Iatorant? ted sade awornt:
7d noptiogqe dt ot boddobst tom saw esta add wovekter — —
brs hoarotet at ot provetody inwons yao mt odd ‘20 rerithe
arte Harrys to yom 90 olf of sobeq viiroda fork wevettod —
“mt o} pdeteo sed yokvjel «itv a to aabeesd oft hoseenth
gon anv (Liv Bow moauor yito orf fea yradntn bas sotes
ita: heractto dd coted feew eno duets to $400 nae Soswoors —
atdoranc eftedaom now one (BLOT «damyeh to ysb cite Btwe
petacqs!® fx Bowen to fem saw bra anortacd get sonnet 0
met? oct tn ‘ied ond mt 000% bat ofe sade (ener Ree Bebe
fokive noted yLdrenpor? hwl atttintala tads tdéash ged to
‘ts coh ono aidédiw hun .émesnoe nod Suotdiw Sekt sont not ~
wrest 9% ‘wovedartw votton,suodsie e Eagar shart |
emer ent rositten gate yinatYie akdd qw * aatuoũ — =
sim mt atom adit % nphtwoexe edd ‘to oxawa, oven ote kt
roe ortd worty .DLOL eytel nt dosw tual ott Ltimw yomyoed
homtatroae fovt had ef tulad vemredes thet? ge banat
boot Imo ofetor! ont at hewotka ond bat mtefe a dartt-
SnomifLib o aaed eforothorunt dest io fads reted bkes mo
ston bies ‘to motsrooxe of% no gained ogrohive wo't sordiee -
wf Ley. to matinee hegatoq¢a wow ,eLOL gh Pauper ne bi
smd otadomt etd vd «techy @ —
natotovig 2 tebe vateu” no dtventyts ed? | tA
boamnooh oft hotnotia seatyte todd ectata: —— tan
setedio qrows ,aoatds aveliay ia ater wage ots ath
bedsotxodat acy ora eoteb oor? a0 brs vane tno bs 4
°
_
b
— —
affient,. of am exasanive wee of imtoxieating drinke: that
in his opinion, based upen the com@itien in whieh he Com
her ot various tives, and espesially her condition Aurust —
#4 and 7th, ohe was between thene dates mentally ineapabie
of trumoeting vucinesn.
Valter ©. Bieehoff in his oftidavit stated
thet he sold bottled beer to the desedont some time prter
to her death; thet tum i¢, 292%, she told him che was une
able to co downtown te got any money and unable te write
her name go ayybody else could got money for her: thet
trom duns 16 to August &, the date ef the lant delivery,
he delivered 1% deven bottles of bear: that he 414 net seo —
her after July *th, but wae teld by Abraham "Ledler, one
; ny ©f the plaintiffs, thet she vase unable te get, evt of the
“Ouse, and that she wan drunk one-half of the timc, and
' that she drank quite a bit of whiskey whieh ha set for
in a bettie: that every tine affiant saw her fer the last .
BS fow vonthe before her death, she appented to be unter the
’ | Anfluense of ot @rinks, aré hed « very poor P
REMOvy . ‘
4 Joharne xieree sa iZAl’? tmat sme one the
deoséent for three sonths prior to her death om an average
of onee every ton or twolve days; the last tine she es llet
the ararteent war @isarranged ant im an uneloon condition |
anf a lerpre mumber of dishes vere umvashed; she frecvently
Sette wee SARE Get washed Ye Ricken fur tery and Be ee
about the sth day of August, in her epinion, decedent wa
; ot of transacting beciness or of umlerstentin
ie
oh
tact? ;erfatch gutinoteoint to env ovtensexe mm to «Pemktta
bei’? ot ttottw nit notttinon oft soe —8 —E atint
dni motsithmmo sed Ltatvoqus faa .uerkd auotey $n aed
een ett aaem⸗ sotnh onodts nowedod cow rts age bers ss
vowortteud gabtawenart *
hotada steabiore ated ok Veetsatu .O westat:
rota oats enna tnuboveb ads 94 rood boliied — 4 ‘tok |
omy oaw eta mkt Sfod sein , MLL Me ost todd iddeob —— " "
ett of ofdacn bern Panos ra son ot — servo w ot olda
_. tech pret 29% tena tog tuse —R webodh ein 78 omer each
etreriteb taal oft to ofeb “wets ad Saenger ‘ot Of.
pen ton Hrh oct gadd J ‘t acter⸗ moxeh ae a
one — uacaric⸗ wd Blog maw sed ae wet 109% —
welt “ho Sera ty ot » Lefts wane “pate suet? cuvehanbadi ond tw L
frre omkt! ond a ‘esd one sonra wan on $ nets bea const |
ent xo fon od dobete yoxta Lat 0 ahd r ontyp Anu⸗rh oda tact :
goal orig 0% wot wen Sonttte ookt wears tants iettdod opt
edt ‘telewr od of SetaeqTa odd . too tos oxoted adinpon wot
‘og tev * hed fers vata pats ankagenk to obaoutauu
—9
ads ———— ———— ontactot — —
mete — —
dottao acta amt tank oly rage’ avlows To mod —X eoro to
wokattnos sun Lec ee met Seem hoqemernaee o nen Sremtt oe ott
ehdvoup en? ote 1 astaawns o nor wocta kh. "bo ‘rockon ental @ bes
rte wen Royse retort 120% anrlath od? Badaow Sno tart ad Semanko
mae trim ogoh combo ‘rod tt stash 0 yb 20 od dood
(Rites tanfenr to to anasto! gattomamess ‘to aldaque ton
| ——
“ab bodete \yortd$e ma rotwotnted +X stort Poe —
pt ted ga inobooeh aoqu beltac —
—* 09 AO pth ght . herd ot Ont m0 quart » hee
ftw 9 aitkword %o eboawug ont aot ,Pi0z dommes 2
‘
Wi f sg eae
hens
pe —J1
R ta
for her; om oach of the cecaniens ant on each of vatd days
ghe won intoxieated to such an extert and dogroe ar to he
areoletely unable to transact poe inear of any kimt or nature
whatsoever: aml on cach cf sai¢ co¢asions hor mental facul~
ties appeared te affiant te be ft: pada’ to sush a degree
as to romiar hey mentally ar? phreleally helvless.
“pom eornsiderine this retition and theese of-
fidavite, the court denied the wotion to act acide tho
juigment ani permit the petitioner tc set wp a defense,
it is the well settled law of this State that
where timely arplisstiion is made te set oeide a Sudement .
omtersd by confencion. 1¢ is the duty of the court te allow
the defendant to plead {f a meriterious defense ia shew.
by proper affidevits, (Pitte v-+ Magle, c4 TLL. olor
Oiighvist Transportation Co. y+ Sorthorn Oroin Co-, 204
TU. S10) Markman Ge. y. Thompson, 190 (21. Apps e212.)
the statements set out in the sfridewits pre- —
sented te the court below, if true, diselcsed a state of
faste whieh would warrant a jury iy finding thst the de-
i“ VOM was not, at the time she signed the note, eapsble
sof understanding the mature of the tranenction. he af=
ss idawite of her lawyer end her physician are partieuleriz
== eepiett upon that point. As the affidavits, therefors,
J «get up a meritorious defense, tho rouatming quoetion te as :
_ to whether there was laches in presenting tho application
te pet the fudgment aide. Tt will be noted that this
ch —- Judgnent note wae cbtained by the appelless on the sth of
M sugust, and wae payable 70 days after thet date. Upon
"a _ following day, appellees entered a fudement fer the full
: — of the mete, and (noe attorney's foes. although
_ thare had been ne default in the payment of the note, and
by ite ters tt bad 29 daye yet to ren. The affidevite
e that —— of the heirs at law of the dece
pe) *
i ae
od of un nowgeb bis Inodxe ran toga of hotantunhit i now ae
Has ves Dest ye to wadettood syarrend of wlétent eodettons'a |
‘une tadmom tect ano kuanos phew ty inns m0 tata eevsoutody —
women a Hoa od Aontornt of od dmatvre of benmomte woke |
.anotelod YLtnatersty bi ¢otetmen, “taul: sto herons * i ae
te ened fen mitthior eidt yu ttohbanee sgl ——
_ ott oblan ton of po B80 ee boleh bron odd. er at
<ooneted a cr tan of sept hte nels $ Emtec ter tribe
jartd esas” olds to WA Bentvou tww ott ab ee —*
dreamy barh 2 ohhen ton at obat at mot saint lon fewtt teste
itn og dus ath Ye ydith od at at: a tans raoo wa ——
rous a onroted ‘evolves ined 2 we Rooke oa: Mabei · ten mt ut
02% ,£E7 $2 cotpet oy a adgts) gabe keke ——— wo
BOR gig? mbar? xodsrott ¥ 429 —
C2199 sq tti OUT “eae? oY opd —— Nees
Orc nt hvebhets oct ab Swe ‘fon Ranomed nie ett. |
4 etnta ao Swenlosth soiree th rote Neto ‘eas ad
mB witd. — pe kbeh ok grant & ferrsew binem dotde este
efitegng .efow ete bewy be we omy: ‘edd 49 (tor new temboo
ate of?” amo ksaaarantt att % — ——— ats px tderad uon deru *
vt·atuot⸗reg oe oW to taraa ‘xe ee, sroyent tad to aehveht?
awvo'tarods vathvab ire ote ah, “stittor Saks sce stohlqne ©
8 SF mokinanp agintanot ay —D to teeot reo * 7 ‘jon
potiaattags ot? anttevacg mt acctoet alee ortortt etdorte oe
gtd? Sead bogom ef (Ltw 42 ebins $iaiiak aiken ed
46 sd" of an nedfloqew ont vd bonttasdéo eaw ofon sovmbut
ff noe’! .oteh tet) ted%e arab 08 oldataq sar bum , tenga
Ifwt ott vot sromhet «© hevetwe aeellecte ~yah gutwoltot
Mauodttin .aeet a'yerpotta O08) Baw , epost edt v⁊x — a i
astvodttta ox? ame ob dy eel 0 at an ae ‘ig
inahanah ett %> wel tea erket edd To steddtem dedi» eaoloatb —
| wnt! he hed obtained or there head been presented to his
| aftidevits Aisclooing a soriterious defense. Tn view of .
F the feet that tn order to pregent the defenss sot out in
nad nny knewledce of the extetence of the nete unt'l the
last week in July, 1914; that thoy immediately brought it
to the attention of the administrator, and began a Mltgont
search for evidence bearing om the oxecution of tho note. as
Where Judgment by confession is entered arninst an indi-
vidual he must, of gourad, Trommtly take etepa to sot it
Behe, cor the foets cormmected with the oxeaution of the
pete are ordinarily within hic knewledire. An *
however, is net im the same nowition, arnt he io not re~
gired. ant 1¢ would not be proper tor him, to mike applies
oatdon to a court te set oaide a fudgmont by confession
the affidevite it mao neconsary to Loente ont intervicw 5
bes Praga of witneacos, and in view of the time ordinartly
_ mecoesary to o painetaring investigation of a matter of
pi: * mints oe ape unable to say that there hag ——— *
J
——— it munt be noted that. one oft he
= | sw fea einer. Tn view, then, of the aha
‘eae mo
ects Lidod olor off to comotatee — » ieee —9—
th dlguond Ltoa nthoacat yodt Jactt htet qetwt at toow a “ | ai
eg hth) o mage? bra ,totontatmiehs off Yo nobimetén ead nd : 9—
eoton ett to motdupexo oe amo gabused comp have — —
<that na tantino hows at aoteoe indo yh tester — iin
$t so2 oF aqeta mfet ,oamoD Yo .teus ed. | oe. i.
etd to noktuecs edt f¢tw fotoemon ose? off an? nok wu
Seridabriihe oA .ogdolwomt ate bitte yLtsanthe one. ‘pele a |
-e7 fon af of hoe etoht tno owne ond mi fom ak toverod a iy
Miggn ester of putt aot roqoet od dom Blwow #2 tem yhowtup .
motaesrnos ye dromsbot a ohtne fom of ↄxiao © of mOBIRe *
“mt of bedsoxeny toed bax atts 19 bemtetdo batt ext Liter
“40 woly of .gemeted avotwdbron « gateoloats sohbet ‘ig
a
80 telias oa 70 — — a of
Cheineed wed ows test) can of ofdems owen ov obakt abe et
off to 46 vel te uated od? to ter edd mo medieto aadeak | |
he orto fats Bosom of dum st sok hha ak -nodentalaboha | y
Adtamcadd od To «watt wety st poate «af ——— i
edt to ore ow ,aftvebltta yd bedroseny — —9
od qu moqo of qnteuter nt bewim. toe, wd dads sobstge whl ie
@fan of vtinudtero me deatfloowe ott theme fea. bet
tren howraver od .oxotesedt «iftw tabee off? ——
e Avi ——— — en 8
‘ 4 7 Say
» F UF ast J
enn oA cunereen eee ane:
hee | A Ae
* ieee. od
. dei ty
ft — eee y
A RN ae eon
A? 16 f ae ae | :
; Pian ? 3J J
Wy y
\
64 = 50888
J. o. PENNOYER COMPANY, )
a corporation, )
dant in Error. )
ERRAR TO
MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO.
v8
EUGENE wexpescrt\ WILLIAM WENDNAGEL,
, @e-partneres doling buadinese as
WENDNAGEL & ©
WR. JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the court.
V the defendent in error brought euit in the Municipal
Court of Chicago against the plaintiffs in error for #75. The
Case wan tried by the court without « jury, and judgment was
entered in favor of defendant in error for the amount claimed.
To reverse thie judgment the case ie brought to thie sourt, [For
convenienge the parties will hereafter be designated plaintiff
and defendants ae in the court below. _/]
‘In Ootober, 1912, plaintiff wae under contract with
the South Haleted Street Tron Works to haul « steel girder from
the latter's place of bueinees, legated on South Halsted etreet,
to the Alaska Theatre, located on 3let street. To do this work
it required twelve horses and five men. OM the morning of
October 1, 1918, plaintiff's men and horses went to the South
Haleted Street Iron Works to load the girder. When they ar-
rived there they found a Mr. Carter, who was in the employ of
the defendants. The girder wag loaded on a wagon and taken
to the Alaska Theatre, but on account of some obetruction in
the alley near the theatre, plaintiff wae unable to deliver
the girder at the place desired. Plaintiff's men, after wait-
ing a reasonable time, informed Mr. Carter, sho had accompanied
them to the theatre, that they could not allow their teams and
men to wait any lenger; that unless the girder was unloaded
‘ie eae Yi
bi
( . Ymaewon aaYONNIT a *
— a.
.o⁊r ⁊ at tmab
oT marx ( |
AUD TATIO LCA:
OMADTHDS. TO
———
@£ 989
A110 ed¢ to soiatao edt horevileb AOUMOD'O SOITAUL Saal
Leqtoioutt ed? ot tive tdgword sorte ak trabaret wb oat a
ear ans Tol. to1T1e at ethivntelg edt tantage openido Yo er)
49 enw aenabul bas .yust » tuodtiw tivoe edt yd heirs ew nas,
beatete ‘tavome ‘ef? 19% to1te at daabasted to tov at boxetae
sof]. tio eldt of tiguo1d ef seen edt —E aids serover of | ;
a prstatats botany took od tetisexed tite eoltig one sons iaevaco
if [—woled auoo odd at as a?anbaetab bas 3
the sostinoe rebay ecw rteatelg ater ctsdote0 a ; Ties
wort xabtky feete s Ined of at1o¥ port —R betesaW dduos edt
teense beteleh dds08 no beteool .Bosmlond te ooalg a' zed tal oda
2x0 wits ob oT deerte toll no beteool Orda edT aAo⸗ata ont of
. to antaxon ods sO .fem evil bas —8R oviout berluper a
a⸗vos oa ot taew avexod bas nem errtiiniete Rie vs ‘2940100,
a ~18 yods nodW »tebrty ‘ont baot ot ar o sort teorde —R
40 volque ed? at saw odw < tetrad am # bayot yed? sted? baie:
i: exes baw nogew 8 90 debsol eaw rebty edt \adaabaoteb — :
ek soltowriede emoa to tayooos ao sud ,etteedT adoala add of
teovilteb of eldaay aaw titentele .ettaed? sd? taen Yolle
wtlaw testa , nen a'iiiscislq ,betiveb eoalq edt ea rebel of
beteagnoves bed ode .tetxeD i bemrota!l ,omit eldonoeaet a
: bas aseed thedt wolls fou biluoo xod⸗ tect —— ody *
* ey
bebsolm saw robri oat ont 4 tier 0
—* a 3 he seolmy odd crenaot i
9
we
at once, plaintiff would charge 925 per hour for any further
delay. Thereupon Carter went to a nearby telephone, and
shertiy afterwards returned and told the plaintiff's men if
they would wait until the wiveer eeuld be delivered at the
proper place, they would be paid for such delay. Plaintiff's
men waited for three hours before they could deliver the .
girder, and this suit was brought to recover for the three
hours’ delay, at $25 per hour.-
One cf the defendanta teetified that Hr. Carter
was in their employ; that he was primarily an estimater on
steel contracts; that he lived near the Alagka Thestre, and
that he was inetructed te go to the theatre three mornings
each week and inspect the work and one how it was getting
aleng. The witneer further testified that Carter was net
authorized by the defendants te auke any agreement with the
plaintiff's men in their penalt,’ Pron the state of the ree
eord, it doea not apyear who was responsible fox the éelay,
ner ta whol Garter telephoned, ner whe Jarter said would
pay for the delay; nor do¢e it appear what cennection the
gefendante had with the Theatre Coupany, the plaintiff or
the Geuth HKalated Street Lron Yorke, After nu careful cone
sideration of all the evidence in the record, we are clearly
of the epinicn that the finding and judgment are not sustained
by the evidence, The judgment of the Municipal court will
therefore be reversed and the caune remanded for a new trial,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TL mon atttidntele edt bfod bas bentley ahiewied is taxon
ehF ta bowviloh od bisa seixdy oad Litem Shaw biwow ond 9
Yilinialt .yeleb Meus tot biaq of bfuow yout — R seaoxt hoes
. oft axevVilod biveo yedd ere'tod awed eoids 20% bestow nom
eouls alt 1ol uevooes of Sdysord aaw 2 hue east? Sewn . J
‘etuod toq 68) te vated Fonvos —
—D—— ot Sai? hoLtistoos atnabneteb odt ‘to ond .
Mo rofamiszoe na yLitamirq @aw oct Sante 1yoLane shed in sow
bao seusaodt atest, et? toon bovil oa sanz jasoaxtnos fooge
adn tanto. words ousosdd od? ot 9 OF bodoutsent enw on vat
— Balstey as $2 worl e9e bra Fiow ott fseqant ban teow sono
Jos eae tetiad tadd bokI bowed sondia? aeentiw oft sono ta “
—* i a:
* dd bw soomeexge YA extaw ot asunder teb and yo —
J
— adt to edata olt — —8—— thet - nom —
80 Traswiele ord .Ysaqaed oxtaant ott Ad bw hk * * J
enos Lutoxwe a toftA .odtov notl goexta boda Lal a⸗ uon or?
fs a9 Lo eta ow gbteoot ont me sonebive ois ite Yo olde : nbs an
tadaun fof ots —E — dan werden ht ont docs noémigo oe | |
fliw fru 0d Laqio trum odd to seoormbyt ext soonsbhve —
‘i wen a | tok bebracet —R& had rua — seatanet od
| :
ia OMAN CRA GANAVEER
73 = 61049
AARON —
Derendant in Error
\ FRROR TO
\
:
WINICIPAL SOURT
OF SHICAGO.
ve \
\
1
H. A. REITER, doing \bueinese ag
H. A. REITER & COMPANY
ANY,
PL Sif” & Ts
: “Foot A S81
*
— —— — — —
WR. JUSTICE d\ commen Xstivered the opinion of the court.
\/ Plat obits (defendant in @rror) brought suit in the
Municipal Court of Shicago againet the defendent (plaintiff
in error) for #92.50. The case wae tried before the court
without a jury, and to reverse a judgment for *92.50 in favor
of the plaintiff, the defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
The defendant is a real. estate broker, and as euch
eold certain real estate on behalf of the plaintiff. 8200 of
the purchase price wae peid to the defendant by the purchaser,
which the defendant claime as hie commisoton. Plaintiff con-
tends that the defendant's commiseion was to be 23 per cent
of the selling price, or *107.50, and therefore %92.50 of the
amount paid to the defendant belonge to the plaintiff. The
evidence tends to show that the plaintiff called at the de-
fendant's office, June 2, 1914, in reference to the sale of
the real estate. The defendant and hia saleaman Karrer were
Present. The amount of commiesion which the defendant was to
charge wae discussed.
The plaintiff testified that the defendsent eaid his
commission would be #200; that the plaintiff said thie wae
too much, and that he would only pay #100; that the defendant
gaid that $100 wae not even 2) per cent; that thereupon plain-
“Th aed said if fefendant would not take 2} per cent he (plaintiff)
; wee? nd A) y J
\>
A}
fen Hos.
raxwk al tnebasted j
OT FOARH bes
PAuOD JATIOTNN
LOOADTHD TO
4 ; av wilt Ae
if be) whe ea ate 5 ps
ge — ges ET. H
. | srormg at risa tess ie) kin! aan
moe AT BO.
X ⸗
ef | ss ——
a⁊uod edt to nolatqa odd bevevilab ROMMOD'O gorTeut a er’
edt mt thye tdguoxd (10728 at taabaerell) nia iato ¶
—
— tnebasteb od? tan legs geo ido te ttuod taqiol as
fay0oo oft etoted belts saw ovao ear 08, soe xox (ven
fous eo baw tetord tates Leet « ‘et dash meted ext : ;
to 00st itntalg edt Yo Medes ao stotee Leer als ar⸗
— ef? yd tusbaeteb eft o# tee esw eolxg ‘eandorw: «
-noD taatat⁊ ao ten tame old ea estate tnabaeted et
too —E bs ed of eam no tee nmeo a 'tanbreteb odd feds
4 edt to c@.se? orotered? baa .08, wor” 70 soltq galitee
ed? .tittatel oft of agnoled ‘taabne? 9b edt of bag
-ob eft #8 bella Witntalg edt teat woute ot ebnet eo
Io atne edd of sometelet at afer 8 emul eoltto een
eTow ‘ger name else eld bas tnabneteb edt etegee, Inox
a st way Saab aed ob ett dotde notes tan 10 ‘awone eat oo
would not sign the contract; that the defendant said, "ell,
I guese we will have to take that," and that then the plain-
tiff eigned the osontract for the sale of the property for
#4300; that later the deal was closed at Kranaz's office, and
that he then asked the defendant where the #200 deposit was,
and the defendant statedthat Mr. Karrer had it; that on the
afternoon of the sams day plaintiff went to the defendant's
oifioe and met Mr. Karrer and asked him for the difference
between #200 and 2} per cent of the selling prise, which was
refused on the ground that the commiesion agreed upon was #200.
The defendant and his saleeman both testified that
& few weeks prior to the time in question, they had sold for
the plaintiff a flat building; that the plaintiff received as
part of the consideration for said flat building the plece of
real eetate above referred to; that in that deal the defendmt
wanted #400 commiesion, which the plaintiff refused to pay, but
finally agreed to pay *300, and further etated thet if the
defendant sold the real estate mentioned in the contract above
referred to he would pay *200 commisgion; that in that trans-
action the plaintiff elgned a written agreement to pay the
defendant #300; thet on June 2, when the plaintiff oslled at
the defendant's office, he asked what commiesion the defendant
was to charge and wae informed that 1t would be 8200 ae the
Plaintiff had theretofore agreed; that the plaintiff’ said he
would not pay that amount; that he first eaid he would pay
#60, then *100, and then 34 per cent of the selling price;
that thereupon the defendant stated that he would sell to the
prospective purchaser a piece of property owned by another
pereon in lieu of the plaintiff's property; that the plain-
tiff then eaid, "Well, all right, draw up the contract, and
I will pay the #260;* that the defendant then drew up the
contract which wae signed. The amount of the commission,
ii a t ney . aw _ a) Sa
oie
Afene (bias sanbnetob edt tadt jtosxtaoo edt ayla ton bi
-ttalq ef? medd tad? bas * stadt edet oF ova iite on eae a
rot yseteqgotq edt to alas ed? 10% tonrdaoe edt bongte Tul
Bos ,eoltio a'senmstd te heaelo oaw I20b edt sedel todt 008
,anw tleogeb coat odt ered tnabmstebh od? boxes nett of od
edt ao tadd (th bed set1ex% . iM ted betate tanbasteb ede
a'tachneteb edt of jaew Bittaislq yeb emsa —* te aooar st
soneteltib odd 102 wid bexes ban textes .1M tes bas ee
aay dolde eolaq —XE edt to tae seq iS bas OO8d aeonde
-OOS* eew moqy beorgs nolee Immoo edt tent oauorg eds a0 boas ste |
tadt beltltast dtod nano sloe eid bas Inabasteb edT
r *
—
tot bloe bad ved⸗ (motte sup at mtd oat ot 1oltq ofece wet,
ae bevisoes Yilsntalg edt tedt ipates hud tlt 5 —
lo soelq ed? galbliud galt blas zt mol tetebteaoo ot to i
tmbaoteh ef? Iseb tedt al ted? jot betreter evoda otaten | *
duc Xaqg of heautet Yitnislq edd doldw olen knoe cont beta
edt If ded? betede tedt1yt bas .OOf* yeq of beste: vike
evods sosrtm00 eft at benolinem etetee Lasy ed? bloe ———
~snstt tedt at tedt yaoteetmmon 008% yeq bluow ef of berrzei¢ *
edt yeq of tnemectge mottize « bemgia Tittatelq on? motte
te belizo Yitintelg edt oedw (6 enw mo tedd (00% aabas ro J
danbaeob edt soteelmmoo tedw betes of ,eoltto e'tnabasteb —
oft e# COS# od bivow tf ted? bemrotal eaw bas eytsdo oF oe
od blea tiftntalq edd ted? jbeetge exototveted? bad — *
yeq Sluow of Blea tutit ed tadt jtovomea Jdadt ver oa blu
jeoing golifes edt to taso req 48 asd bao Ore aod? 0
f edt of [lee bivow ed tad? botete tnabasieh odd noqueredd 3
tedtons yd beneo ytteqetq to soelq & teeedomw, ovite ori
~ttitelq edt tad? jytreqorq a'ttiintslg ed? te weil ale poate
bas ,tostiaoo eft qu werh ,tdgtx Ife low cbine “8
edt qu weib sed? snebneteb ed? tedt * 008% ot veg :
4 — Mee,
we ~fokeetamon ad? to 44 ——————— ta tite on,
se
however, was not written in the gontract. Defendant further
testified that after the deal wae closed at Kronez's office,
Plaintiff said, "Don't I get any 3£ 74200; * and defendant esid,
"Wr. Karrer hae that, I haven't;"* that on the afternoon of the
game day, plaintiff ealled at defendmt'« office and there met
Mr. Karrer and demanded the $92.50, which was refueed. v
From the foregoing, it clearly appears that the only
question in thie ease ie one of fact. The sourt aaw and heard
the witnesees in open court, and unless we can say that the
finding is clearly and manifestly againet the weight of the
evidence, the judgment should not be disturbed. We have care-
; fully examined all the evidenes in the record, and are unable
to say that the finding of the court io clearly and manifeetly
againat the weight of the evidence. The judgment of the
Municipal Court will therefore be affirmed.
ATFIRMED.
—
zsedizul tnehoeted .goetisoo edi a messiaw son saw Tovenod
,soltto a'senst¥ te —— ase Ieeab of? teste todd bottitesd
,bise tnaboetob dae * 008 to yoe tog I t'od*® .btes tilvaielq
edt to noonretts edt ao sedt *;2'neved I .¢adt ead tered . XM"
gem ered? bas eoltio o'# mbaeteb ts bellan Tilinlelq \ysb omes
\ .beevter eaw doldw .0&.8@% edd —— bas 19112 ot
yino edd todd ataeqqe yitselo tt <gategerot ed? wort a
breed bus wae tives edT .tost to eno af gseaso aldt al moiteoup
edd ted? yee seo ow evelny bas .¢tyoo nego at ssanentiv ott
edt 30 tiglew edt teotegsa ylteetinem baer ulresio et gotbalt
~9tno evad ef .bedruteib ed ton blyode tnemghut ed? ,soneblive
elcvany eve bas ,brooer edt at soneblive off (le bentwsexe yligt ©
yiteesticaes bax ylreolo at ¢xyoo edt to gulbalt edt tadt yee of
edt to tnemghbul edT .eonebive edt to tdglew odd saatega
ehboemriIte ed eroteteds Litw dawod Leqtotast
-CEMATUTA
91 oe 21061.
EDWARD A. GLENDE,
‘ Plaintiff in Error,
\ . ERROR TO
vs o —
MUNICIPAL COURT
’
BH. SPRANER, trading as OF CHICAGO,
Wicker Park Garage
— Error. —
"198 LA. 584
BR. JUSTICH# O'CONNGR delivered the opinion of the
courte
This was an action of the fourth class brought
in the Municipal Court of Chicago by the plaintiff in error
(hereinafter called the plaintiff) against the defendant in
error (hereinafter called the defendant) to recover damages
for the loss of a motorcycle valued at $225. ‘The case was
tried before the court without a jury, and the issues were
found against the plaintiff. A judgment was entered
against the plaintiff for coats, and this writ of error
followed.
The defendant was the owner and proprietor of
the Wicker Park Garage, located at 1616 North Hoyne avenue,
Chicago. The plaintiff was the ower of the motoreycle
involved in this case. On the afternoon of May 31, 1914,
plaintiff and one Frank Schmidt were riding said motorcycle
along North avenue. As they were nearing defendant's
garage, the drive chain of the motoreyole broke, and plaine
tiff and Schmidt then pushed the motorcycle into defendant's
garage to repair the chain. They worked for some time but
were unable to fix the chain, and, a storm having arisen
— ete
| ED A aAWOR
etQrrH mt Yikenials
OT AOS \ — 52 —
| her Hes .
enaued TAGLOIWUM \ ⸗
eOUADIHD TO * antics ———
goted aArsi rsotoiw
etortte at nannies
bee .AI8er ~~
eft to mnolaiqo att bexeviteb ROWMOD'O ADITSUL AM
ettu09
_ Qdguerd aaaſo ditwolt ed To nolsos in asw ald
torte ai tilinielg edt yd oysoldd To tayo0d lagqioinum outs na ’ |
ai tnabretebh off tenians (Tisntelg ent belfao te tes laniored) TARE ti
gogsmah tevooo% of (tnabasteb on3 belLas tos taniexod) xoxte
say enso ot .GS85 ta betsy sLloystotem # to aaot oail⸗ x0?
stew aovant oft bus ,ywt @ twodtiw ¢xweo ont exoted boizd
boteiae asw inembst A .ttiinisi¢ eft taniaga bavot
cotre lo thaw aint bas ,e¢a0o tot Yridwtela ot sontags
-bewolfod
to toseiagozgy bas tonwo edd aaw inebae tsb oat : fp x
Autiavsa smyoll ag ⁊ on 8404 te botsool ,egatsd Atat todo lw ‘ontt
efoyotosom edd to temwo sit saw Tiiinislg ant — e@gso £dd
<A1@L ,L6 yell To moomtesie oft m0. .esao elds ot borlornt
efLoyotctom bisa gribit erew ¢blovioa Ansti eno baw ttismtalq
afinabnoteh ygnixaen oxow yodt ak euneve ditto grote
ettalg bre ,etord efoyorosom odd to miads syixb ont .o3eteg
a'inabnetsh otm eloyorod om ond — nent thimdo® bas —
tud ois omoa xot bodtow yedT miedo odd aheget of ooetey
} nonkts anual mote « — eMtato ont xt oe —9—
ole
in the meantime, plaintiff decided to leave the motorcycle
in the garage over night, which he did with the permission
of the defendant. ‘The plaintiff stated that he would call
for it the next day. ‘Some time during the next day, a man
called at defendant's garage and presented a written order
signed by the plaintiff directing the defendant to "give
this gentleman permission to inspect" the motorcycle.
Defendant complied with plaintiff's directions, and while
the man wes inspecting the motorcycle he mounted it and
rode away. Plaintiff arrived at the garage immediately
after the man had gone and demanded the motorcycle. He
was told that the motorcycle had been delivered to the man
who presented plaintiff's written order; that he had just
left with it, and would probably be back in a few minutes,
Plaintiff waited around the garage for a while, but the
man did not return, and the plaintiff was never able to
recover possession of his motorcycle,
The plaintiff contends that there was an express
contract by which he agreed to pay the defendant 50 cents
for keeping the motorcycle over night, and that therefore
the defendant was a bailee for hire. The defendant denies
that there was any such agreement, and contends that he
permitted the plaintiff to leave the machine as an accommoe
dation and that he was a mere gratuitous bailee,. om
We are of the opinion that the evidence in this case
is ample to sustain a finding by the court, as a matter of
fact, that the defendant permitted the plaintiff to leave
his motorcycle in the garage over night in order to accommoe
date the plaintiff, without any agreement as to compensation,
in which case the defendant was a mere gratuitous bailee,
and was liable for gross negligence only, or a want of slight
oll
eLoyortoton oct evaol ot hobioob ritsatata ,omitnaom oct ad
Moimaimisg edd tin bib as fotdw ,tdgin t9ve epeTeg any 4
ffao bivow on stadt Sedata Tikdaltata eT .tnabmeted orld to
nem a ,yab txen oft goitub emis emoe wyab dxen eat tL sot
‘tobte aettiuw so botnesstq bra enateay a'inabneteds ta beLiao
ovis" otf trebrolob oft gaifoorith thidnialy, edd yi benyta
-ofoyorotow ont “toeqant o¢ noisetateq namolimep, eine
slidw bus ,anoitoerib a'tiktnialg dilw beiiqmos Inabste rot
fas ¢k botavom on oLoyototom erft paitooqani aaw aam alt
ylotakboumt exysts,; edt ta bevicie Tiitnialt yews ebor
sh .efoyototom odd bebnameb bus enoy Bar nant odd cotta
nan ofS of betevifsb need barf sloyototom ont J add bLod anw ya.
fast bod of tots pxobto metsinaw a'ttiinial betneeotg ow
-sotunin wot « mi Hosd od yldsdorq bluow buen , tk ddiw steel
ent tud ,eliow g 10% egeisg ont bawote botlaw vaatasa
ot sida «tesven esw Tilialalg sid bra rrussa dont bth nam
eLoyototom ald to moleaoaaog Lovee
asotgxe ma raw otedt tad? abmetgon Vilinielq ed'T
atnes O8 tnmbnetod ond yaq of ben tga ont to Lobve yd foerdnoo
etotezods tadd das ,tigin tevo sloyotodom ad? griqeod t6et
aolineh gusbnoleb off otis 10% esilad w saw taabnetob ont
oni tady abmetnoo bra ,tnemootgs Nowa yew saw otedd tedt
-ommooos v2 an enindosm oft ovaol of Tildntalg scat botdkareq
\y .eefied avotivtery stem ¢ aew on tat bus moktab
oo elds ok gonubive odd satt moiniqo sit te ate oW
to tesiemu 8 am ,duvoo ed yd gnibait 6 nistaue ot olqma ak
evsel of Ttitnisl eld. bessioreg dnabuoteb ot tact ,toat
-onmoon # oF tobite ak tigin revo oyeteg ont mk oloyototom ald
sotiaaneqnes of aa tnomeotgs ye duoltiw ,Thhinlel oi oftab — —
oeltad avotiutaty, stom 2 saw tnabroteb ocio⸗ e280 lo Retr mt j
dadfe. to tnew a to ,¥ine sononi gon vacr tot oideil aaw * av
a —2—2—2
=3~
Care or diligence. Gray v. Merriam, 168 [11. 179. The
plaintiff does not contend that the defendant was guilty
of gross negligence, nor does the evidence sustain such
theory.
But, even if we assume that the court adopted
Plaintiff's theory of the case, and that the evidence is
sufficient to sustain a finding that there was a contract
for compensation, and that the defendant was therefore a
bailee for hire; still, if the defendant used ordinary
care to prevent the loss, he cannot be held liable,
Standard Brewery v. Bemis & Curtis Halting Co., 171 111.602;
Gloyde y. Steiger, 139 I11. 41. |
The plaintitf in this case showed a delivery of
the motorcycle to the defendant and a failure on the part of
the defendant to reedeliver the same to the plaintiff. This
was sufficient to make out a prima facie case of negligence
against the defendant, and it then devolved upon the defendant
to show that he had exercised the degree of care required by
the nature of the bailment. But, where it appears that
the goods bailed have been lost, stolen or destroyed by fire,
the law will not presume negligence, and the onus. or bugden
of proving the same passes to the bailor. x- Union
Stock Yards & fransit Co., 193 Ill. App. 14. The undisputed
evidence in this case clearly shows that the motorcycle in
question was stolen, It therefore devolved upon the plaine
tiff to show that defendant failed to use ordinary care to
prevent the theft.
The plaintiff admits that he had advertised the
motorcycle for sale, and the evidence tends to show that he
so informed the defendant, and left his name and address at
t= ae
edit .@Vi .ffi .somegilib io eted
YLisg asw dusbastleb oft tadd bastnoo tom aoob Tilialalq
town mistaue oonebive oft seob tom ,oonsaligen aaoty to
-yroods
betqoba tivoo ocd stadt omwase ow TL nove , tut
ak eomebive odd Jadt baw ,easo edt to yroodt ew ttistaiaeiq
ee ee oe ee
tostsinoo a new er)eds tadd poibei? ws aisteve ot toe toh Ytwe
8 ercteredd? saw Jnabroelteoh edd Jari? baa ,moliaaneqmoo tot
Yranibro beay tnabnotoh oid TE ,fitia jotld tot ooliad
-eldeif{ bfLod ed fonmnao en ,aeol ont tnovetq of tae 4
;R08.Lf% INL ,.0) yoisie abi) § aimed sv yrownmd bisbosds
> ££ @8L ,zopted@ sv gbyolo _
to yreviteb s bewons gaso sidt ak Ti kintele oat
to tisg sat no suvilat a bas tnsbne'tob ond of oLoyores om on⸗
a bel? »ttiomiata ond of coma od tevilab-et of tashasteb ong
soregifyed to sees stost smiug » tue exam of jnotottiva aaw
shbnolebh edt hogs bevfoved neds $i bas » duabaeted eas taniays | 2
qi berivpset. sie0 To sexed edt boatotexe bat ert tadd wore ot ‘
tenit eitseqqs ti ouodw , tu .tnemiiad eft to eisten at ,
exit yd beyotteeh to mefote ,saol meed evan beilad shoog edt ay
rsbaud 19 ayo ont bas ,soneygilgen euyaotg ton Lliw wal ont
RoinU «x sfodpi .tofiad ot of apsesq omea oAd gutvorq to
betuqeatbas off df .qqd {LI SCL ,.99 tianaxy & sbra¥ xoose
at ole yo sos om odd tact awoda yfuaefo egano elds ai sonebive |
atialg eid moqu bevyioveb eretereds wl ‘meLlots asw noltaeup
‘od sia yvianibro eay oF belist) tasbreted tant wode ot Yttt
etteds oft oneverg
_ ene beaketovbs bad end tact atlmbsa Tiiinisig sit
od sons worse of abnot sonebive ont dns ,olaa tot eLloyotosom
te aeorbbe bas oman ain stel bus ,snabnotod oid bomrotat on
ate
the garage on the evening of May Slst, and requested the
defendant to permit anyone to inspect the motorcycle whom
he might send around, The man who stole the motorcycle
presented to the defendant the following written order:
"Kindly give this gentleman permission te
inspect my motorcycle which was left with you
last night.
Rdward A. Glende.*
The plaintiff admits that he signed this order and gave it to
a man whom he had never seen before and has never seen since.
It alse aypears from the evidence that the plaintiff ine
formed the defendant that the drive chain had a few links
missing and that the machine could not be operated until
the same was repaired. We have carefully considered all the
evidence in the case, and under all the facts, we are clearly
of the opinien that the plaintiff failed to show that the
defendant did not use ordinary care, and that the court
correctly decided this case on the law and the evidence.
The judgment of the Municipal Court will therefore
be affirmed,
AFFIRMED.
ait beteeupst bas ,tait ya Yo giinovs oft no egatag a
monw efoyototom edd tosqant of emoyne 3 kurreqg ot snabaeted *
afoyotosem odt ↄ Locc ow nem aff .Sxvors bros sdgtm ot wy a
sobre mecsinw gauiwollot edd dnebaetob edt of **
{ op ay
ot nciaalwteg namolinog sidy oviy yfbaia® — her 4
woy dtiw titel eaw cdoidw efLoyototom ym fongant pls i
e$igin gant —
".ebneld .A brewbe : eT id
J
Onin teea seven aol bis etoted nees teven bead of monw nem a J ‘a .
$i ovag bam tobi0 aldd bemyie on said etimbs Ttitntslq eT
etd Thitniel edt tad? somebive ond mot ataoqa coals a * ;
anil wet o bad miaro evith odd daddy tunbnoted odd bearrod -
Lita betateqo ed son bivos omidvam oft tact bos prigator - a
aa ff@ borsebianos ylluterno oval oW .borlaqet saw oune ot *
tsefo o%a ow ,asoet ont Ile toby bre paso ond mk oommbive J
edd Jedd wor's of beLia® Triintata ond santd molakgo ont to i f
⁊uoo edt teult bows PE 20) ‘eran thse cay ton bib faabastoh
soorobive oft fae wal acd mo ↄv ad aids boebioeb ——— F J
~ototods iLiw $rs0d faqto Lait eit Ye > ema oat ‘
— —
BLLS2
OSCAR ins and BERTHA HET2, —
Appellees, Fi
§) APPEAL PROE
GIRGELY COURT,
QOOK COUNTY.
19ST.A. 589
wn, JUuoTICN O¥couNOR delivered the opinion of the
Apeelian — Bs
oourte
Thies is on appeal fros an order denying a motion
to diesolye a prolininary injunetion. ‘Tne bil) socks to
remeve clouds and asks for an accounting. The partios will
be designated complainants ani defendants as in the court
bolows
The sotien ease on for hearing on the face of
the verified umended bill, and munt therefore be treated as
& demurrer to the amended b112 and the conse decided upen the
fane of the same, fpiemher ye Gity of Gudcucoe, 216 11k. 1llé.
Yhe complainants filed their bill and aftermeats
by leave of court, made a number of amendments. The amends
mente are all incorporated in one docuwuent. The better prace
tios/im euch canes ia to require that an engrossed bill be
filed, While the bill an amended is very loosely drawn,
yet, so far a8 material to the question now under consi dal me
tion, we are able to gather fron it that tha/Somplainaats,
on January 8, 1913, purchased property known as 2162 Lelend
avenue, Chine, and paid for the same; that the property —
is dmproved with a tewestory brick buildings that the cote
BS ‘plainant, Osear Meta, in 1907, euployed the defendant, 5
mone mara CO
eTHU9O TIVORIO
xxxuuo moo
She —— ont — — ne 202 atea how aduo le ovo
‘20 over ese oO gehveod 16% oo pap atom ott
= basoont of eroteiods duse ham Atu⸗ babsrorss bettixey 4 ) ay i)
oo neq bobtooh onay odd bua Ld hobuoms et of — Hie |
At EEE dus saul 20 LES. ook Bodine vem wid to sont
BS
ONE iy
ital
———— oat Liked sect — * sgn Leto ot Wee
*
bias sessed ott drew ob ane ak beasxoq toon: tte oe
ae Shae Lonsorgne rus tari⸗ os tupox od ms apano dows a
* earch ylomoos yitev an bebo ws kia ons poche
—— ben won Bosaoup ait Of iabwogon ee tat
— —
——— dant oh wort edit, ot } etéa o *
‘tent ne
me * dads “tomb mp
ee ey
*2
Oscar Bredfuchrer, oa his agent to leok after some real
eetate sattorm; that the complainants from time to tine
purchaead different parcele of real estate and were ree
presented in said transactions by said Brodfuehrer; that
the latter centinued to act in said capacity from 1907
wntil the filing of the DAL in this aaseg that sinw the pure
ehane of the imland Avenue property the sawe hae been oocue
pied by tenantss that the defendant Bredfuehrer ae agent for
the complainants has sellected the rente from such tenantag
that the defendants conspired to cheat anc defraud the
eomplainante cut of esid property and in furtherance of said
conspiracy, On or about llth day of September, 1913, forged the
eonplainanta’ namen to a trust deed to said preminen, pure
porting to secure an indebtedness of $1000, that the suid
trust deod in a forgery and shou d be removed as a clouds
that afterwarda, on or about April 25, 1914, the dvfencantes
in furtherance of said conspiracy te cheat and defraud the
complainants out of said property forged the couplainante®
Names tO a warranty decd cenveying the Leland Avenue property;
that said deed wae filed for reosord in the recerder’s office,
Cook County, [ilineia, on August 10, 19163 that the recorder
of Sock County is abot to deliver said warranty deed te
the defendanteg tint the only way that complainants ean show
that said warranty deed is a forgery is by producing the
original in court; that from 1907 to the time of the filing
of the bill the defendant Bredfuehrer collected rents for
the complainants derived from several different parcels of
real estate in Chidage and hae failed to properly account
fer the same, he bill prays fer an accounting; that the
trust decd and warranty decd be recoved as clouds that the
a ne oe
le
Laox cmos vod te dook of taoga aid ao ,xextawtbort 18080
out? oF omits mott atnaniatynon ents $outt gato dd awe otatus
ons otow baa ofatas Lawr te afLontag —BR— — vounstorirg
salt grosdowtbord bios yd ano hdoannaxd bkon ak betasavrg
FOOL mort ytioage blae wk fou of beamlinve xoeszal of?
mq od moto Sat? goaso ahig wk Lhid ocd Yo gulitt onde La sous
e500 noad a@af oune eff eexeqere esuevA baalal off to eaado
cot Unoge om sotouIboul Inobreteh ot Sold gotanued oe hoe hey
gosnanres Mowe mort adner asd betoeliee sat ataaminalqmon edd
ett buavteb bas fae of borkqnaee atnebastob odd tat —
bine 26 sonetonsist ai Ouse ysaoqotg Siae to duo etnanialqudeo
beytol ,éL0£ ,rofemtqo8® to yab dilé tuods 10 wo ,ypaniqanes
wig ,~nonimety biaa of beeb Jdants o O¢ eomen “atnen lage:
bios odd salt 3000L9 to agenbedd obs As ouuOR ot gnisreg
ghwolo » oe bovonen od b words bus VIegret a wt uoob daurnd
atuebnotoh etd ,df@L ,8h Liaga tueda 10 no salvumiod ta Sols
eit buaxted baa saordy of youtkqenos bhos to sonatas tut ab
fegnantafenoe oid boyt0? Yireqorg. bine te Jue ednanteLqmeo
heqoiwg simevA dbnalet oy guiyevnes boeb yYawtiaw a of aomest
poOLTIO a'aohbceoesn off AE bropet «ot be £23 naw boob blea taut
robtooes st todd GeLOL ,OL sowyWA mo ,MionALET ,ysawod dood
of boob Yfaoriaw blag wvileh of tied at ytmued 400d Yo
fore nao atmaniniqnos tmis yaw (ine ort Judd judnahne top ens -
edd yiiouberq yd af yregret 2 ef beeb naraau bisa tosis
BALLET act to omit ont oF WOOL moxt said gouueo wi. Lantytre
‘10% etme bogoelles sotdentbort tanbaeteh ould ihid osid ve
Yo aleoreg Jnoxe Trip foroves — —R& egnnn Lafanco ons
| Snuopos Ylregoxq og beste? wart besa ogad sad at tates Loot
gat tats gyotiauooos na tok ayarq ithe ont eons oud 102
ont fmt gubwolo ae hovouns of deph ener, bee boon sens
ms,
a
*3
reeorder be enjoined from delivering the warranty deed,
and that the defendants be onjoined from atteupting to
exercise any acta of ownership over the property, etc.,
and for general relier.
Tne defeondante firet contend that thie being
a bA1L to remove cloude, and the premioes in question
being improved, an allegation that the complainants are in
poscension is easential, and tint the bill as ewended caw
tains no such sllegation, and is therefore — defectives
[The contention gnnounces a correct statement 33— Aau. He
are of the opinion, however, thet in view of the allegations
ap sbeve eet forth the bil! as anended deen aver that tne xtce·
plainante are in ponponsions ¶
The next contention ig that to warrant an injune —
etion of the face of a bill 4t must be verified, and that
the verification to the amendments te the bill io ineufficie
ent. The affidavit is ae follows: “Gsear Mets being sworn
States upom oath he hae heard read the above anda foregoing
anendaent and knows the emtente thereof and that tne
Statements therein made by him and complainants are true
aad he subscribed hie name to the samee® The objections
urged to this are that thie affidavit woich appears at-
the foot of the document consisting d¥ eleven different
amendments to the bill, referer to but cone amendment, and
therefore it is impossible te determine to which amendment
affiant refers; that the word *etatements” ac used in the
affidavit is ambigueus and that no distinction is made bee
tween matters stated positively and those upon information
and belief. che objection that the affidavit refers to but
one of the eleven asendments is hypereritical rather than
meritorious, All of the amendments are in one document, and —
oto
abeob yiastiew ot goivevitod mont bentotas ev sobLooos
os grigquoita mot? boniotae od afnabasteb ong tad? baa
oAOS® gVylssqorG Oy tove qidsiemwo to sfoa ya ealtorex9 |
) eteifer Lurene, 10% bes
goied eft? sad? bmotaco fatkt efnaineteb eff
nolgeoup ni avaiaorg ond baw gabyolo evans os £Lid o
mi eta sinenlaiquoo odd Jedd noliageils na,bovetquk gaied
apo Sebmeas en [Lid ode Jods boa ,ialednoeas ui nolaaseaog
evidneted yLLadat siotetodt al bus ,moteayetia dove on ented
aw diate ditometnta Jomr1eo o seonuies melinetnoe aff]
enoitaguife oft to wokv ai sedd yxovewod ,noiniqo ed? to ote
oo osit Jet? seve og0b bobmeme am (iid edt txt see eveda oa ~
[i etoteapanog at ora adnantatg
—
rts bat ie Sharsaw of dads ak noliaestnoo 2xen ont
tact baa ,bolthiov od toum $2 ikid a x0 eos? ot to notte
eto tT tuant af Ifid oné of atnembaone ed ov Mohsoo LtLiew ost
rows yaied ato tace0"” tawollot ea ul sdvabhiia edt tae
wikogero? bas evode of% baet frison aah ont a⸗ ao mogs votara
ose dal? bon Yooted? efnesmo edt @wonrd baa J roscbesseus .
ovet ota atnanialqwoo bas mid xi abana shovels asnonos ata |
enoisooide on? "somes od oF oman old bodiveadue od bam
te @iaeggs so btw tivebhTie abst Sasid oun ahag o⸗ beyw i
saore?tib novels Te yeisaionon dneawoeb exit 26 foot ods t
baa ,#rombyean auo sud oe axe tot ihe od? oF agaoxbaome
trembeons do kite ot onierotob ov oLfddeaoqet wi Pe oxorexoitt
ond oh Sou os atnnmos aga wrow oft sant jexo tor jasktis
ood obamw al moktonigath Ot Jord baa semargedious ak thvabkyta
OLS morro tek hOGA ound baa viovis ag bosase ores san feows
Jud oF axoton Sivabitie od tastd noltootdo o«t\ stekted bes 4—
newts uniigax Loolksinoreqyt ef ssn ombermssa movelo eit Yo eno 9
2 eee ee Oe ee in Mem wee ie OOK Ol ok Oe ee ee be ee, Eee eee ines tei ee ee i
|
4
oT
24 ⸗
the affidavit refers to all of them, The Objection te the
werd “etatemente” as used in the affidavit io witheut merlig
eo alee de the ebjeetion that no distinction in made between
powitive statenenta and those upon information and belief.
Under the facts we think the affidavit in sufficient. The
next objection urged ic that the court, as o part of the
prdey denying the motion te dissolve the preliminary ine
junction, ordered that the rente eof the property in question
be impounded with the clerk of the ¢ cart; that this was in
effect the appointment of a reoviver, and that under the
statute, before a receiver any be aopointed, the complaine
ante must first give bond unless good caune in shown why
such bend should not be given, and that me such cause wan
ghown ond no bond wae giveny that the impouding of the rentea
was, thorefors, erroneous. That part of the order ebjeated
to ie as fohlowss *It is further ordered that the rents
collected @r to ve collected from the premises kmown as 2162
Leland avemue by cither party te thin caune from and after
the 23rd day of August, A. D. 1915 be impounded with the clerk
ef tis court until the final disposition of this causee® We
think that thie order was not in effect the same as the appoint
ment of a receiver, The bill avers that the complainants are
the owners in fee simple of the property; that they are in
poasesnion and entitled to the rente derived fren the same,
and on the record these allegations are etimitted to be tru@e
it therefere appears that the defendante could in no way be
injured by the order of the gourt. Furtherwore, no objection
was wade to the impotnding ef the rente and for aught that
appears from the record it may have been by agreemente
7 i ae = OF Pe J yt awd > ll 4 * i heft 4
F We ye
©
ony Of noigoutdo eat ,mecdd to fle of exohot sivebkttse ont a i
piinem tuoitiw ef tivabs tie edt at doew ao “atnouetase” brow
moowsed eham uk moltonmiteth om duds noisteotde edd al eade oa i |
etelied ana fro Ld mercotad moqu onolt bw eineamtase ovistaog ey
ext staotodYtua at ¢ivabltte olf andd? ow agoat ond teed fee
eid to stag s as ,tuiweo ed gals ah bogw neltootde exon ra a
eni ytanieilerg eds evionelh ef soifem of? gabyind 0bte a
nolvaeup al yw org oat Yo ataot of? Jars borekree national ia, ;
ai aaw aids Jactt su 9 oul? to axel oe AP tw bebauoqnt od
edt aobnw tad? baa ,THVivoot a To faonsedoo gs odt so0T%o
ettielymos eds ,betaiogan ed yar tevloout a oroted otutata a
Yiw awode al wevan boog coolan bmod evig gackt seum adn 7
aaw Oauen dove of Sait bnew ,aeviy od Jon b Lu eske ariod aAous 9
Huot orld to yathetvogat oft fads yrovig wow baod oa baw awote
hegoetde tebto off to Ftag sad? sauoonotie ,exoton ut? ed _
afar edd tail? Soishso sodttiwt af $2 sawolfo? as aa ot
L5f@ an nwo escleetq ect matt betoniLes of of +e bosoesioo
setite bane mort oaweo wins of “diag <oddio yd sxnove banged Won
ofp ois stiw bebmuogms ed GLOL oh oA gteuguA to yodb bres ot h
W F.enuao ali? 6 motsieogeth Lomit odd Lidny davon aids Yo
ores eit o@ O80 sold fooTte ak ton saw t0bse aided Jans Beeld —
An sivaniaignoo oid tatt axeva Lid oft .xovivoos « to Jaam ‘
oi exe yous sas? gysxeqerq act Yo ofqaia ont ak wxenwo ond 7a
any
gOtine oft Kort bevitod snes od of DoLdlene daa ab laasanoa Wir
* Ms
— ad of betiiaba oum anoltagetia eaed? banon ody no bam ae
" Me J
od yew on at bivoo atashaeted si? salt aresqqa — hae J
—8 Of ,otoutodIust .tive0 of To tobxo ost wh ta
_ tad touua x90 baxe afer odd Yo guibawoqnk one 0 oom :
hur’
4
met
ao lee
Vinding no reversible errem in the record, the
order of tne Cireuit Court of Cook County will be affigmed.
APFIREUD.
oe
ads ,btesex of2 ai Porre oldiavevet an galonit
ebomzitta od (Liw yisweD dood te fined siueakh edd Yo «cobte
eGR TTIA
5357 - 20870
WILLIAM DOROTHY, Trustee in Bank-
ruptcy of the KR, kK. Maynard Jiano
Company, a corporation, bankrupt,
\ Appellant,
‘ APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR
Vv *
COURT, COOK COUNTY.
—
COMMONWEALTH COMMERCIAL COMPANY ,
and NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, f
|
vpelicss. ⸗ 1 9 8 T yi @ 6 0 1
My
*
Me
y us ware
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
@onplainant filed @ bill for the redemption of
certain accounts, notes, contracts and papers in the poss-
essicn of the defendant Commonwealth Commercial Company,
which it is alleged were delivered to said defendant as
collateral security for loans of money made by this defend-
ant to the R. K. Maynard Piano Company, of which wien adie
ant, William Dorothy, is trustee in bankruptcy, The bill
prayed for an accounting and asked that upon payment of the
amount found due from the Naynard Company all its indebtedness
to the Commonwealth Company be declared extinguished and that
said accounts, notes, etc,, be delivered to complainant and
decreed to belong to the Maynard Company and to complainant
as trustee for the same, Upon hearing by the chancellor the
bill was ordered dismissed for want of equity. Irom this
complainant appeals,
The transfer of the accounts, notes, etc,, from
the Maynard Company to the defendant was effected under four
contracts, Complainant contends that these contracts, rightiy
construed, show the transaction to be a transfer of collateral
as security for loans, ‘the defendant Commonweal th Company com
tends that they are wnat in form they appear to be - bona fide
- sales, Ww ;
ovysos - TEs
-%084 nt easenxT ,YHTOHOd WALLILW
onsii bisayek .i .H ad to yor
wwasxanesd —— B arated ;
vastileagqa | iW ——
AHOIMAVuS MONT Janaga
ev
eYTHUOD Aooo , TAVOD Nore
| YMATMOD JALOMGS {0D HUARWUOMMOD —
+ YHATMOOD TEU UAT HATHTAO brs
cosgpouie | —
f
*
X
*
Wass pid
YIEAUGOM ROLTEVUL DUECI@aAL .xM
.TAU0D LET YO MOLMIGO ST CanEVIGEG
; ; — i
to aoitgmsber oft trot ffid « belft snoniatqmed he AY
~eeog oft oi ateqeg bus etomtinoo ,zoton ,ednuooos nisti90
Yasqmod [aioremmod dé taouaonnod dasbiueteb ods to notes J
as Jnabauoteb bisa ot betsvileb otew begolls ak. tk satan
-bnatob alist yd obam younom to aasol 10% viituoos tersgetfoo
——— vig Lekw to UaBguod onsid brenysl ot 7s ‘ont ot a
—9—
{ftd eat yotquranad mt seteurt at. donot molttew , tine
sit to tneayseq snogqu tans bodes bas goidayvooos ms ‘rot —— 1
esonbetdsbni esii (Is vasaaoð ptanya il ott mort ouh bowot rauoes
seat bas bone Lugnidxe bsteloob ed yceqmo!) ‘9 Lnowecomno9 ould of
51s doanialgaos ot berovileb od ,.,ote e9ton .ednu0o9e ise
at
tasnistqaos o¢ bas yasqmod bianysll oat of grolsd ot hes wweb
eit tolfeonsdo sit yd gniteed noql lomae ond rot voseutd
aided mort .¥siups to snaw zo% bees imakb bexebto saw ttkd
| me -aLnoqaa ‘Snsnte fqmo
mort ‘wha — ,edauooos edt To r9teaerd ait hs
‘uo? tobay hatoo tte aow dwabne tna, ond od rasaaod é
helidsis aitopetnee busts Soult ebnadaco Fron 8 £qu09
dw, wisgmog Ad LsownomaoD ‘frabae teh pe
AR
pbtt wae + ‘¢0as cenmae eee, lite wih came eee
We are of the opinion that the Supreme Court of
this state has decided this question for us, in the opinion
filed on February 16, 1916, in the case of Mercantile Trust
Company v, E. H. Kastor. Respective counsel in the case be
fore us are entirely familiar with the issues and history of
that case. The contracts before us are structurally like
the one considered in that case and differ from it in no
substantial respect, Following the Supreme Court, we hold
that the transactions between the Waynard Fiano Company and
the defendant Commonwealth Company were loans, with the ac-
counts, etc,, transferred as collateral security,
We are of the opinion that the dealings be-
tween the Maynard Company and the — Company con-
stituted one continuous transaction, These dealings were
never closed, The making of the yearly contracts bore no
particular relation to periods of time; they were merely
incidental to the continuous business, All the transactions
are subject to investigation, Jenkins v. International Bank,
97 Ill, 568,
Although these contracts are illegal, being
ultra vires, it would be unjust to hold that complainant,
who has received money under them, should not account for
it, and the law implies a contract to return what has been
received, Complainant should be required to return the money
advanced to the Naynard Company by the Commonwealth Come
pany, together with legal interest, Leigh v. American
Brake-Beam Co., 205 Ill, 147, Section 11 of the Inter-
est statute, which says that corporations may not interpose
the J of usury, has no application to this case,
Union National Bank v. L. N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 145 Ill. 208,
and Farwell v. Meyer, 55 111. 40, are autnority for holding
that the rate of interest upon any obligations of either
to duv0oD smetaquG odd Sand motmtgo adt To ots @W aah
motniqo elt mi eu tot molteoup aidd bebioedb sacl otase abit
taux? elfitnsotel to easo ent at ,dleL ,8f yrevsdeT no betty
-d 9eso ot ni Leanvoo svitosqeefi -zedead -H .g .v Mea |
Yo Yroseid bus eeseai edt Atiw retiimst yfetitns ote ey stot
exit eliaxutouste ots ev etoted etostéaoo eT e889 se
on at ¢i mort tettib bas easo tadd mi beteblenco eno “a
blot ow ,txsrod emetque edit gaiwolflot .tosqaset {sttastedue | a
bas ynsqned onsiZ branyseli edt noewsted anottosnaszd ent soit
-=-98 of? déiw ,ensol stew ynsqmod it — te | i
Uinvooa L[etetsi{oo ea bertetenatt ,,oto pee :
-ed eaniiseb ont teds moiniqo ext to ote sW ais
“moo yNeqmod J——— edt bas yosqmoD bisanye edt ——
stow aygnifaobh asset ,moldosenstd evounitnoa eno betusita —
on otod adosttaoo yiteey odd to anidem sift .besolo r9ven
Yfetom erew yout J to eboiteq of noitsiet is{voisisq —
SHolsosansit edi {fA ,eaenteud avyounisdnoo eft of fainebtont
etnsd fenotisanzetol .v entinet .noltsyitesvat o¢ deutene ome
.88@ {II Te
aiiod ,{egefli ors etositnoo seeds duyonddt fA
Josnisiqaes tadt biod ot teutaw od bLuow tt — attly
tot gnvosos son biuede ,wedt rebas yenom bevieoet esd ow
need esd tecw oxuvtet of Jostinos s asiiqmt wel edt bas .¢t
yoton sit axutexr of betinpex ed bilyode Insnieslqmod -bevisoor
-m0) défsewnommod edt yd yasqmed branysM edt o¢ beonsvbs
“Ug
fi asoitemA .v dMgiet .seetstnt [spel dtiw todtegot ,ynsg
“total eit to ff nottose “Tet .L1T 808 ..99 mse do sexe a
"Va eeogtedal fon yam atoiierogioo tadt eyse dotew etutete too
y -8aso aids o¢ noltaoifyqs on asd ,yiwey ‘to senoteb: ont
iy 80S ,f1f Gbi ,.00 .VA 12d WA WM od α
ath. TOE Ysitoddus ote .Ob .LII BE , —E Low pws oa
party in this case to the other which lawfully should bear
interest shall be at the legal rate provided in the absence
of a contract - that is, 5 per cent,
Complainant is entitled to an accounting and
to a return of the collateral upon payment to the Common-
wealth Company of whatever may be found due it from the
Maynard Piano Company, with interest,
The decree of the Superior Court is reversed
and the cause remanded for further proceedings not incon-
sistent with what is said herein,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
-tneo tsq @ ,at sat - - —
das gaitauooos se of beLiitue at tasaielqmoo —
_ -mommeD elt of tusmyeg mnogu Letetelloo ent to arcaen or
. edt mort ti aub bayot od ysn tevetsadw to Seay
: | -tesetedni dtiw ,yneqmoo oust &
R
beetevet at t1v00 totteque odd to setoeb edt
-Aiered bise et tadw alt tw tue
.CHGUAMEA CHA akeaxvan .
* = 4
F “i > 7 i : * —
\ * g f — —
— ⁊ — i t J H * *
\j anaes * eo ey Sj
4 jae x
h — 2
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 vear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
the 26th day of October, in the vear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fiftee
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice.
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk. THOMAS E. PASLEY, Sheriff
And afterwards, to-wit: On the..........48%............day of December, A. D21915, there was filed
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois,an OPINION in
following:
ee 2 /
| 199/T.A. 604
e words and figures
—-Lidgenwond te. Conpany, 0...
2 ee Appellee... | PPEAL FROM
\ /
ot en ee ‘uses, 2G Seen aoe
vs. \ | /
- ⸗
“aay \ — ———— Given wi oS as COURT
_ eed eee F
March Term, 1915 ‘ | /
?
_ nl ihe a — : =e V
eee Site ee | ee eee Mad inon 2c: 2. COUNTY
S0.._Re..He..Rebinson & Son Cont- |
owercine Company, == = |
_. Se Appellant. |
|
e —
x
\ <
< DS
Vas
aeacane, Sollogg A. SF oft
a —
3 Al i mhontilt Aion aM shed
1 . 4 cov VA fer Leber, a arn Rat amy Saud Tiere wa ont a) j
4 ’ , ee wt
ugt\i\ io n, ei hae — pm,
4 + it peo * Mile *
J
7 . aD. yale ast N cw —
oie, —— oy J
Wales Jogqotl
“ea A CAMO
>is *
wd *
oY oc et Ny A Saoed a ond fat... ‘wit nO Sites
‘ | % elas R ni AVASO — a vow SV Ag — — ii oth)
; 4
4) 63 Be
4
— welch
MOM JAI4 om
J
J
‘
RRUOC *
40
ar —
.
Term No. 46 Agenda ‘lo.61,
Karch Term,1915.
Lidgerweod lnnufacturing Company,
Appellee,
— — —
VS. jAnperl from
S. R. H. kobinson & Son Contracting V-A-D-I-3-0.
Company,
— —— — —
fppeéellant.
Cpinion by iligbee, Ff. J.
ae
Thie is sn appeal from a judgment entered
by the circuit court of Madison county, upon a
trial wherein the jury was waived, in favor of
, — snd agairst apnellant, for the sum of
=) $53,000.83, on Kay 22, 1914,
The suit grows out of the following state of
facts; On May 25,1910, appellant, a goxpovation have
= ing its principal office in St. Levis, Méesouri,
purchased of apnellee, a corporation, engaged in
tie manufacture and sale of machinery, having its
principel place of business in New York City and a
ss branch office in Chicago, lllinois, through G. N.
Crawford, Sr., the manager of ita Chicago office,
Pee three Lidgerwood-Crawford Seraper bucket ixcava-
‘ tors, twobeing of Claes 3-F, at £10,000 each or
a total of $20,000 and one of clase C at $17,500.
the whole contract amounting to $37,500. On Sept-
ember 22, 1910, appellant gave to G. N. Crawford, Sr.
oe
* ale
a
—JVJ J om 5) an) — ee.
atl SOS. io
J
— 9— a e-%
H .fd.olf sbnegs © You! *
SLL erro dora" a7 Spe
% a .
=
—
—
Uris qe 9D gnttutostuael boowregbtt
la@
peileqg Pi
(
(
mort LnaqaA\ . oe
\ é E ; 3 I
I-I-C-A-M ——— 3S moanidoi a ok ae
4 ¥ rig
yanginoD
. _ a
— asiisqa’
F ote
_e «@
bet ,oodatli — Rae
of,
—
ambul 8 mott Ireeqqs aa ef aid? y
{ to S109 givorlo ot yd
—
bereine u
pe nog Xcuoo ase thas
to royst mi ,hbeviaw Bsw yrut alt nistedy Csitt a
at xot Jantlocar grisgs pas seltsqqs
to man 9
cB. 000, 568)
pfer ,Ss yea m0
ptwo Lor eis to tuo ewoty tive oT
to etate &
sorel, es yam m0
anfloqqgs gatost * *
vail notdeteqzoo 8
trsose all pivot a0 wk sotto [fsqionitg edt gat *
at Hhagegn? - (noid stog1oo s ,oolfeaqs To boesstonia as: ;
ett anivert .vren tose to sfss bas stud os tunsm ons F
“a
s ban ysiv wxcY well mt — to soalq Lagioni ta
= «<M wv iquonutt | yecomittl pogsoidy at seks oe donetd
4 ,orTto oso itd ati to xegesnem oft yet” protwatd :
4 -Ay Box geaoud naqet92 protwar) -boowre gb oonar
J 10 fone 000. or) te ,t-f agsl0 to ambadond (e708
a ,006 ,TL4 ta 0 asalo To ono bas 000, 0 & to {[ntot 8 F
- af qau MO 00d ves ot get d miso mn “yontsH09 2 Locw —
—* exe ,biotwsatd oll .0 of 9V8S snefloqas orer —
“Og on ta 2*
oan Ta
*
——
Ar ae bre el — ——
upon this contract, ©5,909 in cash and five
promiesory notes of that date, payable to spneiier,
two tor '5,000 each and three for $3,525.55
each. One of said notee for 6,000 was to fil
due On October 12 and the other November 1°, 1910
and the three notee for 13,333.33 Matured rerspect-
ively on November 12, December 12 and January 12,
following the date thereof and all the notee drew
interest at the rate of eix per cent per annum.
The $5,000 note which matured Cetobver 12, 1910 wae
paid but no further payments have been made unon
the purchase price of seid excavators, and appellee
brought this suit to recover the amount claimed by
it to be due and unpaid, the same being the amount
of she four unpaid notes with the interest thereon,
the balance of the contract price not represented
by the notes and a bill for castings, nachinery
and material claimed to have been furnished appelle
ant, in erecting, repairing and maintaining said
excavators.
The ésalaeati ov. filed Nay 9, 1911, contsain-
ed eight counts. ‘The firet four counte declared
on the four notes avove referred to. ‘The fifth end
sixth were common counts for goods wold and dele
ivered. ‘The seventh counted on the coneolidateaaxe
ed counts for money loanec, paid and exnended, had
and received, and for interest, work and nuterial,
The eighth wan for money due on an account stated,
The judgment recovered included the aum of she une
paid notes amounting te $15,000, interert unon the
same from the date thereof to the dnte of judgment et
22-
ovit bre daso nt COO\d) ,sonténoo ridt moa
2tfomge ot aldsyeq ,otab tacit to eeton yrosaimotg
ES.S55E,5% tot serdt boas close 000,¢) xot owt
(fet of asw 000,d% xet aston biagea to sn) .doss
Ofef ,&f rsdmevovf rendto odd bar of tadotoo aG sub
-tosqest betutam S8.886,€5 tot aston serdd sid brs
ecl ytsune!l boa Sl rsdmeoed ,Si redmevot no ylevt
wath seston ott [fe bak Tostsdt stab edt gniwollot
MUIIG I9q Jaso T9q xis to eter edt ta teoretnt
aaw OLOL Sf tedotoo bstutem doidw ston 000,83 edT
Noqy sbsm ased svat sinamysq tediqut on sud bieq
esefisage bis ,wtotavaoxs bise to soirg sashorue oft
yd bemislo — ait se9vooemt oF tiua ett tiguoxd
tnvoms ois gnied smss sit ,.bisqnu bans sub ed ot ti
encoe1eds Seetetni sdt cttw eston bisquy ry0t enid ‘te
betaseetaqast ton x0itq Josténoo sit to sonelsd sdt
yteninfoagm ,sanit¢saso tot Ifid s bans aeton edt yd
e[{sqqs bedaintut mesd svsd of bemiefo isized sa bes
Hise antntesaian bis gnitisqet ,gnitosrte mi ina
eRITOTHVEOXS.
-attagmoo ,(fef .@ ya hbolit dottaxelout an”
herefosb etmroo tuot gertit esd? .atnuoo Sdgtie bs
bane dtttt oT .ct Setrstet svods aston tuot sds no
-ef95 Dns blow mhooyg tot atmos momnos etow dixie
exXKASt sbifoenco oft ao betnuoo dinevea of! .betevi
bad ,bebnsexs bre biaq ,o9nso0l ysnom tol stnyoo bs
fstreten Bes Atow ,teetedai tot bas ,bevisoest bas
sbotnde tnvooor na no eub ysnom tot ssw tiyte oil
ens ahr to mue ort besbuloni beisvoost snomgbut edt
‘
edt anoqy taotatmi: ,000,df3 ot gaiinuome noton bisq
J
tn dnenybut to stnb edt of tostedfsd ednb sdt mort somes
-le
six per cent per annum, $5500, the balance of the
purchase price for the excavators not included in
the notes, 412,500 and an open account for supplies
furnished apreliant amounting to 3200. 80, meking
a total of 734,000.83 against which a credit of
$1000 was allowed by the court for damages.
on the first trial of this enuse the notes
in question were not sought to be recovered on but
were introduced as evidence to ppove the amount of
the account stated (#29,667,52) and judgment wae
entered for that amount. Upon appeal to this court
that judgment was reversed and the caure remanded,
(183 111. App. 431) and reference is hereby made
to the opinion of the court in that care for a copy
of the contrsct sued on and other material facts
necessary to give a clear concention of the issues
invelved. ‘mong other matters and things therein
determined were, that appellant had a right te show
ot
whnt wae said by the parties at the time the writ-
ten contract wan entered into, not for the purpose
of varying its expressed terms but to determine the
design and intention of the narties in making the
contract as shown by the surroundings and circum.
stances under which the contract was entered into;
that the contract wae for whole machinet.and not
separnte parte of different machines, and therefore
appellant should have been nermitted to intrroduce
evidence to show if possitie the parte furnished
would not fit together, thet it wae necespary to
make certain changes in the parts and the amount of
1
a
aft to sonnisd sdt 0068) ,munns 19q tn90 19q xis
ni bebuloni tom atotevsoxys soft tot soltiq seadoisgq
esifqque ict dnuooos nego ne bas 00,Sf} ,seton ons
antoieam ,€8.008E. oF gnitnyomms insilecqs bedeinrut
to tiberto a dotnw tanisgs 6.000, s€} to Intost a
esegamsbh tot t1u09 ext? yd bewolis easw OO0L}
eston oft eeuno aidd to feitt text? oft mo F ea
tud mo hetsvooet od of tiiguos ton stew moiseoup mk F —
to tavoms sit svouq of sonsbive 28 boouboagat stew
aaw sosmgbut bas (880, Vos, es6) betata Jnuooos edt
tisoo 2idt ot Lseqqe noq’§ .tnuvoms Jnadt z0t bseteins
e>bebosmet ss3us0 eft bas beateavyesi asw tnemabu;, sSad$ K
Ao
t
sben yd ora at sonstster bas (LE) .qod .fL{I S8L)
Yqoo & rot saso tant ni tives ect to acokniqo sit oft a
ae
oe
so
atort [nitetem tedso bas no beve oatdnoo eds de he
eeueaet ait to neitqsoroo tesfo s sviy oF YIseRsoen | i
nisradt — bis etsttean tedto ynonr* -bevfovat
wode ot tigtt & bed) analieean tsdit ,s1sw pontmreteb
-tixwy odd omit edt ta eatixreq sit yd bina naw Sactw —
seoqtrc ent rot ton , oant bstetas anew teattnoo aad —*
odt sntoretsb ot tud eames boanorqxe esti gauiyrev * era
edt anttem nt-asitrsa sdt to nottasdnt bas mgiesb Wie
emuotio bas egnibmworttun edt yd mwore as tosttnoo
rodni betetms arw tooxtios oft dotdw tebay eoonete \
ton bua, dentdoan efoiw tot asw tosrinoo elt tacts
ercetetedd bos ,senidosm tnarett rb to atte odntsqee
ooubomtdnt ot bettimrec need eved biuoie taslfeqcs
hede tort atiegd adt efdteroq ti works ot sonebive *
of yrsargDen eow ti tertt stedtogos ki ton Stier ——
to trasome 9ifd bas adieq ond mt eegnado ntstre. exam *
Fas
pe ey
|
:
7
;
ae
A
damages nceruing to appellant on account of such
changes. The court also held that the written con-
tract did not necessarily preclude appellant from
the benefit cf sny implied warranty there would have
been in the absence of a written contrect, that the
excawatorswere manufactured in a workmanlike manner
and reasonably sdaptec to the purpose for which they
were manufactured. Aleothat if any subsequent cone
tract was made at the time the notes were given and
the £5000 paid, that appeliee would complete the
machines snd make them estiefactory and fit to do
the work for which they were purchaged, appellant
had the right tostow such facts. the second
trial of the case, the court below proceeded in
harmony with the views exnrese2ed in said opinion
and heard eviderce ae to whether there were defecte
in the excavators as completed machines, 22 to what
was neceseary, if anything, to make them complete
and render them evitable for the work for which thef
were nurchaeed, as to what extent if ony, they vere
defective when completed and the damage to appellant,
if any there war, by reason of imroper manufacture.
Evidence was also heard ae towhat the subsequent
contract made at the time the notes were given was
and what had been done in regard thereto. ‘Tove
forty days were consumed in the trisl of this cavee
; P
in the court below. “he record filed here ia come. ,
posed of over 3000 tyne writen pages in addition
to numerous exhibits, and the briefs, argument and
_ abstracts cover over 1400 rages. It ie therefore
“evident that this court should not discuss the preéfs:
fous to tnvooos no tnelfleqqs of gniutoon esgamsbh
“Noo Hnettizw edd teit bled eels t1u09 efT .esgnado
mort tralloqqs sbu loser yLitssse0en ton bth soars
esvead Slvow stedt ytosttew beltfam vis to titened ont
edt Sadt ,toertnoo mettiaw ew to soneeds et at ased
tenian etilnamlror a at bots on tuna SI9v72 ToAVMAOX
Yons dotdw tot seogtsg alt oF batgqnba vVidsnoesst bas
-109 Jnsupsedue yas ti JsdtoefA .betutoatunam stew |
Ban a9vig stew easton sdt omit oft te ebam eaw toert ee
adit eatatqnos Sluow selloqqs test ,bisq 000% edt —
ob of £2 bra yrotorlettss met sxec dna ——— a
tanifscan ,beestoruq stew vert doliw rot drow ons
biooee oft mm? .etost cous worlact tigi ect HDecl
ni Sehsscorg wolod fisoo add .seno ext to Intixt
Noiniqo bise nt baeseerdxes #wetv sat diiw ynoorrsd
atootab stow evant tedtedw of es sarebive bised an
tadw of 2* .xentdosm betsSqnoo ef erosavnoxe eft nt _
staelquoo mods 2get of eooidtyne Tt ,yiseesoen raw
Yots dotdw tot xrow efd tot oldsatiua meds tebmex bas
etay vat .yns Ti ¢aetxe tadw ot asm ,bserdoisd stew
⸗
nefleeqe ot 2yemeb edt bre badalamoo rectw ovitosteb
eotutortunem tacotemi to mosset yd ,saw etedt yaa Tf
travpesdua eit seadwot an breot onfs aaw sonebiva
new tevin stew reton sft omit oft ta sham 20474000
ain? ,otetett bireget at ench resid ban Janw brs
| eeuno nidt to Ietat ont mi bemurnoo etew aysh ysrot
| ano ei sted belit bxreost sot- .wolead druco edt at -
nottibhs ni segsq met’ ir: sayt OOOS rave to bsroq
bas tremuata ,ataitd ett bre ,stididxe evordémun ot
etotereds ai +I .asygeq OOEL tevO T9vOD etostinds
eleorq oft eauseth ton blunie t1ruoo aids tadt tnebive
in detail snd coneider all the numerouea cuestinonsa
\ raised, unlese it showld find it to be absolutely
necerrsary to do #0 for the proper dienoesition of
the crase. ‘Fe hove given the cnse a careful consid-
eration end find it is not necessary to discuss
here all the questions raised by counsel to nroverly
decide the same, and will therefore confine this
opinion to a discussion of those matericl matters
which, when determined, ecnrear to fully disnore of
the questioner whether the judgment was rightfully
entered in fevor of arrellee and whether the record
pertaining to those matters necessary to be
established to entitle sprellee to 1 recovery, was
free from substantial error.
© great amount of evidence wee vnroduced on
the part of apyellant for the purpose of showing it
had been delayed in its work and damaged by reason
of iate shipments of parts of machinery: ty the
| improrer conatruction of parts of the excavators
so they would not fit together snd by defects in the
7 material used in their construction; also to show
that the excavators were not capable of doing the
work contem lated by apnellant. ‘the @lains of
appellant in regerd to there matters were contro-
verted by anpellee, and on its rart a very large
amount of evidence was introduced to show thet such
feults in construction and machinery as apresrec ,
were of minor immortance; that the parts when re-
ceived, were not properly taken care of; that the
4
q
J
excavators were erected and mannged without proper
- De
anordesuo suotemum sft Ila rehienco bas ([isteb nk | _ ;
vletiufoeds sd ot tf bet? biuode tt seefny jbemter = 7
to notttroqaib teqotq ods tot of ob of VIBRA999N
-bteancoe [utets®s a enao sit mevin svar oe 92889 ont
eeyorth ot vranesoen ton et ti bunt? bas nottate
ylracota ot Seenvoo yd beatsat anottesun sit [fa ered
nidt erttnoo stotetan+ (fiw ban ,scme ott abioeb
eretiem ([citatemn saodt to moinmestoetb ew wa ne intgo— —
te seoceth yffut of rsecas ,honimreteb nadw to tdw
vifutsdgit esw tnemgbut ont tontodw anottes vp ott
broset sdt tedtedw hne eetieqcs to tove?t mt Sertetns
ed of virsemeoen erettism seott memmxk of gnininetieq
sew ,yrovonet cr of sallacqn olfttine of Sedat{dstas
exsorzs [ritnntedus mxzt sett
mo baovhara eax conehtve to sSnvoma taoty A
tft aniwoarte te seoqruq edt tot tanllogqr to traq ont
noseoy vd begansb bar wrow eth ot beysfob need hr
ont yd ivrenidosm to afisd to stnemgide staf to
stotrveoxe sit to eis to mottourtenos nocotepae
edt mt etostesb yd brie wsdteg0ot SEIT ton biyow yort =
worm of o#ls —— — xtedt mi beew introsem *
eft aniob to sfdeqro ton erew atotaveoxe ect tacit
to emixelS of! .tneifsaqs vd betslqmetros Art0W
-ottnoo stew stetiem eesd? of broget ni tnell[eqqs
“ggtel vtev s dteas eti mo bas ,ssfLeque yd betrev
doua tedt wore ot beoubotint eaw sonebive to tnuoms
, Dateecqn #28 yienidoem bae mottouttenoos mt 2tiuat
-or oonw atiaq edt todd jeonmtroamt rontm to stew
add tent ito 9169 nexet vitercta ton etow .daviso
r9qord tuontiw besynnem bone betoe1s stew erodsvsoxe |
J * —*
ee
-d- I *
es —— — a
~
care or skill sand thet such delay and damnrese as
were occasioned, were to be attributed to a large
decree to appellant's own neglect and miemannpe-
ment. All evidence was henrd subject to objection
and the court held, among other things in nroposi-
tions of law ofiered byapnellee, that under tte
original contract avpellee wars not liable tor dame
ages suftered by appeliant on account of Celaya
and thst its liability for damages on sceount ost
defective materinl, was only where such defects
developed under normal and proper use within thirty
Gays after atarting the excavators to work and in
that case they were limited to the cost of replacing
such defective narts, in case appellee did not
replace the same, plua the loss or dameces which
were shown to have been the materisl and nroximete
result of such failure; that hugh “lenn the erector,
who was furnished under that provision of the con-
tract »roviding that anpellee would furnish 2 core
netent man to superintend the erectiscn und stsart-
ing of the excavators, was the employe of aynpellant
and that appellee was not liable for any sct,
omission to act, default or negligence on hie part
in erecting or starting said exeavatore. Yhe court
further held thet if anpellee delivered to annellant
excavators of the kind ordered by 1nd substantially
corresponding with those described in the contract,
then appellee war entitled to recover the contract
price less a certain credit of £1000 nilowed by
appellee at the time the notes were executed and such
-6-
er 2ennmaab boa yaieb dous dadt bre L{ide 19 93189
entsl s ot beatuditstia sd ot etew ,benoltero00 siswv
-syonroe in bos sSoelgen avo a'ltnet{leaqe ot aet909b
noisostdo of tostdue Sised ssw sonsbive ILA Som
-teoaota nt egntdt tedto gnomn ,bfed tiy0oo edt baw
sit tebny tsdt ,oslisqaqayd Setetto wsl to enois
emeb tor afdeii ton asy selLoqra Soaticoo Inntairo
aysled to tnuooos no tunifenqn yd betsrtue e945
to tauoo.e mo esgnmsb tot yiiltdeil esi sedd bas
atosteb dove stedw vino esaw ,Icrttstsm evitoeteb
ytrins otdtiw seu t9dcota bas I[rnmton tebny beqoleved
ni bos Arow of atotsveoxe ait anistists totis ayab
grioslas1t to treoo sdt oF betimil stow yedd send tadt
ton bib selfeqqe gsro mi ,etisa evisoeted dove
dofdw eseacmsb to s20l oft eulq ,smne sit soniqet
eismtxors bas Ietisteam sit tiesd svsd of nwore ete
vrotoets adit noel) dyyd tadt jstulist doua to sivee1
-to9 ent to notetvotda tadt tobny betisiniyvt esw ow
e709 s deinrut blyow selfecqga teait antbivot: stos1t
-tiese2 Dae so itosrs edit bastinitequa ot asm tSneteq
; —— to ayolams sat esw ,e1otavsoxe eds To ant
fos vos tot sl{deil ton esw seli{saqn Jedi brs
tragq etc no soneaitaen * t{usteb ,tos of notasimo
truco att .etotaveoxe biee anittete to gaitoets ni
tnelisece of betevifsb eslfeqas th ssdt bled wit
ylfettnsiedue bar yd betsbro bnix eit to arosavaoxe
,foatinoo sit ni beditoreb seodd dttiw an ibnoqeetto5
toerinoos sft tevooest oft beltisine aaw selleqqs nodt
vd hewoltn COOLS to tibesto nindio9 6 enel soitd
douse bain betuoexe s19sw seton sit emt ait ta eelleqca
-3-
other allowances for rensirsa end alterations ar
vere made by appellant with ornellee’s written cone
pent or anprovel.
e sre inclined ta the opinion that the
proofs upon the second trial, ase a whole, showed that
appellee had complied with the termes of the econ.
tragt to vce performed by it and that euch damages
ag@ accrued to appellant were cve ir # lerpe derree
to the unskilifulness and negligence of ite enploy-
es cr to other matters over which appellee hae no
' ¢ontrol, and tor which it was not rearonsible, /
Careful consideration of the case Gieclovea howe
éver that the settienent entered into betreen the
parties on September 22, 1910 above referred to,
was a potent factor in determining the question
whether eppellee was entitled to the judgment awnrd-
| e@ £¥ im ‘the court below.
veptember 21, 1910, G. N. Crawford, Sr.
— — —
en on * on
’
Nad visitee—thewerk ane inspected the excavetors.
Ee teetified thnrt at that time he found the two
BeP excavators in actual oneration, that the boilers
and gears thereof were in good and proper op rative-
condition and that the erection of the © execavetor
had not yet been completed. Nothing hed then been
paid on the wachinee and Crawford requested +m
hi
& payment, i.
—son—the-next—dey, September 22, at the office of
the iatter inct. Lovis, Vinsouri, heme the matter of
a settlement wae fully discuesed. Kobineon claimed
\
o7-
es anoiterstis bans atiagqexr rot ndonetadien Wie
“109 netti¢tw s'selfecqn dtiw tnsileqas yd sbam o19%
-(avozqqa to tnos
edt ted? notniqo ott ot henifont ete 9% “
tedt bewode ,efodw s an ,isitd buoose sAdt noqu stoetq
-109 et to amet oft dtiw heilqwoo bar selleqqa
esynmeb dove Tedd bas St yd hearctisaq od o¢ JBart
997395 satsf 8 Ai sub stew tneilsqgs ot bsutoon aa
-yolqine ati Yo sonsgifgen Sna esonitutI {liens ait of
on het soffeqqs foidw tevo etetiam zalto o¢ 10 #e
\ ,ofdtenoreet ton eaw ti dotdw reot ban ,fortnmoo \\
-wot as o ſo⸗ ib seso edi lo noitserebianoo Ivretao
ett nosovted ofmt betetnae sJnomeitieer ont tans neve.
.ot Serratot svode CLO! SS rsdmsiqoe no aatstaq
notts9up eft gnintorreteb mi rtotost instoq S a aw
-5iaws trenybul edt of bolitine sew sellaqqs teiéshw
evolsd Sxruoo ett mi Sk be.
~a1t2 ~brotwaT? .8 8 ,ofer ote seadmetqs? mo
*
eetotrveoxs sift bedoe qrn i baw eo ek —bediety Dad
ows ott bnuot ef smit tadt is todt bettitess eH
sisltod eNt tats neoitsisco [auton nit et1ossveoxe Te
evitersqo resqotq bane boog al stew toerssdt sine9 bas
totsveoxea 9 sit to noitoere sit ted? bas noisibnoo
need nedit ban agntdtot .bstef{qmon nesd tay ton bad
—deste betosupat biotwat) bas — edt ao bisd
“Nido 3 199% — ¢ dnemyaq &
4 to sottto sdt ts ,SS tedmetqe’ x<at—-deon—sttt—oR_
to redism oft swpecke ,ityoanit ,etvot .tink astisi edt
bomialo noentdod .baeasuvonib yIfut anw tnemeltios s
/
=} @&
thet appetbees bad been of sore cnet in the
: 4
erection of the machinery than were reasonable and
that it had suffered other damages. Crawford
wes willing to make some eallownces and pe a reault
AA.gh -
of the conference he allover ce=eteent ond the
latter acéepted, ar a credit upon the enntract price,
the sum of £1000 in settlement of a1) damsces
clained L=apreeeat to have been sustained up .
to that date, “hereupon “ebineson p fi 0 ———
ae
$5000 in cash and gave deter the.note for 96090 due
October 12,1910, which has been paid, — —“ ware
and aleo the note fer “5000 and the three —
$3,333.32 each, sved on in this cease. hese was
Recontroverry prt that the sum of *1000 wes erreed
upon between the merttres in ecttiement of o11 clains
a
bjup to thst date, but
] ) —ñ * damages
it is contended » ’ that euch dansges were
ngkeed upon unconditionslly, while the contention
> ~
— ie that thie settlement x made on
the exprere condition won temeen fll. the
machines satiafactory and if the old oner did not
give eatisfaction would furnish new ewinging en-
gines, new ¢g ares and new boilers if neceesary,
and ae to carry out this new
agreement, the ©1000 would not be accepted by
appellant ae the amount of damages — was entitled
to. The only pereon present nt xtee time thie
EY 2precnent—er—setttement wer-madea, in cddcition
to Wr. Crawford snd Robinson, wae Vr. Dentzer,
~
* who to a lnree extent *
the secretary of
F : wile
r - b
otag tonttnos oft mnogu ¢theto 6 eR st qebdos rodtet
heat3s enw OOOTS to muse ont tadd de—erreverincs—es
amislo [fe to tremeftios mt — —— noqu
aft mi teoo s1tom te nesd had itottoces tout
baie affeannrest aew nett yvrontdoesm aft Yo mottosre
bro twer) -cogersb tedio hberettue bad tt stadt
tluney 9 28 fon s90nnvolls smos exam oF siittinnian
—“ os. 2
att brea = +S hewolls of soneretnoo edt to
regemnb Cf to toemelttes mt OOOL! to mwue —
J +n Shee need sved of jatar bominto a
8 NAA, * (ae
a8 ntonmtdoe oqus ↄactꝰ -9tnh tadt of ©
i) 2
eub 0008” rot Stor st met ove bar deno ni 000€% ©
teem bieq need eat dotcw ,OLeL of xodeto0
A as goxdt aft has 0008% rot stom edt cals bane
now weer .oano rint at no beue ,fome S6.866 e3
,
gud .stabh tent oF quié
gotineinos et afkow — Noms betas
mo o bocu tnemefttex aidt tart a
ant stan Se ena nt roitibdaos wnenqer: ett
ton bib safo bilo edt TE One yrotontaitan asnbdpisic |
-19 griqniwe wen ceinist bluow nottostatina svig
\Wisessoen ‘tt ateltod wer bas s1seq wen eonty
wan sist suo — of —— basin
Yl betqeoos ad ton bfuow GOoOoI sat LIM 9T 3B
beftitns mew tf egemsb to sevonm sdt as tnellsqqe
nates, omit — ts tronetq nostag yin off ot
CT Oe ae
mottibhe ms — :
~tentmed oe enw ynoamtdol si ne brotwet) .1! ot
-”
corroborated lr. Robinson and testified thet
tr. Crawford absolutely sa¢reed to furnish new
boilers, for the Bei’ exenvators, ir. © rawford
teatified there was no discussion about geare or
not lers on thet day, ong «me denied that ne agreed
; a
to furnish — Gny ne boilers or awinging
engines or genres upon anycondition snd he ‘was
corroborated by certain facts and circumstances
which would tend tn establish the improbability of
ic ie ae, pret +
euch a contract being
connection it was clown %
‘Ff y? that at that
/
time wxcavetor C had, not been complete erected
y | and that ase eS Bf) éid compiete
f 2 the erection. — terwards Gemanded new
i boilere of anrellee, cs. none were furnished and
re * the job was completed with thore first installed.
ee ti :
7 o> * | jm themonth following the settlement, lr. Crawford
ie a neain visited the machines ard stated he round them
eee / Amprenerly csre@ for and onernted, Gubsequent to
\ vi thie vieit one Mei
ap, wae sent down to overhaul
them at =. : exfense, and the proof tends to
* { *
s show he left them in good repair, it also *
————
— ae) \
+ ‘\ that a new set of gears was furnished ry on
after the settlement was made, out the proof shower
that they were of the saeme size and dimenrions as
the original bevel geare and were furnished ce
a charge against for them,
: A /S
The court sitting as a jury had the esre
opportuni ty of determining the credibility of wit
esses and the samenower of determining where the
s+
™, -
dedi beititest bas noantdoH .1iuf —
won Aeintut of bestye yleatulords brotwetd . zi
<r
“yp or
—
brotus iu -sTotavnaoxe Tf asit tot —
To =te84 tuoda noinaszuneib on asw etecdd baltisead
boetya af tant = ob ae hie owed ted m0 ete t tod aa
. * J
yAignivn ro etol * weir * — — dada 3 ot +
ssw on bre moist tbrooyne rach etre 10 contend —
ssonctenuo1to bas stost ntaet t99 YX — EDD ———
to ytilidederqmi. ot de eafes o} bret hiyow coke
‘
J
kidd ol — ⏑ acted Joattcoo s fava) \
Aaa —
tedj ts tadd \<« XW mwolle eer St nottosmnon \\
betostes vyietetcnoo negad gon Sad 0 totsveoxe omit (
—
sisviqmos 5tb das o: 22 HAIMON Tek Locen tact, bas
—
wen babuamsd bs2
Ak
i
* 9
——— — — ait a
bie boltainivt sisv enon Sud ,»vellseqqcr to wretiod
ebatinsgans Seaxit sions diiw betofqmoo anw dot, on *
brotwet) .t{ ,dnemeiztes edt aniwolfot dtnomedt nt
madt bavei sf bestate bas sanidoasm adit Ssttetv atene
ot tnsupeadud .betetsco bas tot bate. yirecorqnt
{usdiove ot mob tnee ssw qaf{iiio!t eno thetv oe —J
ot sbnesst tootq sat bas ae A tre mods 9 Ney
2 sonfn tl .xiscet boog at ae dtet Tal words Ne
— hbenainivt saw eTR93 to ten won & dads / Yaa
3
aworte toora ent stud ,sbsm env trnameltton eat resis is er
7 . i en
an eriotanseth bas oxtiea emse eit to stew ysds tact
bon toe bis etR9 feved Lenmigito dt Rie
~) einiy ‘Tow & 3 . 3 tT
— tArffleces to tshto edt noqu etaaq — bp:
; < emeandt tot. * 2
J - wee
teanieags satedo 4
anna oft bedi A s es gnittie tivo9 oft
tiw to vtilidibars sft anintoreteb to ethasr0qa0
edt otedw aninimrsteb to rewoqemaa ont — —*
¢¢@
Po : 5 oe *
preponderance of the evidence lay 7s 2 jury ond
we should give the same weight to its findinge
that we would to the verdict of a jury. Padalski
VV. Stone 186 I11. 540; Nich V. The Perle 95 Iil.
78.
a In arriving at the conclusion which it did,
the court below in passing vpon this rettlement of
September 22, must necessarily have decided either
= that there were no conditions cixeunas to the
making of the eame, as claimed by apnellee or that
if the cash payment was made and the notes given,
=e, with the promise thst the machinery wouid be made
J satisfactcry and new boilere, ewinsing engines and
gears furnished, if necessary, as clnimed by synnelle
ant, then that aprellee must have complied’ with
these terms. “hether new boilers and new swinging
engines were reasonzbly neceesary, were questions
of fact for the court and there was ample evidence
to sustain a finding thet they were not necessary,
especially in view of the fact tne nroof tended to
% show that the workmen sent by appellee put the
machines in good cendition and that it spperred
* thet the seme hoilers and engines were used tntil
the job wee finiehed. It is also clear thst aprellee
could not rightfully be held resnoneible for any .
difficulty in opereting the machines caused by the
inexperience and neglect of sapnellant's emnloves.
e. 3 Inger opinion thenroofs were sufficient to hove
warranted the covrt below in finding that no cone
ditions were attached to the settlement, but even if
*
220
we Were tot oldisnocser biet ed yfluttigizt ton b fire
selfecqe tadt taslo onle ei tl .boedsint? eaw dot sat
} ; 4
7 7 a ; -
+ : = ~ st
y a
vg 7
bre yrut © as yRt sonsbive sat to sonetebnogstq =
J
7
a
ttefebsi .yrut s to gotbrov sft ot bluow ow tedd J ia
ayntbnit att of tytow enme sid svtq blyode ow
.ffI @@ efqret sf? .V Moi :OBd EFT aBL snose .V
87
~hib +f cdoinw nokeuLfonoo soft ta anivirite al .
to tnemaftian eatdt nequ aniessq ak woled sasroo ent
tedtia bebioab event Vitteeesoen tau SS ——
‘edt of berisint te snot ¢itbrioo on stow stands tet
tadt to soffeqar yd bemtalo es ,smse oft to ——
wavia seston eft bra sbem enw tnamyag caso odd th a
shem sd hisow vrentdonm ont tant seimotaq ait Atiw j
bas esntiagns antantwe ,etefiod wen Boe yYtotortet isa
ef{f{saqe vd baemirnfo ws —E — bore tats? — J
Aſtwo bstiqmoo saver teum sel [leqqs todd remy tag
anianiwa wen bas etoltod wert tefttot* entet geoct
saepitesup stew ,vitae2#so0en Y([dsenoesat stsw eontgine
eonsbive siqma ssw steit bos tiyos ant rot tort to *
eVtaezeoan ton eter yods tatt gntbait s misteua ot ©
ot bsbast toord sit tost ont to woiv mi yvifetooaqes —
eit tuq selIsqqs yd guns" — aft tedt wocds +o
bersecae $f tatt bas nmotttbhbnoo booy at nonhifosst
Litnd beeu — nentons Sie ateoliced somas arnt todd
odt vd beauno eanigornm sat anitsteco mk Ytieotttib © .
eravotene altreanifecqe te toelfasn bona sonsireqxont —
eves’ ot sortrtousn oxrew stooresdd notatet ayo ml
ir As
ences on tedd axtbatt mit wolfed truco sft betnerrew
. ee
ti neve tud ,tnsreltter ext ot betontia sitew enorstib |
Z *
-OLe aa J —
* — Pi ;:
: a e
: - _, I iz J — % 3—
there were such conditions, the proof wae ample
that there was no ench breach of the rame 22 would
| be sufficient to dcfeat appellee's richt of re.
Covery. Unon thin Wweaihs it anpeare to us that the
trial court correctly found the facts in favor of |
@ppellee. ‘te find no error in the rulings of the . 8
ca court in reference to the evidence affecting the 9
- - ‘
aa materiel questions necessary to the decision of
ais ; the care. he rulings in regrrd to the propositions a
F «Of law submitted are not free from criticiem, but EF
. 0) as the judgment given by the court wre cox rect, f +)
at if _ @uch rulinge must be considered asa harwless. “Stowell —
9 h
ai pet Koore 89 Tll., 563. “uchs & lang Co. Vs. rittredge
BE 242 J1l. 6&8. Where it is apparent fpon the wiole
record thet the judgment is right, en error committed Ae
‘ —
fe) 1 by the court in holding propositions of law, is
Be — barmlees and should not be ground for reversal of *
oy HiT. Ts : a «
_, the judgement. Famous Want. Co. ¥. Wilcox, 180 x
—6 oa > 9
_ M. 246. Cothena m Ves. City of Cideago 263 111, F
a :
| a. *
4 J o 2 44
_ ss ss The Judgment of the court below will be 7
rs eff ‘immed e
Affirmed,
Ifewot® .ssotorend es hborebisenoo od teum sanifut dova
eybettsit .2V¥ .0D yar. S ecloys .88@ ,.0LT @8 etoolt .V
betttmacos torts as ,tdaiz ai stnemabut eft stadt broost
9 fesn sew tocte att ,snoltibace douse srew etedd
Bbiluow se aman odt to Aowatd dore on Rew etand tad⸗ ——
-st to tdatry *'sellfacqe taatob ot tneiotitua od F
eit tedt ew ot eteenca tt atode: eat 0 GU —
_ to tovat ai stont aft bnisot ultaorros tiuco Cettt
edt to santfuy sit of torts on hatt sv .osllenqa |
oft anitostiIen sonsbive edt of sonaretet at 400
to totatoob ait of vyitaerso9n anoitaaup [sttetsm —
enoitieodotda oft of Hreyot ai egantivug of? 2240 ond *8
gud ,aeinitixo mort sett som sta bettindua wel to ,
foerrco anw div0o edt vd nevig dnemgbut add as ; :
sfofw edt neck dustaccs ni ti oted¥ .88 .1fE SPS
ni gual to anoi¢ieogotg yatbfod at tiuoo aft yt >
4
to fmetevet tol bovotg od tom bluods bas 2as Lorad La *
ee
O8L ,xooliW .¥ .c° .tnet avomsi .dnemabut sdt 4 ’
effI E88 ogsoit2 to ysio ↄV oremedsed .dd8 . fT
ad {fiw woled ¢ruo9 edt to snemgbut act
ebooritts |
ebearrititA
I
F a 0
eifut of bettoqet od ot Som <
hae 2
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 my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Mt. Vernon, this... 0. — Fae oe
A. D. 1915. ¢
doy of December,
ap. NGL LZ
of the
NOINI
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth 7 uesday
in the month of October in the vear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the same being
the 26th day of October, in the vear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen.
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice.
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk. THOMAS E. PASLEY, Sheriff
And afterwards, to-wit: On the.............. J dav 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:
aaa 198 I.A. 618
ERROR TOx
cece Sind Oe I Appellant. | APPEAL FROM
vs. |
| Ce Cue ee $ | =a eS Curette COURT
De 8. Pr Iasi oe el Bdwerde, COUNTY
sD oinlloqg A Say X08 { ota
VruUo)
is cw
aa wT
f 4
» fe &
"xR AGO
MORT 14
res wh ATL roo, SI Any oka Viney coe ane aes —8*
Voth oon Va —— Bs Aare S sain Wr Aig od ah
. ~ pa
\ joss Vow’ see Dives wo — Voy wi oe :
—
—
A— dint. hs wy —
7— sae
—— —
onan Qvlies ) adit Gyyak
_ ⸗
7 orgenl. ohitisll me
avant wate
WANAD an soni ore 9 tis Suid bine.
STATA
| ~ ~=itcee eee
} a
. <a
’ ¢
— — —
“a Le.
4 nis ment ba
t t °
\
' : a ‘
s t - r¥
~ } =
Ls a N *
*
F eo
~
— ‘
' — J ————
J i
ad * ; 7
t arr a”
a4; OD
— ——
pu
‘ . J ——— —
ges oT, Ce
5
@
"erm No. 68. Agenda No. 29.
In the
APPELLATE COURT,
of Jtirn
Sourth District,
March Term, A. "). 1915.
Melchior Leipold,
Appellant,
ee. Appeel from the Circuit
Bloert itpler,
éppellee.
J. C. KeBride, J.
— — —
the plaintiff in the trial below sought
to recover a judgment on 8 eontract contained in
a deed vhereby the defendant war alleged to have
aerumed the payment of certain mortgages. The
verdict of the jury and judgment of the Court was
rencered against him, to reveree which, he nrose-
cutee this appeal.
Ky AE EE A
thst the ape ae t owner of ftve—hundred..
end—eleyen{ill}—ecremof land situated near the
Saline River in Saline County, Illinois, tett-*re
7 ase om one Fer , “=a upon which
there were three wortgages, one for the amount of
*ovur Thousand Dollara ($4000), one for Three
Thousand Dollars ($3,000), and one for Hight
-l-
Court of Hdwarde County.
-@S .o!f sbroenA -89 .,o mre”
eit ml
~THUO9 ATAI —
—
cfer .¢ .A ,mreT α
.bfoqisl toidoleif
efaalloaq
tivotr? oft mott Esaqq’ v
XAuo) sbtswba to ο9 t9L[qi TodI
LOS OOS OOO — —
-s9fleqqi
; -% ,9bitdolf .9 .%
Siguos wolfed [sits edt nt ttitniala od?
nt bentstnoos torttnoos a ao tnemgbut s tztevoo91 of
eved of bogaltle sew tnebnetsd oft ydstoctw beob «
efT .s9gRgttom nissi1990 to sSnesaysq oct boaweas
aew tro) adt to tnemgbut bas yrut edd lo soibtev
-ssotc of ,fotdw estovet of mid sanisys beio5net
.fseqqs etnt seduo
FE eT Be eS
,
~bertbouseyt? to remwo lot anne ⸗ ent dock}
edt teem betausie boel te-retoe—+Lic}) neveletas — J
artes aionif{l[l ,yimuod enifsé ni tzevill enifse
dotdw nocy bre .Yrefo syrost Sno mort HsseNoron had
to tnvoms edt tot sro ,segsgtios serdt stew sisit
—
serdT tot ene ,(OOO0S)) arelfod basevodT 1rg0*%
tigi tot eno bns ,(000,E%) axellod baravodT
dla, rs ——
Thougand DPoliare (%8,000), for wh iéh Apmediand
wee liatle, either by heving executed the notes
secured by feta, mortgayer, or by having oeaumed
the payment thereof. hom Th
On Bay 17, 1913 appre ay and con-
z veyed the afopésgeid Land to — a
nominal consideration of ‘wenty-five “housand
: fe
veyed +he—seme to appelteé by warranty deed. The
Five hundred and Lbifty Doljars peeps 988! and con-
ak- —— =
deed making the convey2nce contains the following
statement: "The covenants of warranty in this
deed contained are made subject to the mortgages
—
on said land
and the sxccumulated interest
- on each of *. above, which the grantee herein
assumes and agrees to pay.”
The sale of this land +o—sprpedies was
effected by , epee, Gould, a cousin of:
") epuetice. — Sy Ae ettee cid st eo wite
“esses tena? to show that Gould was acting as the
}
agent of wets Rin Ke consummation of this
desl, and that he received frem-eppebtant © com-
4 mission therefor; whil the
Me Ne tal
testimony of ti A’ — t ond Gould i that Bould
ee — Pret }
Re ot; * did not at any time act ars tee cert, ofsepellanty
J
— It furthét apreer > phat upgn the
~
first efforts of Could to trade Wits ayrebtee he
eat was unable to consummate a deal snd that he theree
a ; lan
upon entered into a partnereship with } er
224
“abe Tot ,(000,4%) eatellot bresuvodt
zoton aft betuosexes anivsd yd r9dtte vofdeil asw
hemuAnse anived yd xo oyegttom bts yd bety098
eltostets tnenyeq odt
-noo bas eqqes ESOL VI vet a0
Nb
e tot setfegqe ect of bret bxeteeeta eft bovev
bosesotl avit-ystnow! to noiistebtacoo [entmon
-noo buns (0d2,de&3) ats fou Wttiz bas boxbnull evil
eek A>
edT ,heeh — va ot emee—ods beyev
gniwolfok edt enietines gorsyovnoo eit antoem besb
afaid mit yinerisw to etnenavoo ett" stnomoteta
segeyizrom ett of tostdu= sam sts benistnoos besb
⸗ * >
/ Sen it ?
— 1000-5 — RS
-teorotni betelumsoons eft bos ~p6GO,8o are) 2
ntorani ostasty sft doidw ,evode ert to core no
*".veq of agetan bor agmueacs
say eotteeae-—ot baef atdt to ofse sat
‘to nievoo © ,bivod α ud betostts
0 hia ei ban eebtomee E yoomitaot — foc
~~
ot es gnijos aaw bluod stent were ot Rbnet eeecerm
aidt tc noitammuenoo 9 ak to tneys
-109 s iaohklecdcas-sert hav ieoer ed tndt bas ineb
ait Cidw ell ese noiee th
—
blvo® fait st bIuycdD bre are
ae fs ehomié¢est
— Jno gs, set as tos emtt yor ts ton bib
edt noau tan : — tsecqs téddrut hal
a\ yay Pers
ort eetferes Wid iw ebars ot bluo? to atrottes startt
-stodt F tedt bne [asb 8 otammuanco of afdsay saw
—
dtiw qtieerendreq s ofmt betetne moqu
2
284
the purpose of purchasing this land, rrereby—i+-
was agreed they woulkd-pureneethe-tend together;
was sereec
— a ee oe
— —— OAL? *
—— —— repcosed great confi-
rx
sence, roth in hie integrity and in his judgment,
and atter the arrangement was made between—him—end
OAR LAL POT A
“ se this land—topether-arvreHiee left
the matter entirely to the—}erdpwrer ef could, and
did not even go to see the land. Could represented
te~hee that it was a fine piece of corn lance; four
hundred seres of it in a high state of cultivation;
A
—
three hundred acres had the stups taken out, and
that it over-flowed oniy in times of very high water;
thet there were no slovghe in it; and that the Saline
river ran into it just enough to drain it good;
that the improvements were good; and that it always
€rew good corn and was worth tifty dollars an acre;
and that t e," ant, shes-he-prranisedim, paid
tifty dol'iars_an acre for it. Gould cissed er the
ploy xt
deal wi h, oP etry, but anere no evidence of any
agreement having been made to assume the mortgaged
vindebtedters previous to the making of the deed, ame,
when LO - / inserted therein
A
the Mepesetere—clause assuming PP aaa and
Gould then sent the deed tof eprekiee who retained
it ané ae Hie tama alae! Ht al the reason,
as he said, that Gould bis ae partner wrth hii
the.deal and that hie name was not in the deed me 4_
eneofdeee Croutced@. Gould then intormed the eprehl-
*=@e that & WAN — — nanolet- furrentine desired
-3-
+i-ydotedte ,basl aidt qniasdoruq to ssoqiuq silt
~—“ttoritegot tre font santotiq bisaw, yout beetgs BBY
“noriwoirtsiro DIS; ——— SateTt Haw ph itres
owe *
-itnoo ¢saty besoqeat wos - ee ——
Jnoemgbu, aid af bas “snes sid mi Naa apy spomeb
bao—mii—noowed 9bam aaw taomegnstrs ait — bas
—B Jb ,
tYtel s9feaqs-retite3e¢—Sael 2eidi secdayua—otbpiurd
bas ,Sfuou = saroet.edd of} ylearitnes totiam sdf
betnesetqet SIyoU .bnal edt 908 oF Oy mave9 ton bib
tuot ;5a8f m109 to ooatg anit s aaw ti teadt seo
wmoftavistiuo to esteta dyid wp at $f to gatos bstbaud
AND s
bos ,tuo medst eqyte eid bs aetos betbauc setdt .
?tatesw dyid ytev to aomis ai yao Sewolt-ravo $i stadt
enifed eft tadt boa {si mi adauols on stew stadt toad
>booy $i nitstb of Aguons Jeu, git osni met revit
eyswis ti teadt bas ;boog stew einsmevoiymi oct tant
79798 aS atsllob yStit AéioW Bsw_ bos m109 boog weTyg
bisq |“ esktetrreer—rexds , Pd + sent boas
edt we berofo biluotd .ti tot 9198 ne ateilob yrttit
Sera 4 ung
yas To sonebive on —— gud , x iw Isob
dSsgegtiom sit omue2s oF sham nead gnoived tnamestgs
cheer .6995 odd to gnitsm 9At of euoivetq aersmbotdebati-
nieredt botreent —— aecw
Va)
bis ,s9nsgtrog bise animuees seuslo~arrbeaeget sit.
; ALY
benister ow — + bosb oft Suga node Bblyov
ay ** —*
sToaset ont FOE OES Ra ae ae di
i—metorttiw rsntisd © eam bluod tadt ,biee ed ar
> mr peed ois mi son saw oman sid tadt bis Loeb ailt
~Léeres, sift beatotni news bLluod sheetusTg orth Ñαιο
betisesb enitnerr’ reborn themes cram s dedd eo:
le
Ls
—
to purchase the land and that it coulé be traded
to him for Thirty Thoueand Pollare (30,000) by
teking scme property in Konsae City and other places ,
— —e, and that Could said ie knew the
property end that it was good, end Could also a
that“Time said to appellee, "The deec is made to
you, ! admit that , but I will have a half inter-
est in the land and rather than make another deed,
you go ahead and do it as it was and 1 expect to
get part of the property you were treding for."
It further appear4 that a deai between
Could and Turrentine was consummated upon the
judgment of Gould, and on the next cay efter this
deal had been ¢ a and the vo ee the deed
, ,
from 4 oO appelbbe — — recor
It further J———— bhe property taken from
Turrentine was_of no value and that -the ——
——— spor afta
secured % from —* adition
to the assuming of the said mortgeger, was of the
value of about Forty-Vight Hundred Doliarsa( #4800)
and that the Saline County land wae of an infer-
ior quality not in a good state of cultivation,
and worth very much lees than it had been repres-
ented.
It further an ae the evidence that
a year or so a the time —
wut
the making of mm deed by LK, ~prenbeee ‘
that geome of the principal and interest became is
upon the mortgeges referred tp in the deed, *
vere not raid by ng ete £0 — — eeded
~4-
behets od {yoo $i dent base bust eft easdoruq of
yd (000,082) ereLlfod basauyod? ytrtid? tot min of
aaos Iq testo bis Yi ageacl oat ytiteqorq artor guidst
eit wail ei biaa biyod tsdt das , beebedd—ne—n.
dm oats biuod bas ,bocg saw tit tedt bas ytraqotq
of sbam ak b99b edt" ,golloqqgs ot bise eeriT tat
-totni tle! s sve fiw I tud , tadt tinbe © yyoy
.beeb tortone oxen aadt vedtst ban bast orft at tee
ot tooqx9 L bas epw df em ti ob brim baeds oy voy
".Tot antbsts ets soy vuttoqota ott te tired tog
ngewied Iseb se jecdt Arsogqe todiaut t+ *
eit soqs betsimuanoo asw enitnestcuT bra Athen
gidt tetis ysb txon oft mo Ses ,bIvod to tnengbut
beeb aft ,sham besh aft bas baRgofo aged ket feeb
4 We hrooer met bsserbe — —— + ree mort
mort nootat vitecotg eds rules ems ed wodtirst tI
yttecota adit tett bane oulsv on to raw snitneartuT
—B——— t b
Notes ni ™m Tt STNO8R
* MGB i x |
edt to asv .293cg¢10m bisa oft to antmuaas ot of
(OO8h%)nusffol berbnull rol tuode to eulev
-r9tni ns to gsw Saefl yinvod sniled odd teadt bas
wsoitavitivo to atste boos a mt tom yitifsup tol
esetqet mised bad ti nett esol doum ytev Attow baa
| -betas
teat sonebive aft — toditiut tI
} to emit oft mott of 10 TR8Y 8B — ee
ID ge NED us beeb itwe to guided ont
— ge . .
eub omesod sestetai bas Lecionttg oft to smog tat
na baad efit mi «Nast tet saasadiom sift noqu
ra
be599 Soy ae edt xd bisq ton 919"
whe
to pay off one principal note of +twre—tseusand
pettsre—2 000) saad several interest notes
amounting in all to about Two Thousand Geven Hun-
dred and Nighty Dollars ($2, 780)»
Caver—_thre—eamnowurt—9 > paid-ort oy appellans.ihat
this suit._wee-instituted, .
The deciaration cone atte several snecial
counts and the common counts, but each and all of
them are based upon the foregoing cl@dés@faseuning
the mortgages as pet por th in the deed made by the
=
: ora apsetiont to * : 20
Spratt aoparioe filed the plea of general issue, to which
he attached a notice of special matters in defense-
-
é
4
First, denying that the deed containing such clause
was ever accepted by hin, or that tie assumed and
agreec to psy the mortgages; second, that the tran-
saction through which the — deed containing rai
seq clause was obtained had lena witccted through
the fraud and cireumvention of onme™-serest Could, #0
agent of the plaintiff, and that the deed was fraud-
ulentiy made to , and that becauese of the
frauc connected with the sale the contract sued on
was void; and third, that the defendant never did
receive any consideration for assuming and agreeing
to pay plaintiff's indebtedness in the declnration
mentioned. *
To arrive at a correct conclusion in this
case, it is recessary to determine to what extent,
if et all, the foregoing cluase contained in the
deed made by appellant ie binding upon the aprellee.
4 ; - Se
hbosewest—er= to sion Isqioniig 90 tho yaq ot
gecon teeredni Lei9svee bee [000,$}) srefted
— — bASsauod owt —————— oJ [fm mi goitnuome
-9%-03d—ei— Fe —bis 4(08) .S)) eres lod yiglt base berth
tsdisoslloags 4é-b0--bise—or tions -OAS~TOKD _
: bedardttent-mewttee aids
Isitosce interie S40 tanoo nottersfloeb oT }
to fis bis ooso gud ,atnvos mnommoo sdt bane atauoo
gpoitmueen jSebQlo aniogsitot edt noqu boesd ots —*
ont vd gbsem heeb ont mt —— 2 esgsatrom ant
ott necdtemsineb eit ol .soblee od Inmttenqe
Noidw ot ,sueai Leteneg to nselq odd hefit setlegas™
~oansteb mi atsttanm Isiooqe to soiton s Setontia eo
gauslo dove gninistnoos heeb edt tadd gniyneh tert
Dre bonweaas Dut decd LO eat yd bsaæqo oos Teve Baw
-nertt oat teft ,broose j;seysastrom ods veg ot Bbest3r
AN gninistnaoo — @ees. giit doidw davotds aoitosa
dauvords batostie need bad Seniatdo asw seuslo pine.
CO (bluol teederrsre to doitnevauorlo dae butt pid
bus? pew besb ey tends bose ,iiidnielq edd to tnege
eft to seusoged tact brs ! ot shsm yisnelu
no Keck Suede eit efsea eit ditw besosnno0o Sustt
5th teven tashneteb edt sods ,btids bas jbiov aaw
gitestgr bas unimyeen tot NOisseiebienos YB avisost
nottstefoeb aft ni seaenbetdebni a'ttidmisiq yeq ot
* -besnoistnem
aidt mt motaufonoo tost109 «8 ts evyiris oT
Asſxs sandw os soioreted of vtsanssat art ti ,9as9
edt mt beniedaoo sas—ſo gniogotot oft ,fis ts Tk
-s9lfsqqs sdv noqu gntbntd ai sas lloqqs yd ebsm beeb
or
’
"A contract to sesume an incumbrance on land pure
chased is not one of the ersentiel parte of 2 deed
of conveyance; indeed such 2 contrect ies à strange
er to a deed. {| 4» ¥ # The mere fact thet Funk and
his wife executed and sinew Vee a deed, ond inser-
ted therein a clause tnat Funk should pay the morte
g@nge named in the deec, would net create 9 personal
liability vron him. In order to make the aseumpte
ion clause in the deed bincing and obligatory upon
dunk, it warn necessary to £0 one eten further and
show that he assented to that clause in the instru-
ment." Thompson Ve. Desrborn et al., 107 111. 87.
"*/ contract to assume an incumbrance is not
one of the essential partes of a dee@; an the cone
trary it is extraneous and collatersl to the convey-
* ance. Such recital in the deed is not in and of
itself sufficient to fix the liability to nay.
Something more than this must be shown; the grantee
is not estapped by the mere recitals of a —
did not execute.” Schmidt Ve. Werrivan, 101 App.
443.
This ig a collateral uncertaking * if the
promise fail or be shown to have been obtrined by
fraud or mistakenly made, euch urdertaking cannot
be enforced. Sehmidt Ve. herrimen, supra. It
was contended by aprellee upon the trial of this
case, and is here insisted upon, that the forego-
ing wee a simple contract and a colletersl und
+
-tuq Snel co sonetdmsont ns emyeas of tosténoo A"
beeb s to etrsq [sitnsares ett to sno ton et beraio
-gistia sc et toertno9 2 dove besbat to
bas ancl tent toxt orem edT & & & & .b9eb & ot T9
-teant fre ,53eb s Setqaoon bas betuoexe etiw eid
-Stom odd yveq bfyote Anu tedt seusio ew ntetentt bet
fsnostec e etrero ton bluow ,hbeebd ant ni beman agra
-tqmuaes ott sX¥am of tab10 mt omit noqgu ytilidatt£
noqy Yroteat(do bas gntontd beeb edt mt sausto not
bas 1rodtryut asts aro 03 ot vireseasoon asw ti ,anud
eutgent oft mi onualo tadt of betneaas of tadt woos
V8 .f£fT VOL ..f[8 *9 mrodtae”d .3V noequodT ".snom
fon ak sonntdmyont ns esmyeaa oc tostinoo A*
-109 eff no ;699b a to ating Istinese9- eds to a0
-“yevaos oft ot [sretsffoo bas esuoansttxe at tt rats
to bre ni ton at beeb adt at ([stiost dou .9one
veo of yttlidet{ off xit-ot Snsiotttve tloati
sestnary ott pnwode od teaum ets neat stom gnidsdemol’
wi kas’ s ‘to elsattoor exom ect yd beqgofas ton et
eqqA [Of .nertrret .sV thimfod ",essuoexe ton bib
BNR
eit tk bok anivedre5au LIstetelioo s si ati?
yd bentetdo need svar of nwoda od to [ist vsaimorg
tonneo onitetrobay dove ,9dem ylnodstsim 10 bustt
$f .stque ,namitre! .aV tbimdto? .besoretma ad
mint to (mitt oft moqu sallsqqs yd bebnestnoo asw
“Logetot oft tadt ,noqu botatani stoi af bas ,9889
o™eboy Leretelfoo s ban tosttnoo alqmte se asw grt
TO Dieet vo hantnddo sew tt ti decd doe , gutted
tt oxem OF Ss poonsteamyotto dove reba benistdo
a0
_.
ee q
an
ee ee
fraucgulent, then such contract is void snd not
enforcible, snd we think this is the reel cuestion
to be determined in this cage. Anvellant ineiets
that this comes within the clage of cases thet even
if there was a fraudulent revregentation of the value
of the property, thst it becmme the duty of appellee
upon the discovery of such fraud to return the
property and te demand a return of the consideration
thet he gave for it: or that if ne kept the property
his remedy then would ve to sue for the danagea, or
that such damaces could be recouped in an action
to recover the purchase price. ‘We do not believe
thst appellee is limited in white case to the doc-
trine of recoupment or of a suit for the return of
the consideration, but that if the contract is
fraudulent he msey have the benefit of it to defeat
Bppellant's entire action. ‘ge we have seen, this
is # simple contract, and where the scticn is upon
a simple contrect, fraud is a good defense.
Rovineon Ve. Yetter, 238 111. 320. Schmidt Vs,
Verrimen, supra.
"Yraud practiced by the party seeking the
remedy, upon him against whom it is sought, and not
thet which is the eubject motter of the action or
Claim, is universally held fatal to hie title."
Greenlief on Ividence, Vol. 1, Section 284.
if the appellant, by himself or his “
procured the obligation here sought to recover
upon, by false or fraudulent muemaxz means, then he
can receive no benefit from such fraud. “he doce
ton brs btov afi tosttnoos douse nett ,jnefybuart
aoidseup [sex oft at eit Antdt+ ow baa ,eldior0tngs
ateteni tneffacg\ .9ano etdt at bantareteb od of
smeve Sedt 29289 to earafo oft nidtiw eemeo etndt tact
gufev ett to noitadtnoserast Snefubustt s 2ew stedst ti
eelffeqas to vtub sit ammood ti tect .vtascorq et to
edit atutes ot buntt dove to yrevooetbh ext noqu
noitatebtsios olf to mtutet s basced of bre ytracetg
yYsteqorg eft stqex of Tk Sedt to :tE tot evaeyg od Sadt
TO ,megearh sult rol eue ot od bluow nods ybemet vial
Noijos ne af bsqueser ed bluod esiemeb dove tSadt
evaifed ton ob sW .aoirg sesdotuq ais tevooet oF
-o0b oid ot 9889 eo boft ai betimt£ eat sefloqqs tedt
to natuss1 sit rot give « to To tremquooet to snitt
ei sJostdioo ofS tk tedt tud ,notsatreblenoos st
tseotsb of ti to titened oft eva yam of Sao lubuert
sidt ,a997 ovsi ow ak .cotton stitae e'tnalloqas
Noguy ai acitos ott state bas \tontfaoo sfqmte s et
-98N9%9b boog a ek bustt ,tositaoo eslqmta a
22V Sbhimdou .0S8 Lif BES prattoy o8Y noasnivot
.stque ,nsotrret
ent gnidsea ysisq edt yd beoltostq Bueri"
ton bas ,ddguoe eat tf modw tentage aid noqu ,ybsmer
10 noittos edt to tetdcom Joatdus oA si Aotiw tant
" eltis aid od Late? blod yLfsereviny at ,mtnfo
S88 acortoa® ,f£ .foV ,s9n9btvdi no Yet{nee71d
— eid to tfeemiad yd ,tnalleqqs oft tt
tevoost of tHigues stent moidgsgildo edt bersoord
ont nondd ~2Neom xXxeum Jnofvburtt re satst vd (fo ek
-00b ef” .busrti cous wort sitsaed om svieost aso
eefloqaa tk ofdnotlaqs od tyim bexovnt ered entat —
i *
—
was seeking to recover damages from appellant that
way have sccrued on account of such false represen-
tations, but in thie case appellant is secking to
recover upon a collateral uncertakiog, and even
though the acts of the agent in the procuring of
this collateral undertaking were unsuthorized, 2nd
if such ebligstion wae procured by the unsuther-
ized and fraudulent acts of the agent, then we do
not believe that apnellant should recover anything
by reason of such unauthorized acts. in other
wordsa,he could not receive ine benefit oi the un-
authorized acte ot his agent if they were in fact
fraudulent.
"This Court has held that where the prin-
Cipal actuaily receives the benefit of mumyx money
procured by the unauthorized acta of its agent,
the principal will be liable in the amount it has
received the benefit of," Alton Manufacturing Co.
Be. Siblical Institute, 2435 111. 208. Citing;
Jirst National Bank of Lasvegas Vs. Osborne, 125
Lik« — Faye vs. Slaughter, 4 i121. 15%.
BASU — \
| +! nee to waethner or not the
| prob eppertest and his agent were guilty of fraud in
. securing the obligation treme sued unon, the-evtre
⸗
Pow Scd-Heuld week Seekivind nee ates
‘
; ~wesctieer to do with thie ssle Ee —
«
effected by Covld ae a broker and no} ae the agent
plese and that werterer representations may
shave been tade—+y——ertd—to-epretrete were without
/
ae.
~Ba
gedt Susileqqs mort eesgsmsb tevoove1t ot ynidess asw ot .
-1sestqo1 salnt dove to gayooos no bsutoos saved Ysa
ot gnitoes 2i taslisqqs eeso sits ai Sud ,anoitst
meveo Sas ,goiustrsony isreatsilos s noqu tsv009T
to qnituoorg eit ai t¢usgea adt To estos sis ifguodt
Bas ,bositodtusauy siew gnidadirsbay Latetsifoo aids
-todtueny oit yd beivoorg aew noite gifdo dove ti
ob ow aodt .Jnaygs sit To efos ¢nofubustt bas bssi
giiddyns revoset Siuodse tnsilsqqa teit sveiled ton
todto nal .aton besttodsiusny Houe To noxsst yd
“as 9it to titened st svisos1 ton bivoo sd .abtow
tost mi stew yott Tk sJnons aii to ston besizodtus
; etnetydustt
enitg eit etedw fads bled ead ¢tv0d atiT?
yenom xxmax To Jitensd sils esvisoo1 ylisutos Leqto
2fnegsn esti to stos besizroustusnu eds yd betwootg
asi ti gnvome oft mi aldeil od ILiw L[sqtonizq sat
200 gnktutoetunsi mo¢ IA ",t0 S$itened odd hbevisoost
wanitid .8eS fff EAS ,edutiteoI Lsoitdia .8f
6Sf ,orttcde) .e8V asgevest to unsd L[anotissil teri
Gk hed ee ~wetdgueic .eaVY syefl 3cS .fif
: LARD mA —
edt ton to tetiteow of a Bn *
mi buertt to ytlivg otew snegs eid bos teerttooes
<tve-sré .noau beuye seen nottsaifde sit gntituvoss
eve * ⁊ αα “a ie.
Se WU NO : ws
an idten I at sJsdt betitttags dtod bi{uovd bas ¥ J——
ory
—— — s Ieasæ aftdt dtiw of of «eects
tnegs eit ae ton bos zrsdo1d 2 38 bluold yd batootte
ag —
vem snoitjetnesetaoet ⏑ 7 A
suottiw stew #9+-forge~od—bfites—y~d¢—obsm 93d oved.
\ /
Be a
WH
puthority of, .
: —
inchs orfullbisd -
‘rom the teatimony of spre; :
thgt oa . gat one time, iold apperree thet
A ’
he employed . Covid ve his egent to dispose
ef thie land and paic him for it, the payment
being a, half lial in the machine shop that
ar the deal. ‘Metse-cor-ersatinr
oeeuneed—iaers—roridts in 1 i. Carnet
3 HK. Quindry testified to having heard the
— ey
convergation. lie also states that the — ilauiclys
testified on a former trisl that he turned over
one-half of thia machinery to Gould for making
this deal. It eve apvears from the eviderce
that Gould showed the letters received by him
from Epler to Leipold, and aleo told him what
spler anid; and Gould AM contradicted by Charles
Marshal and Charles Naylor, who sradthat Could
stated that he was acting ae the agent of J ecipold
an—thtetrer\essiian, and that he covld not get the
desi finished and in order tno complete it he had
to teke a helf interest in it hireself@./>nd—+there
are meny other circumstances connected with the
transaction, which, in our opinion, would warrant
the jury in finding that Leipold and Govld were
working together in this traneeection. When the
first deed waa delivered to appellee he refuered
to aceept it because it was not made to anpellee
and Gould as joint owmers. ina short time this
Was remedied ond sometime during this period it
appears that Govid told appellant what spler said
* * 9-
f
reds ly
Vit POtT™ bit ore prey ato ui froddue
—R Dio satay te
rome io ynomisest edt mort ataag I
; tS .omit ano ts ——
seoqeih ot tneys sin se bLy0d . deyatqms 9 |
tnemysq ott .ti tot mid dStaq bas basl atdt to
tewi godte sxtidosm sft at testetat tisd.a aaisd)
Notterreywrrs—etrl! .faeh sit
sme ot brssd anived of beititees vrbaiuy et 6G
—RE ait tedit setsate oals sil .noitasreviioos
teve bend of Sedd Leins rasrio? s no be ltiitest
gnidaem tot bluod ot yrentdosm etdt to If{sei-900
soneshive edt mort atseqqs cite $0 .fseb aris
mind’ yd bewtsosr atottol eds bswote hLliod tact
tene mind bfot oafs bun ,bfLloqis! ot relqd mort
2efredd yd betotbatt noo ODN bLucn bre tbirme tela
Hliso2 fasd hase onw ,tofysif seftrdS bas Indarali
bLloqts< to tnegsa att 2s gniton asw of ted? betate
edt tey ton Blues of tedt Soe , ceddomcrer feta
bad and si atalqmoo of tobto nt bas bedeainit faeb
erent—orc|,Btloartd ti nt teeretat tled # eaet of
edt atitw betoasnaoo asonetemuorts teito yism 91s
tnatisw bluow ,notatao tuo nt ,dotdw ,noisdosensst
etew bfirou bane bLogisd gadt gaibrit al yrei eontt
edt ned .noitoseners aids af redteyot garttow
besute1 of selfeqqn of batovilsb sew beeb sattt
seileqqcs ot eban gon asw ti sausoed si dqaooe oF
aids emis Srode s ml .etenwe ¢niol as blued bas
$i boiteq eins yniruh ouitemos bus hethemet saw
bise telq. tedw tosifeqqs blot biveuv teas sissqge
-e- “
PRON ny —
Fil
and showed him pler's letters, and they were
undoubtedly in consultation about thie motter
and the acceptence of the deed.
O It further apnears fem the crvidence. that
the land had been grossly ihe ~ tual by Gould,
both ae to value and conditiong and we think
that appellant could not helr but have known,
under ‘te conditions here shown to exist, that
Gould was claiming to be a joint owner with Epler
in this deal, and certainly knew that ipler had
confidence in Gould, an@ if he wae coennerating
with Gould, ars the jury seem to have found by
their verdict, it would certainly be such a fraud
upon the rights of appellee as to prevent eppell-
ant from benefiting by the transaction, at’ leest,
we are unalle to sey that the verdict of the jury
wae manifestly wrong in finding that thie was a
frnuduient schere concocted by appellant and Gould
and nrosecuted for the purpose of obligating app-
ellee to pay an amount far in excess of thevalue
of the land that was deeded to him, to say
nothing of the property thet was turned over by
him to aprellant. ‘ie alec think the jury were
warranted in finding that appellee never assented
whewingly ane intenticnally to the assuming of this
mortgage and indebdtedness. As it apnears that the
deed was placed on record and the conveyance
made by appellee to Turrentine through a echeme of
" Goule that probably had for ite object the faet.
ening of thie indebtedness upon appellee; and ag
it appears that in the deal made with “Surrentine
-10-
stew yodt bas .atettol e'refqi min bewore bas
taticm sids tyodr noitsti(uanos ai lbesduobmy
.b299b odt to sonedtqeoon ailt bar
tridt Aoas sot west errands rodtret $1 O
blued yd Sstisserqetsim yf[230%14 ne0d bad bral oct
Anidt ow One gnotttbaoo buns sulav of Bs Asgod
amon eved fud vlad ton Sfyoo raat sand
tedt ,tetxe ot nmwoke sted anotstibhnos at —
aofqi dtiw tenws tntot s ed ot antmisfo eaw biuod
bad rs{q ?add went yIntstis9 bnew {seb eidd ai
aaitsia 79-09 aau of ti Sas , b4900 ait 9 2tebi tno
yd bavot overt ot meen ytut ott as .bfuod ddiw—
bustt s douse ed yinistreo blyow tt ,totbrev ated?
-{{eqce tasvetq ot as aefleqqs to esdgi2t adit noqu
etasol te ,noitosanstt aot yd gnitttensd mort tas
yviuf, oft to toibirev edt fedt ysea ot ofdsnu ots sw
a esw aidt Ssdd yoibntt at ynorw Yitsotinsn AnYW — —
bfvod bos Jnsilegqqs yd batoooncos aredoe ne fuhuset si
_ eaqs gatiteygiide lo saoqiugq sft tot betusseotqd bre
eulsvend to es299x95 ai Ist Jovoms as YSg ot worse
yse o¢ ymtd ot bebesb sew sect bast ott to
YI revo beatus esw tsit ytiscotq edt to anitdton
— crot, edt aAntdt? oels oF .tuatLeogr o¢ mid
betnseas uevan selfoeqgs tedt ant batt ui bebnastad:
aint to gnimuaes sft ot YLilaenoitnetnt bre <elpniwend
eft tedt atsseqs Fk eA .anonbetdebnt bane gaeatrom
gonsyavnoo eit bas broset ao beoslq saw beeb
to smetos s dauords entineriuT ct selloqqe yd sbhsm
-tast od tootdo sti rot bed yidedotq teds biluov
8s bis jeellecqes mnogu eeenbetdebat eist to gnine Are
et
«Of[-. : a4 * 7
V 1 *F0 E 7 ~
enitnerry’ diiw sham [seb oft at tadd atseqqs ps
the property received by Gould anc appellee was
worthless; and Gould all oi this time so maneged
end manipulated the matters as to evoid becoming
liable himself ior tiiis indebtedness, but ail the.
4 tine sought to ereate an obligation upon tie part
of appellee; and while there ia no evidence uirecte
ly connecting appellant with Gouid in this matter};
yet, under the circumstances 4nd admiseions made,
BC we Can not say that the jury were not warranted in
— finding that they were co-onerating together, es-
N
~
pecieglly so, when appellant was so closely agso-
ciated with Gould and was the one who wae largely
id| | benefited by the desl. Thejury heard the witneeses
testify, and had an opportunity to see ——
their conduct and _ while on the etend,
and to know better from what occurred during the
va ‘trial who war telling the truth about this matter
Ahan we can tell fromthis record, and if the wit-
—— of appellee were telling the truth about
i 2 it, the_n the jury was warranted in finding as
v2 f f thay did,
A 4 | There is an objection made to sppellee's
inatructions because they are framed on the theory
es that the presence ef actionabtie fraud inducing
# an —* ‘damage to any extent is a canplete cefense to the
| * plaintiff's Cause of action. We agree with counsel
* that the instructicna are framed unon this theory,
and for the reasons above indicated, we are fure
-ll-
asw eallaqqs ons bluod yd bevieost ytreqoiq ort
hegsnen o# gmtt add to Ife bluod baa jeeoldttow
yiimoosd biove ot es sratinn edt betstuqinain bas <
<2
itt {ie Sid ,naenhbetdebat elit tok tloamid oLdsett
txsgq ot moqu notstegif{do an stsets ot sriguon smkt \ 7
-foetiv sonsbive on ei stodit sitdw bas reolleqqa ke \ ‘ fy
‘totise eict mi Oinov atiw inelloqgs anitosrnoo yl J
bam enoiasimbe bie eseonstamyorio att tesbny Jey
ni betnstrsw gon siew yrul, eft tadd yee gon an. ow 4 \a
29 ,r9dtesygot .unitrereado-09 siew yans tend gudbntt Ds:
-o#8s Yissol9 of asw tnaeileqqe nedw .os vilsioseq
yfogisi asv odw eno sft aaw bane bivod Atiw botsio . NY
reesesontiw sat bined yrupjedt? .faeb sdt yd betitensd
— 992 03 ydinustoqgo as Dad bas vibdaes
bart: edt ao alidw YS bis Soaubnoo riesAt il =
edt gnitud betry9o90 dsdw mort retsed wont at brum
tottem etdt tuods Atuts sdt anifled sew onw [stat
-tiw oft Ti bos ,brooet etdtmort {Let nso sw nant,
uods diurt oS goitist stew selilsqqs to noneon
ear giiboit nit hetnstrsw asw yrui ett mons .tt. |
ae Ris aly
ebib yout ©
e'selflsqcs of sham nottostdo as at stedT a Se
yrosdt sdt no bemart ete yods egeusoed anoltoursant J—
gntoubnt buerti alfdsrncttos I9 gonsasrg ant dads |
efit ot enneteds stelqmo « si tnstxe yas oF —5
feaenuoo datoe soxrur of .moitos to sauso a'ttitatel¢ Vv
eXtosds waite noqy boatasat ste encitouident ald todd _
-Iut 916 ow ,b9tsotbait svods anonset oft tot baa
toertoo ew ai yroesdt ant tadt aotnigo edt -to t9edt
olla . \ th i
; }
al
; should not have been ; iven because there was
no evidence of any kind to support the inetruct-
* dion. Jt is true, there was no direct evidence
that appellant had anything to do with the sub-
|
sequent conveyance to Turrentine, but if it was
a fact, ea the evidence tended to show, that Gould
/ . : P
and appellant were co-operating together in the
consummation of this deal, then there were such
aoa facte surrounding the trensfer to Turrentine as
. to warrant the court in giving this instruction,
oe —— we have carefully read the record ‘
in this case, and can not say that the jury was
Si . ee) : A? :
o aaa not warranted in arriving at the conelusion thst
a ty _ they did with reference to the facts in the
/ease, or that the Court erred in its rulings and ‘
Fa instructions, and th® judgment of the lower
Ee —
oe » court 18 affirmec,
ay s “i f
20 jee, Judgment affirmed.
ls * ga
Jurtice bores dissents.
*
Not to be reported in full.
es:
. mw *. -12- 85
— a
‘ wy F I
esw stodt seuscoed nevi, mood eved gon Oluode
ne sal
-toutsani oft trodqque of brid yrs to sonebive on ce”
sonsbive sositb on esw sisde ,eaurt ei GL “nok ol
-due ott ddiw ob of gniddyos bed dasllogqr drt
sew di ti Sud ,onisnetivT ot sonsysvio9 Samsipoe
blued tedd woe ot bebnsst sonshive ont 2s tort es
eid ai iwsidtexot ynitsteqo-o9 o1eW tnelleqqs bas
dove stsw oisdt oondt [web eldt To no td snus noo
2s onitnerruT ot tetensis edd goibnuortwe atost
¥
snottouttani aftdd anivig ai sity09 eng dost Taw of
x brooet act bast ylivtetso even oW
asw yrIut edt ¢sdt yee tom meo bie ,o8eo ek a.
tedt noteulonoos oft ge goivitis al bodnentew
eit nt atont edt of sonerstort cit iw bib N
bos egnifut eti at barre ‘<. edt tect to Ry ee
it one weno itouttent
.oonrrt tts @i S109
yewol edt to tasmybui,
sbemritts t+nomygbut
weinoeeib agjod sottenugt
-ffut mi betiroqet od of golf
*
fL~ —*
ud
i oe
ie a |
*
ai
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 my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
ME Vernmonihise Let dav of December,
A. D. 1915. “ail
Se eee Oe
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
ion. Franklin H Boggs, Justice.
1 Nh . cp &
i etre 6 2
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk. [THOMAS E. PASLEY, Sheriff
And afterwards, to-wit: On the -22---i17the----. av of April, A. D. 1916, there was filed
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, gn OPINION in the words and figures
following: \
—
E. L. Brown, ‘ i
—— oS Sa ee ae’ } ERROR £6:
Jaa Appellee, j APPEAL FROM
— Bo j
; j
3 /
2 —— ww |
vs * — |
— —— COURT
No. Boece Po eRe |
October Term, 1915 |
a. ee eR 3221") - a COUNTY
ae Jonn L. Paraham Hat Co., |
ee |
—
—— ee
TRIAL JUDGE
1 TASES ¥. DUNCAN.”
Term No. 5. Cetober Term, 1915. Agenda Eo.l
&. L. Brown,
Appellee
ve Appeel from Tope.
John 1. Paraham iiet Company,
— —— —
Appellant.
Opinion by Figbee, FP. J.
Appellee claims a balanee due him for salary,
from appellant, a corsoration doing businees at hemphie,
Tennessee, and to collect the same, awore sut a writ of
attachment before a justice of the peace in Fope county,
illinois, which he caused to be served on two of annele
lant's customers in that county, There eas -2 judgment
against the company from which an apneal wae taken to the
circuit court, where the jury found fer appellee in the
eum of $93.75. Judgment xwse entered ageinst appellant for
the amount of the verdict and coste, and thet company hes
appealed to thie court. 4n inepeetion of the record dies.
Closes that neither the motion for a new trisl, nor the
instructions in the caee, are contained in the bill of
excentions,.
The rule is well settled in this ctate that where
the trial ie ty-jury, the errore relied on for a reversal
on appesl, must first have been brought to the notice of the
<li.
ae © Pe ‘Sed, te ae — ‘Li err er Sao. a 3 a
pee — ae
* A
sbnoya A LRL mre? rodotod
99 —
-9goT mort Laoqqa . ae Pipe:
Xasqeoꝰ tai meters’ 2
( -tnsiloaga
“th 2.2 ,eedgil yf motntgs
a —
sUtsine tot mid eub sonsind # amtsto ostforgh |
~eidqus! ts esentaud gntob fotserectoo & tne ffocae aot =
to dinw a due etows ,emma ot Saallos of bar ,seueenno? F
ayinuoo scot at g029¢ ot to ooidert & areted ft:
«feqch to cwt ae bevien of ot beeuss ert sokster vated ft
— « 207 sted?. — deat at ——— 2
edt ni eolleqqs 16t bawet yrst oat oxede tmr09 Suen
of tusifeqqe t2niags batetne 2297 oh — —
b broosy sit.to notdoeqent nA dquo etht ot >
‘edt ton ,{etad won s rot aottom ont nodtien tant es
to (Lid odt mt hentetnon ots ,bas0 off at ano ttom
. — yanoit qoox
‘orter'tedt stat: 2int mk heltte: [Low at ofirr ot? — *
Lserever a tot mo botfor arorts odd | — — = ee
la
trial court by a motion for a new trial thet they nay be
corrected in that court. The clerk he copied into the
transcript of the record made by him what purports to he a
motion for a new trial and aleo what are claimed +o be the
instructione in the case, but thet does not make them a part
of the record for our consideration, as these are watters
which must be vuched for and certified to by the trial
. judge and not by the clerk of the court.
In Call v. The People, 201 311. 499, there aves.
tions are fully reviewed and determined -nd the court's
Opinion therein together with the erres referred to, leave
no room for argument. In that cese it ie onid, "It is not
sufficient that the clerk copy into the transcript of the
record made by him a copy of the motion for a new trial,
it must be made ea wart of the bil} of excentions, the rule
being thet no grounds other than those set out in the motion
for a new trial, will be consicered by thie court in review-
ing the judgement ef the trial court, it is important thet
we know what that motion contained. This knowledge can come
to us only throvgh the bill of exceptions, *
in the ease of C. B.4 QeRR.CO. v. Hazelwood, 194
dil. 69, referred to in the case last nbove mentioned, it is
gaid, "The instructions do not appear in the bill of exe
ceptions...We find in the record immediately following the
J bill of exceptions, conies of instructions, but nothing in
the bil] serves to identify theee inetructions as being : .
theese reterred to in the bill of exceptions. The certificate
_ of the clerk is to the effect that these instructions are
_ @opies of those given or refused by the cart. This ———
»Be a
r.
}
¥. 1 & i
* FFs - —*
—— eee wis! —
ed yet yous todd Laird wea 4 1ot noitom a vd uod fant
ett ofnt botqoo sac Xzefo oft .d4tMOO jadd at botoetz00
ed of etreqtuq tadw mid ye sham broost eit to tatrornetd Fi
d+ od of bomiafo sin tadw oats bees fabut won a ‘tot aot
q 8 maxi? avew toa 290b ted? tud 60 ‘odd ot ancitourten
esisitam 915 9ead¢ as — 9 tue xot brooex ont
{feist ‘aus yd of bektiiateo bre ‘tot bedowv od — oti
»tis09 edt To ‘aslo ott yd ton bas J
agup anedt ,@e> LLL £08 ,efqosd eT * ttad at
afttoo ait bar honterrateb bis ‘hows bend yifur ote ‘eno 3
sveot ,of bert: — 222 20 edt? ditw 30* ‘atetod? notatgo
Stat ot ¢¢ onan tatt of .dnomugzs tot moot of
709 ‘Wxaflo act fort tnekot
fon at 31”
adit to fatroanats od? otni ¥
.fatys wen 8 tot nottom en? to xao⸗ 2 mid wd aban bro992
efur ot ,anottdsoxs to (ftd ont to tres - “eban od faust at
g2 ga0dt neds todto a bawo Ta ot —0
tw ,faind won’
ttom oft mt tuo 3
gtvat ai truco aids vw bere btanod 6d tr
.ttsoo ferat eat to $nomabust
gedt guetroqmt at vf
-denisinoo ao bom tect taste wort ⸗
100 M29 exbo tvxon aid?
« enottqeoxe ‘to trad ont dguéwds “ino i ot .
&
Ber ,boowfossil .v -09.4.4.9 #.8.9 To ome —
teal sano oft mt oF bereetet eo —
-xe to ffid odt nt maacgs gon ob enottouriant oft” bine
oft mt batt sis samodt@o9
k ti Jbanoisnant syvods
edt gaiwot fot yet aiboant bi0987
ad wanottorttent to eatqoo sero ks as oxs “S3¢ 2
at gaidton J: .
geod qitinebk ot aovise red St
: gnied a5 anottouttant
soltitroo en? anot gas ox⸗ to [ftd ent nt of petretet | 900
ets eaottourtant — sede sootts ‘ont ot af ax Lo. ont to
sgitisti199 eta? duno ont ye bosutot ‘to novia sxodt **
oe | — fas —
“resented he would increase hie eales; that appellee wae
_ paid his ealary for thet month and the fellowing month,
has no virtue to bring these inetructions to our judicial
notice."
Appellent claime that upon the fecte in thie cane
the verdict and judgment should heve been in hie favor nlso
that appellant was prejudiced by remarks made by the trial
judge. Whether or not these reaeons were eet out in the
motion for a new trial in the court below, we cannot know
ae thet knowledge could only properly come to ue through
the bill of execeptione. ‘The grounds upon which the motion
for a new trial was based, net annesring in the bill of
exceptione, the presumption is that the trial court properly
overruled the same. It must aleo be presumed so far az thie
appesl is concerned, that the evidence ras eufficient te 3
support the verdict end judgment and that the remerke of
the court complsined of, did not effect the verdict. Rote
withetending the fact that the reeord does net properly
present the queetion es to whether the verdict was suprorted
by the proof, which is the principal question relied on by
apreliant fer a revergal of the judgment, we have exanined _
the record and find that thepppoofs were amply sufficient to
sustain the same. 4
it epperrs that aprellee had worked as a travele s
ing selesman for appellant for a number of years, that his ;
enlary wae based on the amount of hie salee and had been .
Changed severnl times on that rccount; that in December, 1914
4
4
4
when he was getting $125 a month, anpellant complained of
appellee's work and the question of reducing his salary
wee discussed, but that this wae not done as apnellee rep- ⸗·
= 4
etothut tuo oF enottourteant assent gniitd of oudaty on sed
| "ssotton
o sint at stort edt moqu ted? emisio tun lloqqa
be agin
A tovel sts at noad even Sluode tromabist, bas totbrev ont
itt off yd obam axtinmet yd boolbutetq saw dna lioggn dealt fh
odd ni tuo ten etaw saosmst esoat tom to roas oci —
rom tonnmno aw ,woled dau0o oft 4 f{eintd wen 6 x0 aottom
Mauoint au of amon ylrsqortc ylino bluoo abs [wong todd as *
Etoo st dottw moqu abnuctg of? -enold qooxe * ar as
4 :
to [ftd odt mi gnitaeccs ton ,beesd eaw feist wen 8 208
qotq Sxuoo Inits oft tant et nottqnvesre ont —
#8 tet on bomueata od ostar Je unt rt + omee adit belurrevo —
of fnetoittus sav somebive ont tect? —— at —
to avzemer adt taNt baa dreamy but bas toibrev odd Ptoqque
‘OM .tothtav aft gnotts tom bE , ro bentolqupe t1u090 oat
yltedota tom 2906 brooet edt salt tost sat gntbasdedt iw =
‘orque arw totbrevy sdd redtedw of es mnotiseup edt toonara
f me bsifor noiteaoup Laqtonir, edt at to iclw Roots silt ws oa
Ninaxs eved ow ,tnerrmgbut edt to Inatever s Tot tne fLoame
fetottius yflamen stew stoogukeds ted? Batt bas brooe7 acid 3
-omse off nistsue —
eveitt 8 28 boxttow bed selleqqn tad? eitssqgqs 31
Mf teat ,stesy to r9edaum s tort tnsileqqs tot nameetnn gat
meed Sed bas esfse atid to touems edt no beesd sew wisioa
(,tedmeosc nt tadt j;tmyooon tant no semtt Iaxreves dogma
to Hentafqmoo tnaffecarn ,dtnom s 6SL4 gnities aaw ef nociw
yrsler eid yatouber to motteaaup oft Sas drow a'sefleqqa
rx vellscqs as snob ton sew aldt ted? tud ,boasvoketb saw
sow solfoqcn tant zas ſas ati sesetont bluow ed betnerst
eitnes gniwolfot edt bana dinos: tadd tot ytales sid bleq
—
but on Pobswary 18, 1915, he left appellant's plince of
busineese in femphie, came to hie home in lllinoie and
never returned to work. It wae for hie Iset month's
snlary that suit wae brought and the verdict appears to
cover the portion ef the month he worked. Anpellant
claimed that apnellee had been overpaid by resson of his
net working full time and that he quit without apneliant's
consent. n the other hand arreliee contends, and there
is evidence to show, that hia duties as a treveling sales
man for aprellant, did not consume all his tine and that
he had fully performed hie contract, also that he had ouit¢
with appellee's econgent and on its suggestion. ‘hile these
pointe were contreverted, there was sufficient — to
fully sustain the claime of aprellee. “he judgment in this
ease will be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed,
Hot to be reported in full,
a
a’ittnom feof gin tot anw If
of arssqgs ¢otbrov ent brn tdquerd arw dive sed
_bextow of dtnom edd To gottxed “ad
yd biaqrevs 967 bead osfleqacr tedt 6
bas omit Llut gation 4
¥ —
tnsifaqaé
eld to moee#9™
7s fuods tw tiup sa tact
atfetaa bast tedto sz Pi) —
std tadt ,vede of oonebive a
bib ,tnsifecgs ° or ae
e'tasifer
sient bre ,fbmetaco 9
wpalne guifeyvstt #8 en astsub
t+ etd ifs ompenos ton
tots bne 9
ative bad of tnt onfn ,teagtneo etd bamretted ei luk bart
noideenyua et mo bas tneaned n'ostieqas *
evoriac® eraW anton al
easc3 etide .f
of tooctcd tnotokitun enw etods ,betz
eidd ni saoeyduf ei? .eelfedgs
ebomriita $ senrgbu
1
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 my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my dan
at Mt. Vernon, this ............. ——— ey wee
A. D. 1916.
ffixed the seal of said court
_..day of April
__ Clerk of the npenate C Court.
the 28th day of March, in the vear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundren an
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois; on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the vear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the same being
Present:
Hon. Harry Higbee, Presiding Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Justice.
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk.
And afterwards, to-wit:
On the... Seventeenth day of April,
ixteen
THOMAS .E2PASLEY, Sheriff
. D. 1916, there was filed
in the office of the Clerk of said Court, ut Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION Hi the words and figures
following:
LOW “Tek Jol is yo ste
ee ees Appellant.
Tc er
——— ———— ———— —
198 TA. 639
j
“APPEAL FROM
F 7... St» Clair. COUNTY
TRIAL JUDGE
Wg RD E
SO ee Se, IP
J
_
he G
a
«i ae
a
WHO Sioll J on AC ois
oe pag
— Vso bid be sage, RIOD, —
it ' sits voy one ved wie le Gib, aS pe
4 Wade) at Be Aho cy] W Mrd oft ah —J epic:
wonetil> grind —— — — i
MR. CD amare 07 A
. } atts 2OQokk NA ABIL Aoki Poor
VA hAG A ZARA’ old Yeo 75 — —
Pee | eee
} sth) overeat 1 Soe oho Ay
; : 2) sees —— — nd |
SO0UL SATS Sn
— — Pipe
CLK, «te ee — el
ia
way.
Term to. 14. October Term, 1915. Agenda No.4.
Jacob Schulz,
Appeliant.
Ve Appeal from St. Clair.
Wiiliem Haiser,
— — — —ú— —
Appellee,
~
Opinion by Higbee, FP. J.
fon 0 oe Sse Cine os we wt woe
Appellant owned one hundred and twenty acres of
land in 3t. Clair county, Illinoie, san¢ apneliee rented and
occupied an adjoining farm. On the morning of Cctober 17,
1914, four cattle belonging to annellee croesed the division
line between the two ferme at a place where there wae no
fence and went over a field of appellants sowed to winter
Oats and snother which wes in clover, both of which it is
Claimed they injured. They were discovered about noon and
a@riven back by aprellee and his brother. On December 16,
1914, appellant brought suit in trespass agninst appellee,
placing hie damages st $10. Apnellant wan defeated before
the’ justice where the suit was instituted, and also in the
circuit court, to which an appesl wes taken. His motion for
a new triel wae overruled and he brings the record to this
court for review, complaining among other things that there
was prejudicial error in the instructions. Thst the cattle
el-
Mm sbrogs 2L0L yarreT todotoO = AL OM omeT
-tisf0 .¢& mort, Lseqqh —
-L ef ,s9dgih yd nointgd
ane enna nan
to eeton ytnews bone borbaurl eno bemvo tnelloqga :
ms betnor salforqs baa ,etont(il ,ysnudo atield . 48 ak —
NE tedoto0 Yo aninrorm att nO .mrst animtotha mz” botquo00 .
taivib sdt bsesoro selLeccs ot anignoted altteo uo* “ater
on eBy oteit etedw soslfq a ta anxst ows oft oat ed “ontl :
atetniw o¢ bowos etnsf[loqgs To pLoxt & T9Vv0 tnow ‘Bas sone.
ai $i soi to dtod ~rovolo nit esw dotdw rodtone bus ‘atco a.
ma moon tiods bstevooath stew yed™ .betstat yedt somal
Of tedmecet nO .tendtord aif bas — mt 198d 1
[tino eit ged? .enoktoutteni odd dt xotre fstotb
4
fa
entered appellant's farm and paesed over his fields within
a short time after a rein and left frocks in the soft @round,
ig conelusively shown in the evidence, but as to what damage,
if any, was caused to the land or crepes, is disnuted. Ape
pellee eeys in his brief that it ia not disnutea that his
exttle got vwnon the land of appellant at the time in queetion,
and while he does not deny that he would be lioble for any
Gamages done by his eattle to the lands or crops of appellant,
he contends that the evidence in the case does not show that
his cattle did any damage to appellant's land, end therefore
tne judgment of the circuit court should be suetoined.
“he court inetructed the jury on behalf of appellee,
"The plaintiff is required hy law to prove his case by the
Greater weight of the evidence and even though you may de-
lieve from the evidence that the defendant's cattle entered
upon the land of the plaintiff, still unlees you further bea
lieve from the evidence, that the plaintiff's crope or lands
were injured tr reby, then you should find for the defendant. *
kollowing this theory the court refused en inetruction of-
fered by anrelisnt which told the jury, “thet every vnauthor-
ized entry upon the iande of enother ie a treenass, for vhieh
@n action will lie, and the law implies damages te the owner,
and in the absence of proof ac to the extent ox the injury,
is entitled to recever nominal damages"; and also refured
several other instructions to the same effes't. The instrue-
tion above referred to, x2 viven for appellee, wae erroneous
as earplied to the facts in thie case and those refused for
eppeliant stated the law correctly and should have been given,
2
— —
—
kddiw abfett atc teve beaesc baa oret a'tnsilecqs beredas :
org ttos edt nt exfoar} ttel bas aist s testes emits trode 6 —
mash tsdw of een Stud ,sonebive edt mi mode ylevieulonoo st
qa .»bestuceth ai ,eqoro to Smal eft od besusS asw ,yas tL
aid: edt S5otuqe ib tom et ti Sait tetrad-ald mt eyse selfeq
ague ni gintt sd? ts tuallsaas to bael edt noon tog afttso
me tot.ofd-ti od bBluow sa tadt yreb com ss0b sil oCindw: bas
feoqs to aqoto toe esbnaei ett o¢ aftiao ald yd enmeb eayened
$ wode ten a90b ses9 sit mi sonebive sit tedd abnestnoo od.
teredd bas ,basl e'tasifeqqe of sascmeb yaa bib olsteo aid
sbenicdeun- ed blvode tiseo ¢ivoxto edd to taemabyt, odd.
sqas to tiered ao yet sat betouttent tauoo- edt
mt yd sesso eid svota ot wsl yi betiupst si Mistntelq sat" — a
od yem voy tyvodt mevs bre sonsbive sit to tdgiew tetset3. a
tetas oftico etinehuateb ont ted? gonebive est soxt sveil
F tantrirt voy sselnu ([Ctte ,ttitntelqg eft To bral odd oe
if xo sgoro e'ttisnialq ont tact ,sonshive edt moth syseil
sbasieb eit tot batt bliss voy asdt ,ydet sit beruial stew
sto mofttouwtiant ms bseyter ttsoo sit yroedt eint goiwoifod.
itueny yrove tedi" .yrut edt bfot dotdtw tnatflecqs yd beret
lw tot ,sesqestt s at tsdtons to shnel eft moqu yxtne best
mro eit of s9usmed aotiqnt wal sit Oas ,stfl ([{iw noidgos se
ceutmk eit to gnetxe eft ot a8 Icorg to sonsada ont mt bos
besutet coals One j;"seasmeb {eutmon tesvoosr of hettitnes aL.
sttank sit .tholte emae ott ot encitouttant raito inveven
emotie sew ,sefisqqs tot msvig as ,ot herrstet evoia mois
fot beasutsx ssont Bone 9229 atdt nt etost- ent of hetfiacs ee
tg meed eve blvowe bra yltoeitt0eo wel act beteate tuellegqas
very unauthorized entry upon the land of another is a
tressnees and dameges nre implied from euch trespass, for
which an action will lie. Pfeiffer v. Groseman, 10 11].
53; Bulyit v. Hatthews, 145 111.345; MePherson v. Jamee 69
11l.Apn.337; Walsh v. Hertzog, 154 Iil.Anp.503. in the
case last cited, apnellant found appelice's horse on his
— premises and refused, on demand, to give him up unless
eapneliee naid #2 damage Appellee gued in replevin and
obtained judement for nossession of the horse. On appeal,
the court revereed the jucgment and in the opinion it is
stated: "Counsel for epnellee argues thet the amount de-
manded was in excess of the actual demages done and that a &
tender wae therefore rendered immnracticable. iresnective
of whether or not anveliant was entitied to tne ‘sum demanded
as actucl damerces, he wee at least entitled to nominal
demagee, ~s it is rot dieputed that the horse was taken
up while trespassing upon hie premises."
While the amount inveclved in this case is trivial
and tre injury done to apvellant's field might well nave
been overliccked, or the damagen settled, had it not been for
the ill feeling between the parties to the suit, yet appel-
lant was, as a matter of fact entitled to recover at least
‘flominal aGam2gees and ss the court erred in ite instructions
upon this question, the judement must be reversed and the
cause remanded.
Heveresed and remended,.
' Kot to be reported in fult.
ast wmudtons to baal edt moqu yrtms bestrofiusay yYTsv>
tot ,aaeqeett doss mort betfomt ets esacmrb bas sasqeaott
eff{I GL ,mamecorv .v tettierd .eft Iftw mottos as dofiiw ~
@8 semsl .v ncetediold ;@hS.(Li ddl ,ewarlttal .v diqlyud 766
edt ni .808.qrA.fLI AGL ,gostren .v dala sTSE.qqa. FLT”
atd mo sarod steolleqqn bawot gnallseqs ,batio tert enna
arolau qu aid avig oF .breameb ao ,beeutet bas aoe tmetq
bua mivolast at beve ssilsqqA .segsmnb St bec oofloadgs
~isecqs nv .aetod ois to notesseeog rot tnmengbui, bsatisido
ei ti notniqo one nt base trends; ett bestevet gruca edd :
9b ¢ouoma edt tedt esugis sefleaqs tot fLeenuo o ibesatea-
x s feos bas snob esygamsbh Lauson ont to eeeoxe ai es bebasat—
evitoscqesnl .sidsoitoszqmi bsrebmer etototeds esw sebnet
bebasmeb me ont of bsiti¢ne saw sasileccda ton te teitecsdw te
Inninion of beidisne teansl ta een en ,2egomnb Levtor 26
mextes caw anton edt tedt betugqeib dom et Sf as .s9Qnnsb
" 29k ime tg sti moou gmisesqrets sfidw au
Istvits ci geno vind nt bevinvat tavoms edd af iiW
even [few gogtm blott eaettnsilLecqe oF snob ytuiat ant Sas
sot meed ion ci bad ,heltier nogemss sit 10 ,baXiooitevo noes
-Leqqe tev, ,tiva odt of aaitted ads nasevte! gmifeer fit ott
geasl te yovoost of ba ltitne gost to tatiam A eR .aA tant
enottourtant ssi mt bevtts truco ont 28 bae reegensh Lanimon
edt bie becrsver 3d tana Jnembst, edt ~woiteeup ead mogn
dbebnsnetr aeu/eod
~bebnamet bas haateveh
*
efiut oi bes toast ad ot tow <5 iee
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 my Office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set my ail the seal of said court
CELIAC TILOTISALITIS yee a ARN a fog oo a dav of April
A. D. 1916.
J
1)
4
RESERVE BOOK
This reserve book is not transferable and
must not be taken from the library, except when
properly charged out for overnight use.
Borrower who signs this card is responsible
for the book in accordance with the posted
regulations.
Avoid fines and preserve the rights of others
by obeying these rules.
DATE NAME
— — —
—— — — —
— —
—
—XX SBS —— S3es
GRASS SUNED as ASP PAAA
Me
i
9
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11