Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats




Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 

in 2010 with funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois 


JUL 3 '1:53 

5X2 . 20B45 

J. H, AliiiOURlf, Aiijer. of the 
•atate of K^ai^tin Carra, 






195 I.A. l5 

iiTKHmT OF niK CA'JS. Thl« caBe c«i«8 before 
this court upcjfln appeal from a judgment of |4000 entererl 
in the UuperM Court of Cook County, in behalf of apnollee. 
as adminiBtraf, and for the benefit of the next of kin of 
the estate of^rtin ^^a^deceaoed. The «uit wae cora- ,encod 
under the Minlfc^ct of Wli/ Vo'iiiJ^er for the alleged 
wrongful kili Of appellee's inteatate. caused by appellant', 
alleged wronJl ji^latim of certain provisiona of that act. 

T ThLek^^on'tl(fi^;ring'(if'^I^c^^^ 
titoile ongageU hia OMp.l^j«^ ^3 a coal miner in the- 
-.m^^^i^^rmrm fUf^-xit- ^^^^^ „^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ 

Grundy CounJillinoia, and while sounding ntfr hi a pi. li 
the roof Of working place. i«~^H*4t*-iBdfcfr«, w.w-^ ii^^^y 
tt^4*rr«r-vt«^tlirap^ hi*. The specific aof. of 
.rrongful vi lc,n ^^.^...^^^^ 'f ^n^UXaU. Ou.rged i„ 
•i>^»*il««f*HS-^l«r ,tion, are, fa 
•xaainer - 

ilure tr. hara ita mine 

^^^ t4±i,^r ^°^^^"'^ Pj«°e8 «^ deceased and othf-rs 
bfli they were mptr-mii-.-k^^ ♦« a _ ,, . 


they were permit.;. Vo l^^^^^r.^^,^ 

whether there wero imy cianfiorous rocfs, 
?J|; L°"IL*r!"; ■-'"'■ *»"'"»'. »" notic« for 

al^M to keep out 

(d) o|«. that the rOTf and w.ais of the ro c,n in wMch 

>o miiWSSB 

^l *A.lcMl 


■V n ;■-'•) 

bsttiiafy OOOM "i» irK>«a3^u(, « MOttl lAsq^a rtf^*»qi/ ;r-ii;co aid^ 

boBoXXa «>rf# lOl :tvv 

u * i ;■: y :: . < ■■■ ''■ o s «« o , « * ^?^:t ' ■ -^ 


^X^l^ l-'^^"' liften ,9(11;.. •.' 

- nSl •▼art o^ sit 

,' ^ItW-WH 


- rr^rftmar.^ 


.>-M ,«r Hi m^^ wi*^ .lor.J: !/•,., ja 

decedent was working were in a dangerous condition, 

i«4--««^^ ■« JPccordY in « baak kept for th:\t jtVLTpottHj ~(!T 
any examine tion of opid roof or of the dRngoroua 
condition thereof, 

(f } take into his ponsession and give to the mine 

manager the entrance check of decedent and others 
whoae working places were within said dangerous 
portion, ^' 

(g) oubrait to the aitie manager a report of the 

mine examiner showing the darigerous condition; 

(h) and failure by its Tiine m/inagcr to withViold the 
entrance checKS and to instruct the men not to 
w^rJc in the place until the drmgeji had been reaorcd, 

1*t«---decr6:i'alIon'fuH"Ref'^cKfiF'ff'»'B that hy reanon of 
ouoh w ilful yi ei-? »t ie wq> decedent en t red oalA place in the 
perf ormtmce of hio duties, and v/nile ao engaged - nt w o r k was 
k i 1 1 e d , i5?»""wf "e«»«*»4d . 

The mine m guflRtinw ie what i s known as a long 
wall mine, A long wall mine in one where all «•* the coal ie 
taken out and the roof -liMe supriorted hy the brushint;: or rock 
which has \mv . ii taken do'vn . In such a nine, thR mining 
com.'i:encea in the center, the face or working edge of the 
layer or seam of coal forrainc a circle gradually increasing 
in circumference as the coal is taken out. There vrere 200 
rooms in the mine .nnd two miners worked in each room. The 

-f. .* r UK. -M/1 (^ aC-A J^i It 
but awxe^te .tiwu.»4Kkt- thim-' to tJwr"4«f 4^— wa^.-^waa only three 

feet in height, wiiieh ' 'i T .n'0 ,,.^the hei,';ht of the vein or seam of 

coal. The coal was dufj out to a width of four feet underneath 

the rock or brush not taken down at the end of the roadwuy, 

the f.-ice of the brush being four feet from the face of the 


I4---!ratr"th-e iTUty'^of lih^^^^ to examine the 

underground workings of the mine within twelve hours preceding 

every day upon which the iiim«"*a*&'"to be-~«perated; to tnspee^t 



1 Xd 9- 


?9l liioo rtrfi >•• XXa dttftrfw 0fio <. 
>toot to i^nidauicf »il^ xcf b^iif 

snt««»'X»«i yXXiittb/jia nXtt-:: 
DOS st«w o'i»rfT .*oo ^^"^ 

••lit)- YXne a , ■•', Dito-^^'lM*! 

.YiswOj^oi 9tU to btto ) 

• ■'■•'f' ''r«8\- :^i!K9X A ,9rtXm Xiiv.'sr 
fit 9tLS ! nc iMO «i3[a:r 

j n»n »dJ at ftaortftfnmoo 
" i Xjso:) "ro iu«5« -so "xoviflX 

^ f^f* BJI} {>0i.:!>t9ltatl«>li0 nX 

; rr« enXn o.C* vdL bhjooi 
'■9l>m.'^x« floXJii(»-Mj^- At-ia<»«3 

iii ^ . »HTr-ri*Jfc+<»- , a r; .; . i T ri ft! i ■» » ) 
• tt/n ■ i.r. ,;.'(£• r •,. ■. -.i-T .Xroo 

IB4W t© •Otfl «/(^ Mo^t if>«!»'=f rtjuol ?{u id iiawnrf exJJ T:o ••a't srfJ- 

- o:t -r-.rri-'-r'' ^frttir. »>xU ■'■•'• xi Mi © it J nmr-^-j. 



were any recent fallfl or dang'^rous roofs, and as «Tldence 
of his exarainatlon of the rooms and rorsdwayo therein, to 
insoribd in some suitable plaoft on tho walla of each, not 
on the face of the coal, ^vith chalk, the month and th» day 
of the month of hie viait. On the other hand, it wub the 
duty of every miner to sound and thoroughly exajaine tlie 
roof of his working plaoe "before coTnmcncing work and if he 
found dangerous conditions not to work in such danReroua 
place, except %» make such dangerous conditions safe. It ma 
also hi3 duty to properly prop ?md secure hie pl-sc© for hig 
$*?L.iftCl^1l'y» y.iWi aat^rinla proTided ther«f or . 

All of the witnesses wh o tent if-ije,d. -on 4h» -tm^t^^Mi^ 
agree<(that the only means of ascertaining whahhor ■er-wot the 
J^oof WB B 8 Q » w4- ->g»»~»«X<i w;is by placing ©ne'p hand li^^htly 
against^ the lu^f, ot the srune time tapping^ thinwrf with a 
bar, pick or other in!pl<»raent. If the roof was looao or 
dangerous it would give te«k«-k a hollow or dead sound and the 
hand could feel it quiver; while if the »*<jmr"Tjwninr*1>»t4nir 
the roof rvas sound, or apparently Bnfe, it would ^^ive back a 
ringing or bell like ..jound, and^the hand would fe(?l no 
quivering or shaking, und that with i ' tUl CAp t u ' i etTcyd-'Tgl'ngr-fflr 
ai4«-«-«9MMB4««r^^ can always %*we^ determine^w>iether or not 1*44^ ^W 
roof is safe. 

The only witnesa to the nccid«mt was Frank Aragno, 
a partner or "buddy'' of a ppolIg^^ «8^ intestate, who worked with 
him. Reaigo ^ambon, who worked in an adjoining room, and 
John McKamara. a track layer, were with a pu c l - i ee'-a intestate 
«-f«w-Bii»u*«a»^before the aecident, hwp :aqn i' id . Aragno testified 
that he saw the roark ••;'3'', e e rr e s p wr rt lfig t -g th<^ date of the 
month, on the ••brush" above the entrance to their room, before 
they entered,,-e««a^ indicating that the mine extiminsr had 


o* ^tiiottfiU «Y.cwb(!On Jba* amootr «ri^ 1o xini^i'.etinuixe «irf to 

ion ,cisro "ifi aiXciw »il* no ii©«Xq •XrfHcMws <»mo« ni edkioeal 

XBb ?>rC^ hno ri^nOiW »rii ,jIXKi-(r- ditiw ,I»03 «Tf:t lo aofcl srii no 

«f( ^ bn.'i :irior j;inio/Tn!rtfff©» onolvicf ftor.Xq -•iwi^tiow eXH ^o Ioot 
Hi/on 9 arts fc rfotf* 111: iiow o; ton 0Aol;fXfe|»9 uucin^njak bm/ol 

Biri 70"^ *r>£X<j siri ••«mo»b bun qotar Y;>t^»<l«'»Q *>^ T**^^ sirf oaXn 

-*A»4^irf«^ »f(# «o iiailll«ii.A_tufe^ . eri* 7o XXA 

©rf* 4 »H tg-sai<rf « 4 w f snX«4»#ii»»af* to eft«®in \XnP oil* ^Ari^^ooigA 
ACX^ftsiX fonari u'ano -^aioelq x^ *» ^^ ^-l* * * -**wi 'h m t ^- u .m j ui 1oo*r 

10 ?i !ooX BHW toon ;»ri^ "tl .^ «»««?> Xcpsl twHo 10 ioiq ,i»<f 

»fii taa Jbmros b»»h lo woXXori ^ *<^*# otIS bXt/^^r a sHoi-j.^nnb 

-!^it*HT**tt»m»rr-'WTi»<hit ->it» *>! mlliiit ;-x»rlup ii X»*t ftXuoo bamtl 

1 3^o>j<f 9vl;; bXi'fw ^1 .fs'^.'^e \:X*i»t;i»jf«pB T« ,batff>B »4iir toorr arfi 

on Xaot bluTiii tr js .ftUMf^n MtlX XXocf ito j^ul^Jili 

,t^lf:.^i »i Ioot: 
,orr?^iv jImmi^ aaw ijwMnao aiicf oi a«O0#Xw \Xno eifr 
ii^iw bnatiow orfw ,»;fAtQA*Hl ■"f * T ) i » ]X »q ^ to •X'>*»**<'* 'P" taniiaq b 
?!mi ,moo"r ,«Xnlotfe''' «« aJt b6>(«j:ow of(w ^nodam<^ o:film»y. .mid 

ttX;fa»* onjiax^ ,*iwt*»«'rf:«<,#fi»htn»*i tttit 9aota«f. ■9i>'g-*tMlM~ m 9 \ - m 

ball tualauiK^ »nkm ex(i ^i}i& snX^.;olh»l ,a<waa .Xoijiina tftf<^ 


r.xajatn^d w»«h room and that it was oafe, but eaw no almllar 
Dtirk on the walls of the room. The eridencft of th« Bine 
m-inafter was thnt the msir'k "23 •• was on the "brush* (at the 
end of thft roadway^ and about six or seven font from whore 
thft rock fell. The ritnea.T and a» » - u e ll e i «' » intestate upon 
entering the room, about 7:30 A. M,, bf-fore cwnrr.encing rork 
o n -t he-oday i n - rp i ft e t^ ^m, sounded th« roof vith th«;ir picks. 
In tho opinion of the witnesa, e v o j yt hinf r " te" the room wao 
in good nonJition up to the time the stone fell. About 
9:00 \. M., a 'pj)' ai er » * ' H inteatate» V«^ i. tht i i w i Tth^ Arogn o , 
jambon and t>ie latter 's "buddy," took lunch in the roadway 
nearby, \ragno testified that U:)on retumin*? to their room, 
apoel - t Tee ' r inteatate sounded the roof wit>i his pick nt the 
place where the rock auboequently fell, which wnp incrediately 
to thf- rif5ht of the roaiway, and about fire Minutes there- 
after returned to the same point anrJ while a^'^ain aooiding 
tbiit p ir t " trmrg-yiTOf the stone fell uoon him. 

■lambon t^-atified that he nnd ■aprml'tinr^ intestate 
ent<?red tfie latter* r, room "the first thing* thnt morning nnd 
f'MJUrjd a "rjqucese,* namely, where a portion of the roof or 
coal had fallen between his room .ind thit of appellee's 
inteotate, iambon testified, - 

Qi, *Had you seen him go in there th.'j.t morning to 
the place where the rock fell on hia?" 

A, •' « « « Yen i)ir. But he ( a p pc l l a oto intestate) 
looked -• it w^^-s pretty bad. Then he cj^iine 
out and I saw the props * * ♦ he ?3ot the props 
down under it {the stone) ♦ « *, "ell you see 
the propB the first thine; off in tJie morninp,,- 
he never sounded in the rnominn: at all," 

He further testified that he wk9- with appoll e tr? '» intestate 

wh a n the lat ' tw y wt th t» ] ^i ek sound «# th?; roof, that morning 

between nine and ttn o' clock, snd that the ro'^f sounded 

good, to fee wifcwe s o , -eJMbon testified further, thut the 

atone slipped, diagonally, about six inches tOMf^Wl the 


9iii i^«) "riairtcf" ^di no b«* "CS" jLi^m adt *fiitt a^AW is.jSMa«« 
©lorfw eaoi"i *!i»'i nov»8 w xln *tfctf« hmi f^wrfciion ;« 1o bn« 

Gijw «oo'i exfi -etfe—?yt if ( <»>!«» » - r* ,««9iiil> *il* lo aoxfiiqo ©rfc^ Hi 
*uocf/. ,Llo1 aucta ^siii amJtJ '>ft? 9i qu noJillitao Jjoog «i 

\Bvrbr.ei ntU nl Aomil iooi "w "(9iial »ti} ttan ttfuSPW. 

zinlbrtjos Rta^ »Iiiiv bn« inlaa mam arii »* b»jri»*fji r9i't» 
.rairf noc« /.£»! ;5. -rTff-.****^ 

9ijs;ts9;fni g^gTX Bu ^ «» b«i« arf ^ ■ ih,i woi 

« '0 9ll 9 crqfi to ;t<'ri* ':u\ Id n$»v;$»tf n»lXi<|. 6«fl Xjmo 

"^aan no XXol .x - 

(9;tA;f8s;tnl »J. » X. t »»\iin 5 ) oil iu^ ,"i^ n©'/ * 
««BHO »ri norfT .bacf v.*).-'-!;. . Iti -- ; 
sqoiq »iU^ .)OJ -art # » * 1 
?v©s UOY XXet' .* * ♦ (on 

'.XX/' i ni he>biiwo. 

9;fsJ»oJ '.♦-,»« tiiAMt^ *-r^« ori Jilt/. vt •.. iijii/1 3U 

b^bni/08 InOTt 9ili JaCit i>tW,2laoXo 'r, n .^ boA ««lrt tt»9W;fBrf 


fp.o.e of the co;:l lieforo it fell, Aragno tcstifi-;d that the 
top of the ntone wib lamp, siaootli orul alippery. The stono 
wj.-^ seven fact Ion. , thi'ei- and one-half feet wide in the 
center, tc.pi?rlng to a point at the right side, fytid p-'oout one 
to two feet thick. One of app«4*8crr1r*flxexpert vritnesces, who 
exfimined the stone after it h <1 fallen, teatified th::t in 
such a mine a tjtfsne oim ch;m£0 or broak within a fe\7 minutos • 
He described a "alip* ea a condition in the top of the stone 
which can bo detected "by aoundijij. Pjiother expert witness, 
who testified in behalf of^ i q p- juJjk'te, atat«d that if a stone 
is wet it can be ai^icortained by examination and the daiigex' 
detfrrainod. /jTK.fjno testificf'' in this ro£:(i.rd, "It is harder 
to tell if it (the stone) is solid when it is wet,** 

The wiin-f cxaninor, John Thorn, teatified that he 
examined the roof of the room tir-TtrrffTTorr at about three o'clock 
on the mornine tr f-^hc ^ h i ipp e nw yg' of the accid«it, tooting the 
roof with a pick, UiisLLsttiL-«*-«-TTJff-T5ri»a?7^^ 

otatut e ) a nd at?ltrH th-;t there waa no loose tstone nor dangerous 
condition. i>*MHM>.. The examiner to ^'jet into the room had to pass 
throuf:^ a space un ler the rock or brush thres? feet in height 
and four foet in s-io. th. On the face of the rock or brush, at 
the end of the roR-d-A^ay and ubo-ve the oaid cntr«jrice, he in- 
scribed the mixv'k 'TIS,'* and did not place any danger vanri: on 
the walla of the rooia in q f uoMtAun . The teatimony of ^ambon 
tended to shov; thr^t it was ouutoimry to plf- co the mark "on 
the face of th« brush or some stone alongeide.** Thorn 
testified that he also oxaraineii the room after t!;c stone fell 
and th, t at the time he made the exaraina ti fiyi before the 
accident, "there was nothing could i.aye come there * « ^ 
except they •« »^ ♦ ('jfirra and his "buddy") had dug the coal 
out, that th coal was ■* ♦ * etiXl cover injfc^ the pltxce where th e 

ftnc^a ftti'r .YifiQfiilu him li^tcome ,qat»t a.sw oiw5#n a^t* lo qo* 

nx. SrAS b^l^tioiif ,nf'X.Lr.l !* if i'l iss;?!^* sni.'js' -rfj hr^nJbaax* 

♦ ao^JunJtffi vQl s nixfj-iw -Aiio-x' to o^iuulo rtHO «»fn.te -5 'srii« « jr{otr« 

encKfsi &i<J Jo qo3 <jffl nl nol.t j.!rteo a •« •<llX»* n bad'iToasL »H 

••.i^w -31 .tl ru>rfw biXos 8i (»m>i» sifi ) jl 'ti .'.'n.f oi 
:>ii ir.di bvtliiH^ .aioifT ado'L ,t»niia»xi' U'Rini sriT 
2looXo»o ostiiiit JuoJa ta ?f?Tra<Jjcr|.' m iJk ot sff.t lo '>noi )=>ffJ 5 ol.r.HXft 

•aaq ei bad mooi s*ri;t o*rti itojn «;t 'lieaiimx* sri':. .*«w**W ,noJt;f.t/ noo 

.^a; .xfei/itf rto atooi sxii ^o ^ohI 9fl* hO ,riw+Ax- c -o?,! itfo'> beta 

-nx ori ,ooru»i:Jn9 Mjfie lanQ 9«^#<^i; tfi*t \i«\f' >«• bnf> Biit 

no -^iJ-Tfa •rojytf.b yfi*'. atvulq :ton hi;.; ",€?;" iLirua aft? JbscTlioa 

notffliai- "io ^nomi^o^i- ail" .wfc..i4-«»»tTr- w^ aw 01 fidi to aX-Caw srft 

no" :i'i.^in arij- '^j.: -J-q Ov+ \.'f'-^"^'-J=-'J> ''-i-** vfi * ^'''■^ •"'•rfB 0* bsbnsii 

moxfr ".sbiajjnoXxj onojti smoft ic !>•< -: f ■ ■'.; l--. eomJ 9fU 

iXol lanoj-a 3:::t to}lM macs 9di hBoi M-\iliiBei 

* * * eieri* sinoo nrnti bXuoo jiajtriton ajow ptrailt* ,^fi*t Jtoa« 
laoo 9ri* gub bfjrf ("xbbud'* alif brui janijuo) ♦ * »■ x^fii ^qooxa 


fctonc felX . sin'i * * ♦ thn.t beforn Carre oould hyve f^.oru' in 
thare, he rold hsve h 'd to takr the coal down," Oii croao 
examinaticn he unc y.aked "So you did:i't sound it {thz roof) 
vt the pltoe where he m-r. killed *■»«•?•« Answer, "It was 
ton tight ^ * *, I cour.ded it after I f/ot through, iifh<:^re j[ 
cnuld get rey pick to anund U. where the j^ai S2^ kille^ ." 

Smnhm tcntified, "Cn.rvr. did not take down nny coal 
that morning, " Aragno testified that arrfmHrce^B intestate, 
after lunoh, if:\rs itorliinfr, iin-ier the plnce «hore th' rjtone fell 
and "we h d taken the coal out, vjhore Mcrtin (n^wt-ileft 'ft 

wan Bt8ridjl3ji,3, the C^ "before, 

teatimony, thnt ths coal was r,till coverinr: the roof whf^re the 
stone fell, hIiows concluniVely thnt he ha(^ n'^t entered or 
exjiaijaAii. th^^^ 4P«<Hfr 4ir tnte*rtt7^^ A pu i iilaw'w witnea'sfts and the 
mine "anager testified rec^-i-rdinr falls of coal ■f^nrrmtt -it that 
tlT© in other ro^^iRs, soi?e of w icb y i ^' jms were not in use, w)iieh> 
c.ca3JJt^jaru,.~it i* -ar^ii^Hiv wns aufflolunt to ptit the mine examiner 
u^iflja-n-atioe of the danj^er which existed there. Presence of 
such falls of coal, . noludin * ]; th u i me iw ■ ■■ onbe i at ft. . g oaja, 
1 m7»odlatjaIjf,.ad4 oininff thrtt ^ ■wrrfjeJtiirtf^B' tntftstsircv were denied 
by the rrino examiner, TT 



____._^IUiMc***-- — f "~-— ~ — ^— • - . .,.- ,,, 

. The-^7t^renc«rclflarly.v iH Ih ' biLAlmmblm fdvA Vn&t 
wppol^lnAt^maintaincid no .'.deqijiate ^^ystern l»y wwiotk, the entry of 
the men into ths iBin.% '<"•(!»— !w«fr*i*«a(ii:«4. The book tJurportinf; to 
contain the recor'l of <-Xf»jnina t Lone consisted of a printed form, 
signed in bljinic, with ■■*. different dnte orir. inally entered and 
erficed, and the date in question, viz, i^eceiriber 23, 1911, 
inserted in its place. JT-je mine exauiiner admitted ttut he 
crnoed dates and fij^iaturen in said book and replaced thein 
wit^.-'6rthcrc, until a new book wre obtoined. Jixejaination of this 
book dlJ^cloaesthat such was the ^^^ 


(loon yrf*) itJt bnifop **nJbi|> woy ©S" v*)*:C8-- a.v* arl Hfti#4»rJt!njiX9 
«BW .tl" ,i9WtnA ♦•?♦♦• h<9lXW !iiw •rC tsia.f* ;•- .X:i sdj i., 

"•MiJCJii J^"S XL®!, .lili ??.V^ftw ,^ bni-rn h ot 3foiq i;^ igja i'Xttno 
Xi30D Xftr. rwrob »3lB.t inn Mfc r>'»:'X»0'' ,b»ilictrj-.' 

tl'-il omii. tii •>t ifw ^.o-.Xq 9tiS tt^Mttf gr.; ^ffo-flwX 194 !• 

>*-<!w tJ 'giy c i»» > ni^i'iM aiort!? «!»« X«ao sfC* n»3tj?wf i>^ tur* bisa 

8ri* ©loriw tool edi r>ffJ"T«rof! Xpoo ptIJ ' ft ,\;rn-v u .si 

'to l!)9T:r!!= i ;■ ; .^r' -^ ^ .: "Ill; rv'^r rvoiiij jiXal enoia 

't h ±*A w ,s> i; fix Ion eiew mmfrf rfo* iwrf^* nl •mii 

«inaaa-a > #K» rf wft*i Ml w w w (» ii» w wlh wC ^ « XXjsl ii9tim 

isnri^WAO ohJUk «/iJ x^ 

,XI^X .&J* .»!▼ .m ■ ' :.,^ ii.ui btiM ,rr 

si L* "^n no'ii .mlmsix.yx .tMniXtWcTn o/- 'ii im 

^ fcoiicd^ « JifflieYOO »3l*on-tq tnii saw rtoirc *«ili jfoorf 


four years. 

The principal iBBuee of fact in tnia ca;;ft is 
whether there waa a dangerous conait ion of thu roof in 
queution at trie time appellun t' a mine exaralntr inKpected 
the mine ana whether that conaition Wc'E of such a chrxacter 
tiiat the iuine examiner cnuld, by ■i'o.-:>son&.ble inepsction, 
have diacoverea it. It is admitted tliut unless the 
evidence ahOA-s th- t tho wilful failure of appllant to 
perform its duty proximately caused the douth of appellee's 
inteatatG, Laere can be no recovery. 

m. JUiiTica; McOOOiVI-Y iiilLIV.lI-GiD THJ. OI^IlflQl': of TlliS C 'l/iiT. 

;<poellant eenkB c reversal on the f nllo's'1-ng ^-rounds: 

1, The suit is hrrred by the s^tptut© of ItisltHtims. 

2, ^Drrors in /-rivinr: e-nf? r'?fuoing in«tructiona, 

3, The ▼< rdict in a^^ainrt the rnnnifest vveifjht of the 

.vuit waa coimnenced on Jecember 21, 191:^, by J, il, 
Aladurf , Administrator of the estate of Carra Uartin , deceased. 
On January .d4, 1913, moro tliun a year follov/ing the death of 
Vartin Carra, the ourt ordered all papei-e and proceedinga 
in said cause be amended by changing the nrjne of the deceased 
to read 'Martin Carra** instead of "Carra Martin," and on the 
same day the declaration was filr.d by appellee aa administrator 
of the Gotate of I^rtin Carra, deceased. i>iid such amendment 
constitute a new cause of action? 

The words '♦Administrat' r of tiiu eatate of Carra 
Jv'artin" are mere descriptio poraou&e , find wi Jimendment 
correcting the error in tranapooing the names is not a new 
suit. 411 eke V. Henrotin. 241 111. 16S, 176, and cases therein 
cited. The praecipe and sum.' one were not changed by inter- 

• 8nM0\ tJJOl 

nl loon »riJ ^o aoiJi. noc» Bwoiwi^iut^- f; asw wTsi J i«ftr«i(w 

ori^ 6»9lau ^-oxU i)e*J^i«ba si *I ,Ji b.^i -v-vooaib r^yjarf 
©* if»XXscfq« lo e^juiytal XtaXX* icrt* J icii av.ofi» annsfcxTd 

.rn^-n rjrr n-n ^iDTrti'io ;-jrr ■■.:- vix > ^r-oooo^^ •";ir:iia .:>. 

.It ,1 \<i ^^IQ£ ,X£; tc9dmao^.)u ao b^onftamao 8«w ctlM^ 

,loei.sooii t ttidxaM **'xnaO lo a^Mtae aitt *i.o viotaniainimbi. ^liubBlA 

'^0 di^ob sdS }iiilwoXXol -xjuix st naxfaT o?wu ,£XOX ^^t^^ ^natinBX. nO 

aartii>S930i<l ^nii aistqjtiq XX.n be-xol^tc ttnro sxl* .aTXijO nXiiali 

.6ee>tt>osi5 9dJ IQ 9nvMt &di ^nXsAoiio v.*.!' bi^hainriH ad o&uao bl«« nk 

ntii no hito ",^i:^'Xn.^ ai-x.'u.' 'r ;.,.;-.)^eni "stijjO itld-iidi*' baot o^ 

ioJ^si*«lHxcajb« BA aaXXnqqa xd h ilit anvf noiis.'utlottb idS xMb eouia 

tn&mbanam rit . baaj«d».vb ,«'xxs0 nl;^XB^ lo aJoi^t«<» ahi lo 

ftrX^Toij lo attU«o won a a.tu^lJ^Rno3 
AixuO lo q;^^J°c» &tti to i^^»iieiXniuH)A" abiow wri: 

**t©LiJbfl€NiiB ru) bmi ,^&.aaott TLp jj^ 9X^<!i.i3eai> oissm ma "nxc^iaU 

wan a ion ml bmuui aiU j^aoqaitMn:! nl loivo exf^ jgnX^ndiioQ 

niftisriJ- aaajio baa ,3VX ,CftX . .nXJoins»}i .v a^toXXv ,*l«a 

-•;o;^«l baansxto ion e>'L-i, no • va bn« aqlaa**xq ariT .baixo 


lineation suTasequent to the ord-r of ainendment, ::uch 
interlineation was not necesbiiry ; .j the order of amendment 
is aufficient to support the verdict after jufigment. Lockyood 
▼. Doane et al . , 107 111. 235, 239. 

Appellant coraplaine of ^iven instruc ti rn^^^ 1, 3» 
4, 5, and 6. Instructiona 1, JS, 4, and 6, reapectiyely, 
are coTTiplained of on the ground that they do not point out 
the iaauea of fact for the jury to try, but leave it to the 
jury to determine what the ia^mea are under the statute. 
A complaint siailar to th t made as to instructions 1, 3, 
rand 4, was made in U. o. Bre wing C o . v. ■■toltenherg, 211 
111, 531, 533, S34, of an instruction wnich told the jury, 
if they found from the evidence that the plaintiff piade out 
hie caac by a preponderance of the evidence as aller-ert In 
the declarrtion, then th« .lury should find the defendant 
(Tuilty etc., nnd the court aaid, "Tnis form of instnictiona 
has been approved by this court in a number of cnaea and it 
is unnecessary to repeat iri:iat is said in thone eriae.s." - 
citing nuaa«rou8 cases. In Belskia v. DerinK CobI Co.. 246 
111, 62, the court on page 69 says, "While the prootice of 
giving such an ins true ticai is not to be commended, it ia 
not reversible error where every count in the declarr-tion 
contains the necesBary allegatifms for recovery,* In the 
latter CJise, the instruction given was similar to the sixth 
instruction ia the inatmt case, audit waa th^re firgued that 
the court erred in giving an instruction which in effect 
told the jury th.'t 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, reRardless 
of whether or not such violation was charged in the decl«ration, 
In that csae, as in the in;^tnt case, the instruction did not 

doui'. .^nerabfWBMj Jo m>bxo »ri* o* j tiei/peacfua ticJaiAonll 

,ets ,fl6ft .III vox «.X« iji 55:?.?jl '^ 

,Ylovio'OE>q89i ,o bmi ,!» .r'^ ,X nnolt'auiiBnl .b bna ,5 ,* 

iuo Jnioq cTon ob x^tii iyrit ban'^syt, edi no lo bonlBLqmr>o 91m 

9 si& OS St 9VB9l iud ,Ya^ oi Viiiit arfj ^Eo'i *»/>'t to seueal ftii^ 

,£ ,X iirirx;tnin::}eat oJ hu 9>hMB fndt oS Snlmlqmoo A 

XXS? ,snqrf f» J'i:o;tv. .▼ .«o ^itJtwgryg .^ .5 ni ofcH« saw ,Jk dm» 

,Yix;t &iii blot riolrm ttoiiauiitial em !• ,*€e ,e;f.fl ,Xf.a .1X1 

iuo fibeta VilinlAlq etiS .iadi 9oii»bir-^ Bdi mo'cl hnuf>l xflrii- li 

rti hfiv>oJriii ejj •brwMre fniS T» iM>ris5:«bnoqfc'£q a yrf ttaan airi 

^fTAhnplnb orfi bnXI biiffrri.* Vtift »rii iwrf* ^nci^/'OaXoob ^At 

snril&otrsi^snl "to Miol «irfr* ,6i«R #7£roo •!!# feoa ,,3*e yiliu^ 

J-l hrr« 8© lo tudinvn m nl ^ttwos aliU \d bevniqil* noscf aarf 

3^S . .00 XaoO aCTiisC >y f>iiLaXa(' al .eaa^o auonnmua v^cixito 

T:o 9oXtt>Hiq 9tiS «»Xiif^^" ,sy«s 9^ »^q ho i^iA/o:! e.jli .SO .XXI 

St vti ,b«?Jbn9«mioo »ff oJ Jon ai ooiJ^owr^sfiX run douu guiTis 

rroicf jinXoab j»rf;t nl tn'mo ^''^avo atariw wjius flidiaioTrji Jon 

arit al ".yrarr oat no'V Bnrid (jjiaXXa x^»''"«»»^n s»rfi antA^aoa 

ild^xis 9?U oi TRXimly ssaw nsviji nai^oinienl sniS ,aa^o TpJiaX 

*Brf* b9iiBT« 9'r^rf* nmw i-lbna , aH;jo J^n^^cni »tii i noUoin^anl 

;f09tt9 rrl rfoiHw mtioirriKnt up. -^ntvl^ nt hs>>T'^ S'luoo orii 

^lutn-t M«« 101 '>'■'< ®<^ bXuoo YtftTonat m S<iiU xi^t. «»ri^ i'-toi 

a^ut/^te ■^nlrtl\' •i<;t lo imi^aoXT Xi/IXiw ^rU rfalrlw Tto riisob to 

aeeXbnufiatr ^9bum9 e*aafixotq arii aww lonoa «X lli^rtlaXcj arti x;d 

iTOi^^T.'.Xoob orft nl baaiitrfo ajaw noii>.'XolT rfoui! ton 7.0 -iarf,tariw Ic 

^on bib miX^ocrc^f anl 9tit «an«9 ^lIo;^f'.^l aiii nl as ,aus9 ijnii nl 

direct a yordict, and otlaer instruct! cna given for plaintiff 
in err -r, na in the instant c;i«e, etated fully that there 
could be ;i recovery only for violaticns of tha Mining 
statute H3 charged in the declgjc ;;tion« The court iield tn<»t 
inatructions muat be taken as a aeries and thnt there vfis 
no error in givin^? the instruction coraplained of , 

It is nrgued thr<t the fifth instruction is 
erroneous for a nurabcr of reasons; tri.'it it ape?ilcu of appellant 
aa (a) wilfully failing to in55pect the place where appeliee'e 
intestate waJ required to work, (b) failing to observe whether 
there were any recent falls or dangerous roof, and (c) th t it 
Bubmits to the Jury the question ae xo whether appellee's 
intcsitate :.-; i be-in directed by aprellrmt to enter the pl^^ce in 
question, when there is no evidence in the record of auch 
direction on the part of appellant. ^VVV^ 

F aragraph 4, of section 21, of the Kining Act of 
1911, irnpoBed upon tJ:ie mine exaraint^r the duty to observe 
whether there were any reof>nt falls or dauKorous root's, it 
is not contended by appellant's counficl, that appellee's 
inteiitate whs not acting within the scope of his employmait 
at the tiiES of his death, ctnd, therefore, no evidence was* 
necesaary of any specific direction to appellee's intr state 
on the p; rt of appellant. After recitin^^ the allegations of 
the declaration, the intUruction continues, "If tl^e .jury 
believe from the evldfiice th-'t th^; roof of the room, where 
plaintiff's decedent w-^n killed, w-.r, in a dangerous condition, 
and thi^-t said dnngemus condition could have been -.ycortained 
by the mine examiner witJiiri tv/olve hours precedin,*? tho day 
aforesaid, niid that the defcndr.nt ^'ras guilty of the irilful 
omission alleged in the declaration ca aforesaid **■*,'* 

Tho oontention of c mnael, that this portion of the instruction 

assumes that the roof was in a dangerous condition, ia without 


e-coiU Jiijij' ^IXu'l biiJxjia ,©yr.o ia^i^k-tX itif.i iii &si .iroiio «i 

, lo i/ArrijdXriPsoo «<^i,?t'«aimi. 9d) ^nlvi: ki icii-a on 

»*9eIX©c?qB ©tuftw eotilq &fW Jo»<7«?iSi •# »fliJClJ»"l: yXXwIIIw (a) ba 

w^x J- rf;t (o) hfta ,toe^ •«otftS'"«*' 10 eXXal Inso&t Yfta •low »T;9rf;f 

«'&8XX9c(qjB i'Hli9ttw ojr 3e> noiJe^up «W Xrutl fifit 9t eilsuduo 

ni 9o«Xq Sftr •»*«» o* ^ru IX9ij(!|i> "^tf butosilb *fe»of i n, s^^^j.^fnl 

rioua ^ h-stooet 1^^ oj: >:?!" iirs 5ii ml 9%»tli mf^ ^tmltatiUp 

1ft ^OA yxiiai-i tnii to ,XU nioiJ^oo* "to ,> /IqiiiTt^'ia^ 

a'9»XX»qqta^iirt* .Xoaawoo 9*ftmJ^Sf^fei X^ t'tihnotaoo ' 
irrj!nxoX(|tB9 wld \ Jcft^Xw saii^s.^ '«^a ami •d^«ro»iJai 

SAW 9ons/>lT» on «:.-:i:a .^a.aj ,£>n»: t4'«9-5 aid '^o mttki inii 4b 

lo snoi^oRoXIfl nff* ^nt^i-irrr. -r . .ir,4,jt»(y^- 'j-©. i-i'jq »(ii tto 

XtiJt, n^d , i^ani orjU ,no :ti^lill005 ot(* 

R:i»{fi7 ,flion^ atii lo /* ot '/W inrJ^ BOtobiTs »ti -J. 

^noU tbnoo as.Ki'xi^ri.'-Bb ft ni aw ,l)eiXXX3( a^rw in^boop ' ^tXjaXjjX-i 

JbonJt .;jriMorir n»«<if ovari bXuGa rtcllihnoo «w:'a»j4ri.Q& f i.^* *hj1* bnm 

X^b i>ia ^rUboooiq ti<w«>if ^l»vi nlililm %»iUMax0 BsUm 9slt xd 

Lutil'T «ria to Y^XXos 8B«r tnabntl^h pdi i«rt* *rt- .fciJtBoiola 

iX^esiolj^ »n noi^^iAXoMb o<ji# ni: i»fl!S»Xia noinatam 

noi^ou !■£... i orf;? lo rroXJ"ioc{ nidi iadS .Xopm/fO ^o rtoi:tirc.tno:i odT 
d-uoxi^tlw el .noiJ-iLnoo auoioanci) jb nl ajsw looi sriJ ii-.di asmuees 


merit. It ia also vrgcd th t "b^^cauce this inntructi^'a says 
thtit, "If the jxiry Relieve ♦ « ♦ eaid dangerous condition 
noijld have \3eer ascertained Isy the atine prsjnincr withifi 
-taslXS. h^r a t>rg ced ing the daj h 'ore 3 ^ 1 ^ ^<- * «, *• th; t the 
jury in tsf-^ect w^rci teld it wr3 the duty of ap:v3llant 
to in?p«ct all places in the :ninc, cnntinucusly, for twelre 
hcMTQ precediri:? the be.-in'.ing of the fJ.ay in quefltion. This 
part of the instruction clearly presents the isnye as to 
whether thsre -wsa s- lafv^eroua onn'ition whicli could hare 
hts-i diocovcre.l at .•\n3r tinro prir^r to the cor}')'\c:ncem>»r)t of the 
workin,-; iTy of appellso's Inteat.'^to, Thf^-^e waa no error in 
/♦iring this in?truot.ion, 

the Inatrintions of"«nrt-d by t<ppell^it and refused 
by the court were fully n.f»y<sre'J toy other ins true ti^s ^^iYfm 
in behalf of ap-.-illant, arid the instructions givan an a whole 
ce.rrootly :>nci. clearly pre3ent appellfint'o theory of defenae 
ani th!> lr*.w -.pplicahle thereto, 

Tt is fui'ther urg-jd "by appellant's ccun^isl tlriat the 
Vfirdlct i' ctonlrnry to th* -veif^ht of tb* =>vic'.«nc9. It is 
r; -^it'infl^d thrit thare 's no evidence in ^:hi.^ record -afhioh even 
tarda to nhov thr; -■ th^^re wf?'4 s dangerous condition -sxiating 
in Cijyra'o -o nn, at tJiree o'clock on the ciorning; of "December 
23, when John Thora, the apine ^xamin^ r, made hiu ex-iiaination 
of the room. It i» further urfrei, th ^t even if ther^ were a 
total failure on the p..rt of tho rain« Gx&jfiin'r to inspect the 
ro-aa, th. t ai)-ei:e<i <in\>id not ref?ov ^r, l^scauue, it is urged, 
thsre WM3 .-lo ^ianj^er^ua con'ition pr-- s*:nt eithrr •-, t ^lOO 
o'clock in the rnorninj;, or <:.% fi'dO or nt 9:30 Of that day. 
It ia further urged that no dangerous condition could iiave 
been diocov<^red toy any reaa enable inspection, nnd that, 
therefore, the failure to inspect could not have been the 


«oliil>noa aaoi-^jjnoi) btf\9 ♦ ♦ * ^v^iS^d XTut oris 11* ^deAf 

ff lrji.i,:*;. ^ •!::• nJtmjRXfl ^nirrt »J.i yd" bsnxai'i'aoa*: nas^'f ^ivnii foXwcn 

iftaXXtSqge lo \,tuh £»rf* .: .» ti ;^rrM bloi fx»?f t»9'»''U AJt yii^t 
©tXowJ 10 '^ ,v.Xs«oi5T(i;tfwo ,:inJ:.« nrf^ «i c*Oi»Xq XXb t»*^aixi oi 

ftrfi^ Jo ;♦ nemos nof .110 e>rf;» oi icl-iq t>^lt V,rui is .':st2> vooalt 
n± rco^.ttf' 01"! uuv/ o'l- rH" ,o;J-r;.'trf».trtl «'R5XXs<Hi^:. iCo Ti«Jb- gniji'scw 

.ojj.jfowi.;' nl 8 Iff* :^Kirt-^: 
b»8uton mui if it«XXs*q!2's V> ^o'3te■■■•'lo GiiDiln!.'i; - '^•f -.■' 
nnvlB Brpi + Dirrc+ani if»il#« ^rf &»«•▼»» X''^X«'* 'I'-i \^ 

oan©'it>:> -to \,-i09iii a'#ft»XX»q«« *n«»it»itq X"'^'^**'*^' ^'"» \£iOQii99 

.0**'!c»/W '.■■'■ %' A f'»-fi tan 

arii ^Ktii XsentJ-'n a'in^XIftqqB vt' f';';-/;; - 

jjaliaix® noiiibnoo 8i;ot.w35fW5b s r ct af.ftfti 

isd.TtfjosC to snifrxoet &rfit no *'opXo*o .^:-'u\^ , " ■ a'^iib*^ al 

3 Q1&W '■^iB.'.JCt tl HAV© *erfJ 

,\:ai) iy.tit to Of.:© *^ •so 0^^>:V ;ta 10 .jinXmton twW nt :tvoto*e 

svurt fcXi/oo noiJ-lbnr o 8uo'i»j:in«Jb on ijodt fcoaaw i&t^4'Wl at il 

,iijrtf bna ^rri&o'^qfial olcfarroaiisi "^aa \rf ^isvooalb fwocf 


prrxirae.tirf c;.jUiits tf tli« death ci©o»fc inteatate, becauae 
all of the t^ste of the roof mads on thit morning, showed the 
rorf to Vie in f?:o( ' canJilion, and no other ir. thod cimld have 
hefm nmployod if incpection hu6 been ir.i;do. In li.eflriatta Coa^ 
C,q . V. %'^T%in , 231 111, 46r, 460, the cniirt said, "Appellant 
urgeo, ho%*evcr, thet even if tho examinj:r did not comply with 
the :;t;-.tute in thin rtypf ct, hia fiiivirc bo to do io not the 
oroxiTiiate c^.u>i9 of triia acijident. The rvidcnce shovvt th;>t if 
tho fxanin<»r }i.'d properly examined tlie entry v/hora apiJeUee 
and Zak v?oriced he would )iave found th& roof to be dangerous, 
ir.d had ho isade -i r-^corl to tliat effect and plo.ced tho con- 
spicuous m-.f'kH I'eq'iiryd by tho la^r, it is fair to preiiume that 
appclleo fuid 5al: ^fr.nld not hijiTe been poruitted to enter, and 
w ul'Jl M.)t )iavti fmtev'Af (for the pui*po:C of niining, ) the place 
'j^he-re t>*y vvock-;d, until after the condition;:; thurc h d been 
ma-s «aff», Cun/ilnghoia's vvilful failure to examine the mine in 
the /TWanner requireJ by Ijt, '.yhich the cridytice tendsi to show, 
Bni ;ii»3 fnilcrti to inaks a rscorc! of ths facta which s^ch an 
exoinin tion 'yo jld }'iive r^evsaled, rmd hisj fa.ilurr to rm.'ke the 
irorkB ln.:icKtini»; danger at aprellec'o workinc place, contributed 
directly to eau«e the injury to cppallec," 

^*th«r th-? mint exi jniner inr^pact' d the roof of the 
rnnui it tlie tSne in rjuontion wca for tar jtiry to determine. The 
tentimon.v of the wine exandner as; to phyeicel conditions of aaid 
rocm on th»j worninfi in qu«it;lGn, crnnot be r' conciled with the 
tf.r timony of Mpp'?liee*8 witneBb-es in th t regard. Indeed, the 
tistimon^ of tie irdj.o e:carciner without recf^rd to the testimony 
' V ..ra,^ci '.jid Rmbon tc show th;;t he did not 
feA.aR.lnc thc.t i:a:r\, of the. roof v;hich fell. Tiut jury hid the 
righit to infer from the evidence, eitlier (a) th .t the olip or 
dangerous condition of the stone, vith its wet, smooth and 



«»;fi beTf^ofiJs ^^ifxlrraom ^rtri.t no »htt« ' o «#■«* ntU 

ofHti bLuc'j bod^i ^si ladio on ban ^iioii ibma bo©^ ai •cf r 

iaallaqqA'' ^Jb-Jtso d-ti/co ©fit ^bbk ,::)»> .1X1 X?G ,„iJ..vT£« . • .^l-. 

ntU Jon ei oi. oj oa aiuXif-l , ;i siiwf . 

l.t i<^tii 4woifc aortobiva ti hii '1«> «>i.««3 ^jiiMiixd-tp 

(is 9i«Ut)9aq p* 'iJUj'l i-jt J'i . 

.«»oaXq a^U ( .ac-iat^i lo ouoq^un 

ni sxiiox 8ri* onJUtsxs a.;^ :^ijjXj: : 1 .^..■■X^.• 

ofi douQ iU>liiw KitmJ 
otiS 93lijra 0^ (luXia'i ai.-i ii^^ . 
bBiudliiaCkD ,©o*jXq an^^f- • — 


•ilT ,»nioi'i-Ct«l> oJ- ^lat, -».' lo'i «*;* nnltnoup nl »■- 
biiiB lo anoi* i!)iior> X«oi3v'<ii o* **? 'wnijiiax 

•rij rftlw l>»XXonoo.-''x arf ^oa« s ;- , - ^ : 

•ri* ,b©©bHl .huiaon »* ri;f nJ: 8'> 

Xnofliilts^ nils oi f)Xa:j«n ^^rrtJt* TPni 
;Jorr bil> •xl ^iii(J vrojtfe od x-^HHOi*'- 

10 ^IXh ftrfi *..rf;r (jb) TiefWla .•on«hiv» ftiO mr, i . it... :,j ;n a- 

i ;t . JiiiRciXS 



Biijpery uurtace vnicn wdo present ■ t tne<? oi" the happen* 
inc. of the acuidont exiKtcd at- 3:00 o'clock (?n the moToinp^ 
in QU' stion, nr {u) tnat tae Htorir chymcecl end broj<e -rithin 
a fe-w n^inutes piecodine, the billing of npi; f;ll«?e»i5 intoct'ite« 
Xiisre wa^ no s^idence to the effect thfit the apipearanec of 
thft atone stter it hs-6. fallen, indieatel any sudden change 
or tre&king ttiereof , "^lie plcicing of propg imder th-^ stone 
by typeliee's intt^wtDte, and his rspe^.ted testv. at: to itc 
safety 01! tne ir-orriing in -JU'jf:it '.on, indie? terl anr.let.y or 
dca\>t in h.*.s iBii-i, aa tc its condition, '^.e •?Tidence ol»arly 
esta'bliphes the frot that Ihe mine sxaininer in the exorciee 
of reaconablc caro co!ild have -Hscovered «tich dangerous 
ccncition, if it exiotcd, 

#hiie it T'Hi.i the strtutory .iuty of «?pellee»s 
in t state, to aound and thorou.^hly sxaatne the ronf of his 
working place 'before eonitenciniS 'iVerk, thare ia nothing in the 
statute th t reliovea the operr:tor, under such cireyti'^tancca, 
from the cfuty to insp ct, er.join«5d upon it ty this r^ct. 
liavia V. :!a5:;0uri "; Il.:.inoi3 Csal Co. , 186 III. App . ^73, 
43i, ftppellee'a intriatate had a rlaht to rely u:?on t'ls 
perf ormmj oe of the laine exaitiaer's duty, and the abr.cncc of 
a aarlc in such working place indicated the o-.oinion of tlie 
■tine c;uFimin.-;r that th'. roof wris not danp^sroiis mc'. doosdnnt 
cannot be brsld .'•uilty of contributory neglis-ense in -v orking 
un-.5er the ston«, ^ia,zzi v. Kerens - Sonnc^^al d wOal C o.. 261i 
111, 30, oij. 

It is not i30nten--d, s^ijc If v^-p :-illa^ a int-vstats 
wr,.z i^uiity of coutri^outory nesli/vi^nco, th;.t it 1? any dsfcnise 
to tiiia fjiO.ti'-.n, if th^? -arer. {juilty of vilful 
▼ iol;.tion of the 3t;;.tnte, "A vrilful Tiol- tion -.vitMn the 
■e.^ninc of the -jtiitutc :5iQ:nif iej .1 conrjciou:; YioL^tioai 


lo oorr«ifi»(;q.e 9dt ti'.f^t J-09l:l9 an'.* »i »on!»i»Jtr> on i.«w d-xtiuT 
©Stt'srio ii9M)Kr8 xnc. k9,iRoiiatit ,a9xie>t bud il 'i93'i*f t'cwj:; sni 

TO X'^''-^'^« bel^oibrsi (itoiK^uc «i Rniirxo.^! 9ii.i no ^i*»'i«i 

, fc fit a ixp ." I 1' i , no i i X Ino a 

^'j fii gnlr(ion si »T*jri* ,it~-^ ' aiolarf »o«iij gniiiow 

.(■ vrf *1 noqv , i . : ri;t moil 

,8TA .qc:A ..I XI d8X « ,n: Xi.e -X Qui. ..11 :. itiJC-^^l^. .v &iY£.a 

crr;f noqtf xi-'>'X <»^ d-fi.',i:-3. . it-ri «4«i»r^ni B'.--»IXoffA .ow* 

lo oonoacfr. srf* Jinu ,v - ' ri.w«.x9 eniw srfi "to yortWRiol'j.ftqr 

ail^ "io not Ki«';o Off* ls. ^oyi<^ -.r.X'ilio^ it,j.;a aX j^ibsi m 

,a,nX:itC'' nl tton^-^tlv^ar \-;ioti;dx's.tnon To i^^XXf; x^I'-•i sd #or;r;,sn 
^di^ , , CJ2 X oo ' ■ f' .Xj; .T^< ano > ■ - » ae i o >n ,v X;5^;:gXS. .mioc"; Oiii tPi)Xt« 

.vU. ,d6 , iXI 

fiii.:: rfnl u;'ri> '.I «:;.!; "^i Sf>V» , ' ".I'-.J at)^ :'C;ti .^i ^T 

»c:n!:-V}r .ic«*'' ^1 ti *«fU ,ivo«»»5«lX XliJSi *»'W 

C'-iXJv ^0 \.tX,tr f{ir IJ; ^tv>itius •itli o4 

artJ nXf^iiw acti..l9i\ Xij'iXXv A" .»J' ■!•■» j.}.r.ioiT 


th' r: re of."' M..rc4Utitte Co&l Co. V. Melle. SOB 111. lin, 122. 
AS 86. id in Kellyvill e Cc-al to . v. ^^tiinb, "17 til, ^16, page 
h'.'fi, "^^hers yo l::J.'fcCi a wiiabcr of per none are en^h^fiC in a 
prr..:iuc:tix''e iniu^try no in coal xiiininjj in Ji<;> .'t*a.t,e of Illinois, 
syiri ??heri tr/: vorJt is of aucJ; h cluiractex- Uv.u it 1: I'icognised 
.-;s being .'-vtenc'ed with uiiusu;,..l jU;;ifer<:.'.H tuiu uci-fieVfe, t)ie 
cor::;titution rs'-uires th/.^L i«|i;ibl.i.t^cri a.hail V.e iiad for the 
piirpoi.;e of protectiiiei thou-s thus r-nfew^ed froja the kno\vTi 
extraordinary liaaurds and d.^r^iers. , In iho ccsi struct- or. and 
aqaipm^;nt of inlneis, »h; reform, tlrie act roquireu the discharge 
of ap>-:uific dutJ.on, so titbit th<3 utmost BtJ''..ty can be er.tended 
to Vlxh Riiners . Vhis x^quirement of tli« cane r.i tut ion is eoufdit 
to "ue jtnet by tiiia legiBlation, •*-hiob directs the ovaior, operator 
or mfeuuKei" to r/iaky proviuiou for the a-if -ty of the miners 
employed •■rithln the Eiina . ■O'lera -in owntT, cporf.wcr or manager 
ao c3n>ouructii or ej.uipu hiu UiiriJ tiist h-j iuio.?ini:ly -jp^Tratets it 
withodi coiiiormirig to t.he proviaioas oC thiu act, he willfully 
disregards its provisiona and *ilifulli? disregards the safety 
02 miners employed therein." The Bjintr under the otatute is 
entitled to the benefit of the tups-rior Knowledge and oxperience 
of the oii'ictirs eh-rged with '-ho duty of iiccoverint; conditions 
of dinger in xho laine, ;v ellg v, L unicg>ii Ceal .Co., 16^- 111. App, 
404, III, 

..hilc thii evi iftnce in thie c«i.e tende to shos; th?,t 
in buoh u. Exne l. tstont, can chanj^^e or break viithin b. few 
Einutes, the evidence also diecloeeo th.-.t the conuition of the 
Etone ccuxa have been discovered by exaruinj-. ticn .--.t <iny time 
within uweive h vurs preceding its fall. 

Under all the fficts and circua-ottnces in eviisnce, 
it wa.d for the jury to determine whether such dangerous condition 
existed Mt 3:00 o'clock on that morning, and whether the mine 
examiner in the exercise of rensonable cnrc could hav'- die- 


.SSI ,i!XX ,.i.n OOS ^a.tXai/ . v? ,oO I^oO g/j^fn ipya '^ , 'ien-! ^Ai 
o-^aq ^'dlCi ,117 VX" tj^ntii^^ ,r .oj i^aO QXIfvx^'^;^- '^^ iiias ba 

,8ioniXXI lo 9.J*>^- i»il.»' at a^-iwi* l^ot> ai um i5'il:jMJ.jtU »rl.$oub(}%ti 

mis ,d«Z0;^j!ijtI» inui t).lrx^»^;:Ul X>ui«ufaJ xi^lv b^bxsti^i^i :ini9:S an 
sxii '.:o':i: :->ad dJ J Xd<i« .is<aiiiii4X)i»X J^ii/ Mnxlupei acii^viX3i%aoii 

boa iUo^iaiiT;^ai»o oil? ncl ,a*xej}a.aij bna sb'u^&ttsl \'%iicssJ-'iot(itSx» 

•xoiJaiisqc ,'x.iwo orii aioa'/ib xfoi/nv .nei JiiXaisaX airi* xof **w atf oi 
ainaitn srii lo ^^.^li'-t- aiii ic'i utlL'iivotq eiwi-.i 6,if *:.-:uuv«ii' 10 

il ii'iisTt^qc xljifiitiotvi *rl niU itxtm ; irf tsqAtrps '.lo -..^Qirijsfioo ob 

YXXw'lXXiy; '3{( ,^3rj yiiti "iio atK.'i;i;-TOi^ siij o# sjitJ^m-ioliitoa' SvodAkw 

XSalMa j/i.t abijQsa'fyxb t^Xit^illH has BffOlairo'x*^: utk ««b'sc«ao*xaib 

anolfibtsao nal7»7009j;b 'zo <;^iii> sit,' Aiiv ba^'x vetu a^t^ai^'te i»iU lo 
.{jfjA .1X1 .01 ,.o,;J Xao::; iij^mu^i .'^ .•i-^i-.til . 9*1^*1 {JtiT iU «*>j|njb to 

iniii vioria cJ abni»^ sjmo airfi a^ »oa*i;iV8 aii- i^J- 

vot a niri.t tw jtaaicf 10 nr^rtHda 1100 ono-a .1 -uttta ii itoiH: nl 

*c{.t lo aoi.Jibnoo art} .tj«i.f 8»aoIc>aib 08X« 9on»biv^.' adi ^eniuntm 

6ta.lS vftii i.3 a'.ilJ .'M£ii;t«X!i' v;si bs'ievooaib ttaacT a^..?..t xiXt/oa .^tto^a 

«sof»;>i/f» al a90i-ivt".T{jj»iio :>m> rt:^t»4'i oxii XXs •ti«h«U 
noid^ibnoo aimtPT^iiab ilouw i>ri;»<»rfw o«ifin»iab o;? Xii'L 'J^^-i t^"^ *> * >^i 
•nxin ©ri;^ Tidttttiw bn« ,ji«J;nTco« j;iio no ait>oXD*o j^;t: i.H bsitelxs 
-nif.: ^v«jr( bXwoo aixio »XcfoitoaaaT lo (utiaaoxo ort; nl •xanlnusxe 


coTered same, and if he failed to do oo, whether such 
failure on his part, was the proximate cause of the death 
of appellee* a intestate. '^e are unable to aay, after a 
careful and exhaustive reriew of the record in this case, 
"ttiat the rerdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the 
eridence, and findin.v^ no prejudicial error, the judgment 
of the Superior Court will he affirmedo 


ri*«ob »xfJ lo 98u«o d^fjcaixo-xq arid «.«» .J-Xiiq Bxr{ no ©ix/Xl«l 

,©Q/jO ajtx<;t til D'XOosi er(^ lo wairai f9\ ittiURiixa bn» 

^aengbut udi ,1011© Ifilui:b«t»'*« on anibnll fcn* ,oon»biT9 

666 « 21004 


\ Appellee, 




198 I.A. 23 

aTATi4MENT OP THS CAbK, This appeal is prosecuted 
t« rsTsrse a judgment obtain e J by appellee, the plaintiff, 
against appellant, the defendant, in the iiuporior Court of 
Cook County, f or |2000 and coots, aa dajna/^ea for injuries 
alleged to have been ouatained by her while attexnpting to 
alight from one of defendant's street cars on wliich she was 
a passsnger for hire, 
/ '. ,-7f~ fii v tea I iJM wtytrf' plaintiff * a »tt«ntfl?lB physician 


i»8Ha,>,in effect, th&t on th e n * vtht 94 " i^epte^iber 11, 1911, 
about two hours f o li e win^ the occurrence, he foi«id «h»«h 
•X H miwi t i m ef p 1 ain t i f ^ -^-s^ b^Ay^ a larf^e bruise upon her 
hip; bruises uuon her left thigh and back, and, JAp«« the 
following day, a slight bloody discharge from the vagina, 
which d - i -i- ^ ^ hn rge continued for about a wee k and that he hatd- 
continue<l to treat hor "off and on" for pain in the back, 
especially on ttiK left side, and for retroversion of the 
uterus, T J poCT"^"« CT .r a al n b ^ tirm fhree or four wecko before the 
trial, he found the uterus turned backward. Tho w^tnitm '^°^ 
testified that he had known the plaintiff for n perinrtr-nf- 
six or seven years; Wtart-iw^ attended her nt th e t iae W 
the birth of her first child, more than two yeara before 
the accident; that six weeku after A^th*" birth u £ the "f trst 
ekil4, he found, H-unn examinutJuMa, plaintiff's uterus to 


\{0}1% J[^5iS'-iA 


YTicroo XOOO 

A.I ser 

,>fA<»:00 ca^:.'.¥aiAfl OOAOIHD 

natiulal tol aa^nmab fee .sjaoo bnfl 000S| "xn t ,VflWO^ >t"®3 

««w sria lioii^vsr no «Tao Jsai^n «»J-RflJ)ns^&b lo ono aioil ^flslX» 

naioioxrlq gtnt>fI»:^;^» e*\'ii.iaiiii^ tv-ximtJite^^-wtO -ir-. . • \ 

Btif wqpaf ,1>H« tJlOAcf boa d:;|iil.t j^l»X tceii ooeii aosiunrof ;qxrl 

-%/m Bii ifidi bras ioow n tvffdes not iTstiniino esi'?*r»-»*<i rto-uiw 

,3£oacf eiii aX ni«q lot 'ho hnn llo* aorf ifift-s;^ oj^ ixiuaXiaoo 

odi lo noierisvoicro'i -xo't i;na ,ebi« *1»X »<» oo x-tX^losqae 

be normal in eiae. "InyoluUon ^^as .practically complete 
at th.-.t time." •f^"irttmmkjurther tentified th.-.t nt the 
time of the accident plaintiff was in good health. 

T Ow«)|ption ftf_ui«|^5„Thwrt?*-fr»cmm^ to strik., out th« 
.*o»«r«lrTr' teHtixBcny with roferpnce to retroversion of the 
uterus, eu not connected with the accident -im' ^ m t f m , was 
denied, "j- 

The plaintiff was three months advanced in 
pregnancy at the time of the accident ^^nd RHve birth to a 
child six months thereafter. -^ 

The defendant seelcs i. reveraal on the following 


(a) ^rror in ovorriilin^ def endajit's motioirt to 
strike out certain testimony of plaintiff's 

(b) Mirror in f^iving certain inn true t ions. 

(c) The damages are excessive. 

The evidence of the attending phyalcien of plaintiff 
tended to prove that the conditions conrplnined of by plaintiff 
at the time of the trial Yore the rer.ult of the accir'ent in 
question, and the motion to strike out wns properly denied. 

One tf the inatructlons cojf.plained of, is hb 

4 "The Jury are instructed that the Inw reouires 
l^LiylT'^''^ °^ com'non carriers to do more than to atop 
renaonably long enoi^s^h for paasent-^ora to safely r^irht 

Li"rkii- fh""** -^'"^ ^''"" ^"■'l;'"^ ''^"^^ required to aBcertain 
and know thnt no passenecr U in the act of alirhtinp 
:^2T. %"'^r before puttin,^ it in motion again. If .in 
employ^ fails in that reopoct. thm such failure is 
imputed to ii 13 employer and is actionable negliponce on 
the part of the employer, provided the na.8Rengcr w?ir> at 
-ucn time not guilty of contributory negligence. 

• W?K1 

In Lpuievilie & ^. I. Traction Co. v. Korbe, 94 Jl . ]■". 768- 

,il*X«»ri bo08 n.1: aaw l-^ij nx«X<r imbtoxt^ *rf* lo smxi 

^..,4,^^..v. ,».k. .tot i:-,f)r5 tru rfrf X 4' ba^osnrtoo ^on aa ^Bui^iu 

4^ .bsxneb 



♦ "t-^r^^nlaXq lo '^««mii;;»i ni«.>i3» two eytXriu 


^r/ (») 

ni ^rtobiooG !»rfJ to JXu«»i »ri} atem- X4li* »rt# lo »ral^ &!ii ^e 
.hftinob it-ti^jgoic a -tt Sua ti^t'r.iti oS no i 3 on. orf* bttn ,msi89Uf> 
>::v. El ,"^0 ftoaifliBRWOo enoliovii^ai wit "*& »flO 

Hf»'xX;fn!9n wnX ©rii i mni bsJ-oirtJ ©ni i»io X^^t t>rfr ,^ 

■■■i baa 

Si e^uixfli , "^ 

fto sonoTilXaan o . 

C •♦oof»axXs»n xTtoJ^wdl-xJriOD le ^JXIkm Jon imii rfouo 

,897 ,;i ,11 ^C . acfTo:i ,▼ .o£ nniJoJsVl .1 ,^ ^ <»XXxval»oJ nX 

769, the court instructed the jury in p.iTt as follows: 
n « * # You fire instructed that stopping a reaaonabl* 
tin't for a pttsornger to alight from auch ct^r is not 
sufficient hut it is *Jxe duty of tJie conductor or other 
person in chr:rt.:e of a street car to eee and know that no 
passenger is in the act of aliirhting from 3uch car or in 
a dangerous position before putting the car, of wnich he 
ia in chfiTge, In rfotion," In cormncfiting on this instruction 
the court said, * ♦ ♦ • The vice of this charge was that 
thereby the trial court informed the jury as a legal 
proposition thi;t it ia the duty of the conductor or other 
person in oh^:^Re of a street car to see and know that no 
paBBengor ia in the act of alif^hting therefroiu or in a 
danger-'UB osition before putting the cfir in motion; that 
yie jury was thereby f^iven to understand that undor all 
circum!.^t;.nces it is the duty of the conductor in oh.irge of a 
street Crir to see and toiow that no passenger is in the .ict of 
alicjhting from such oar. Counsel for petitioner cite no 
authorities wnich can be said to uphold the corructneas of 
the charge in question. * « * « 

The foregoin^r opinion is in harmony with the 
uniform line of decisions in Illinois. Trl ^ City Ky . Co . v. 
Gould . 217 Hi. 317, 321; .viromer r. ^hicr.f^o Railways Co .. 
185 111, App. ft23, and c-ises therein cited, 

^at constitutes negligence is a question of f >ct 
and not of law. The giving of the foregoing instruction was 
reversible error. 

Ri<V5i;hs!",d and ksiiahjikd. 

rfon ax i^aD rfaua rtioil .Jrfjjli« o»f a»»jjni>aQiii« u lol »«!# 
itHiJ^o 10 -so^oubnoc* *>fU to ^«b f turf in»loiT:lo« 

on Ji-.rU worol fan** eea ft.i tao ^o^i^r 'o .\^-\Bsio nl ^ 
nl to iu«9 lioue monl ^ttli iip,l£j& Iko d'ou axif^ ol at tajj/.. 
9i{ rfoiriw lo .XBO ort* 8niJ;*ifq ft-JOl^cf uoiJUoq ttuont^tuib « 
noi^oi/i:^a«.f sirU no ^nl.f intmaoo nl •',nri;to7i rxi ,e>,i;<fio «1 al 
irjtf 3,fflw ©atJiifo elr<l lo eoiv •rfT ' jiAB inuoo orLt 

inilio ^o icSoubttoo fids 1o x^wb sriJ si Jl #j4ii^ ooiiia^qoiq 

on jadi woRjf fafw »9a o^ n-n t'-«?T.t«; - '^o og-rjarJo nl oootoq 

« ai no nioilonc©fU »nl*' iJ ni ai •xsa«»'*««<I 

j/^if-t ;nox.tom ni i«o oit* £i ftsd noUxaot wu«^ isjinalj 

i£fi TCfjbnM cffuL* 0? ill' via x^'^'ifitii bjuw x^ul ori^ 

fi lo aa-xjaxia ai lojoi/i.. io y^irb »ii;f ojt ii ooonr,*. muaiio 

lo ^oa 3rfi «1 ai «so7^noaa«q on iaiU vor^i btts o»» ol aiv j^t^o-x^a 

on 9ikt3 tanolittnq, lol I»mtoftO ,«»!> dteiiti •lO'S'^ ^cti^rdalXa 

to uB9ciioi)i'7oo dfi^ l)Xoil<{« «# <bi«« •tf nao ik>i ii' eaXiiioxiiuii 

'***«• ««{)U3f»i/!> Hi ftsiMdo art* 

firiLt liiivi v«otfs";r.n «i ni noinitj?. ijitior' - -^ ^ '■ • K'? 

•'^^ 'all 'Itli ll:tO-iaT .BiwniiXi ni srfc/r ! /X HTfollaw 

, »o: e^i ^^yXijaH o?^'^oiti'.' ,r 'xf?^:ieni ; , Xi- . bXjUoQ 

.h »*io nioi .XXI «SI 

i-o. '1 'to noj^sQup I wl aonsgiXi^ozT; ••."::;-/v.'i.'.'fu> ■ ::av 

.lonto eXif^»<zoTan 

449 - '^18 47 

^ILJLlAy A, W'iT^ki, 


COOK HfillNlT, 

..x..u/ ; i9gi,A. 28 

D>:a-i7 <:iU-iD ttus opiijion of thj? c^'-mT, 

Plaintiff, alitjhting froira one oi clef enfirai^'b street 
cinre, Wi;a in.^ured, itc "brou/^ht uuit. for d;t'na£;ezi, aixoginf? that 
the oar had been atopoed for him to alight and while ho wh»3 
in the 'ict of ali .'hti;i;j, it ijudclenly started ifith a violent 
jerk, throwing him to the «roiand. The verdict of the Jury wua 
favorablij to him and ha Tiad Jud^nRnt for :si,fJOO, 

,;'e have conelu'Jsjd to r<j«rerue this ,1ud|»!tJent for the 
reaaon th.-t the -vldence faiis to provi^ tha c the acoident 
happ>inod ac plain wiff viliagod; xu cierirly ap'^efU'd that h« 
aiightea frora tho car bt-foro it ti.r.rivo«i it iT,« utmal stopping 
pii*cc- Jin<i while it ui motion, 

v/ Plaintiff livod on Itxot '29t}i plac« near Indiana 
/vvenuo, in ^: iicago. He vras ridinf^ hOTnevurd on n oouthbound 
Indiana avenue car, Hia duu^^hter, ab ^ut 15 yniiva oil, tt.,? 
wit}i him, ilo wao cirryin^i qmltc ri, Icid of prn'riiiona of one 
kind and anotJior in different p; rceln. He teLitifie.i th .t as 
the Oi-r n eared 'i^th street Vxf^ C(Viiduc-,or call^^d out the number 
of the ntreet; that plaintiff and hio damrhter wont to the 
rear door; th.-xt the ctu* ciijne to a coiap?.Qte uttrndetill about 
two leiw^ths north of 29th street, rind aa Im ntoppod 
down, still having one foot on the c.-:r Ptop, the err ;< jddonly 
aiiirted, throwing him doym. His tcutimony la corroboriitud In 



\ ^ ,.i3i.X»q(|/., 

♦* / . fiv 

8S .A.I 861 

8*tw arf 3»iif(w hop arigil/* oi mL(^ t»l b»<r«^^:^ft no ^i<i 

erf *Brf* feiti^^qB ^X^uvi^ iJH ;i^fta»iX« a^irtlaX ajn i>vi»&qq*j( 

«nfii:b«I x,:on oouXg f(l'?S taa^' :to fiev-tr " ;I" v 

bm/nffrftJioa n no biBwnvfnd ^fiXJbi'i. «»t'x»rA 

a u'Swi'Vi ax ix-- da ,it€»^d?;««I) itlH ."iiiP 9«i»v; jnimijbnl 

dfto io biioluivonq le 'u:.oX £ r-titflo :^fl ."iri ifiiw 

•X3cfman ©rit )uo br>i.Uto loJaiiixioj) ' siU 

':XnoMjt't: ttjo orW ,qo.Jn Tin') e»x(.t no *oot •no :^^#^^ - . x*.- ,j.vob 
nX JboiirtodoTton eX YnoKX*««i atV ,m/oft mli jni /^i r .^ot-LviB 

certain roopocta by hia daughter. It is not dioput^jd thiit 
tjr;o acci^nsnt iiupp^sncd aome dictunc-: nox-th of tYia vbv.uI 
ucoppin^i plut^e of the nar, 

flKi iit-'ivy of plHin Mf f and Viio dtiU'^btcr was 
tiontraaicie i by ist leaat aeven witneis.ifiJ!!, no-^t of them 
passengijra, Thoir atorlos ava so clenr ani con'i^:tent as 
io convince ut; of their truthfulnoas, TJietse witnGsinoa 
aubatantialiy ai-'recd tunt when the car waa 100 or rr.ore feot 

noith of wOth a-.reet plaintiff -ml-'fod to thci r«ajr of the 

■ ,-1 >-v- ■ . '-n 
C'lv, f ollo'.v;;;: V.y hl;j drtUje^ter; thai, th^ cnr Van tht3!n in 

aiotiori, jioin,; b or 7 iriiles p«rr h-i'rr, nlawinfj c^ovin; that 

the conductor vy.rned plaintiff ^o■^. to ali.rht until tl;.'. c.v.r 

ha.i Btoppo^ but pltiintiff ]iro; ..^eUed, with his arms full of 

■bundles, to i)tep off, una uv eoon ■•v he Ifixic'.v.fl on the street 

prvoraent f.oom.-^d to lone hiss yai:iniv© and fi^i:i ; that the 

dHU(:5htor Hiyrted to follcrw but ^as stopped by the conductor, 

who barred h<ir way with his nrrEi, and she vmitad until the 

ctir atop'.ied find thftn ali;:';b,t«jrf and •.v?\lki'?d hacJc ubuut Jif feet 

to where pltiintiff was.-v/ 

Th-3 veriict finding? tcf end; nt r^iilty was not only 

jKmif otitly oppoae'i by t)H> ••rer.t';r "ei^jht of the evidt;.'ice, 

"tout the ausnift'nt prcpon QVnnc.o. of ti:e svidonco rmr-portecl 

'l«f cndant':: th'.xtTy as to thn ffots. Plaintiff is not entitled 

to rerovsr, jutid th© judgKiont ib r- v reed without rHroonding 

the C.-iUlKi, 

REV ,Ka«:?). 

■JaaT: siatt no 001 Bj^ii' tan 9Sit rmsim iimi ivjerp^^ iilMifngkiadua 
nl t&di HiiW TMO firitt ^f:it{.* ;iStfH'». oilcl ,'X??o 

j'aDl Oc; .toocf« iac*; *>*.7!llfr bn&i '^■i**i ntuSi btm bi*gqo*« two 
vXflo ion a..5Wf V^-iJ^' .tbat': ioit.'rc9V ©rfT 


449 •• ^y^^f 

Tha court finds that the clerondfcnt van not guilty 
of tl-ie nej.rl.i;j:«nc.-; nh rred in pl^^ijitif r* f. ieclarutien. 

T*CiJ> - o^i. 

XiiLlu^ tott a«»f cf m»bno 'i&i> vcii Unit nftni't Jnu^-o ©rfT 

489 - ■dliiSf 

Appellee, )^ 

,_ Appellant, # ) 



198I.A. 29 

I»!;LiVKKi-.D TKi: OilKiOK C? THi: COUHT* 

\^lx\ a c-'»3e of the firtrt ulnsa in the j^unicipal 

Court, an .'action for goods t^ald ana sioney loaned, defendant 

filed an afficiavit of drfeus*? au fallowsi: 

"Def er.iiant believea r-hat he mia a Kood uefenae 
upon the merits to the whole of the f;lainLiff ' u dei-.e-rid, 
oa follo\?8: The ^^vhol© sufo, exclusive of intcreat, i-ued 
for, including ite:ii for dia.-,ond ring and lucney lonnfrd, 
was, on or anout »;uly 26, 1U13, p-jvid by defendant and 
t/iereafter received by jiaintiff; as to itetc of intcrrest 
sued for, on ground of alleged vexatious delay in pnyraerit, 
tiif; nvnture of z'ne deff^nna tnereto is, uhat aaiU pAy/nent 
included interest up to tne time thereof, anti, in addi- 
tion, there •tt>.a, and haa been, no vexatious delay in pay- 

Upon ciotion of plninliff the court struck the affidavit froui 
thr files ?ind cntereid jud iTient nfemnut defendant, 

ilaintiff contrnds I'nai the affidavit ia insuf- 
ficient un,ier thf rules of the Municipal court; defendant 
e-r^ues tiiat it ia auf f ici<?Tit. Tof rules of the .Municipal 
Court, have been prcporly preserved for our reviev/, 
provide tu*»t defendant shall file an affidavit tutxt he bt- 
lievea he ha^ r jiood deftnae upon ti^e ri^frita, *'i>j.ecifying 
tae nature of aucxi def«nae, -vaetiier by way of uenial or by 
way of confession and avoidance m .-jucj; a .jann«r h.s to 
reaaon?ibly inform the j. laintiff of Uie defence ji.xoii /dll 
be iiiterpoc-ed f»t ih^' trial,' hy Kule di. it ia provided 
taai it 3hall not, be auftioient for dcfendarit's affidavit 
"to deny ^onerally the facta filleted by tht utat f^ituent of 



clai.T. ' ^ *. Any denial of any nllagation of fact made 
by the opposite party trax&t not Toe evasive but muat rtnawer 
the point of substance.** 

,ie do ncL understand thai tii-^ae ruiea recmire 
feviaetitiary facva to b(-. pleaded. -ve have hold alXegations 
similar tc the one no\i oeforc uti to ofs auffxcitnt. Allen v, 
Houffia n, 176 App. '6bO', ]-ia;ye& v, ^JMiiL* ^''""^ •'"'^Pl'* ^1^'; i^ na key 
^« ^ , «-'"cielaon , 191 App, 597. 

The plea that before action tne aefer, dJint i;at- 
isfipd niKj 4Jl3cii?iri;ed the plaintiff'u Qlnim by j^-:;,yi,;.«nt ia a 
good plea, 2 chitty on j leading -icC, 

ij'e Jiold that the affidavit -na in ccipj i»nce 
\fith the rulea of the municipal Court ara it was rrror 
to c;trike it fro.ii Ihr fileB. "efen iUiv 'VM.a t-nuiiled to go 
to trial uijon ttif i.-aufr'a raad«. '.he jua^.mo, r;t iii reversed and 
thf cf'.uae rcianded. 

r ^ift'.i ff.:- 

I' ,-ivv ^ 

559 - ;^1957 

miWi y. J'OiiKiiTJi, Adiar. of the 
Estate or Alfred uraix.;i, deceaacd, 

CHiCAUw CjLTY hail.^ay -cois-rAKy, 

l-y.AL WHOU 'immion vJOUHT, 

'^-■'' 198 I. A. 31 i 

^-^ in an faction for da-'ttrif^ea for v?ron/:,fu"ily cau; 
tlic death oT x-'l^^iJ^^i^^ * ^^ xnteatate ,judri7icnt was 
at;ain3t defendant for s>1.7tJ: ,- nmniTcotly a oo--p^'>'"i-ie V'-^r- 

Till a case Itaa been tri«rd tarft« tistiea, '/ram tile 
jud{->4eiit on tii- second triul a}'p;,al ?<as'. to the Ap- 
pellate Court, :xnd a cifxjjjrity of the brancii court vv^.icj^. inxd 
the case under oonoideration v;ere of .he opinion thai the 
Jud,:Tr;ent ^ihould be affirmed. (see 177 App, 4CC , ) A v^rit 
^'^ c^'rtior:^:ri waa grantc'^d by the Jupre:n.e Cxvurt, s»nu tiie judtv-- 
laonts of the -.Juperior Rnd Ap];"ll?j.Le Courts v7<';re reversed. 
The case ic reported in 262 ilJ. , lidB, :h' facta involved 
are narrated at 3cnfi;th in the^se opi7Uons nnd will not bt: re- 
P'^atRd.' /I'he .".upreme Court in its opinion aaid (p,2il^: 

"?he evicience, in the light ctoal favorribl© to 
the plaim.iff , witii all trie inferencea tuat could he 
legitiuiJitcly drav/n fro.r. it, did not tend to jrove B.ny 
fault or neglect on the prirt of the defendant or the 
exercise of ordinary care on ttje part of ciaith, :he 
nurriition whether ^jf.iith exerciued ordinary care ia to be 
deter.'-:ined, not b; the probabilities '^he:. ue l<-ft the 
sidemilJc, but ratiior hj the si tuj\ti on wnen hf:' rcjaclied 
the tryoica and attempted to CToatt between the ecproeciiinf; 
cars v;hfii. tiie .Lrfcet w.juj clear and t^»iere was no obstruc- 
tion to the vio^ and no necessity for ^ia^iinj.' tiie atterapt. 
The evidence ostabliahfcd tiiat ois/iti; riiajudj;cd iiia ability 
to cross the tv/o tracks between the ap) roacnini'; cars, and 
on account of nis error of jucifpent, for wnicii no one else 
could be licld reos^onsible, iie loat .iia life. St.iith could 


;"^. O. 

see both cars ana the entire situation .vay open before 
him, lie \ir\.3 not on any creasing for pedootrirvns nnd 
needed no vmrnini^ or lii^nal that tuf two cava were ap- 
proaching each othfir,- o. fact that no one couJd fail to 
oboerye. The evidence raised no isciUv; of fp.ct proper to 
"be submitted to a jury, and the court erred in not direct- 
ing the v?»rriict.''"^ 

'.he facts adduced upon tlio preoent trinl do not 
differ ii3atprif\ froia tiior.e widch were conaidered by the 
iiupre/fift Court. itu c;onc,l.-s.2i.on bs to Uif alleged ne£lit:.ence 
of the aeff:ridf«nt and tnt- conlrioutory net^lijjcnce of plain- 
tiff is cor. l.rul ling uj.'O!) the present appeal. 

It l3 Raserted *:y plaintiff that c -ae i. s 
dirferent in thai it i-4 r.a^ claimed in ur; adt;itional count 
Uuii defcnuant una guilty of a viol-r-.tion of the aiunicj.pal 
ordinfneG requiring a fonder to be attaciied to thf; front of 
tiic car i>) i>ucu t*. lununer thnt pedeatrisns v/ould not tr. in- 
jurofj or throv*7) under the vrhecls of the car, nnd. that the 
violation of thia ordinance vyaa the proxi.aatG cauae of in- 
teatnte'a death, tt i:.J aufficient to asiy thni. it mia sroven 
not only that th.~ car v?aa equipped 7/ith the required fenaer 
but tj:iat prcaencc or Kbcence of a feeder had notiiing to 
do vitri U;»; accident Vout ftven ..'ere aefendant ^suilty aa to 
tae fender caunv. tjic contriuutory n<;;gl licence of plaintiff 
woul'; preclude- a recovery, 

':he jua./uient is reversed witriout r<r;. finding tne 


,la-^'HiA . 

5'69 - 21937 PINDIKvl OF FACT3. 

The court firxdtj t/iat defendant -vas tiot guilty 
of ttie n€!glig«nce Ciiarged in plaintiff's decluration, anti 
that, the contributory negii-sence of i-lHintiff * a intestate 
v?aa Lhe proxituate cause of nia death. 

440 •> 21636 

corporation, \ 

\ Api;(5llant, 

va, \ 


Aii.vAL mum. circuit coukt 


\^"y- ' 1,98 I. A. 43 


V Koves/bcr 1, 191k;» defendant*, Itudolph and 
Adolph Docauer, boUi iit of the plaintiff, the i issol fc.otor 
Coapany, an autotruok, and in part pft.vment therefor gave 
twelve ncitea for y;lii5 each, one thereof payable on or be- 
fore the 6th day of @aoh succeeding twelve i^ontha, tind to 
secure said notee gave ft ciiattel aortgage on the truck pur- 
aliased. The defendants and tritslr brother Jerry were part- 
ners in an auto express business. The first faur notes 
fal lint^^ due were paid, and the controversy id as to the 
note whica fell due April 6 and tixe one vtrhich fell due June 
6th, Jerry Docnuer tesstified that he and Adolph called on )r . 
Rix, the aaaiatnnt aujauger of pliAintiff la Chicago, about April 
1, and told uim that tney had aofliR money coraing from ] laintlff 
and warited a atattsijent; that Mix aaid, "Never Kiind the April 
note; that nc vould furttioi- ua a stat,e;.ient, of all our credits, 
and if there was anything to be paid for these two April notes 
that v;e woulc; pay the bfilanee, and he agret>'d to it that he 
would Bend lio our i?t;4te:.ent,* 

Rix died before the trial, \/The content ioa 
that the Court erred in euamitting the teat.uiony of Jerry as 
to the convoraation with !;ix cannot be sustained, Jerry 
Doeauer was not «. party to tht ault .nnd wau not precluded from 
testifying by the ate.tute. 

asdxs - o*» 

TrtUOO riui 


B^ .A.I 861^ r" 

it xo KOiuiiu iJOiT c^iavxu . 

-!>d TO no 0Xcir!v:r?7 >c<)-t*;tJ »«© ,fl9«ft "'i: i 

asioa tuol ^aail srit ,rr- - ' ... u,3 ni «:ron 

«xli oi «a )i^ Y^TCsvoiJnc-.' ,, 3«l) ^niCijel 

anui. 5jjb il»l iioJiuv; oacs »t doiilw s5:»o.; 

no JbfiX4ia HqiobA Jbim vd inaj &» a XW9t .ii<^<} 

i x'iA #«iociH ,oa«oiau ill "tli^aiisj. 

a^^fOii i.s.'iqA OWi 9e:iiLT lo'i OiikQ »tf OJ 

3''> ■ ■ '. 'v . ... . ;■., 

^ The Court gave for the def enoantstiu: following 


•The jury are further instructRd tixat if they 
beliere from the evidence tnHt trie defeiidttuta re<iucsted the 
plaintiff company manager to apply creaitj cluiuibd by them 
to be due from the oouipaxiy toward the payment of the April 
note, Rntl ttml such iuannger sttited, in aubt> lance, t.nat iie 
would do 30, wnd requested tiiefc: not to pay any further at- 
tention to tiie April note until he rendered thcra a atatusifnt 
of such credits ami that the Jitater;.ent of account waa not 
there»d*tf;r rendered thcja, nnd that no Jeaiand or requeat was 
thereafter mude upon the defendants for paya.ent of auch note, 
ouch fjicts will void any ri(,ht vruich jight otherwise accrue 
to the mortfc'agee company, plaintiff herein, to forfeit the 
mortgagors' interest in tne property, as for a default of the 
mortj;afe;e terssa for failure to pay said April note, until sauch 
tiae aa the :aortti,agce coapany should render such stPtejaent 
ana derrianu payraent ttisreof , "^^^ 

The court erred in di-^itif. thia ink^truotxon - 
irst: Because It is not founded on tne evidence. vne de« 
fendants requeated Mr, Uix to apply credits uue def en ^ants 
and their brother Jerry, nnd not alone credits due the de» 
fendants, ieoond: There was no vr3 id af?reeinent for an ex- 
tension of the ti.TO of payment of the April note; and an ex- 
tension of time for payment entered into prior to the falling 
due of the note must be for a defirsitt? time, 

Lanum v, Harrington , 267 ill., 67. 

Again, the testi^iiony does not show that a 
fixed amount was to be collected .on the note, nor does it 
show any conaideration for ti.e allcgtd prtaiiiae of idaxntiff 
made tarough Rix. The defenuants diu not aijree to keep the 
money and pay interest on it for any acfinite ti;u«j, nor uid 
they pay interest in advance, 

Cgoaa-aan v, ..ohlleben , 90 ill. 637; 
Julin V. Bauer, Q^ 111, App. 157, 

At the time of tiie trial all the notoa were due, 
the condition of the sort^age was broken, and the plaintiff was 
entitled to the poaaeaslon of the i;iort<;;aiged property, and in no 

event should there have been an order for the return of the 


:iQit Br9llsii 


•f>b ^il'; 


.. o« .flftfiiMMai •*■ iLii :.- 

•nj Yu riiuJu'i SivJ 'lol i9i>-io HA n9»^ iiTHil 01?). .1 biuo/l« Sasyt 

irarafe'jl v. .tianchett , Ik. ill., 57 >i; 
Ciutae iiros . v. connera , 1&2 III. App, 4J.ii. 
For tiic; errom inaicated the ^ ixa tpicyii- Is revtsrsed 
and Uic oau,je reuanded* 


446 - ^1344 

OLIVE!! W, HOIJiEa, JA}«l3fS U, I YOf T 
»nci UAVVJ A. IrYOTT, doing bua^ess 
aa liC'UiES, >YOTT & Oc i'^AKY , a|co- 
portnerahip , 

( Appellees, 

/ ) All mi. PROW KUNlCli'AL 


'% A|0cllant« 


198 I.A. 45 


"v The defendant ouffrin was the o /ner oC a build- 
ing in Caicago and Juci« 7, 1911, coxarnct<;d vixtu tiie ijjrjited 
Conatruction Cowipany for tiae remoneiinti, and iiproTeuient of 
his building. The Conatruction company June t :i»ade a con- 
tract witti plaintiffB to furniah and erect the atructural 
and ornafaental iron and steel work required in such ijiprove- 
ment for the suxij of $2189. The contract bTtween deftsndant 
and the Conatruction Coxapany included a waiver of the right 
to ft uiechftnic's }ien, but this waa not known to th« plaintiffa 
until after the oontrovtray out of which this auit grew had 
arisen. The Conatruction Carr.p&ny failed to pay plaintiffs 
the amount due them under the contract as the atm<t becasse 
due. The contention of appfillees ia timt L^uffrin proxuiaed. 
In case the plaintiffs would proceed with and coaplete the 
work they had undertaken* to pay ther^a the aenount due and to 
becoaie' due, and that tnia waa a aircot and oritjinal promiae 
and not within the Jtatute of iv"rauda; taat txic proiaiae to 
pay the plaintiffa waa baaed on a ^fuff icient consideration 
and therefore was original so far ae defendant was concerned. 

That the pro.s.iae waa oiude waa testified to by 
Eetotiin, Holmes, iyott, Anthony, Forcey and ohobcr, nnd de» 
nied by Juffrin,\6'rof" the CYldence tne jury might properly 


I. I - 'J i 

i . ' 

.OOAOIUt) _ 


.A.I 86 r •""^"^*'" 

baiiaj mU nim bui^Mtin.. V •««<). baa e>»«3iaO d1 ani 

-9V0-X lul iiou« ni iftf'xiupa'X aito?; X»a/B fori* noti l«.t.-v-!':^.^~nTO nnn 
^tfalt 0di ^o tsvi.*»*' « t)«bwfo;!l^J(a©ti aoiiout 
i>Bx4 wftia Jiu» «iri-' rioixter "Xo J^i/o xuxaratiao^ ndi i&tia laSnu 

.boifxaonoo •«» /aisbnaltii; t - r>.-:i vu. ittnj.^Ito «»* otc irj ::^.tj ban 

find thnt the promise was ouide by 4ef«U(last. 

The question whether tiie preaiae was a direct 
and original proiiiae, and therefore not yfitiiin the K^tatute of 
Frauds, or ^aas a promioe to pay the debt of the Construction 
Coiopany and therefore void under the statute, presents laore 
difficulty. The account in question was cliarged on the books 
of plaintiff to the construction Company, tnia fact, if 
uncxT'lained, would be strong eTidence to &tiov ln&t the oroait 
was given to tne Construction uoispany, but is not conclusive 
of aucu fnct, 

l..usk V. Thro op . 189 111. 127; 

Hug^les V. oratton , 50 id. 4iii; 

Gre en v, liurtpn , 69 V»,, 4i«i4; 

nakKT V. ■ill . 11» lass, ii49; 

A Keed on tjtatutg of yrauds , iieo. »G, 
It ia i;08sible for one to make a valid oral 
proislse without releasing; the original debtor. 

?.'CLauf:hlln v. Auatin , 104 I. ich, 4fc7; 

:-io\?ell V. i:arvey , 65 ./. Va, 3lO; 23 L.K.A,, 

S, 3,, 1G27; where tnere ia a note in which 

the authorities on tae question are cited and examined. In 

the opinion in the case last cited it was said: 

••The rule by wnicij to deter/iiine whetuer a prodiBS 
is orii;inal or collateral and v?ithout consideration, is tnub 
stated in 29 An,, & Knf;. Kncy. Law, kid ed, p. 929: 'An abso- 
lute pruiiiiae to pny the debt of another is not wit^iin the 
statute, tnougn. the liability of txie original aebtor still 
subsiats, where tne leading object of the proicisor ia to sub- 
serve aoise pecuniary interest or fauainesa purjose of nia own, 
and he receives a benefit wiiici^ he dio not before anjoy and 
would not nave possessed but for tuir prooiise,' lu support of 
the text a large number of authorities are cited, ftiiOn^. tiicm 
thcs case of i^aerson v, Jlater, iia iiow, ^^8, 16 h, ed, S6c, 
which seems to be e leading case upon the aubjeot. Ixiat case 
is 80 very similar ^o the one now under oonai deration tiuit we 
tiiirik it well to state it. The plaintiff, itaerson, had been 
employed by a railroad company to build certain bridges* The 
Company failed to make payments according to agreexaent, and 
Smerson refuaed to proceed with the -vork, Tae defendant was a 
large stockholder in tne road, and had leased t- it Isrge 
Quantities of railroad iron, and held an assitAnuicnt of the 
earnings of the road to secure payaients on hie lease. The 

Ho fiiisiAili 9tii nJLiUim $fm •rcolwiiicU tin* .•cioio'xq: iMaiMlto baa 

li ,i>.. ,YO«'Jl'«o'«^ noLJouiJunOsj w/W >J oTillinlwC.-T to 

•viuiiXocics ion ei iuo ,^ca«iqR!00 noiiQuiieao'J 9Ai oi narijfi ««w 

,Jo«l iioire lo 

,...ri.j £S ;0X£ ,av ,v. fid «X2JQL2ii •' ^v.-^.- .: 
rtoiriw at sion a ex in:»rti ai^riw ;7i.;oi ,,:, .;■. 

:i>XHi<) SAW ii l>9^xo iual mtt»9 9At ai oolaiqo ^di 

.it «^aJx3 siia ttai 

><•• ilOXilW 

ij u.ttv, .< 'uiunn'i^u 90.', .ji-xo'-'.- !»aj aixw t) -.'f^ooTtq 
B'4't&l il ^.-Jt bodjsnx b»ti ban ,Jbfioi ^ i* nl 
diiJ lo irtsujfViiBfta «« f)X9il baa «{- 

ruad ooula not operate and tUei'e cowlu be no earnin^B until 
tiio bridges were cor:ipleted. Under these cii'd^aatancee ttie 
defendant orally proaiiaed to pay jjlaintiff if he wyuld ,.',o on 
and coiiiplcte the briagea, miicii. he did, uefendant refused 
to aofiiply with hxa oral promi8«, and plaintiff brou*;:ht aa- 
surapait. The court held txis oral proitiue to he binding, and 
stated ihe law to be tiiat 'whenever tno main purpose axid ob- 
ject of the prosiiaor iss not to anawer for another, but to 
aubeerTe »orae pecuniary or baciness puriose of hia own, in- 
volving eitiicr a be^nefit to hiiaself or dBiua(.;es to the other 
contracting yarty, his proraise is not wit .in the atatute, 
althoug; it mav be in foru. a irofuiiise to pay tho debt of 
another, and alti^ough the perfont»ance of it uay incidentally 
have tii« effect of extinguishing that liability,* The op- 
inion further aaya: '>«othing is better settled taan the 
rule thPt, if there io a bf-nefit to the defendant, and a 
loua to tne plaintiff conBequential upon and directly reault- 
ing from the defenaant'a proruise in boJinlf of the plaintiff, 
tiiere io a sufficient consideration .moving fro» the plain- 
tiff to enable the latter to maintain an action upon the 
proiiiae to recover cotopen»fttion, •" 

i"^ Clifford V, Luhrin|g, 6w ill, 401, where tiie 
defendant ttaployed a part> to bi. i.ld a house anu en iiie fail- 
ure tlie plaintiff, who was a suc-contractor, m&dB knotun tins 
fact to the defendant and informed hiu that ne v/ouXd b« 
oblir.nd to uuit work, and the defendant thereupon told the 
plaintiff to go on witii his part of thf; wor*. and he would pay 
him, it was held ; That the defendant's undertaking waa not 
a collateral but an original one and was not the stat- 
ute of Frauds, as assujsing to answer for the contractor, his 
main object being to serve a purpose of his own. To saiae 
effect are Cra?vford v, Jdison , 4b Ohio it, 1^39; Oldenburg v, 
Poreey , icii i-d, 172, and a large nuaber of cases cited in the 
note to howcll v. Harvey . Z2 L, H, A., K, 3, 1027, In j.uak v. 
Thro op , lb9 ill. Iii7, it was 3»aid: "i^ethcr or not the promise 
Is original or collateral within the definitions already given, 
io n. question to be determined by the jury froui all the olrcuxD- 
stances of the case and under the instructions of tiie court," 
Hu^^le s v« Gatton, 50 111, 41id, 
We find no reversible error in the rulings of 
the Court on instructions or evidence or in the rer.ariss of 
the Court :at\de during the trial. 

,«>/,■. '"^ 

no '^ 


ija;. ■'-' 

-do 080 . aodw' i- ■« 

-ni , rr^ ^ ' ■ ■> 

• ■ • - ■ ^ .xl 


. I ■ ;-! 

•»-i xiJoaii.i' nam ilt^qju i«l »i ud Ituoi 

.llijnxiilq e<W "to lX«il»cf nt • motl %)nl 

»uj no lu aoiioJti aa :■. ii 

Xi'm i>luoM na ban i-sow ndi to J^ttiq »i4 iitlisr no dj« 04 iliioiaXq; 

;roii eG*r Bni^Laitsbntj t'^iiADaslab »f3uJ Jii*s^' ; t>liijx e^sw ii .mid 
*4x>^c 9ili aia.>Xw Jon •<->« ham wno iiitiiuiiu ciia $ud li*i;8i'«XXoo m 

«xxl tToio^a^Jaoo <9iii ^ol iflvanx 0/ ^niiMiiaas sis ,tbuat^ lo «ltf 

9iit ilk b9ito 8»«K0 lo lodisuun -jfj.' . iiVX .l)j£ KOX , >;»aTCoa 

.T ■Auit.i a.l ,VaOi :> , ic'^ytiifi .v xX»y:ou oJ aion 

©oitiOTiq sri-J ion lo r v.* iv ' ;v^xa ««■* 3i ,Tia .itii tSX « g^oox iir 

-vjwoTio Mtii XlH «iotl tt«C «»^ Krf &»ai«t»*»A iKf ©j aojt^ftfti^p ;• ol 
',tiuoti sfU lo ttaoX/ai»ije.aJt a;U 7»lmu bna 9«i»a vdi lo i»on«i« 

lo a^ciilut odi ai uoits 'jlrfiaisvoi on bntt •» 

lo aiiAtaai adi ni to »»n»tlT« ita •uettiutnfsnl no ixi/oo aiii 

.X4ii!Ci 9ti:t T^tttttsb eixHCi #tiioO tii^ 

v/e tnink thnt from tiie eridtjiace th«» jury Piigit 
properly find tliat. the proraiae of dofendfAHt .iuffrin to tms 
plaintiffB w»a a direct and original jsroiaiae aniX tiiercfore 
not witiiin the ^:to.tut0 of t^'rauds, 

Finding no reversible error lu ti;e record, lit 
Judgment of the ji.uni«ipal Court i» affiriicd. 

siilJ^ oi aixltuL JaAbn^ltib to 96 x •■.mil y.ii^qo'xq 

456 - 21B56 



G.v'.; lit. k, yHmiARlk* 



I':;aj. mim circuit ccuht 


198I.A. 47 

Appellee, Pauline Ehrhardt, filed ht-r Dill for 
divorce a^ninot apjcllnnt and he filed e. crose-blll a^^'i^^et 
her. June 1^5, 1914, both bill and cross-bill were diu-iiissed 
for want of equity, nnd the sjaui'^ day an order wea entered 
that the defendant, ajppeil?^nt hprc, pay to cyiuplvUnant ,108 
oft sccount of her solicitor's fees in the cae. An order 
was entered ccmnnnaing defendant to sho ■? CRUse v/Ly he ahould 
not be attoclied for conterript in failin^^ to pay co;iipl .iinant 
$108 oolicitor'a fees, ami on hearing.; of the rule April 12, 
191b, defendant was adjudged guilty of contosipt and an order 
entered tiial he ha attncned ana confined in the county jail 
until he pay sucn solicitor's fees, but not exceeding oix 
Kiontha. Projs that order this appeal is prosecuted by the 
defendant, v/ 


The Court had no autliority nt t'ne cunoluaion 
of the c&ye to order that, th« bill be diaiuiaaed for nnU of 
equity nnd nt the same tioo order the defendant to pay to 
coiaplalnant soJicitor'o feea. The dier^iiaaal of the bill 
deiiionatratcd that, the suit of complainant was without founda- 
tion. The reason for the rule that required defenaant to pay 
aolicitor'u fees to aid the wife to j roaecute a moritorious 
case previous to the diaiuissal of her bill aaying ceased, 
that rule anould no longer exist, fenman v. lie.wian. 69 111, 167 

ddyXi: - 6d^ 

??i nuiJUAi 

\ ( 



10 b9lLl ,*Mmlaftt •nlXuAl . 

Ja, -> . ,^ lXJ;d-a86Ttd a ;b9Xlt «i( b«« *r; ;novii) 

bc-taii I . c.ih s^csw If icr-^asots baa Xilff ilJoii , - < . ■. ,i.;. ^li.j^ .Tari 

b»t»*is9 saw t»bT:o rat ^Ab '*i8*« srfi 5rt/T ,Y.Ji£;p© lo *riBw lol 

8GI; 4nfiniPiti«co ai teq ,«1»il iftM.(I»«rqfl ,ir<fi6tf9l«b ^Ai iitd^ 

xebiQ ttk .9«i^9 »i{t tii 9:991 •*'xoil9lio« is^i ^0 lojkroobtt CIO 

i^ricnx«.fqinoo X"! c>i ;3>nJtIJ;«t ni Jqe^inJnoo tol b».ji»«J^:f« ad ion 
,&L liiiiA »IiJi flilJ le aRiiJJsrl ao iitta ,«»'?>1 e'loiioxXoa SOXifi; 

.iijuoo axii Hi banitaorj J oaioin* 

Xj.1. .jnilif*9»x» ^on ,fud ,ei>': .-.jji. •y.a.^ ea liJmj 

..I --.f ^'.jijo^eonci- ei x«ijq.,-. *-••■■ ^ 'riOiH .ajttnoa 

noHiulaaoo sdi tu xiinniiiua oa bs. 

■Jo J.inv aol bsKcu'Bii) id Xlid arfi ;r.,..; 'iri^j .. ,.! ;•%..!» ?>rii 1o 

oJ xaq, oJi iaabttit^b 9i.iS fbiQ 9ai.Ji ^ta»s ^dJ iu ban xi lup9 

Hid 9iiJ t^ immoiifmlb 9^7 .«»»! a 'lolioi iios HhmIm iqmoo 

'-Abnuo'l Juoniiw aen^ Ji\aaixtqmo9 lo iXu% •At Jadi b9Jinii»noBn»b 

wuoiioiltaa M Biuo^tiini oJ ttllw ^ai bim o.> «9!>1 it*ioi LolioB 

tb^uBQO j^nlrna Hid losi 'to lsacia.bii> aAJ oj uwoivaiq aajio 

Vdl ,1X1 yd ,»ii .v njunffo :i .ialxa t^^jiaoX o« oXwoaa 9lifX iMAt 

In Chestnut v. Chestnut , 77 111, 346, it was 

held that the dianiiasal of the bill operated to revoke the 

order allowing tei::<porary alinxony, xn that cane it waa 

said, p. 349: 

"iiucn provision ia for her iuraediate aui port 
and to enable h^:r to aieet ttie exj enaes of her defense pen4- 
ing the litigation, aien the bill waa disraioaed, the hua- 
band'8 coxanjon law liability to support his wife waa revived, 
and the necesaity for alimony did not exist. It will be 
presuflied he diacharRed his obligation in that re^^ard; nt all 
events, the liability remained, and it would be oppresaive to 
iiapoae upon him the payment of an additional aum dceised suf- 
ficient tc suppolrt her if living separate and apart from him,' 

The order adjudging defendant guilty of conteisipt 

in failinfr to pay complainant $108 solicitor's fees and com- 

citt, injt him to the county jail is reversed, 


aflw 7 1 tOi-i'. .Ill VV , iutiitt»eL':> ,v Junket? liO ni 

acw Ji or.«y Jiuij ni .^ao«&lX« ViTtJBioqm*.* saiwoXXa rt»£)io 

-uuii ■9;iJ , i SiiJ f'.a, , i. 

»d Iliw )x ,jaxxu j j beta 

-iiioo bfxn ft^el a'tojrioiIoB 80X1 #aj»ni,Blqa)ioo Y*«f oi i^^niXxsl «i 

564 -•21962 





Aj^ellant,/ ) 

198 I.A. 48 


^•rii« Judgmont In thio case wa» rendered karch 
22, 1915, The ti£ie for filing tiic appeal bond w&a by 
ordere properly entered extended "to and IncXuaing June 
1, 1915, Xiie bond wae not filed until June ^.v,,^ 

if tiie tijae >sfiti.i.o wnicii an appeal bona ia to 
be filed ia fixed by statute, the requirement is mandatory 
and Jurisdictional, and the court froiii whion the appeal is 
taken hus no power to extend the tixe. If the eteitute 
doeu not fix tne timet for filing an appeal bond, but re- 
quires the oourt to fix suci. tiaie in its order allowing 
the appeal, the court may, prior to the expiration of tiie 
time so fixed, extend t^i© time for filing the bond, nnd 
when the oourt fixe* the time by extension or otherwise, 
If s bond ia not filed witiiin the tiue so fixed, the ap- 
peal rauot be diaaiseed; and this requirement bcin^ manda- 
tory and Jurisdictional, no saotion to di3it.is8 the appeal 
is neeessary. 

Hill Y, Chicago . ^16 ill, 178. 


Udfil^,' ^dd 

TiiUyj H.Q1H 

.YTHUOO AOOO '■'>■) 1 


(D ^ 

«if- .A.I sex 

\d «a» bnod Ias^ v* '*'»* ^jailll 'lo'i »aicf ?a ' .nib a ,i<i. 

stfi-L ^nioi^ioni aaa oJ" b9biieHx& b9t^S-Aii '>c-Ci'">^0'S [ &'t9bio 

-,,^,i •niil li^tui fe«Xll ion aaw baod a» V .dlv*'! ,X 

-di iud «tao(l lAoqqtA am ytJLXil tvl sam sd.' xi't ;ron ssob 

tiiiJ lo noUntlqxe »ci) ol aoitq «X»« iruofi ^aS ^tw^qqn 9eUt 

hita ,b«od 9riJ gnilil toI »fiili Siii bn,t^X'j ,fe9xJtl oa satli 

•q^A oiij ,t)9Xi;l oa suU euJ nJLu^it^- bsXil .ton ai baetf « 11 
XAdqqn »iU c&i^taxb OJ nox^ou; en «XAncilaXi>«Xi:i/(. btm x^oj 
.aS'X ,XXi dX- . oaaoi rtu .v jli ■ 

568 - iil786 


AIsD CATTLK fclOliPAFy, a corpora- J 
tlon, and K, C. BLAi^CHKTt, / 

il&intiff» in I'rror, /i 


r""7' 'ISSI.A, 49 


«,ii. JU.>TICJ-. HOLDOM DZLIVXRED TnE Cill.-iori Oy nir. GoUhT. 

V^Tiiia ia a \*rit of error jjued out by plaintiffs 
froffi a Jua.(i;.eni. of n ^ .i. 1 ca],)iat catered, on a vexaict instracted 
by tiae trial Jud^e, on the a.© Lion of defenuunt, at tiic> conclu- 
aion of 90 ...uoii of viaintiffs' caae aa tht? trial Judge adiaittatt 
in proof, 

I'he cause of action rest«» in a contract betw««n 
the parties for the exchange of certain properties in Chi- 
cago and ':ortl4 DJiukot», ilnintiffs seek to recover in tnis 
action da!TiP.g;«»a for breacii of the contract by defendant, by 
thei ter::;s of v«{ich contract def endatit ^ma to convey a flat 
building v/iiicii he clamtd to own in Caicago to plaintiff a, 
and aa coapensstton therefor plaintiffs were to convey to 
defendant certain riancii property in North Dakota with cattle, 
farjoi ciMcinery, etc., thereon. | 'i'he parttculara of tne terms 
of thia contr«.ct rare not atatt-rittl to be dt:ited at u.ia titue, 
as in ihe ccncluiiion at wnich we uav® arrived the causae louat 
be returned to the Jcunioipal Court for a new trial. Neither 
do wo intend to pass upon all the f ncta involved in the rec- 
ord, but iSii.all confine our rcf erenceu to isucu of tue-'-i aa iJijpel 
our concluoion. j 

nmintiffa and defendant, within the time as ex- 
tended for the petrforiaanoe of th«! contract Jitnd on Koveinber 6, 
1913, furniahed each other viith abatraota of tiiie to Uxeir 
respective proper ti ©a. The aba tract furni'^jhed by defendant 


00 aAiiDiMUM OT SiiHjaa; 

i ■ 



.onAoiiio ^0 

J'tCXtl tU i'u 

d8VIi - 836 


ilt OatHT 

G^ .A.I C 

n.tojUa fWioil (lit t^-XBfqo-Yf 

tydifxi5;i .laiii ««« « tot Siutji it- 
-09T ixU ni b^vlovai t^o^!! siW il^s 



.ti. .t«*jiaftOO -xvo 

sho'»eG title in him Novcsailser 4, 1913, to tnc Li.icago prop- 
erty wiiioh hfe h.'ici afire«d by tJue contract to convey to 
plaiiitifl'a, subject to certain enouiubrances. i I)'! intiff a 
littvivxae tendered iiatda, etc, » running, to defendant, of 
tneir pr^-perty to tiift holder of ine contract in e-jcrow at 
his office in wiiicago, that being tae ) lace appointca in 
the contract for th«> vaaaing of the popera anU the ooHiple- 
tion oi tiif- t ran .5i«.c Lion, ^hnt iiyintiffa did xn tM.iu re- 
gard thc.v contend conatituted a pcrforE>rincc bv the,,, of 
tneir contract obiigetiona »o far as tne attitude and con- 
duct of dfifftrtdant uiade pcrf orisiance posaibie. 

On r«ovo.'i-ber ^ii, 1913, defendant convey ea to 
one Frank C, i othje by vmrranty de^'d the property which he 
hnd contracted to convey to pl.<iintiffa, •srnich deed was 
thereafter and on Kovesaber i24, 1913, fxleci for record and 
duly recorded in the Heoordcr'a office of cook County. 
Th'?r«»upon tslftintiffa, >^ithout fliny other deaand being made, 
comnenced this action for dnsuRfres ciaifised to havo been aua- 
tained by t-uem on aocount of defendant's brfsRCiJ.m,''/, hio con- 
tract witn them, uj^on the tijcory that aa defesjdftnt had put 
it out of Uia pow«r by the conveyance to Fo-thjo to carry 
out his pprt of the contract, the law gave theiK a right of 
laraffdi&tc fiction for dnji'itieo and aoaolved luem froKi further 
perforiurnce of the <:H»ntrf«Ct , ivhicn perf orfi.anoe, out for 
defendant's dereliction, would have been incucjbent upon 
them.) On the theory that plaintiff 8 ^ire not absolved 
from doing all thoae tuinga that the contract j,.rovided they 
should do, notv-yithstanuinK defendant hnd by hiia deed to 
Rothje put it out of aia power to convey to tiie.'u the i.,nioa«o 
property a3 contracted, the trial Judf,e rej'ictcd, on tnc 
objections of defenii?xnt, all the ixiaterinl evidence offtred 

a 111 ;r a lift 1 1 ,aoon«Td^iuon«» ai«Jii«o oJ *o»l,cfus ,»llllttJlJsXq 
ni i>»4aiQqciti emain ttt* BnX»tf if-' soillo «ln 

.aXtiflsttoq *> 

baa iytov^1 oi i)»Xx> ,6ItfX .frii t«<<»»TOW no l«WJ t<»*l««TOii* 

,9baffl jjniarf bn;«as»fe i»xiJO v.««^ifo. ,. ,, .... xr^dt' 

-awe tt9»d Qtitii oi t>»aXi»io •»'^»»«Jfe fol rtcitOf^ »iiU j}9cmo0»oo 

-noo sid jjnifiOJ»9tcf a' J-aiiljnslsb "to inuoaoA «« asatisJ yrf k*nfi.*# 

J'jjq; i)«xi inAbfl»la6 ar, 'miS 

lo iitait « ittoiiJ «>yj8:! w«X »riJ ,.Jt>,tt-!iJfnoo ar , Juo 

noqu itt9<Stauoai n«««f •Y«a UX«f«w tMo .:»jJMii^lt»J» 

i>»vXo«da JQo •x.^r tttlU aitil<t J " 

.o«alajt> j^nibnMJai^ . faXuoiia 

liJ 0,1 ^9vao:} oi Tttwoq aJcA Io ivo il J'tfq at^ioH 

boti)Tlo aortabirA IrAfittm 9dS fXa ,;fnAl)n«l»b to aaoXioottfo 

toy plaintiffs to eataUIisii th^ir clrir, for dajaa^^ea, r^ 

We think, from the fffct tJint tSefenJant by xiia 
conveyance to othjr iin6 put it out of Jiis vc.t^r to perform 
Jtiisi prtrt of t.i;f oontroct, U,.oX defendant inuut, In Irr^-Ai, «>f- 
feet, be held to imvi' reacincied the contrect and tu have 
given the :,lttintiffs the rierUt to ao treat it, JiuicD. tney 
HWiy be TCf:;sTO.ed na hnvinj;; done by the beginninfi; oi* tuia ac- 
tion. Ab j}f»i<j in Lurd v, .Denny , 16 ilj . 49*, "'i'Le J'if:bt 
of recovery ia not put upon tne i^ere ft.ct of a neglt^ct or 
refuaol to convey, but it ia uuown, in addition, taut plain- 
tiff wad reocindeU tiit contract by aellinfe tile land to .^to- 
phcns," .jjui tn v, L|Etg:b , ii6 111. ;>'.^7, wcibferiin^^ v, j.ctyie , 
93 ill, App, 549, I rt-'at v, .;ni tj i, io9 ibia, ^6:,, : cv/coittb 
V. Brnckgt t, 16 kass. 161, Lovar e v, i-nrgood , ili9 ibiu, 153, 
Hnd O a^cood v. ak inner , iill ill, aaS, ore auv4>oi'ting autiiori- 
tiea on thio yoint. The trial Lourt tnereforo cuinftltttd re- 
versible error in cxcl.uainf; the proofs offered by plizxntiffa 
an(i in inistructinf-' the jury to find a verdict Uf'ruinjt thea. 
The ciPRsure of da£;mf;ea plaintiffs are entitled 
to recover is, under the rul© laid down in >■ luEtu-ig r v, :-!i |^(ion , 
76 111, 222, the difference, if any there bfc, between the 
vnluo of the property nerectd to be; conveyed by tuQa. to defend- 
ant atiii thKt .viiich defendnnt ;j.greed to convey to thcja, jofend- 
ant argueo that at ;.Joat tne plaintiffs arc entixtled to recover 
but nominal ua;uK.\oa. however, from the evltence on tiiisi 
question found in the riscord, it would aeoja that j-l tintiff a 
have at least laid u foundation for subuunntial deu:';.H:ea, 
which, if likewise aucoesaful on u relrial, ia :3uffici(.mt to 
cnll for evidence on the piirt of defendant tc rebut. /e do 
not intend, however, to be understood as pi'Ssinf:; upon cr 
octtling that queation, our reference t-; it iu oij;;ply for 

sTsil oS baa SoMXtnoo 9AS b*bni9c»i 9V»ii 

clmoavf»:i ,ixOii ,ji>Xdi 4:t;i ,a£; .c|<lA .ill CQ 

,£i;x .ijxdi 8d;x .iLgHHiiui .^ <>• ^i^t^iHIll!! •^ 

"01 baJJiaimuo oio'ltoisiil Sttin 
•x^vooax oi iioXJiJuo »ua all;. 

ttaxQ^i aijli no 89X1 

J ■;i5 i-^ L 'iw-tTta aXdXaioir 

:4«Rl nl bOM 

, ■ ...»axj!) 9iu ,'j.-^iii. ,xxi av 

■ inalat) itsXav, itum Imis tOA 
.: aau.'MYA ^n« 

fillijraxjtXvi J-HtiU BU>»u bXJu'u jX ^bt099r auXJ .;. ^ -^u.* 

oJ JnoXoXltf/a aX ,X«iiXaJ;**x « no Xutaaaoowa salwa . Xiiw 

Ob H' .ti.cJ ralai) lo l-WKj »ni no wonal.ivfi lo't XXno 

TO noq>i^'i • i' tad ojf ♦"xavawofl ^hatial Son 

Xol xS'imiu ni J: Til ' ,Mr, I .f;!.i(i-. t o -. t • w» i tr,f<M.i 

the purpose of diavoaing of Uie poiiit wKdc; by defendant that 
tJ.iu Court would not reverae if it ctriclui.ively Uji ], cftred 
fioti tiife rsicora t.ij.ut plftiniiffa cuuid recovf.r but nordnal 

The Judpaent of the .liunicipal Court iu, ivr the 
reetoono advanceti in tnio opiiuon, reveraed nncl tiio cauae ia 
reauincted for a now trial. 

Alii ^«i»t»ri»l9i) \d 9bis: i/j lo aaoctuq ndi 

431 - 21829 



TS. \ 



198 I.A. 52 ' 



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 personal injuries. 

V The declaration, consisting of one count, 
charges as negligence defendant's failure to reraove 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, snd carelessly and negligently failing to 
notify and warn plaintiff as to the condition and position 
of said door or covering over said steps and Lhe dangers in- 
cident thereto; that plaintiff, in consequence of ouch neg- 
ligence, v/hile in the exercise of ordinary care, and during 
the night time when it was dark, and v/hile atte::.pting to 
leave said car, under the direction of defendant's servant, 
stepped from and off the door or covering of said steps, in- 
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 jrecipitated a great distance from said car down 
to and upon the ground, injuring her, etc. 




■ ( .'^nallaqqA 

f 'K 


-isquS aricf to Jn3J3;ibut « aioil Iwoq-ia ,^fi ex e ii^T 

-9i) ^TeniBsa bciis IliJciialq 1o •fove'i nx JOdV^ lol J-ijjoD iox 
noXsi-0.8 as nx viut. JB "lo Joxbiav" isxij- aoqu fcafonuol ..tnsbnsl 

.a9Xi«t,nJi Ififioaisq lol 

,3-aiJOo sno "io .inxJ-exacoo .nox^^isIoaJb sriT ^"^ 

-190 B svoas-i ocf s'liflxi-.l e ' JnBl)n9l<9i) aoneiUfaarf ets ea^ijiwrlo 

no iBo sxii 'io a(.i9J8 eriJ^ isvo uioil T^inxiavoo xo loob niaJ 

\;I:tn93Xlaen .YleaaXsiaci bar, .i^anaaeRq b aaw Itlx^TniBlq xiojtxlw 

nxsmsi o-t aaxiavou io loob 3di .gnxcf vtXi .loq via^qoTOfcii i-rw 

eq6cJ^3 oiiJ^ isvo bns aoqii bn,s ibo bx«3 Io miolctBlq srf;? noqu 

o^ e.B cup. sx/oiss^sb 9f.xBS sdi ^nxTtebneT .loaiarlu 

oJ- an i li jtjI xiici9.iiiL}i^n bne ylaasIaiBo bn^ ,11x.lni>Uq axlJ 

noxJ-laoq bnn noiJibnoo 9r(:f oi a*? I'ixcfnijalq n'XBw boa y;lxJon 

-nx aiaanab exlJ bna eq'^is bias isvo gnxiavoo no toob biaa "io 

-gan lioxjc Io aonaupeenoo nx .fixcfnielq JbiIJ ;o»^9i9iiJ inebxo 

aniiJjb bnB ,9ir,j -i^iBnifaio to eaxo'iaxe 9iiJ nx sixdv,- .sunsa-t-t 

0^ 3nxviq..;acf Jb alxilw i.n.K , jCiHb sbw d"! nsilw •ssiii id:^in 9di 

^iaaviQe a 'dnabnalab 'Io .iciioe-xib sdi rsbau ,i«o biae avaoX 

-nx ,eqaJa bxee Io ^nxisvoo io lOob »di tlo bn.« moi") bsqqaie 

bxae moi'i baa eqaia oxiJ noqjj bas oJ nwob sn-tq^L^-^o "io iiS»iB 

Ilfl't oJ lixJa.CisIq anxBWJBO ,bni;ois adi aoqu bciB oj nwob aqaia 

nwob iflo bine, moil aoni-iJexb ^«©ia ^ baiscf Iqxos i ed o.) bae 

.o;f9 ,i9ri .gniiJJt"J- .bnuoia sncf noqij boB o^ 

On the day of the accident to plaintiff she had 
been with her siater-in-iaw, a 1 ra. Yargcr, to the cemetery 
where her /nether was buried, and in returning to her home 
took defendant's car at Bellv/ood v/itn tne intention of 
leaving it at Lea irlaines avenue, Forest tark, 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 l^orth Taylor avenue, Oak park. 

It is not denied that defendant's car platforms 
were equipped with flaps, .hich let down from the steps and 
T/ere kept down v/hile the cars were in motion. At stations 
where defendant maintained elevated platforms, passengers 
got off the cars on a level, \/ithout the raising of the 
flaps from the steps. V/here 3tt<tion pletforms were upon the 
ground the flaps were raised so that passenger alighted by- 
walking dovm the steps, v/hich i-an downward to the station 

At the time of the accident the car had stopped 
at the Des Ilaines avenue station, "Forest lark, and remained 
stationary until after the accident, Plaintiff, who was 
seated in the car, came out of the car onto the platform. 
When she reached tlie pj^atform .. rs. 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. Ilaintiff 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 arf,:ued as error that the 
"verdict is against the clear preponderance ol 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 aria lliJ-nXBlq oJ JnobiooB ?nii lo -yisi) siid' nO 

■^isJ-siMO 9xi;t oJ- ,193'X«Y .aii 6 ,wBi-ni-'X9>)-«xs isri jiiJxw n©9Cl 

smori 'xad o.t aitxniixiaa nx bn.>i .bsxiwcf asw tsxiiom xsii aiarlw 

lo noxJns'Jnx axicf xidxw ooowllOil cr« ijen a'jaebnd'tsb jioo;t 

moil bas .jfiai J-aaiol .ax/asvjs aanx-eXi asil ^jb i x a^-i^vsal 

-dVB I.sicJnsO o;t nxjaid' bsJavata ftsJxIoqoid^Sjl n anxstaJ sisnW 

oi iiox;f.6,ja iantiidVi ad2 ^niocf d'criJ' .b/ioi .tjeriJ' cro noxcfBie oun 

..iiBi Jieu ,9un9VB toIy-bT iiJioK S£i, .^caoa 19x1 

SflnolJBlq 1B0 8 •J' nab no lab. J arid' bsxr-sb Jon eJt il 

bna eq^iti srii noil nv/ob JdX xioxri ,8 1:1X1 rLiivf boqixxupo aisw 

scioiiats JA .noxd-oxn nx 8i9\v einj sdi oXiriw rtwob J^qail oiev? 

a1^a^9aaaq , curiolJelq b9J-/3V9X9 b jniB^J-n i.Bm :fn.Rbn9l»& siexlw 

3rfJ "lo j^rtXKXJSi 9ri;r JwoiUxw ,l3Vfji a no a' axlo llo J-oq 

aricf noq,u oisw emiolJ^»iXq noxdnJ^e sigilW .aqaJs ^ilJ laoil aqaXl 

A^d" b9^ii;^j;Xa i^gnaaaaq daxii oe baeisi aiaw aqaXl axid^ bnxiois 

nold-Bde sdi oi biswivnob nai doidxi ,aq9la edi n^ob gaXiiXsw 


baqqocfs bed lao srIJ Jnsbioos srii lo ainii e.ii J-A 

b9nxB)Ti9i bc\B ,:ii9£ i89io'^-i: .noxd^fida ax/nsvB aenxBli eaCI 9x1^ d's 

BBw oxivv .llXjnxaXX .dnobxooa axi.:! loci-lB Xxdnu y;iBncxd£:r8 

.ciiolJBXq srid- cdno ibd arid- lo ikto BeaBo , arid nx b9di'.aa 

bae bawoiXol lagiBY .ai,^ miold-a^q 3ii.t bsnoeai sue nsdW 

-naqiaq a lo bXon alood nand- lli,;tr:xBXI .laxi lo iLoBcf booJa 

d'laq laitd ons lo LXorl jtoo* brio bund il^ i rod lid-xw boi lalijoxb 

Si di-.xid b9XlxJe;aJ llidniBXi .bmzd drfaxi isri diivi ibo sdi lo 

od -i^niJ 0'=)qxo lao add lo llo baqQ^cfa 'nie cfBrfd ban jli.p-b saw 

aipxld SB jjjcf ,iiiioldBXq ib.o odJ moil ^nxbael cfsdB b no qad^a 

.XXol 9x18 .ai^iii quia on asw 

9£{J Jsrid 10110 an t9SJ:\'iii bar. b9n;:UBSB ex d-I 

-iva axld^ lo aonaiabnoqsiq ib9Xo odi danlB^A ax d-olbiav" 

SIB >inxxid aw lioixlw aioiia larldo sm sisiiJ- alxriw ban ".eonab 

-aa bnooaa adi no nolaxoab luo d^asi IlBcia aw .banyxaaa XXaw 

signment of error. However, there are errors in the rulings 
on evidence and on instructions, ani aorae of liie questions of 
counsel for plaintiff put to Dr. tiokard on cross-examination 
were higlily improper, entirely uncalled for> and tended to 
vinwarrantably 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 tc the defendant 
as the doctor's "boss" were entirely uncalled for, as were 
questions of si.-silprly insinuating character, the effect of 
which v/e could not say - if it were necessary to deterciine the 
question - was negatived by the terse ruling of the court 
without coixiriient as to the iinpropriety 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 negli^ience charged against it as being the 
primary cause of plaintiff's fall from the car und the result- 
ing injuries to her. ^n the contrary, the evidence overwhelm- 
ingly preponderates in favor of the conte:ition of defendant 
that plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care for her own 
safety at the time she v/as injured. V/e cannot from the evi- 
dence regard it as a disputed fact that plaintiff knew the 
condition of the platform at the time she stood ujion it and 
was conscious of the fact that the flap over the steps had not 
been pulled up; and v/i-ile plaintiff charges in her declaration 
that it V'/as dark upon the platforu at the time of the accident 
to her, yet all the evidence on the subject of light .canaiaft- 
ered, w e can hardly say therefrom thet it is a disputed fact 
that the light was amply sufficient to enable plaintiff, in 

lo aaoxJesjjp oiiJ'to Sinoe iinB .Bfiy icfoutJ-cni tio dhb aonsbiv© no 

aoicfflnii&Gxe)- 86 070 no bij::jIoi'i ,ia oJ iuq tliiaiiiLq loTr laenijoo 

05- boLnact bnis ,iol i>9iX*'5oni( MlsiioT'e .isqciquii y,IiLi5Xxi eisw 

ACiJji, s.-iJ- lo asya silcf nx bisjfoi'i .icr »oibi;i,»iq YXcfB^fiBiiBWcuj 

.sonsbivs girl "io J-oslle sxlJ v;o'^^3afc .aiuRBSdi « ni ,o^ baa 

ioJ-Rgx;t29vni iaeup arii n-39cf jjoy: svBii anoX woH" ,enoiiaeup srfT 

.>[Xbw maxiJ cfeX d"ai)I.*» bns "?bJ80T: exni io1 'xo^oob bas aBxoxaY.ric[ 

.tnflbns'tsb :=»riJ oi aoneTeloi sxIJ baa "?9X:td-fJ0 sAii si^dS iuo 

9idw en ,io1 baXXjsonjj Y.XeixJns s'law "eaod" a 'loJ-oob 9x1;^ ea 

lo :foe''l'i9 9iiJ .lacf o«i-erlo ani^BJjnianx xX-inXirrae 'lo enoxcteaxtp 

9iLt 9ni:ai9J9b oJ vUBbaoo^ja 919^7 Jx 'ix - '^BtJ oon bXjJoo aw aoiifv/^ 

d-xucc 9iiJ lo ^nxlxri ©819^ 9ricf xd bBViiBStn. sjsv/ - nox^asup 

.8nox;fB9i;p iiOiJ& lo vd■9X^:qoTqax 9xlJ oi en d-fianixiioc) vJJoriJxv/ 

si'-^ 9w ,b9i95x£inoo biODSi 9X1'* nx aonsbxvs aai ilA 

i-nBbnslob Jarfj ©oiol anxixsTSbnoqaiq eJ'x aioil Lnxl oj a Xacnxf 

-ri^t Snx9d BH 'jx JeaxBajH baa'xfixiu ^'onoaXiaon 9xiJ lo y^' J-i^-ia ^^w 

-J-Xxfssi 9il.t Lfii: 1X50 9XiJ iiioil XXbI e'llx:^nxBlq lo atxiiso \;iJBmxiq 

-taXaxiv.'iavo aongbivs o:!^ .V/ix^icfnoo siid^ nj .igri oct 89XiiJt,ax ^nl 

^nsbnslab lo rroxJ-ixaJnoo oiii lo iovbI nx sgJ-x-JiabnoqBiq vX^nx 

nwo lad 'lol 9ifb lo 93xoi9xe &iii nx ;.fon e«w llxctnxBXq JjBxi;t 

-XV9 9xIj mcil :ronnj30 aVV .bsixjtnx 8J3\v sde ctiix^ 9i{cI ifi x^oIbb 

Bdi W9n>l llxcfnx.alq i.Bxi:f Jowl bsJ'x/qexb « as :tx btfis^i eonsb 

brts ctx noqu boo^^a ads gxaxof and- J-.r m-xol^jsiq sdi lo aoxJxbnoo 

J-on bfixl eqoJa 3ciJ- ifjvo qsll 9riJ Jxsxlcf Jowl OiiJ lo axioxocsaoo asm 

noiJ'BiBXoab 'xod nx aagiBxlo llxctnxfiXq aXi.iw biui jqu baXXwq iiserf 

cfnebiooa 9xU lo ainxJ sxW >!>■> uToli-fiXq ariJ aoqu jfi-nb bjw Jx JxiiU 

-Maoiooy JxigxX lo cJo9'i;,cfi;e s;!;^ no 90(i9bxv9 axij XXjs jj^ .'xori o^ 

J-Ottl b9;tiiqaio jg ax ii J- mid raoilsasxlJ \;-U& \lbiiid s w ,b9l9 

ixx .llxJnixjXq DXdBna oJ .tnaioxllxfa YXqxao amv JriaiX oxli darlcf 

the exercise of ordinary care, to become aware that the flap 
over the steps had not been raised, ' I-laintiff .herself testi- 
fied that "it was sufficiently light so that 1 saw plainly 
that the vestibule door was open and I know the flap vvas down 
over the steps when vie started to get off," and that she looked 
down for the express purpose of seeing where she was v/alking. 
[plaintiff was also well av/are of the construction 

of the platform of the car, that the steps were covered with a 

flap, that on station platforrus/were at a level with the 

CB.r platform the flap v/as left dov/n, and that on grounded 
platfortuo the, flap was raised and the steps uaed by passen- 
gers to alight. Ghe herself testified, "I knew that the 
first step down would be some little distance inside the 
sheathing of the car. I kept thpt in mind." Also, "I knew 
the flap was dov/n ever the steps v/hen we started to get off." 

llaintiff hr.d many times travelled upon defend- 
ant's car between Bell wood and Des Haines avenue station, 
Forest lark, and was perfectly cognizant of the construction 
of the car plnticrm and of the station platforms at both 
of these stations. | The fact that it v/as the QUty of defend- 
ant 's servant t,o raise the flap on the platform at Des 
Haines avenue station to enable passengers to alight with 
safet}-, did not excuse plaintiff, on thei failure of defend- 
ant's servant to raise the flap, from the negligence imput- 
able to her in attempting to alight from the car v,iti-^out 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 evi- 
dence we cannot lose sigiit of the fact that in many material 
particulars plaintiff's evidence is contradicted by credible 
and disinterested witnesses. While plaintiff testified that 

qjBll 3di i^Bi-ij 31SSW.6 3i\oo3d J .rtiJBO xiBCiiLio 1g saiorax* erij 
- utaad^ '"il98i9H'''ilic*-niBl.{ ' .b&stBs. rrescf Jon ui.\si aq®;^« ariJ asvo 

nwo£i 8J8%v .[bII arid" wonTf I Jdhb naqo esw 100^ •siadiiB^v siii ;^atii 

.anxxlB-" 8.B\v 9iie sisxlw j,ai9i?a lo s&oqtjjq aastqxf; mlJ lol nwoJb 

« riJ-xw 09t?»voo 919W eqaJa aria ^Bdi .iBo SiW lo raiolJ-sIq sxlcf "io 

sifcf xiJ i\v ioval js d'a aiav/Nj^Siaio'id'Blt'x noi^iaJ^ no J.srfd' .qsXT: 

Jb«Jbnw;i.g no J^srfj ;:a« .nvo.o cfi.ol s.ow qBl"! •3ri:r oiiolonlq -i.^o 

-nsea^q X(S bsaw aqsvla sxi^ £>n.s bgaxfii asw qijil ;^na eoiiolj-Blq 

srii J.6I1J- wSiijl I" ,bf)x'i r J-e^d- "ilgQ-xoxr siie .J^xlaxlB od eisg 

©rid ^fjxani. fioasJcixb 9l.tJxX amoo orf biwow nwoi) qsda daiil 

wanii I" ,.)alA ".bnix;! ax J-.^^riJ dqai I .xbo oiiJ" lo gnxrfdBaris 

".'i'io da,;^ od bodi.5dc ov- n=srlw sqacta arid tsvo awoJb s.gv,- qall 3x1* 

-bnalQb aoqu bjiX9va'Xd asaud y.'^.aia Jb'-irf 'tlx^nxal I 

,noxd.iicra ajjnsvij aonxRiX so'S bars boov/IIatf n9t>wJ"9cr t«j a ' dt-rfl 

noxdouxdsnoo arid to dri^Kxnaco v;Ido9'ii9q sfiw bns .jIib-C :ra9io'i 

xidocf dJ3 airr:o'idJ3lq aoxd^^da orij lo i^as rciuidolq "xno •gxid to 

-baslsl) "io Y.dxf£) and bbw di daxld dyol sriTJ .anoxdcda aei^xlJ Ic 

aoi.: d.G m;o'tdtjfj arid ao qjsl'l oxld ^axBi od dnflvt*>e a'dnei 

ridlw drlgxlB oJ e'rasnaasBq nldxino od noxdsdn -ixraevft aonial-y: 

-bnstob lo 9ii/XxBli3rId- rto , llidnxnXq eaijox© dort bi.b ,vd9lx»8 

-djjqax songriXigan arid oioil ,ii-3ll arid scxai oj dnsvioa a'd'aa 

srid dxjoxldx.v 150 sri^t aROil: drigiXfl od ^icfxdqnodda nx lori od sXcfa 

lo vduL 5xid oJBw dx noxdionou axxid nx .bocxjRT s«X*cf quXl 

-da sio'iad bsaiai nQud bsii qj&£1 3rid XldTiu dl.s^'!' od ItxdrrxfiXq 

.driaXXfl od- ^nxdqra^d 

-tV3 ailJ *tc aoTol r>vxdi}do-xq ofld r^iiX'ixmiadsJb nl 

XBx'x.>d.nfli Yn.3ai nx djsild do.ol arid lo dix-^^xe •3aoX donaao sw •onsb 

sXcfibgio bsdoxbxjidnoo ai aorK^nxv;^ 3 ' 'i'ix.tnix;iq oi^Xwoidaoq 

dsrid bsilxdeod "I'iidniBXq sXxxlVt' .aaaeicidxw badaai-'-dnXaib bna 

ske stepped off the car, she told Mrs. Liorrow and "Or. iick- 
ard thnt she"vvaB pushed off the train." Dr. iricKard pro- 
duced a 3tf«tement signed hy plaintiff to tnat effect,;;nd 
althougn she claims that the paper she signed was in blank 
at the time she signed it, the quantuxa of proof on this 
point 13 against such claim. 

She also testified that it i/as dark upon the 
platform at the time of the accident. Her sister-in-law, 
Mrs. Yargcr, testified that it was sufficiently ligyit so 
that she could plainly see that the vestihule door was open. 
Several witnesses testified as to the abundance of light, 
both on the platform of the car and around Des plf^ines 
avenue. In the testimony of some of the witnesses, lights 
are specifically mentioned as follov/s: 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 14(;G candle-power of brilliant tungsten illumi- 
nation directly onto defendant's traiu, the vestibule door 
and the platform from whicn plaintiff alighted; lights in 
the tower of ^orest lark, 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 lark, 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's 
shanty immediately west of Des 1 laines avenue; a cluster of 
lights on a pole on the east side of Des llaines avenue; 
also tungsten and gas arcs on the front porch of a fruit 
store just acuta of defendant's tracks; all of which were 

-oiq faiB?ioi-i ,Ta ".niei.t sn^t I'to be^iaifq a«v.*9xle i'dt bra 

eiil;J no looiq 'lo jiujJaBjjp sxlct ,d"x bangie sda nxaxJ 3iii ^b 

.iaiBXo doaa J-eaiBge ex J-nxoq 

9Xlcf noqij jii.Bb bbv; vtx +«flJ b^x'ti^esi ob la srici 

,W£l-ni:-T3d"8 re 'isH .ir.ohioon 3iii "io ^cc'ii ^{ii tB mio^d'slq 

ot; wiigi-C vl.Sn'^ioi.Jlua qbvi ii :iBdi Jbsxl i^aao .lo^xsY .sil' 

.nsqo 8GW loob aliJcfxJ-B'^v aricf JBilct ssa Y-Cnxslq bluoo arie J-sild- 

,;tii3Xl lo sonBonucfB -srW o^ es b8X'il:ta»* e^esanixw iBisvsg 

e9nx..^XI e^a Jbnuo-XB Jbna neo siiJ lo rrao'ili3.[q 9r{;t no ri^ocf 

a^A^xI .aaae&aJ-JLw o.iJ lo '^uios Jo inoLmieei sdi nl .^ksnuva 

•Txl-Y^nswJ- JjjorfA :8woIIol eis banoxJn-^m Y-C-taoilxo':>crs sib 

lo vBvdoTiS sonBTcJng sxW a>3W iii'TolcfBiq noiir^ia 9Xii mo-xl ^99! 

Y^Tol &iav~Od lo &'X9feijio ci3V90 9T9W noxrivj no .ifriBS: vfe^io*? 

;i9JaxfIo rlo^-3 ni: e^txi^lX 9vxl rictiw i;qi;iBX n9Ja3nij.t i9woq-9li)nBO 

-XJTijJXi ns^aanui clnr.xiXiiu lo Tgwoq-oXbneo OOhl wetri^f rioiriw 

toob aX.t dxJesv flriJ , : iei^ a 'JoBbnglaJb oJno \,I:T'jo-].lb noxJ'Ba 

nx aJrigiX ;b9;Jii3xXB 'lliJniBXq noixiv moil mio'id'Blq edi hOB 

inoil; JbftvomsT: J&al nasd'lxl J^uocfB ,2£ibI Jaaio"' lo i^vioi ^di 

9vi1-xij.idi 9ioq .« no qcnnl 01s nB bns .a-.iol^BXq noi& ^di 

a iLtiw ,:?ii.Bi :te3io'r[ o;f 9onBi:tn?) axiJ gbisnx .*2i;r ris-ti"- J"99t 

c^fri^lX oxi^fooX? :t99i,tR ov/^ ;3flTfvnr,o 00c5 lo aswoq snXirlaxI 

ii/ol ;j£ojRiJ e'Jiifi.bnol9b lo J»el beTbnuil sno bciB vJliJ nXftJ-iw 

sjli ao dOBo eJitaxX ■»vxl lo Bidp^il ia&OBf^banoas. lo aiaJ-auXo 

a 'nnnuloJBw edi no c^!i;3iX lo t^jhuXo a bno .aaj^^ ^nxsaoio 

lo 't^jexiXo R ;ex'n9vn aonlBXl af5cr lo .Jasw y;I> c^BXteamx yJ-naxla 

jexinavB a-iniBXi b9>' lo sbxe JaBs 9di no sXoq e no ein^il 

ilurl B lo rioioq ^fnoil 9di no 8a«« aBg bnr, aaia^^ut obIb 

919W xloXiiw lo IlB ;e3i0Bi^ a • Jnabnalgb lo n^woe ieu'i •tod'a 

"burnint^- at the time of tke accident. 

}'l;ij.ntiff testified that she v/cia carried after 
tLe accident, which diaintert^ated witnevitses contradict by 
testifyin," that ohe walked. Plaintiff also attributed the 
ailraents from •^hioh she vvas aufferinr to injuries received as 
the result of her fall from defendauL'a car, while jit is 
clearly proven that all 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 v?as an _^ invalid and unable to do her own work, [lie thirjc' 
^this testimony was successfully rebutted the testimonyjof 
credible and disinterested v/itnessjes. V 

Whether plaintiff fell frora or was pushed off 
the platform of defendant' s car, does not tend, under the 
circMiEBtpnces established by a preponderance of the evidence, 
to prove defendant g-uilty cf the neglif^ence cnf<rged against it 
in the declaration. The negligence which was the primary 
cause of the accident is attirbutable to plaintiff in failing 
to use that prudence incumbent upon her under tiie cormitione 
environing her at the tiH:..e of the accident. Fier want of pru- 
dence is such contributory ne£lii:ence on her part, as a matter 
of fact, as precludes a recovery. Davenport v. Caluctet and 
South Chicago Railv;ay Co ., General IJo. 21541;, not yet reported; 
MOAvoy V. 3^. houis etc . K_j_ R, , 15C 111. App. 620. 

The power vested in this Court by virtue of Sec- 
tion 87 of th- I^^^ctice Act, includes the power, upon appeal 
frcTi\ a judpiaent of the ti'ial court, to reverse such jud/.:ment 
without remanding the cause upon the ground that the weight 
of the evidence does not authorize the Vf^rdict. Bo i;^ v, £.R. 
I. & P. Ry. Co . , 162 111. 348; C. C. C. fk St. L. Ry. Co. v. 
Alfred . 123 111. App. 477; Casper v. I. C. R. R. Co . , 162 ibid 
104; Poliakoff v. Chicago Railways Co . , 162 ibid 632. 

Q« i;9VX9D9i esxiutni oj- nnli'^'i'^ue sje.v, oris rloxriw rroil aJn-xnllfl 

ai ii'Ts-tiJ^v/ .ibo ;i ' JiiiJunslsL raoi'i lir^l isil Jo J-Iuasi e^J 

a^aamllB lBoxay.riq cTnsd-ioqaji aricf lo He JeiiJ a»voiq -"tltjaalo 

-9i) moil IIbI I9ii 0^ lox'iq fcs^exx^ b^ai-'jlqfiioo eda rioliiv; lo 

Jnsbxooii 9AJ -x-jct'ijrt J.3iU bexlxoegJ 03l« sxlii .tso s^iaaba^t 

2£nJtx£J 9 W i .iliow n.vo isfl ob oj alc/anw bns JbxlBvni us a«w 9rfa 

to\aoiXLiia9i f>di \<i ba^^ud^'i xlIkj'iQii<iooija a.«w xaoiaitBei airi;t^ 

V .e-^aaend-xw bscJaai-aJ'nxBib bn-s alcfxJb^io 

,©on9i)jLv9 Dfij to yOiJijS7.9bnoq& iq s vo'' bsda Lie -'.ie?> 29on^',Juui;.fO*llo 

:tx JenxojjB Lsyi-iao i>oft3,^xl3i>n ^dJ l:o x^-C-t"B jnjribnalsf: avoiq ol 

XiBffiiiq 9x1^ SIJV7 rfoxxlw soasgLl-^Qn sdT .cioiiBi&ixssb ^di rtjt 

gaxXi«1 ax "i'li-Jnj. ►ilci -o ^ildBSLSditiia ax crnsbloos od.^ to scuro 

anox.Jxx)(too 'iui isonju isri noqu &ae6aiijoal sonsbA/tq i^nrlv* 9bjj o* 

I9cfjflai J3 en ,d"it?q leit no aons ji. f39n Yiojijcfxi^aoo rioxja ex 9on*fo 

baa JgoujlBO .v J;?-cc^n9VBa'^oao'j; a adbi/Ios-iq aB .^tosl to 

;03d"ioqoT jOY ^on .a^'CtS .oTI TBisnoO . , 0'.) VBV/ 1 1 qH gBO x ri I) diuo8 

.OSa .qqA .ill .)ai , ,K ^ . o^Js axjjo.i ._^cj .v YOVAOM 

-09d to oijJiiv vtf ;^TiJO0 aliU ai bsJaii^v- lev.OT adV 

XflaqqB itoqu .19voh arid agbijloul ,JoA iJOiu'Duii ^licr Ic ?8 aol^ 

insmsiJbi/t iio.aa saisvat co ,ixsj<Jt< iBiit saJ Jo d-nofl;.-^jbx't b ..norrl 

i-xlsxew ■=>!« J^BjrlJ- bnuo-xs srf^ noqu sei/BO odi :%!xibnsiaiei duodcflw 

,fi.2 .V -^lofl .;toibi=»v oiii- osxioxiJus icn e.^ob aoj-rsbiv-d 9a'J to 

.V .00 .yh .J .J3 '^ .0 .0 .0 ;8^£ .III iiai . . oo .v.fl .-j: A .1 

bidx Sdl . . op .H .aI .D .1 .V t^igaf.'J ;VV* . qqA .HI SSI . bsttXA 
.SSd bidl Sai , .00 eYBwXxf.H o^&o LdD .v tto^CBJIci ;^0X 

V-'e are uuheeltatin^-ly impelled, to the conclu- 
GioTx that the w^i^'il^ of the evidence did not autliorize the 
verdict agr.inot clef er^dr.nt, and that the judgment sahouid "be 
reversed 'vith a finding of fsct, which is accordingly done, 

REVZiiai;!! riTH FIirniFC 0? FACT. 

451 - 216B9 PILiDIMG OF PACT. 

Trie Court finda, as matter of fact, that the 
injuries of plaintiff were occasioned by her own careless- 
ness and not by any negligence of the defendant. 

sdt ssito.tliJB Jon bib oortafoxv") adJ lo ^it-'iaw 9i.i:t :^Bri.t aoin 
.snob Y-C:^ni^ioooJ3 «-^ !'^'< ,Jonil "io :qiiibni't jc d&iv -jsai^v^t 

Slid- ;fBxlJ ,d-oii'i lo t3J,i-£m ss ,8b nil J-ix/oU 9ilT 
■ eeslsiao nwo •xaxi \6 b& no it actio o'iew lli^nislci io eeiijji^nx 
.JajBbf!9l9b 3iij lo suns'iiilsQn yn*; ion bnB aesn 

A6k, - ^1660 

HMRY JK£X|(tiHAUaJEll et al.. 

/ AppeXl«e«» 

Louia c 

On Appeal iM" '^ALTl-'J? D 



' 193 I.A. 56 

v^ TU1» li4 an appeal frota a decree of foreclouura 
in wjtilch th& mOTtt.,n.^ed property is oriiered to bt sold to 
•atiafy tha amount found due by tiie Master' a report, and a^- 
p«Ilant aeekft a r«veraal of timt aecree. 

The truat deed forecIo;jed was given to eeoure 
tha principal sum of ^X5<*0 and interest, payable ufsif yearly, 
tti« interest bein^ evidenced by coupon interest no tea of ..-iii 
each. Two of th(?se notes loatured and wore not paid at the 
tine the bill was filed. Tue aortj^aged property iiad before 
this tiaie been sold for taxes and the certificate of sialo was 
outstanding, uncancelled and unr el eased, at the time the 
bill was filed. The trust deed contained a covenant au- 
thorixini^ the let;al holder of ti^e indebteunfeua to declare 
due th«t whole ai&ount unpaid upon default in payment of any 
interest coupon for thirty days, or in the elfent of failure 
to pay taxes on the wortta^wd prei-iiaes when tiue. Advantaging 
of tiiese pi'ovi^iions, appelieea declared Ui© wj.ule sum due by 
reason of the non-payment of the two int credit uoupons and the 
non»payttent of taxes ana the sale of the siort<;^a£ed prett^ises 
by reason of such non-payment, 

APi^^cliant confesses a. d endeavura by uis answer 
to afoid the leei«l conaeciuences of tncse fncta. i.e contends 
that riis agent paid tnese Interest coupons at the i iace ;»here 
they were payable; txiot the person to wi.oui the interest was 

^>di£»i& »'^d> 

.:^.,^:^ : 

1 ec 

s-xi/ttolodtol lo A»^o«f» m mm\ JtmvKm 

OiiJ J«^ l>iif4; iOD Stow iittM b^titim-ia a«Jon •«'»ii1d lO ovt .ffiUM) 

aair siMti! lo 9;rA!!}i'iX^'&f»o •xU i>un •akkajT tol 6X(»« «••<! •«jti «J:(li 
9iiii •mJLJ 9>(i M ,t' o«XIi»o#iMM>nt; «]|i<X/)nji44>jriiO 

»icla«i: oJ ««r*r: ..-,!,: t,: •«■ .f • .r; -finjaXtorii 

jjinXHiainavbA .euio r; i ^^K oi 

Ytf •ub duie oXoiivK :>..- .,-.-■*. *,^-,., ....V.,..,, .._.;, ^.,,-., .. , , , , •■»»»;«• lo 

»di baa anoquou .^saTto^ni. owj f»ii;r lo 4n»iaY«"^-K*T ■>a." lo imuBBi 

aoHimn'tq ba^i ^Xoa mti Lax viq«noa 

. Jni»at\ii(iq*aon aoua lo noaitai; ^tf 
oo art«iil» tvi/, 

^^«»anoa Xj»„4»X odi blotr« oj 

fiaoqjjoo iaois^irX fiaodi tlm^ tmia« ti^ 'au^ 

jJAid <i«liv«re<i to gj.pellRMt' a agent two coui'on interest 
notea for ^*4& each, duly cancelled. It transpired that 
th«»© coujon intereat notsa did not reli:>te to the raort^s^^ed 
property, 'but to other property near by» which was «0Ptit;ag«d 
by anotSier trust d«ed to th» aaftife trviatee and -aaa of like 
tenor, date and iiesount as th«t i>©cured by tiie- truat deed 
foi'ecloacd. Xiier* w«re xmny othfer auou iruat .c&da in many 
Ae««nti£il p&rticul&ra the •««« as that found in the bill in 
the r«cord, but covering other, thuufc;. contiguous, property. 
There eeesia to have bft«n »otau neglii;eriotf on tne j^?irt of tiie 
a^ent of api-wliHnt in paying t*o coup^jna uuu urjuer a. iruat 
deed oovorin^g I'roperty other than Umi iieoured by tne trust 
deecH in thia record, ultuougii e>p;>tll«!!o» deny ti-iB.v^.owever, 
te« this jftB it if.ay, if trifi agent of appeXlwnt did pay other 
notes by insdvertenco, »nd did not pay tho»« not«ia which 
appellant olaima he Intended hio ai^ent to pay, aucn toiotake 
ffiust be attributed to appellant. If n.ppRllant haa voluntarily 
paid 8one^ coupona other than his own, h@ .-uust suffer the con« 
a«<:;;uences of such «ction. Tha law will not allow him to 
foiat the reniponaibility afon appcliees, wi.o in no wiae ar« 
raaponaible for the predicajBient in which appttllant finda 
hi»aalf a» the r««ult of the actions of hie agfint, Shen 
the bill was filed the two coupon nctea had r&i.ained unpaid 
for »orc than thirty days after Uicir avaturity. :hi3 con- 
dition ptraxitted Ui.ptilieee to dscl&re tae -snole au^ount se- 
cured by th* trust deed due and payable and to proceed to 
for«eloee tne trust deed accordinti to ita proviaion» in 
tiiis rOfcifird. it wr»o tnc duty of tho afcent of tt-.i.<iila«t to 
aa« to it when hei aade the payw^nt ne did thai he receifftd 
in return the oourona '«i»ich he intended to pay and not 
others, '■^htxx.arer uppellaxit's intentions rtSfeardlng i,->8yEi«5nt 
'ware, his r.4;;ent rcc«ived th<i? coupona vnfiacii ue in f-xet paid, 
AppaXlant adaalta the sulci of thf.^ mort^;aged 

• SliX lO i««/ imA •ttjAil-X.} 9MJM 9Ai 
b99h ifiUTLS 9di Xrd b^iuotm t»r.^ 

: ^4 9A4 al baiiol 4«iiil til n 


'.; .,5 7 •;»''-"■ 

-t»i>nii •ill) aauquoo ofr4 

diolifv •»^oti 9aoi\t y,n^ j ;:>a»J?t«n 

- !> tdi ^^-^^ . 4j »Hoq«00 SflK>t l>Jt«q 

Oi «ii: 'art iioy "to p'n^3r5 7i;r>9R 

Ts 9«i« ha al odv «»- :o^ X^liltfjl. 

n»dt iii to 'iai^-Ji... j.^^ IXtoailil 

ieqiui b^ 

• ■,.l: 

1 rtr. uo» ©^.. ... 4 lid edi 

-noo ai' 


)i« •'ijU' -i* ••««• lot 

-«« iauo\m 


>il»«ti« b^iii■^'i■'■^ aoiilb 

v>«f bti*i > 

.ii^ b99b i' J 6»tW0 

X ."'J-l'i «ii 

3011 i^»«b iui-i- ^...- >-ol»i:»tol 

QJ JfrxHll^^ 

>H "Jn *rf»v 

,»«t» .tAi »4iw #1 ,fc-:^-.f»T aia> 

t, -i ■. 

ti 9ii ilo.i . -- a ni 

iisfio 9tii l>»ri»»«'x lOA^A cifi ••taw 

property for taxes. To Mvoid the <:'ff«;ot of auca aale &• 
TiolRtxT« of the covenants of the trust depd requiring 
prompt paynvent of taxes* etc., be contcnua ti^at he UaM 
and owns tixe certxricitte of sale. '.i:'niii condition in no 
way redounds t;i the bPriCfit of apf <?Liant or oajva^ea tiie 
fftct tkcit the tx^ortgaged property was sold for non»payment 
of tax© a. 

The purpose intended, in requirxn^^ taxes to 
be pftid irosaptly, is to avoi-d r asle of tiie aortt,&ged 
property for non-p»yaent and to prea«rv« liie parajasount 
lien of the trust deed. The certificate of sale was a 
cloud and, lien upon the property conveyed 8uv*^'rlor to 
the lien of thft trust deed forecloaed. 3f avpeli»nt 
sees fit to contravene the covennnt of the ti-uat deed 
in tisia regard by failing to pay the tiuxes *hc::. du« and 
allowing the mortgaged property to be ^sold for such non- 
payment, he aiust suffer the c-naequence» of hio derelic- 
tion. It vifould be inequitable to hold otherwise. Cray 
^* I^obert»on . 174 ill,, 24ii, and i^rocKa^ay v. I?cc;lu« , 148 
ill. App, 465, are autx-orities sustaining this conclusion, 

rh« decree of the Circuit court is riijht and 
is tuerefore affxriaed, 


ami od iAiii ebnoJnoo od «.o*9 ,««Ki»J[ lo #n»«it«<| ^^B^'Ot'S 
on ax xioiiiDiioo tJl^-t"' .aliri« lo aJjtoitl^loo axttf »air« fcma 

« uaw alao to dJAailU^ia* •liT .b»«l> ^awii *xU to n^il 
oj toirjqiiii b^xvvaoo x^tvqaiq sili aoqii iomJlX tim ttuoLo 

-oil9i«t> fcJttt lo ••»na«]>»«fl.a ,. . - ^-^ J««a- set ,irt»«x*S[ 
j^flij ,»elwi:5»iiJo Moa o^ ♦Xtf»iii«©*'ff< »<i< bJt»o*^ 41 •noli 

laulofloo ol/U salnlsiBiiB •»Jmi;oa^itMs tfui tcM^ ,qqA .III 
ia iiljiii al iruoj SLktori.} 9tiJ Its * 

CKQH6£ J. ^A)rSR* ) 

i Appellee, j j- 

) / C¥ CHIGACC. 

Y""/ 193I.A. 64 ' 


V 7h« Municipal Court entered a Jud,^:Tiient by con- 
fesBion for rent and attorney's fece, under a i>ower contained 
in a lenae set fortii in the statcaierit of claim, in favor of 
plaintiff and against defendant for the aiifli of ^1181, De- 
fendant afterward* oiade a motion to vacate tue jud^iment on 
the aingie contention and. claira tnat the Coux-t hnd no Juris- 
diction to enter It. No affidavits were filed in support of 
this ciotioo and no claim mude of merltoricuH defenue to the 
amount of the Jud/^sscnt or any part of it. 

Defendant grounded uia motion ui;un tnc fiiot 
that in tnc stn^eDltsrit of clai-ia it ia recited limz the Itaao 
cont&inin<-], the po ver of attorney autaoriaing the confeiiiaion 
of jud^^ent was lost or iriielald. Tiiia contention in true* 
but it appeared by an ttverif.ent in the statement of claiia 
that a sworn copy -flras filed in ita place; thia fact in not 
denied by defendant. It io further set fort-h in the atatc- 
Rient of claim that the copy of the lease attached to such 
etateitent hnd been aduiitted by defendant in another action 
between the sacie parties to be «n exact dupliuate of Uie 
original leaoo; and it wa» also adiaittcd by defendant that 
the original l«aoe was executed by him. ilaintiff also 
averred in hie statement of claim tnat the said lease nad 
iie-veT been assigned or transferred to any other person. The 
trial judge denied the i&otion to vacate, and defendant ap* . 
peals, v 

a£€.l^ .1 :itin 

A J £61 


■J ,1. WafitlUA 

b»tMBJCi:y.. 'tOWO'I « It 

to 'toya'i m iJxial: 

to 1-i-. 

Sou ... „ V,. . ■-...... 

jftiia jiu 

0BXn Vtlfninli 

;:j Xii^ iill/l 

. on btiA n»li9e^ aliii 
.(, &ra to Snuoam 

I., liivn Oil xo >: ii 4ud 

. LoLL'l fisffr V: . "i, a ;ta£W 

vt ^o {qoi> 4»tii Jflii^ oialD to inem 

. .- ..■ w. '«M .. r i H£tt>.UlO 

ia9mm^»isi •tti al b»niora 

It that the Ju.diXK'nt appealed frotn wao 

entered in opnn court, Conaequcntly, f.1) presu-'Kiitiona in 

favarr of ita V(ilidity aust be indulged. Farv;cll v, Hu a ta n. 

161 ill. ii4«.', is directly in point, in U-ia case Uic jourt 


"it V7au aliio iicld « »■ that tiicr© iii a broad 
diBtinction oetween cnuea .fiierein the proceedinga arc xnid 
in open court, smd cases -^here thf Judtsia«nt is confeosed 
in vacation; that, in Uie latter caee, the autaoritji' of 
the 4ittornfiy :&uBt &ff ir.i»:*txvt;ly aj pear, nhile in tuej I'orj^er 
case the preauaption will bo in favor of tiae vuliuity of 
the judgtuent." 

The original le&ae bc^iag lost or lulttlaia, th« 
aviorn copy proffered to tho court in itu i-laoe w&» sufficient 
evidence froa nuia^ tiie court was e.utaoriaed to <*nter th«f 
judgaient api>ealod from, F.aj^eciully is tiaa so in view of 
defendant's adaiission th«L it waa a true ccpy, >'c tnink it 
clear froai plaintiff's atatoaitijt of clai<a tix;a the kunicipal 
Court liad Juriodjiction to enter the juhjisaent wiilch it did, 

Willie aftny other queaticna are arijued by coun- 
•cl for both cont(:'St&nt&, the qu^'.-ation raided in the Court 
belov -was limited to tlxe jurisdiction of Uxe court; conse- 
<3uently n^ otner reason ia available on appeal, 

Tiie Jud^ent of the kunioipal Court in affirnied. 

,X«^qq/% no »Id- ' ■ 


a I 

.autl •onebive 
..<, i),^i^d*iisabM »* SanbaQtnb 

.aiiimim9Sno9 Aioii not Xaa 

j;Uf. 4 AT 

4U4 - 20;544 

t C OT Ft r alien, / ) 

/ ) 

Al.?f4RT BT?i>:'. COAT, CC'iPAHT, ) OF ai IC/GO. 

a Ccrior&tlcn, 

A^llant. 1 -|_93 I'A.. 6 • 

UT?. ?B?£ID»^a JTjrYicr Pm kiliviSTod the oplnim 
of thcj court. 

TIilK> ii» an *pp«jl frco a judgment fer 1 11 §5. CO, 
reioaerad in a -^luit brought oy appell«» (pluintlff br lo^) 
a^aintot airp^llant, (dafeicda'i t btlow) fcr tho v-iluii' uf 
certain ?i-a«hQd co*.a si old by plaintiff to defendant. 

The it'iti-i»i;Qr.t or cl aim -^ot-^ forth :in ..iotail 
tho vnriouis sionths du^^lng which watihod <30ial -droua purchafial, 
tlve Isliyery thereof, th** t ioso #4«n payadnts* imra daii 
unditT tfie agrcoKtent octwQtri ths partita an-i tJie exact 
aaount auo. It al^io ^oX forth '* al ii« r^r Intisr^tit si 
the r&te of five per c«at. p«r anntuu, for "fiilur,; on th^^ 
part ot dop^ndsint to pay uaid aRjount 'tis en duo. 

V^ Plairitiff *aM Sb tne bu^irifltia of latnirii-. nnd 
ahljjptog ccj»l, having Ita mines fH Virflfn, 113 in o la. 
Defondisnt jra» a corii io-aJct in tr c? cit? of OMc*?©, 'sml 
had a cc^tract »it>- thr? bo^ro' .-.f odvcutlon to i^upply 
part of the cphI vi^&d in the Chicsv^o public echcoln. 
On the ^ Bth day of July, lail, plaintiff and defendisnt 
entered irito a sritten oonVraot whar^gby plaintiff ;ji.;jree>d 
to *f5ll, sr'i J.of> nds-^nt ^gre^d to buy, eippt" o^ ira- tely 


i9ti MA*? '^na' 

m mtt 

20,000 tone of lump and egg coal at a price of €l«C7i 
per ton at the dineoj said ooal to bo chipped in approx- 
inatftly equal quantities (about 2&C0 tons per month) 
between the; date of the contract and ilarch 31, 1912, ae 
•rdered, and payments to be madf> at Virden on the 20th 
of eacli calendar month for 50^ of all coal shipped during 
the previ'ue i^ionth; the b-aanoe tcj be paid for on the 
10th of thf* Bccond month following ehipjnent. 

In January, 1912 thnrc arose between the parties 
some difficulty with reference to thie ocntraot,rto which 
mor detailed roferenoc wilj^ be had later in the course 
of this opiniunTl During the period tliat the school ooal 
contract had to run, def<»ndftnt needed certain coal known 
as "washed coal*; howeyer, thr transactif n for wash^^d ooal 
wao tc be coneiiu'^>red separate and apart from the transActiens 
inrolving the sohool ooal contract* It was also understood 
that payment for the washed conl was to be made on the ICth 
Of the month, foil owing shipment. 

The evidence is undisputed that there was furnished 
by plaintiff to defendant washed ooal as set forth in its 
Btateraent of claim, anirunting to |14a6,37, nnu that the 
co?il repr«)Dentsd by tlie first item wat; (iPlivored on February 
20, 1912. 

During January, 1912, there was dsliynrrd to 
df>f«naant on the school coal contract, coal valued at 
$1817«0d. Under thr terms of the sohool coal contract, 
th'.re was due on February 20 the sum of #908,54. Thore 
was also due at this time $26e»ll for washed ooal delivered 
in January. 

aa ,SX§X ,Xfc rio'ua*' Jacus ;toi»iinoo ««'* lo Bii.^ . Jscf 

rfi-OS 91-tvJ no n«Jl>iciy iA *»ijj»« F» ,J>.iol>«i« 

"- Ltub b^qqisi^ L»oo XiA lo ^6 -is.'. xiJ'aiA>>; -Xi;I}Xi:o XmO iiDa« t9 

ftiii no -i©*^ ^' -^ ,.^.. - ► ;;/•'. awcivs-tq r^jii 

• -'.t lo riiOX 

Xisco Xoerfoa ^rti^ IakW boii^q 9i>j }\iiLiv(x ) ,n iniqo aliiJ to 

Xaoo '.v-.a««ir tol; n ;iJoB««ja'r J- 'M!";^ ,iovoworf 5*Is»o boiajtw' aa 

nelifumtitfiS *tii JBoit i"t*q« btm •itfaiwirsa faai"bi««oo ao' o;I aaw 

boo^atfibflij 09X0 aa«r .tl •^oatJaoc X»oo Xooiioa »fli jM^tiTlornX 

ri;tOX »Ki no "^fiain orf o.t q^w X^aoo MHajRW nti 'tol ;iifmx»q Jari* 

.ifl'«i»qir{a ^^a«in piii lo 

»rl»in<xi('t -<]««r anr>il^ imi-i b^iuqntbnu ai aonaiiXTS f»£iT 

a^l rti iUio'i ;f»a & inawnrolot oi lliiJn aIc, '^tf 

■5iii s i.\di wHx ,. . ^'a ,aJtBXo lo if!i>ii:f>ijnJa 

• liXQX ,08 

JM tt^uLav Xj»oo t^oxicrAOii Xaoo Xooifoo 9x(i «ra tnmiuf'inb 

i^oAiJ^aoo Xao:> Xoo/lo* a<fi lo nrnt-^i tU -fitiffJ .80.rX£X$ 

f»''>rfT .^(;,809l "ift fltt/ai «»x(i OS x,-! Bifida'?: no au^ ujhw ^y. lii 

bi»'ir<yiL9t liioo barfajuw -lol XX.fld'^'o "•■ -t.i ai'j Ja »«fc oaXii 9tsw 

On February 20 defendant ««nt plaintiff a voucher 
check for IllOC.OC, which Toucher checl: stated that it was 
a payjaont "on aooount." Thio check wast received by plains 
tiff and «ae paid in due course. 

On June lb, 1912, defendant »ent a vouchor 
check to til© plaintiff for thf sum of |376,4C, Thie 
Touoher check had on lit? back the following latnaoranda: 

•3/26 Bill rend. 
3/ 7 •• * 

J2/2C " • 

19X1 CJr. 

XO/5 Cr. xaejao, 139 - 4.49 
26 'r. raerao. 144 - 13.92 


11/3 Ca»h 


2/21 Cash 



163. 9g 








ThiB check wajs r<»ceived and d'jpof. ited by plaintiff and 
paid. It will br» Been that the defendant in the voucher 
check applied thf |H(() payment of February 2C on the 
vaahed coal account. 

It further appears from t))/- OTidmce Umt after 
the beginning of this Buit, plaintiff, on Cotober 15, 1912, 
bagan an action against the defendant in the United States 
diBtrlct court, in »vhich Buii plaintiff filed the ordinary 
CO ante, allegini?; daiaages in th« euia of |?5C00.CO. 

aixit .Ol^.dVfil la aura »ri* lal ItJt^ttiAlq «ili .>i ioarfo 


jD«»r« xijtfi da\fi" 
• • t \c 
»» •• os\s 






.<»»!: g\ll 


fi«4sC XS\S 

•rii no OS x^«^(^<*'K "io tnurt^ijwr 00X1$ wj.i:t b»l.l-w--- ^iowrfn 

,SX(?X ,SX ifidoJ . itnimlq ,ilu>> T^iimlw^d •di 

.| to tmB 9di nl •9:^maMh auX'jjiBXIm tninu^H a^ma— 

DcfcBndant pleaded the general issue. That cuit &ro6« 
•ut of a Gontroveray with reference to the achool coal 
contraot. After Buit was begun in thft United Staffs 
diotrict C!0iirt lay plaintiff, d'^fendant began an action 
in the '.'uniaipal court of Chica^ to r<"covpr daraageB 
which it clnlaed t© have sustftined beciuce of plaintiff's 
failure to fulfill th«« »chool coal contract. This ojuse 
was r«?rijovfd to the United ^itateo district court anu the 
two oaees were tried togethpr, 

Befcniant claims that in the trial of Ih^Be 
two CHses in the United i;tatf»B district court, plaintiff 
adjaitted thet the |110C,0C paid on February 20 was applied 
on the waahed coal aooount anu not on thn echo 1 coal 
contract; thai according to plaintiff's iaccounts, th^-'re 
subnittod in evidonoe, the §1100,00 payment wni; not 
applied b|r plaintiff on the sohool coal contract; th&t 
all the oorI ©rd€?red and delivered previously to January 
had been paid for; that no ooal was ordered under the 
•chool ooal contract after February 30, and th«-rf»fore 
plaintiff in that oas* was suing fcr only th'- coal ord^r«d 
and sold during: t)ie tenths of January and February; that 
there was due for said coal not to exceed #3523,00; that 
there was proven in that case daemges not to exceed i^l200,00; 
that the interest due on any theory of the case could not 
have been more than $176.00; making n total of 14898,00; 
that ih^reforp the verdict for $5081,96 render d in the 
United states district court proceeding could have been 
arrived at only on thr thoery that the #1100,00 payment 
in question had not been applied on thf» school sottl con- 
tract; that the Judgment enters a on said verdict wass res 
adjudicata of that fact; that witn tirie elimination of that 

aoif-: , itifilb 

9r(i xtu itijoo Soit3&ib a»i».i 

• bdii«jiw 9iij ao 

inAi lioMiitioo Ijboo Xooiioa orfi no tlJtialBlQ x<^ l>«iX4i«£ 

sri* TfibBu b»t»ino smt Xii©o •« J.iuii ;-ia'i jutia^ :ii.-*J fijad 
9f').^-i>iiS i>«A ,Ofi vxawitfoT." 1eJ^^^> .*-> ttnoo Xa««> Xooiioa 

~ .- »a«9 orU '^<-. .. V.J-.- :■• .'-- ,..-•-. ..1 '^ili ;^j8if^ 

;00.8<2e»| to iM^Qf .t^lnn |00*arXi( ixtaU •nom a»«^ eT«x( 

aodcT oTMf kluoo 3nXl>'»a«Kq tiu&o j-yittall y^iiaU 

irfir\\tfci )0 , ,: JMtlS x^ no \i. ,: biviiia 

-Aoc Xiioa j. 110 £>9XI<,^. on l>.'!i' noiiBoup al 

^•; -«w ,toi fio i)»-i»ina tfr ifir^fcift •"•^ ^JiuW j^daU 

j iaxtjUniX* »K» tiiiw ^xvrii ;^odt iiuli lo JiifiibJ 

quftntitnt here, there was no furth'^r issue to he doterfsined, 
consequently ^ialntiff had no cause of action, ac th^ pay- 
ment of $1100.00 and tlie oheck for $376.40 oonstituted full 
payment of thr> amount due for uraaheci coal, the BubJAct taatter 

of the present suit. 

Plaintiff contends, howeyer, that its cuit in 
the Uniti^d statets diRtrict court wjxb not for the value 
Of aaid corvl at thn contract price, but for the j^rket 
Talue thf-rcof, together with da*>age8 for def cmdant* n failure 
to order joal iH quantities provided for in th " school coal 
contract, during th(- raontha prior to January; th« t it baced 
Its rii^bi to a r'-ooYory for dataages upon an ullcgod breach 
of th« contract Ijy defend nt; that the HlOC.OG pnyio«int 
was ap!;>lied by it on the school coal contract, and that 
the jury in the United States district oourt proceeding 
RO found. 

In support of thfcir refpective uontentirne, both 

parti s introduced testiiaony aa to the proceedin^c in the 

United .tatcta district coart, not only as to th« evidence 

thi^rre offer^'a, but also the rulidgs of the court thf^reon, 

the pleadinga and thR infitruotionn to th« jury, Tuxb testl- 

mony wae given by th respective attorneyn who represented 

the pnrti«»B in the litiK»tion both in thn United titatea 

district/anu in the proceeding at bar. 

It Jippearn frcs^i the evidence thttt the testimony 
in the preceding in the United tates district oourt B'lowed 
that up to February 2C about 7600 tons of coal had been 
delivered to defendant under the school coal contract, 
326a«02 tons of which werp furniehod between January 12 

»nu ?enruary 2C; that on S'ebruery 20 defendant dOBumded 

tiUkt the balance of tb*» oo ay under the school coal contract 

.imuol ©a 


l>*bft*jrr>;; Stt»bn^'i<t OS y;iftintcf«'S no ^«riJ ;0<? •\:'SA»n;H»'^ -a*. 

(i2>5G0' tons) to bo? cl-^l iT'?!X'^d dirin^ U\t /^ajainooir of the 
ccntrg-t period via., hj April 1; that uiJon plaintiff's 
r^'fusal to ^oiaply th sftvith, drfendant d^clin«"«J to order 
any more ooal from plulntiff; that plaintiff clais;<?fi tJiat 
thp failure to order coal as proTidocl for uncl«r tho; con- 
tract, at thr- ratf> of 2500 tonci ptmr :aonth, confltituted 
a breach of t)!^ contract, by reason of whioh br«aoh 
plaintiff had tho ri^t to reoore r any dnraaees suf f ored 
as a reeult thereof, alKO for the conl dwlivered during 
January and February, on the basis of thft nmrkpt value, 
ana not upon the contraot price, 

Th<f •»vi<J'*nocs fuT'ciX' r showed that in the doure* 
of th» trial in thft United fUatea district court it 
ttppftf.:red thfit 'a.fter this contract had bnon «ntcred int©, 
the prlo* of ceal drclinnd to a figure below the? price 
thftre-in provided for, durine th« monthB of August, 
8«pt<*riber and October; t5i t during said p«riod, defen- 
dant 'c orders f«ll ccnp.ic<?rably below the monthly quota; 
that during; ?~ov«»iber, when the- price of coal rosse above 
th«» oontract price, d-feiuiant ordered 2000 tonis - nearly 
thp full <juota; th?it during jSpooeiabcr, rnhmi th*- price agoi» 
desolined, defendant order<?d only 1000 tons; that during 
January and February, 1912, when the weather becanie cold, 
the prioe of ooal advanced sharply; that because of defen* 
4ant*B failure to erder ooal as contractecl for, plaintiff 
Ittut aado certain contralto with othfjr people, bo that when 
defendant ord'Tcci in larger quantitieB in Jciiiuary, the 
plaintiff, by rt^aeon of th ee emergency contracte, was? unable 
ta coisjnena® dsllvc^rien to defendant a«itii January 12; that 

<xj8.tu o«wl«ii> t'U^iiJt*!* #«?«• ;t^*#ffjt«^; okjiI Xfiie 9t«0 1(«i« 

♦ ooitq Sofititior *Al Bo^ji/ J- on j;)A« 
9»'ivoi> »iit al 9^mU iMivons 'ticiitul ?>9fi<t^itr» 9j|T 

iM4fOup \liUaciz jrtd- woI*<f y;Xrf«i«).Uimao IXnT: etoj^* a'ififtb 

V.I'-; -•-■'(5 - :i-^ )LjOS ij^'*'ai}T:o j'ttisbn.)! i* ,i»oing Sovttmoo <»rfi 

jftfitXiub isLii \aaoi OO'Jl \lao bnivbto ^ttcijnelwb ^b-^niXofib 

tbi0o smjadsii lOiivtaev 9iij ndilw ,$X9X , t'^'^o^t'^i^^''^ ^(t^a xxmtaMi 

-iTs'teft to •«i/jo»wf ; iri^ ;xX(IX8(iQ »w»«*iVbjB I«oo lo B«lii>. 9iii 

n«ilw J-jptlJ eta ,«Xq'3?»q t9c(i« dtkm ttJeomxinoo niuiino ybmm bjui 
•riJ ^xitujuii'. ttX ii'vx^iin«ifp T[ft»ijBX nt Iwawto-ia a^nAfmolsJb 

tb« •Bount of coal deiiver<»d from January 12 to Fel^ruary 
30 was practically on a Ijaaia of 25-0 tonn per month. 

It appeare.i fuy^hrr from the c^rid-nof in thft 
©aee at bar. thnt in the nutt in thp United i-tates aiis- 
triot court, defendant* c statement of claim in the 
Mutololpal court of Chicago wae introduc«tt. ©howin/- the 
market price of «oal during January ami February was |g,CC 
and 11,75 per ton, reapectiTely; that ulalr.tiff introduced 
evidon T Showing thr xaarket ^rlce day by day; that Uefendant 
cl;<iirar.d the market pric- of coal during January February 
ranged as follows; 

January Ic to 16 . - - . |2.25 per ton 

do 16 £5 - - « . 1,75 

do 25 31 1,73 

ywby. 2 & 3 1.90 

do 4 to 9 - - - - 1,65 

do 10 19 •— » - 1.95 

do 19 « 20 . - - - 1,60 

It further aupeared that in th<s Unitod States 
dietrict court Paul J. Alwart, secretary of tho defendant 
company, t' ntifif^d that th(> payment of ^llco.CO ira^ origin- 
ally intended at payaient of the «90a,54 due February 20 for 
January oo«l d<>liveri©8 under thr school coal contract, and 
an item of 1268.11 duf* for waahed coal, but tlxat later, via,, 
in June, he applied the entire amount in payment of thr oum 
due for washed coal, und that plaintiff acquiesced in such 
action. It further apneare thiU df;fendant based ita claim 
for the application of the IllOO.CO on thf. imshed oonl account, 
upon the fact that the vo icher checjfc for 1376.40 showed tii£.t 
the $1100.00 was applied by dofendont to the payment of all 
washed coal. This wtr also testified to by Hr. Alwart in th*j 
case at bar. 

It further appeared that in the Unlt^^d states dis- 
trict court proceedings there was ovidence that the washed 
coal account was separate from the school coal contract, and 

aoi la^ 



V -^ • -■ 

- - 91 

- - OS dl 




8*i;fjBi8 5t.*z 

1 J^wlJ b* ^ 

xWia't il 

*ft«i)nf»"i''i) <^i--i io 

. ' 

■:> ioiti3li> 

•n i 3 it «r>« ) ) • •> :■ i. i 


. ._.. J jiy^jaqwoo 

bni?; ^icotinot) X«oo Xo»iIr>a lili i»6iui a^if^TliffJ) Xiswi t*ft*^«*^ 

roxioooA Xxioo bntiMtm »ffi n» 90.00XX4 o^ t« «ittX^A»Xl<as^< ^ri' lOlt 
XXii lo tnr)a!\,j»q sU* oi *itBi«n'» *>;*;> ^; 00»OOXI$ »iti 

bsrinmrn ^tii ifkdt tonnbiVA mam n'ifniimBfiiib«tnx>o'm ixu^m t»ixi 
tattf^ ,lrj»t;»noo Xi?oo Xoorfsa »ili •icul •i»tAii9M •«* Jf»urooo» !««• 

that plaintiff snu (WfrnxCi- nt had at'^r^^p-d t/iat tH<» waehftd 
coal account he taken care of ind<»prncl<»ntly of any 
diffioulti ITS arising with r feif^-noe to th<^ «oiio<5l oo&l 
centraot; that A. J. lialoney, Yio«» pr-vsiofnt of th« 
plaintiff c/ipany, testified that the $1100.00 VftS 
ap.^licd on th arao nt due fo coal dellYPred in January 
on tho school ooul rjuntract, and on the wafihed coa.1 
delivered in January; that afterwnrd* (in May) thf 
d?»feniant, "by soparato oheck, paid for th«» washod coal 
dolivered during January, whereupon the entire bmsl of 
#1100*00 was aplied on the amount due on t>u school 
coal conlraot. It further appeared that in th« tJnit^^d 
States ciiihtrict co rt procR' ding, the question whether 
or net tho contract had been breached was one of fact, 
aad tliftt the jury wero instructed that If they believed 
front the evidence, that tlte contract haa been breached, 
plaintiff Blight reeovcjr the iRarket Talue of the cool sued 

On thi!? state of the rt^cord, defendant contends: 
firet, that its Toucher check for $37fi,40 was tendered 
to plaintiff as a payment in full for the washed coal in 
question. Thin contention is baaed upon the fact that 
the voucher oheck cont-'^ined on th^ beck the memoranda 

which we h- ve already set forth; that plaintiff, by accept- 
ing this check aoquieaeed in the appllc»ticn of the #1100.00 
to th" paymfrnt of th** ar^iount due on the washed coal account; 
that in fact, the glTin^ of thic vo cher oheck and the ae- 
oeptanoe thereof constituted an agreement in the part of 
plaintiff to accept thir> oheck in full for the washed 
coal. And co nsel for defen-i<mt argues thfit under the 
faota, the CO .rt shouid have held as a ;:iatter of law that 

a»)« 00 .00 XX 
i{Tflun«T, ft I 
La 00 i>© 

iv ,\i»noi. 

i 1 ••, <^i-i 
;^'.i no 

; i«T*»VlXtfb 

.-■ 00 .00 XXI 

fe»ju« Xfiojj -'lit 1'> Him TttiinifiXq 

OO.OOXX^ 0^1^ to noi:.taoliqc)^jR *tit al t>90B»lup9Ji ^ottu'j >\.ij ■^l 

-oa otfcf bnA :tfo»d[o ivrfc ar aixii lo yiiTi^ OiU «^(. .1 nX ^atfi 

bfxf.jisv vjfj lOlf Xl*/t «1 Jtomln il 'J Jqf»oo»> '1? Tt'UJnlJ^XQ 

tmAt wax to *xi»;tlani a aa JbXaH dvaxI bujoffa it , 'iio«l 


this; o :nBtitut«d a oon tract. It) thin contention wo cannot 

It appeared from th-s evidence, that daring 
January plaintiff dftliT«rrd to defendant coal valued at 
;i^l817.08, Unde* the ter/fis of the school coal contract, 
one^half of thie became due February 20, Thin vms due when 
the $1100.00 check was rent. Thfre viae also due nt thnt 
time for wn»hf»ti coal Ueliver^-d during th« raonth of January, 
the BUffl of |263«11. The eTid*>nc*? in the aaee ahowe that 
plaintiff at t; ip tine applied the $1100.00 to thr payment 
of thfce two iterae. The item of $268.11, however, was ^<fter» 
wnrde psid by separate cht'ck of the defendant, anc thereupon 
plaintiff croditrd tho entire JllOO.OC en the amount due 
undor the sohool ooal contract. Aocording to Alwart'e 
tceti.acny, the t'llOC.OO was sent on February 2C in order 
to protect defendant's ri^ihtB under the contract, eome 
difficulty having ariaen bet.reen the parties with re/^ard 
thereto. On tniti very day (Keoruary 2C) u'-fendant deroanded 
of plaintiff the delivery by April 1, of the entire balance 
due under the achool coal contract (12,500 tons) of ooal. 
Clearly, tlierefore, at the time thic f 1100. CO payment was 
made, defendant muat have intended that It shcula be apj»lied 
on th»:^ Bchool coal coHitract, in order to Justify itr. (ie;nand 
for the 12,500 tons under the contract. This in evidenced 
further by tto^; fact that February 20, the date of the pay- 
»ent, was the date when thr firct item of the account sued 
for in thii- oaee was purchased, and thio item did not beoosie 
due until Haroh IC. 

Tho first IntisMtion that any olaim was a^^de by 
defenaant th&t tliift payment of $1100. CO ehould be apnlird 


noitw 9ub am' sjiri? .OS Y:i;«mrf«S[ tub *maz)»fi sirfJ "io %.[jeHi«Ma« 
,\rT«wnA't la ifJnom fltrft Biiliirb ^^vxaiTlXAft Ijido Bojeteww toll 9mki 

, ?Qt»« \ctf ^i-'K nliistw 

s»*i«wXA o:t j,.i^ . - Xoorfoa 9ri# f'^M 

to&io rx.' ' ■ "^ ' '-ij" ."^gwoirJ^asl 

btM,j,i»\ fiiiw afili-xmvi »rtit ff»»vcite<f il(»8J:i* i^rivaH x^XiJollllb 

rttt(-.9^ d-nj«DB«tM|> (OS >^'!tjtfrxa«<f ) \mb ^tv^ •Itii aO ,oS»t9di 

ji.RAlAti <Jii^n=» 'rt.t to ,X Xxi<»A \;* vs»TiA*J» *"** tli:^nX»Xq lo 

.Xsoo "io (atioi J.><J,SX) ittatinov Xaoo loorio* r.'.-ii -xnitau »ub 

ua»l> aJl xlti^ntft ** Ttfe"*© nr ,i3«n^j|fOO f.vsoo Xq«il»« s^rfi no 
ij'<:>fl'5>blT» «1 tstlii" .^© »flJ 'i-^bcHj «no^ 00fi,SX oiiA tot 

9«iooi»tf ^or: Mb tnoil ■ ,b%nArloti)q nam ^umo liv ' i tol 

other than to the school coal coatraot, was by wsy of a 
KCaerwBClum on this voucher oheck of Junel5. At tain time 
th re WHS a diBftgr-'eracnt between the partie* witJj refer nc« 
to the school ooal contract. T'owrT<»r, there had been no 
dispute at? to the aniount due for waehcd coal, anc' it ap,i<^arffd 
from the evicicnce on behalf of both partips, that this 
wao a separate transaction. Pefe>nuant admits th« amount 
due for th« :;aid washed ?f)al, but arbitrarily applies $1100,00 
to the payiaent of it.\/r~t^ving onar apylit>d this <|1100,00 
on th'' 0cno. 1 coal contract, plaintiff was not bound to 
transfer thf? cr<»dit to the washed coal aocount; nnu &.o the l&t« 
t«r account was not in dispute* it can no t be r>aid as a matter 
of law, that t: e r- o?»lpt of the check for ;^57C.4C with the 
foregoing raeraorandum th»»reon, by iJlaintiff, without objection, 
constituted an agreement whereby the |11C0»00 oredit was to be 
transferred froia th<» school coal oentract to the washed coal 
account, ^^-nd the 0376*40 to be oonsidf*red in full of the 
latter account, i'm the contrary, plaintiff was at liberty 
to ignore the mezaorandum on the baok of said check, and 
apply the $376«40 as a partial payroent on the washed coal 
account. It thcrcforf became a quertion of fact for the 
Jury to say whether or not by th? acceptance of this ciieok 
plaintiff >uid eife'reed that this $11CC.GC nii£;ht be a-.' aied 
to thp payjaent of the amount due for washed coal. The jury, 
■by their verdict, found that it was not, and from a careful 
reading of tiie evidence, we are firaly of the opinion that 
they viaro fully warranted in so findinu. i* ^^ no* in 
a'coordancpi with r^aoon and probability, that «en, having 
already rec*ivrd money and applied it, ehould, several months 
later, consent to the apili cation of this Muae amount in pay- 
ment of an account which had not even begun to exist at the 


^tim09 1*00 I t &:> natii -t^dtm 

■T.1 iK»iao'i«n,H-i,; 

on n#»d bmd. tt-^.tnii , 

aiiU v*«rt^ ,a?»i 
iais9tnm «ifJ 

w.ooixe -^^ ^ 

tiil ^(ii •« uoe ;d^mf0fii9e 1,900 batltnv 

adi }■■ ■- , ■'^'- ■■' ^■" ■ ' • 

»cr oi 9i»ir *ib9T;o 00 ,001X1 

^;-i,,u... . ''•■ 1- ' ;■ K-, :-.,- r.-, ^ ■,,■.,■■,:. -.-. >f,-j er:) .tni;«0£>d 'X9;^;^»{ 

-itij loi- tn»>.i -o noi;r'^»i/r 

5»<1^ noin 

ai ion i s ; J .jy 

A/{^no« lmtntY9» ,lb<4i«fUi , 

.;] .inuooo* 
i^na ^B«o« Jbnvx ';->i ^^9*{X« 

■«rii tM fix9 oi xuinod noT9 ton ii«< rfoiiiw Icuiodoiui nn le /ami 

tim« the said payment wiS made, f»8pociaIly in viffw of th« 
fact that the account to whicr. it had nlrctkdy "been appliod 

w<itB in dir.pute,"~~l 

Dftfendant rIso istiiat}%in« thai the jury in 
the Tjnlfd ' tstf-ss; oo::rt procp*»ding had cietenaineci an a 
matter of fact tVint. d«»fend?!nt hnd not bc'^n or'ditf^d with 
the Bun of IllOC.CO on the amovmt due und<!»r th"- ©chool 
ccftl contr^act, but en the nontrary, tiiat the jury by 
their veruiot had found that plaintiff had ap;>lied said 
^liCO.OO in payri«?nt of th<» araount due on th« w.ur.hcd coal 
account; that th-r«?^orfi Bua'ti "esBential fact having 'dfen 
determined by a court of ooiapfit«nt .lurir-diction nuiy not 
hit Mcjain pasijed or hy nnctUfr court in limitation between 
the s2Uii« pjirti'S,*'* |_j2eunsel adinitr, in his brief, 'iowever, 
tJisit the question whether or not exich "esaential fact* 
WUl paeeed on aanriot b« df^t^rryined frora thf* pl<»adin^8 in 
that caee in the 'Jnit«d iHsttea aoiirt, because the doclara- 
tioneonsiBted only of th^ coismon oounts, the plea one 
of general IsRue, but contends that the doctrine of 
"ftotoppwl by yercSiot** 'tpplies to the facte in the c»ce at 
bar. Thif5 principle of law Ib set forth in Hanna, , et , al y^^ 
jiead * £t al , 102 III. 596, wherein the court said (p. 602): 

*»»"Whfj;e scae specific fact or question 
hajs l'>een adjudicated ana .ietemined in a former 
iBuit, -axj t;i^ juii-te fact or qijeotion in RtVftin put 
in ierue in n aubRequent nult b>«tw««*n thi« same 
parties, its detf^raination in the formea? suit, 
if prcpex'ly pr'»sented am; relied on, •'^^ill be held 
coiiclusive upon the parties in t)ie latter suit, 
without ro^^ard to »b«tht'r trie ouuse of section ie 
the BRiue in both suit© or not." I 

Defendant farther aeecrtc that in arriving at a determination 
as to "Whether or not such fact was adjudicated in n. former 
proceeding, thp rule of law as laid down in 23 Gyc » 1206 

X«0O b»ria«w »5(d no ?>wl3 i.- 
i&n x«ttJ «o.c 

t ,i:nv^f.'0'i ,1<>i*icf ifsixl (1.1 ■•:' f:;T<f.)i- _^ 

-"^-XflXanjj •ildr itnusvamii ,ifijii«t» 8«^«Ja ;.»'i>jJUii: '»«.»• wi »«jao JjwW 
9no «»X<5 «d.t isn.i; ,«iiftju«>o itCM«»io;> iiJ to x^at> l>«^«Jten« tiol* 

xl iiS. iiL * Mnnm ni tii'tot tti^ 

bl©i( «d IXiv ,flo 'oail^-: 
^iiuti ittiiMt fiiU tit h 

tppliee, trtiioh rule provid<*R ae fpllo-vsra: 

••i^attera ?vhich follow by nPCPCRary anti 
in«vltal)le inTerenoe froia the juclj?ment - find- 
ings or tJftterrairmtlon of the co rt in relation 
to the subject cuatt*»r of the suit whioh are 
neacBBarily i:a: tied froia Ita final <i«ciKion 
a« b«ing df-terr^inationn v^hioh it muRt Imve 
made in order if; juetify the judguant as ren- 
dered are equally ooTered by tl*.'^ CGtopael ao if 
thsy ^««r** 8p©oifically found in so many words, 
or in other words, it it allowablf to reason 
back froia th<? judgrucnt to the baeie on wJiich it 
Bt'i«ntie ana rei^aidintj thf juagjr..-»nt ae a conoiueion 
and rindin{5 it to be one whioli oould hiiVP been 
drawn only from certain prpmiB«»B, the pr«»£id»e» 
p,re equally rrn adjudioata with th*? conclunicn 

I>efendunt oontendc that, undor the facts in 
eviai*n-e in the auise at bar, it appears Cv-nclufeivdy 
t)i&t t)ic yerdict of the Jury (in the United rtates 
district court proce«?ding) can only be reconciled with 
the theory that t.'-e islaintiff had no*. appli<*d the ^IICO.OC 
to thp eohool coal oontraot. 

[_nTie queation wiif?thT<»or not ih rr miS an estoppel 
by vfrdlot was clearly one of f&ct for th*; jury, ana the 
court in the ca»« at bar oo in«truoted the .Jury.^ I 

Defendant introduced evidence from sirhicii it 
contcnd<?d that: the jury should liave concluded that the 
verdict in th«* United fitates dintrict court was justifiable 
only upon th«* theory that plaintiff had not applied the 
IXICO.OO on the school ooaL contract. Plaintiff introduced 
eviden;e from whic:)i it contended that the jury in the 
UnitPd i>tat«»8 ookirt must have aiTired at their verdict 
upon th^n- theory that dofendant breached its contract 
and tiiat plaintiff oould recover on the basis of the market 
value of thf coal sold durin,; January and Kejjruary, and 
not upcn the basis of the centract price, v Therefore, it 
was for the Jury to determine whether or not the verdict 



1-H.M) f»n? rt;rJ:w fl^ti»oxf-{>L»j» b/^^ 

),>)IX<| •%ri;t' bflXrr«« ton bjarf 11i;Hii«Xvt uA^f ^/uiJ Xr«o»J^^ •'^^ 

XHqq«^«*» ftiH ttiiw 'I'j rfl .ton •xo*i'y i-ij-M'.v. jt- j-t"»uP ■^iti _j 

^XJjiitl^ajjt «»»' ^ti-oo .: 'rt* ni loJt6Tt»v 

anoube-iSal 'i'iUni»X'i ,lo«-i. ' ; - rli a 9 00,0011% 

toki>i0r vJtnrftf im bwrit-xia «ir«xl j^aM^ .ttuoo a<ii/tj'' i>o^lnU 

^•Xit« >({:t to alait«f i^AS no if>7ao'»t btuoo lli^ni-iBlti imii S3nja 

iiflA ,v;iaxn:^^ bnxj Y'taun»T. ;.inlitulL» bio* i/ioo nfi t« s»juI«t 

in the Unit'd : tatro riirtrlct oourt wee baasd upon 
the theory adyanoed by plaintiff or upon tlrstt con« 
t«»nd«d for by thf» defendant. The Jury in t'rift oaue at 
bar wtsre eYid^ntly of the opinion that th« vjrdict 
in the i.initPd :;tat«5 district go art wa« baa«d upon 
plaintiff *e theory, vi«. , upon the ;aarket value of tlm 
oobI plus thi» dan«e«a for the breach of contraot. The 
court «nt«»rf!d judgment upon eaid verdict. i^e are clf^arly 
of the opinion thf:i both the jury and th*; court w«re 
warranted in arriving at their r'spectiv«» conclueiona. 

Defendant alco aSBigns error on thf question 
of int'^r^st, but in view of th« fact that in the couro* 
of this opinion we hftv« treated th*: araount du«? for washed 
ooal as being undisputed, it was cleari^y entltlrd to 
recover intfireet. 

Finding no reversible error, the Judgment will 
be affiraed. 

•H«o *«rii iio«i' TO m^nijfcia \^ fc»on»vb.R ^-swJiW nri* 
*£ 9»MV erfl ni x'«**t »' -tub »rf,t '\Etf lOt Jb«b«fi;f 

V,; ifii bBia&t^ »r«rt »w noiniqo •irf.t lo 

378 gC7C«\ 


D#t©«d«it in Error, 

'i^ltamtift in Brror 

m TO 


198 I.A. 82 ■ 

mAtmEm of til!- OASB,* N/rhiK it? lin actio a of 

Frank .B«A«»n, f©r th." maovery of (iSKriegOB fcr the »ll«u«d 
T?ron*iful d'jrt'ntitioB as«ounting to fstlesi i2ii3ri80a{;i<?nt. in tho 
JiOftpital ooxKiuot«^til b^- defontlfeint aoaipany. During tim tri«^ 
.^r. .i^waoon wa^s ditsmi^se^ froi/s the oase an.d th«$ trial pro* 

in thr ftKi**!^!!*^ d':<3l*rfetiorj it wen ?il,lfsg:«<i that 
<l«f«MSul&wtii wwri-' op«:r»ting fu*-.. HiiOdae A.Yemi« Hospital for 
profiti that pl»ii!itlff wa» -m t>»ti«Rt therein for rewardj 
tiiat 8hf? was r®«OY«rir.iS; froia t.he ©ffeota of a Sttriouc laajer 
Oiier?ji.iicnt wrdaSi iiitd "bcMT^n p«3rf ©raed at Diir };o:»,pital; iliat 
©Ej A„ 9, 191:3 3)ie wuu fllsssiU-irgaMl froi?a furilTstr hospital 
tr»atir.f?nt hy h«r esirg^on, ^»itli pemaiasica to leavn thi» 
h.t>»pit«l return h.«»i«; timt »m rnia in a wamH ancS 
hii*ijlj? nerToiiS aanditi^n, ■■Ju'? t© jsaic tiper&tier*, but timt 
8h«? *aR ph^t'siOftllj' ttlilft tp .l«'»Te said^^ctspitJilf '^n<X *«Hipt«4 
t» dc bo; that dv^femWats, c.i8r«ft£«,rdiisis ttooir duty ©n ©aid 
d«.t«, dcfimiidcjd tluit be'for*? pl«i,intiff te« pisrtaitttf-'d to l«mvii 
the hcfeip^ltsl, aht feign » |}ro£ii»o©ry not® for th-;- eim 
el^itned da« '.i»ff9ndante tx&iA plaintiff, for aoewssmodtition && 
» pati«nt in »aid .HOspitMl) th^it »ifcid no%« oantained « 

»)V02 4JVC 

S8 .A.I oOl 

V :», 


■so** I».l t>«9l»b 



WHLrrant of attorn ?y authoriaiw® oonf ««eiOTs of j«<ig!ueni; 
that d«l «ndet.nt« iitfct-si^d plc^intiff thi»t unXosit uetia j|u4#» 
»«at r*©t<^' wstro alijn^^a «l»e oo-id not X«>ave t3if> ItoepilUiilj that 
th(9;«upo& a«fen4fint» wrongfully ««ii oj>pr<5!»eiv«ly det«.in(&d 
li«r In »&i6 hQftpltiCLii without pro'btt^la er roanomnbl^ ca!A8«» 
for thft Bsiifco* of tJire« liourn, eowtrary to th«? law* of the 
Stat© &tvX »«Hln«t tfee will of th«s jiaoJLntiff j that duriji^g 
»&ia unlawful r«5'Btr4iBt, d«fcn4ant« i»pj>li»4 tHrftata and 
Tile epith«t8 to th« plaintiff, l>y r<;a9ca of which prmaiiAmn 
plAinUff 'A.::8 fri;,ht9!n<*d «mi r0nuorn<i b^Bt<?ii-i«ul a-ivi h«r 
w«sik <jc«4itioa »g4jrairj4t9d, and h*-'r reooveiry fyoia th© ^ffaate 
©f Bai4 opor&ticn gi-eatly retarded; furtlir jrnsore, that 
l^ntlff mui 6>aiy>o«e4 to dis^r»oo .^na in^jureti in or«<iit 
and eiroi«?u»tanfl«tt, 'wfe«»r«by »h*> 0"Ufff'r'/« daiaage© t-^ Ui<- trxti^nt 
of f5,0CC, Tk^^iT v3?i» *ji ft«ooRd oount in th'" fta©ao«^ <i«ala«tt» 
tion, Uut itUMRmiolTii a* th<« oourt liuatruotCKi th^^ 4uury to 
((litt.r«gard oajsM, it ift not n*?<ie»6ftry to tjoiksidcr it ho,jrc« 

la tiiitt {itaXaxaticn & plea ef s<meysl iesus .m» 

C?i9 thc' trial ©f th«j ««,««» hatere- th« <3«'.irt s^nd 
jury, n visrdtot for $-775 was r®tuim^i^, M;>on i»hidh jM<i|§»eat 
wae rtjnUfcrcd, to r«Ttti!-»« which d«l»n«io,nt h&.n pretsecutf-'G tlii» 
-srrlt of '.-rror. n/" 

mi. FHSSXDIiro JUSTICE »m. dcliv^!r«t4 the «pi»in« ©f the eo^^rtt 

tl's^eo «ili to noiai^A ^^xU HfHrxtrrUnh >W . i3£ 


v^Iaintiff on hat beJiiU.f , teEtifi«cl thut aho 
•atcr-i-a <it'rend&nt*» ho»yitaJL on v.arcJa 2X1,, lttl2 to aubsait, 
to a <j'.«jpar«itlv»ly r,URor oporationj tlmt at. tiiat tii,ie tih« 
gav© to DTm H«ytRl « h«fjr surgeon* #30, for whioJi «li« was 
t^iTTftn » rfa«ipt bj' tt»'jf®na««t; tM« $$C vhb to pay for oue 
w««ek*«i &qua;n<..4>{U)^tiofi at th6 l;i»6pitisd$ thnt ehe was taic«Mi 
W th0 cpnrvktin^ room en tii« 23rd, hut ^m&a not th^-n opfirtttwl 
©n b«50i!UQci it ^at« <}ieiCoverc<i aho Imd cthor ailments j that 
oa th«i 2©t}i ah« waui infona«'d thut »hf' was; eufforliig ^itij « 
tuioor; that on the ;i7th she -*ae t>per».t®d on for fil>r<5id 
tijUBjor* «^p,'endiaitio, hmmrrhiai^n, ajoa oyat of the ovary j 
tii&i b4)Qauft« ol" iUn»0 Op«ratiois» «h« wan oois^ftlled t« sta^f 
at th« ;tOft)pi,tal longer than the %Um oh«i luiii paid fur; 
that OM April 9 elii« wua Inforaed thsit »}i« ««.» |»hytetio&Ily 
fit t« le»v« th« ^i00pital« tty h^r pby&ici»,ii» 'I3r« H«rt«lt 
thfct 4Kl>out fiV€! «• clock p#.-s.« cu tho aaai® 4«iy 6ii« «u» prc*-» 
•«nt«<i b>' one of ilw nur»<js, with » "biil for $4J2 hoapit*nl 
ehiU(^«!f>S thut her piiyalalan «h1so tola Uor that if tho bill 
w«Mt mt imiii ^e wo .a 4 }miV«) trouble with %hm haapitaX; thsii>t 
h« tto«n }»and«4 her a judui^Jit tn&te for $32 which h« request©* 
to«r to Bign smu wiiioii oke rtsfused to «Kxe<mt«; tlwit at th« 
XiMit tHe bill wia» i)rc9»iite4, ©ho hod but t-«fO or three 
dolXarei in uer pjaseuesion, ami that ahe :i«f«i■^tlP<i thi** nurstt 
that tsho taeuXd ri©t sssay her 1>ill thfm 1&«o&ub® she sms umtbl© 
to get «n^ mmvy vmtil 8h« eo,»14 go to tijsn b«nk} that oh« 
bad «vr.ttnge<i for « taxionb to okII for hey tlwit evening 
ttt six o'olookj thtit 5;he wt^is lat«r infonaect thivt th« 
t«xic«iil)i wae Ui'.-re for h^r «.ii<i ehe was «*k«»d whether eh#t 

hji^d tigapii thffi note aw^ wai* told th^t unlowJ it •*»« ei^n«d 


noo t«) '%«Ki (»;r utitr '4>&$ ttjuia i^: 

'A« ft«i •il« l»<. 

li»4%i»t. .J 4»V4M»I «4 411 

-■■^ -■• ' . .«u 

9LiiMau aMw «il« •Oil. 

«)!« reijuKRteii Uuit th'* chfeuffeur Tisw e?>nt to h«jr rooia, Viut 
wia iaform«»d Ihat >;« would not b« f*.llow«d tfi soPie into tJ^vi? 
l>aii«iia<ji; tJiat »l)<i th»n *<mt t% th© ^aUtdov of tin© ^uildin^ 
«.na tix^-ira }i ai:aa to tii'- aiutuiffaiir mj,o snAO atunsiin^ ©ut8id«» 
to t^lon-ixmiti it«5y siftter l&OAit ewe ^n.u being «i<it«in«d tt»a 
fioulu iiCft aoa€! hou«j tiiiit at ei5',Jii «*oioelc th.*t flMHUu* 
ey^ning u la-a^er b/ thv.- 2]a«>o of T«ywiiiin^«r, at tht 
y«<iu®»t of i}i«ilnt4fr«» liiiinter, otmm to th«? hctepit&ij that 
Kihen hr< oajKj^, iw piulc^si up h*r uuitoaee &mi walketL out 
ef thii xi>mA tovsu'UM tU<» i&t«i.ires$ tJ>'it t.uey Kir<ir<» m«i tiir>r9 by 
A lfi»ii \?Mtac»sbt Uiti MioUt nuran, imu W4tr» told tirnt eho 
^d oriic'rr. frc^s tJivr ©fiice »ot to i«t her ^oj that shut mi-.s, 
however, p«rmitt*-'0 to go tiownatairw »o th^- Matter iai^jlat 
b«t dii&cAieftea &t ttt.«> offiofij tiit&t th^r^^ «^in m, talk vas 

puiy tlifi bill or «ig» « n»t« fof th« atsivu«t5 t)w..t ITiiitally 
Sir, Terwili.i^«r et..iec that ehe oould mt b« k«X(i «i th« 
iio»|)it&l for tiie j>aj^u>«nt of tiiat 4l«bt, i^na tustt she ibou14 
P«^ ijai^d && noQti as eho wa.^i' t^-^^lo to f^ so; wiiilo euoih 
oeavarsation took placift, »om^one who ©he S»el4«rtr«<i to b« 
J3r» i;i«ACon» jc^tiaarkc^d thut }il»intJlfr 414 ri<it >,va.i3i tc pay 
uer Ml.l byo&ucf* Bke w«i« « oroc-kj tlis^t «s.ft«r n llttl« sw«r« 
oelXdquyt th« d<x:r israB uniooked ».n?i plaintiff &iMi 'h?r» 
T«r»riBlliKer imaAt tioiiie. ?ia,intif.f further t<sBtiri*?4 that 
0h« was iu a wttak, Ij^^ett^rlaal oundltlim thnreaftor; thftt 
ii£t« r«qair«4 aeeistanoe dc&rfl th«; etttim unu to her taxloal}} 
th£kt ^h<'^r«^&l't»r fth« cont^i^xiiuc^u to iua m a 9«siik utid hy»t<^!!ric$al 
ocnd^tlcn aft % rc^Mult of tli» aQt« of the d»fend&nt unu that 
uho vfic not &;.4e tc; uu auy work for eix aw^RthB aft«r »b« 

bau ftMiJMivk 9J' 

1'^ A3 tit m/ 

ii-'J n»ll« 

.il b^rr. 

returned iwm9 tTQia the itompltAl, 

aorvoh4>rtkX9d th« RtAt«iiient« of the piatatirf a« to -shut 
oeourrsd while pr«B«nt, and what hf- did* Also, that iRrb«« h® 
©««« to plaintiff •» rooja in t>is lioeiital, h« fauiwi r>ialatiff 
Id <Hi hyBterlc«il <?orKiltaoi) stnd that he Uad 10 «.««iat her out 
•f the rioepttal to th« taxle«ib, 

'i'ij® chauffeur QOTTOhoriiteid Ui& timtimtwjf oJf tfe« 
plaintiff ».» to tiotiryir^j iiir ssister that eij^ wau baitig 
hold at tn«« h08ijit8Ll» and tliat ho was not p«n^lttesl aoevsii 
to the pln,intifx^ t^nu that he w^m •rd<'>-t'@d to t»k» hiu imohitM 
frocd i» front of Ux& hOKpitaJL; timt at tUci ti::<« plaintiff 
ont<^red. nin onJt eh© aj>,i>€?are<l to >>«* in a w««s.k aoiiUitxoii &M 
lookod $111 thoukish slid had b«ttik crying. 

/mothttr vitnei&ii • cnp* i:-r. Hasj'pole • et.'; f''f3 tJ-mt h« 
BAW ;)3.siiati.ff OK %iu- day after eJt« retu.rn*j4 hom«; that h« 
f«u&d h«r In » tMHilc aoei HLgiay iterrcue oonttition; Vmt th« 
OQCurrnnoo »t tSi« heepit^sil »« r<»latf?d by th# pinintiff would fe t«Rd©noQ/ to retard h#r rftOov#ry frosa th^a wfffiotR ©f 
ttt« opitrfttton afhi«>h Jm4 bo^w p«rforwipd. on }!ik*?r« 

Ofi ixilukir of tho d«>f6Raanti Of. J)efiOon t<^etifi«d 

ujU4t he icn«w nothiiig about th(f ccsounreno<» aforeji«f-..titicn«d» 

beotiucft h» '-••.■» not pre»«iit. Dr, H.«rt«It tesjtifyiijfo- on 

behttlf of the d<»r«na«iit, fclsto et*^t®d that he knew nothia^ 

of the (All«t;eid &1, tt^roaticn rftlative to Uiq i;.)ro%ie»ory ncto,! 

ancs. that th^re wer« no ti»r«atB »i»<is' against plaintiff ia 

hiti |ir«!i»eno«» lie aict «tftt«« bowerer* thi.«l he told pl&intiff 

that feh« wOvUd better atttle th« bill uau »av« trouble. II© 

Mltie tefitifi>r*<i tuat plaintiff wac/n hit^ily nervoun QCioaition 


Iwfore «Btri«jE th« honpitJftl, ana that upon iRaving It 
•he wi*.© in better condition th&n «,t tbe ti^rifi »};« *>ntf r'..4 
it, Alia th*.t -1*1 tit.» time <^f ih& tri'^1 eh« lockiju tt«ttt<iir 
tuoA wmic:^9^ «©;« tlxa.'x at the tt^Sf ,^rl<5r to the Ofjerfction, 

AaothtRr vsritnefis for i>i*j a«^fend^nt •» a Uisn Han<i«l» 
tho aur><»T"?is?ing nurse s.t th's hoKjtital • teetified thsit plali>» 
tiff -iifs^ij no*, «i«'taln«'d wstt-ynat her willj tJmt tKerfj were no 
l&oka on %htt ttoors of tin* patl«!Mt«* jfoosj»{ tiwat ,:>!'» 2»««icoii 
wa» swt thf-re isi th^^ ti?ie In quir^ttonj thnt iw on« Ciills»d 
plaintiff m4~ncsj th(a.t, 'j!r»iw> -^Jislntiff ^nts -askea to pay h«?r 
bill ^>}«<! 'bceE^vM!! hyrt'T^riCRiJ titf-.t jafcintiff milu the -ffould 
not pay it; tliai ^'Uc tUc© ooKplaiaea al*«\tt ;.t, ilejrtel «ii<j 
tJ»r«,Rtonml t6 itu«t hiisj th«.t. plaiatiff u«<«d tJi* t«l «phcn« 
tfeat eTanljsg at 6j3Cj th«t shr^ h«a n«v«r heurd of plaintiff 'a 
alleged aet^aiicn or the alt^^resiticm r<?latiTr« to %h^ jutijf?»» 
mntiX note, before thi^-. uuit •<*« stisrt«d, 

^©tJier witn«si3t< for tii^- tsefcncaat • «& I'iao 
wOiirubb, one «>;'* ^hc niirsws r>.t t}i« hcupitja - t«s<tifl«d 
t/iii.'.. r.hii n'^var asiti'^ ar^ tJiret\to com'-rntiig clalatiff; that 
»o1sJMSy pr-esent i«<ir- ©.nj* threats; tltiat plAintii'f waa v^ot 
MtkoU to pa^ her bill or algn a note; tluit she «e«f pl«dntiff 
walking abovit tu« buiidiriij aleng tUtj oorrl'iorB, br.'tween 
&j30 anu 7 ©♦oloak in tiio ermiimi ^^f^'^ ^^^ <i©ftr8 were 
n&-vfir looked, «nu t>i«t plaintiff w»o not dot4i4n»d, 

^Cn tnii? Stat* of the reoordi defendant coutanda, 
first ti.ii.1 plaintiff h»d failfsd to prove tlw allegation© in 
h«r d^iolarsitiott anti that the trial oourt ehc. id huv? in» 
struotttd tha Juiy, at the clor>« of plaintlff'a case anJ 6t 

fl S«flr»t*x 




tii* «!«»• of ttll tii® ffviuvntie, %i) fJln4 ti»« « i^f •mlant not 

guilty. In urgini.;: fnia content ion, <i«f«ina; iii»iB«rt» tJi&t, 
adJBiitting. tiio truth of fill t«etir;:t«»iiy ©fff^r^u o« UanMlf ©f 
piaiatiff , At aid ismt prceeat a e»»« of wrc-TJul'iil dwtwntiina 
ag;aiai»t iter «rill» iMa.:.-u3Rtiiig t© f#ilae ijiiprlm;- «):««! nt. In 
thif cic:»>t*"nt.ion, r^wBVor, w« CRnrset odncur* »» th'--r<r icra 
B;ua«rou« authorities iiftilch hold, uj3d<'?r fstots uiunh Bisailay, 
that plaints fi" Uir4. ^, good ejtut'ie ef notion, i|£iS£J£ Xfc iili^ililiL* 
33 ni. 473} .Slfefilak^a Xfc J^SOil^Al 11^ 16t 3:U. A|»p, 

**<^J j Pi<?M.#<»^ X*. fie.^^.*. U16 i»eKti, at. 475} |:^^,3ttijs X*J]SlS&^» 
141 B,G, 317; iiiUHJ!;* lil&la» ^'^- ■''^®^» ^^"^^ ^»^' o.r«er tha»-t 
the plaintiff «^' rs-isover it wstc not rifjo^^sse-'SJcy tJmt sht ei.iOul«i 
h&vffi b'pj<m p)iy»iai!Klly sinU forcibly ti«tala««S V^; clt;f«!n%/.Amt to 
tJi«» hoBijjItaJIt If ijifi oeadiaot of th? .cl«f«?3&-a^i8t --mn of tiuoh 
eimract«y a« to »ak« pslRlfittlff » in the wadition i^ wijich a3»i 
ttiea ■m&M, bellev* tiiat if »he attf^w.pte<i t-fi 3,!*»»T9 tJw ^iospital 
«}&« would b« fOTeit*!^ d^ftftiaod, thrna sms:jh cj^m^i-isi^i *30irtctlt»t«<i 
« wrongful detG»ii«m .ag,aiix»t 'mr will* ":jio fncts «tu air* 
mmstanfl**- in ©viayn'-je pan^ait the appli«n!itiyn of this prineipXm 
of law. 

.D«f«mhi.nt Uftxt c5©Mt*?M», t>i»t.- uad«?r all %h» «vid«3n«« 
in tiic ouK«, tiie jury w«r«5 viol ^vsirrjmt^ti in finiitm; that 
plaintiff Imn proY«4 her Qm.n's of »otion \s^ ifeprcpoittjeraaaft 
of tJie «vicl«mo«» xhXm pre8«tnt« to ue tim question "nda^tluNr 

or not th& jury wer<» t«ufriitttfl«i iu arrliri«i5 at th^ir v^rdiot 

for th« iJiaiwtif f .. ill® 0vi«o»o® i^ircn on b®balf of the 

plaintiff and tJi« a^sft^nvsant, preseiat^^?*! n puro ^luestion of 

faot for tiv.^ Jury, ne tc wh««tli«r or not plaintiff had be»n 

wrongfully d^^tai»«d «isiii.i«Bt her lifill, tm Jury eviciently V«li«¥ 

ir. cntoriag 
•d ti4«* t«8tl)9iOtxy offorM on l/eh»,lf of the pisi.iRtiff. Ttoo ©ourtjj/ 

•Inioiiliii fftttr !• Mv. 

aa taA^- «i» •<t# 


ill fidl ,.3^: jjn^ ;&T* 

w B 

•wax lo 

*^i • fort %% 

'll9 V(*3> 

laotion for « nv» tri<&X, ^uat imve httma of t>»e cpiniun 
timt the •viaen j« »u|>,.i»rt©d th« ^ttnitit . Froja an «ou4k 
tl©« of thf? ar«oord, w« Gumaot »s^ tlmt th0Y«r(iiot i« 
ol«»rly ami imaif«»Uy li^ainst th^ ««ii^,«t of tii» evi4i»^nc«. 

In ooiairaic to t-a;. ;. nolussioa, »0 arc? not unmindful 
Of the oont«ttiioa i^ oouneel, thnt it wass not »shown thfet 
th«t ttotm of %h9 mpX»j^9u «i«ij rwpx-f^jBtntatlvai* of tho d*jf*«n- 
«to«t «o«s>laiBvd of wer« within thfi sco?** of thi^lr authority; 
la ear opinion th«8.t iseu*. »» th« other <iu«»tion8 of fact, 
w«,» d«t«n:dneU toy t:'^«- jury a^uinet tJu? aef.*nd»nt, and ^e 
OAanot iM^y that 111 so finding, tht Jury wer.* » Hiag cl>mrly 
and mnife«tly tt«caiattt the- weight of th« evidence. 

I3«f«adant furth«r oontftnd», th&t tJi« oourt ttrrnA 
la giving iil«.i«itiff*s inatruotioaa 9-fl, 10*0 itnd n-»2). 
W« h&ve roiiU t2i«t»e instructionii o»r«fally and are of th^ 
opinion thtU thoy oorrectly st&t«id the i^^^ «« ufipU<Jabl« 

to th»« fwctsj in the oj*»<», 

XnstiruGticjis of th« mme elhm.tsknt^T were, uKi<i«»r 

lJ«?f?aK:lm^t also coia:;l&in« of tJic refuwul by the 
court ftf ito off«r»U inirtructioiD Ho. 1. Hosr«v»r, ttu.>t part 
of sfeid inutruotion tJmt v«* api5>XloaU« to the faot», wao 
<»v«r«<i toy oUi^;'r ia»truotlQaB ^jlvon t>n toehfUf of th« dafendjwit. 

J)«f(ijn<iant further ootaplainw th&t the oo irt orr«d 
in tho MbDisffion of toatiisony, via., yiith ref r©no« todMrersA. 
tiono had by defend smt wiUi f«rwiilig«» and witJi th» ohauff^ur 


)btm $ti 


»W bout t^r 

■■■iii l9 »t* iim' 

■rJtliiJiiii iitta 

.f'xi.;»t lfUttHS»t^X 


cj*' v:5»(*t .**'t^'* fi'Mni^fy' 

umn omlj 

d h»A mt»X$ 

•utnlAt tf tije prf?»one<» of th« r«»pr«^«ntiitiTeB ol defendant* 
aad in j-fif using to irjj^trunt the Jury to diorfi^ard euoh 
•vldc-nce, vie rtmi, fTtft-a «n •a&ialnati<?n of the r©oor«i, that 
«U Qonffli3ra»tioass outi!l«J» of the- pr?*»encjf;; of tho rifprosenU- 
tlv«a of thfl <*<'f ftjidajit whl'-oJi wer'?- r*ot pur% of tVje r|!ie K<i.»ti^g 
were r*a«d o it. Th» oih jr ee!ivers«tlon« wor« r>roii#;rly admitiffd 

»» pun of tii«, jsaa gffi,fit^^; ilssSl Ja 'Mkllm^* la nx. 201 j 

SBiS^aliSja Xa. isaii^gg. -LiU. Bit* Mju* 239 m. 334; ,ftn<i the 
4ii»truotioii vilrv);jtin4j th'> Jury to di»rft<£ar<l »iiid »vid«iiG« 

Defpna^nt n«xt o<>Dap]L»in» of Improper feots on 
t&« p&rt of ooumtel for plaintiff » «ith ref er^n j« to tn«» or«s« 
«3CA»aA»iatloa cf iar, ju»»06n. »lM»t«v«jr arror tfe^rs i»y h»T» b««« 
in %ki9 quoetloo pwt !»>• «oune»l for tiie plftintiff «i^» wniTeA 
by thR witn^ae i^on hfi xnoiotAtl Uiw. «n««r«ring th« qu«?etlcni 
aft<?r oljJectioiiB th r«lo hiwJ hfnttn »uBtaiBii4, whcr® 8U<:to 
»«»tlon on the part of th<* witnmn im« aon«iir:^oil ia by m^fi»A 
tor aefersaant, th« witn«M>« in tjueation boing t>io »uperint«istl9nt 
of tho hc«pit*X and th«> p«r»cm Irs ftotu=i?i a-ntrcX of tho Affairs 
of <3»ff!iadtmt eoaipwjy, 

©•f «aci«at iMiflta tJiat th r<* is no oviaiinoo vnu-raat.* 
ing thf! aaoufltt of djmagfto «iwfcrd*«d, «nci that thf' verdlot aunt 

tiki« «)for« imf Immn th® reoait of pa«8ioa ttn<i prejudioo* 
In o«ri*« of thlo kind, pl»A«tiff hi»o th« ri,,i;t to r^^ocver 
not <mly aotual daffaagwo but Also punltivo dftEMtg»*s. Tho queotion of d«i£»goo io {.ne for tu •- jury. Vo find 
noyilnij la th« record which oiiovo «By aot ea the part of 
oouneol or any witn.>»«, that toadod to lnolt@ tho prejudloe 
or infltta* the t«inda of th<» ju»y »4jai»8t the defoaUant. la 

■im tt>ifyft ^ 4mftmm wd^ jkRi 


th*t view of th-'' catnttt «?« »•© »o rs^Bon %c Uluturb tlu vcr- 

Firuling no roT«'rt-:l\)le error, thr .iud;:nent of the 
Cirauii oourt will b«r affirsacd. 

f^'< PTOw.?^ or ^ir 

or CJ! icjiao. 

193 I.A. 88 

t«3R«0d tiii:: t'^ the K-3y«.o of 0*3rfeetiOB i«p Vnfste at?jth3 .^^4 t«> 
p*y a fise sf oriis 'ioll^sr and «<xst3. 

So suing eut thl»i ?rit ct €-^ro?',Vi'g?&«aii*:t s**,*.^ a 

<2saplaift« it at tK«J <5€«art f^dssdtte^ iiSTfej^r ^vLi^^M^ -^iXsh 
saii prt*u4iei^l to ihn laf'^nd^.r. t. ' T'-:i« l^^ttet* point 4?5 nt**d 

th* recarJ to a\i«t^iii the *\:ir;,s:*^t, f<'? ^ ^ tri-^l ^ithc'ut ^ 
jw.ipjf» It i^ JiT«»ueaA ifeat in.isi «aurt, if\ -snt^rine juj^^^se-^t, 
a on 4 ; -i -J r*? i ©nly tHs wtsttp^tsit «viii»n«4. ?>-;.l9>^r v. MrfirlJlaR 
Brnt3-ni?t Qq* * i''?^ J^-^« ^^i ^f^rig ^iL^ i r j>^ r^t^j Co. v. 
?ii3^oyton > -iv 115, a J iill2iill LSl£L 2£' ''' !^£22li ^~ 

ri3fer5-l:5.*;t ssalr«» th.e fttri>5ef point, tri'^t f^-ft a,^n- 
led ii^?v-f!sat ios w4a -diisCsctiya Is? ttisi U *eii«> n-ot f 1 1-- 1 -jintii 

ho*^»»f, ihiit tiiSTt. Aa no j&$rii its t^ii^. o wst^f ttoi-'. V.^ 
criso of p^tit lare'i'iy wa« auffi^i-s^ritly o'i^rs^i in th* or- 

ifjinal inidtM's.t j'n , fec't\4*« it -i^ not f.^o<i>=ij%?y to fil^ t)*^? 
8.r3?jn'i««d in forrasit i'3r5, ?».?TtherKi>re# t>iSfi point v».& not rsii««4 
In tho tTi«il i>».3o29 ?vn.J ti'<e/«f vr-s It c oc-iia t co l»»t»i;, l 

pltilntni; ■flivn'3ti«t* ^hi't?* rilkif, on ??,. s>tr-it«t. cg;T -"^.t 5ljtU -^nji 
?.t'it^ '.ytr^iQt^, in th« City al* Ch lo-ii^o, urt S^rtwabar U^ .1914, 

d©f'?fta?ini iuajp off t:n« c-"r; li^j! tj?*sAi'?i thi? oaf t tv iJtv^- 
ti.i' a cor* aa rae'ai^il'"^, -iTi-i r^n rj^Qk in tJu'J iiri?atlOf. t;5« .5'jf«M~ 

hifii 'vfith th© poci-fttVook in hi» h^nlj* th«.t h«p e*aV>o«tt his; 
fi.n--i aei-i, •Giv« >»gp h«5r-T,« &n<J that -l^fsjnd^aBt hsiri^a /^a^ his* 
i,>v>ci5«tbcni;; th.\t ac too.K hoXd oST S^ .f ku-j.!*,**: t. =%nii in?^.uir«i.i for 
an o£f.i««r, i/h*s''j ens 3 .r.^nafe i?toc*^'5A «r *fji2 «Jali, **.^5t s»«! 
h«iY^* hifts,* '#i-»r«3U|.-©r> Xurii* tar':v><l d4-fe-n4"ant o-Z'-Jr to 9urj,?.*ja<^, 
vno, tt^e gvid^rst;^ sh;;<9a, y^iTee -.n^sj-i ?<lp*i'sl? to bs a>^ i/fi'ie©rj 
th.'st »i police o?fio«:if tY.ti'.i aiffiv-fx-i on tn^ sar^r--*., to ■^i<m ^unt» 
T'iiattt-i tho incii'jfjij tiv*t h*s tovk aefoftiia^it Ir.t* O'-^tai/, 
and t»h->n h<% fcuni th?.t lurg/jiif* h ^d ?f!X'r<si3<r?nt«^-i hi^tasK ti «>« 
&n feff iaof &RJ if3 t'atft ^^^ not* «>.rf<>atO'it ;'.Sra ftlaoj thfit -^uf- 

of ijfii aXt^f^t, ?.ni 'jt the; ? kac in i-sei^ti or^ , ■»'-'K»4 5»n aiiu *''-sy to 
i>rtocuTe tn9:itr'B tick-sv-j that ht» s?i« iircSis In-^ th«f sirftwtj 
t.'iSt j\>it *a h« r«?iaoIi»&a th^ asi^idl*^ of th'i i^-tr-.ttt , he atogpj-i 

j-rMbti-i >^l2.j tVtt^t th* *^>xA>^t f'-illo'^ anm rurT.ln,f gv?;-? * tha 
&% folio* trtit -n'JHAJ Sits?! ii^-iC *J'y^ V'fi fiv-ratT* (^h^rij-fsSi})! ani y «tr»>aS-^« follcf:*id, m\d ttu%t k^u *iil he kfi««j th-it h.^ 
"^a*» net riiiitiH Of^ ^f,.^ osv? t?.';t io,-. On orcj^s v-^-s-in. if.?At icn Ua 

ajtn aviMaXn^ tho *?tr"<st on 'a runj t'l-rt "Ji^:* r^jfi rtjht mv %o 
thio youn^ f?;l lo^ h*ro* (d^f*sniint) : tl-i'^.t "it S'^^sa-ed like «» 
if ho «{&» stooping, down, ^uid h«v (Kuf/E^) juB2if/?sd T%^.t on hia 
'*>?iOk '\n-l he fcnock«<i him^ ;io^«-n, asii thien four or fiTrci aolornd 

ni^oi this young Sis>ll<r-4 (J.t5f^?ndu.nt) &.« ;j«4na[, .«i '^'jy tM^t I 

TERttsrT" an-i dsf^nd^nt r-spli<3i, "I aori't imo-v, this f^ilo* 

AfS!^ aofyljT try in.' to fiiii out ?fnat 'n aa tis^Pe'^a-il; that finrully 
d'Sfs^-isURt iiftii, »W'SaI, it U all rif'/^vt,* >;ma t^at a^sf:^na='*nt 

3argeii.> riltjo Jenitii h^y i^<! f*>pr«i**ato-i that '^i^e ^a^ a p^sllo* 
C'fiicor. V^ 

1!hil<s tVior.':.' i^ E. !4,ri0 aoriniat in Ihf; *jv l.i«':eij , y<>t 

t\i r%:it t o cctna tier ^il fbr. f*.jta '*«.i o li»ou.«3t-3.riCo3 , i>i 
cor.ncation -vith thg c ••?»*;, Hi? -^a^a fitting m court ».n-2 Jary, 
X*-. V.Ki 'I'oa-'jfice of 'srrcH of I?,*, ihi» aourt n.?js t^ a rt^\i to 
set -^i^ ia*) tha flndip/^ of s <jcurt, Xi^ih-jK.-s frosj a c VTi^;r^it Ion 
of all tht) nvi-iiinCQ, it oJ^'srl/ a^po^rB th-'-,t th«r« i^i a rsn- 
» enfiol "i ^ioubt vf -Wrcr..i*nt ' a .iUiit, 

Biy thit cAaf^idrsi'it 'ii4 nai ht?.¥«2 % S"-&ir tfiil an.-i th^nt th® 
flndirv:; of tho « v-uri ifi n <4 j.i^tifiai \>y th^ <^viie'Co. AcHsar-i- 
ini'ly, the jxidi^.njs.^t of tli'? JS\inicir^*-s- Court :jf Qiioas^o ^il' ue 

a. f firm-ad. 


dOm R/LSf^EffJ, 



K?T?OP T'" 


autei by tUt-niffe to ^rvQT (ieUrd^nU r>elo,p) to r^y^ra^ . 
jucigEftnt «f.t*jr?.a iP fH?,i>r of i^f^Mvmt in cttct (pUlntlfi^ 

a®aiiM»lr a»i>ndant3 sni or^- FMierlcii 'Ir^j.' Plain t,i:!f»4 ..t«.te- 

■ -^ -■ -^'-^-lifr*^ cute: . . -..a^-i^Iu fur- 

• -^^ "• '- .., nusoi*, 

... ■>$->:, ,1314, ^v^.Jes. 

; I'^intiff «5u4si to o« a*^rv64 tJ-* 

notice h^a *>c^i^ d^T»«j<i arosi h Ik a» sot tv:Tth In %\n ^t^xtnn^.r.X 

ifi -^aestlor,, *«a Aj-rtTie? sAJog^dl that *U^i Tff«ronc-*. to tn© 
1 /.or ana «5t©r iHU *^d for, tl^^ 6»», ,5* th^ «v.fe*^ct ^:att«r 
' ^. contract >^lch h^ Tis-i 'vrter^ri into « un en, Kr^jd^ric* 

Ers, 4^?: : . ' ..: not kn«» of plUntiff*., ^fer h^vinir 
S^nUh^-i ^^^ i^^r and s«terHi« m^ ti^e r^*Ki^feu in -u^^tiofs; 


erick ??r>,, ^.ti ^ c -tctaif , dani^-t t>itt >^»& «*«? for ni-jr^eif .as a 

entered into an agreement 
conf^tttor. sith ;a!&ir;tiff fo f^rra^h labor and sz^t^rifaiu Icr 

^he o;srp«^nt'sr r«pfc.lra a??i ^Iter^tiqae t»©tfefi> building in 

^u^etien, saii furt'i^r aij>fti*<a that h^ ha,i a ocetr^ict fcap a;%i.l 

roT^iTte tc-ssaid buiiJins ?ritv th<^ o-^iers th>?feor, 

*£ to ':iei's5r-i?J-nt fpb, ant tn^t th.i a<«irt, lryl»»|» th« ©««?« 
without «i ^ury, rcwn4 th« i»stt9a« af^%4rt3t ddfatid&nta HcUisa 

s^4i He-finuiJtjy, ana «-^sf>iJ&«4 plat»i!t if r*6 i^'is^,^ in %h*t «««; 
of ^i:*^,iiSJ, for -^ich araeunt Ju^i-f js^-itnt ♦a^ ff,^^t«r^^ji, 

"" — \ 
cif t>i« amttt i 

Defondaste, in ur^ilb^g a rf»y-i:r.*al of this jii^i^sior.t , 
i;r&eft';?d wi-'on t?ig th^e i*y that pj^itntif f» s actio", wm l>r<?u,.'.>tt 
uj-ile-? ^ectian i-? of o^jr lieohanias** I.- icsr. 4c t, C , 8^, Hur4»«i 
n, £, of li)inoi6 Cor IQll, fh^f iimUn4 tJir^t ;-. r«3Cov<?r*y -^y 

M,inal cor; trie tor arri tlia jxivlgjsefit au^t s»o «, ^ :4nt twie, ^xni 
furtusrc-ort , th'^re :iau«it be & rropor i*5i:-iay notice 6»>rv*»ci 
u'-on tlie (M-n^fd; th*t th<*?re w^rs no flndinf*,i» of tho c o^itt 
r.cT reoiials in the ^u%m«sit, of t^^io fj^ists r«qulT«d[ by =?ay 
ii<t:itute, vis,, Xh'it ttse Q'^jt? -^^us l5id*i^j»t«4 to ths. c«r'.tra«tor , 
arxd tr.9 -JLat-t froai <?$il«3h »al^^ li^sn 5tt,'^ch»3<l; th^t in th-» %y-. 
«<an06 of =:s'.jo.h fin-iin:?« cr r«?oit^ai>, (■) th»i cc?urt r>rrf»a in 
ont'^rin^ «ai<i jw,i?.iaent> «in4 (-) ?*%i.i Ju4r.PiSnt U fvii, 

T»l*intiff c ont^ that yrui^r it^ 4»tstB;j»6r,t <»f 

Qur ji^icrxftnioft* Lien kct , supra , if th?t miMnec &ha-md that 

Fr'7d<?ri-^;i: "rc», ah & oortr^^oxor, cr.krf^-i t>-K> l%o3r and s;a- 

to rials uxKjij, for, cr -rvi^ii^^t the Ji^^jrw ^iene , if t^i** .&vii«inc^. 

by tha *aLl er\> m tJs« ag'S'*'* <5t' reliT^s^fentativo of th« ci(tri«^r«t, 
BclAftd; .ii'.fj Hj3Jiii0*i sy.Vi fi'wyliru' c>r J^laisit iff'si ^t./.tOi^i's^'it wt' . 
Cl^iu. 62i6*« that plaintiff is correct in tiiis contention. 

oc«itr&ot with pl^Jfttiff for th^ I&Ijct an4 siateriala in -luee- 

ti*, a«di in fwfth»?r 4*nyljifi tfe;it h«r had ^ dasttr^i^t #iih 
tJa-s o?Ki€!r»fl of th« pr*isti9«* iafttmish ^aid labor .'1,^4 saa.t'^jr- 

tli« rigiit to r»<i<3tr©r ^*isis4 %ll th^ ^f'^&dt.Mti» unaox lis© 

It ffiUiiit tKj p.e«^5ui2e4 that svid>3?.<3§ *.%3 submitted %n 
til*? e?*t5* to 4*'t<sriMlii% t'?is,t i^^ivi':^ <%» »*►).! »e any cth<jr ii!i^->^» 
py««i^jr»t«>..l ^y ih^ «t&t«:i»tit ef ejai® uin-i th« *«.ricti« &fi'3ds'.- 
V it« uf jEisritsi,, - Tfts •»vl'l«»<S9 yporj yhi^h the trial «ourt 
^aa^d its j»4iif;js(ir.t wttB not p?«fe«rvs4 by ail) ef «x6»i-t Jonsu, 
st^tgssaat of r<>i<3te or at^ncfrajaiie T«i.'<^Tt, &« pyavi-aeii f^* 
In tjur Suaic ijp^l Court 4vt . 'f^ r.A*it, teer«jfo?«, pr^^usas, in 
tli« ft^«rKS« l^i«Te5.f, thnt tH-e ^vii«r;:«« off^-ptj-l v*.»sj6 e-f &affi- 
ot^At pfC^«,tiye ft?rB« to )5:i*t^ii^ t)\*/ a^^rt iii^ ftK^Jtrig th» 
i^auoe toy th^ plaint iff r^n^ in sntetinij jui<r,i@?-nt t?i<!}ri:-i^. 

Ifi^ lU, 457; BlHJy y. ^^, ).03 11.1. 61 f>. 

It mtst fe» furtrniT pr«3iSu!a^a, ;iy thife <;;ot^rt, thfst 
in th® ssba«n«« of »r,ftM»\j5 Sr< in<^' :r«o ct-i 4:?'-I«^3.rif!s 4-f,riirei»-- 
tiy«i>.- to tb-s «<fitr&.ry, that tho c-Ais-t c^r^s^JtV/ applied f"** 
law tcth* tH0%& off^yed in 6-« i-i^r.^..^, 

?c^ t*-'.« rft^^^a- h^'r<»in->*;\»0!r* a*!S%R^il# tJi© Judg^nt 
©f tlJ« Mt«»i«ipal €©wrt of Chi<s«^e will bt/ %tiive^,ii. 

.aoiiaaiaoo aiiii «i iositoa ai 'iliSni.BXq, Snai - -^«» .u.^io 

dU*' i^tfmo * IMB 



and MB AAainistratrix of 
Sstiite of AlRAHAIi riTIRFT'O 


.Lv.(24L ma.fc 10, 75, 

■11««, ) APPSIAL yRCM 

98I.A, 94 

THuua a':i>Di»{o. :!aj<jXH bay. 

B. A, SOHfjCi^, aaa i»At!L 


trix of tv.e estat* of Abraha^a Stief#l. d'c««»«d. a^jAinet 
^ the Amalgaisatod nh©«t y«tal 1irorkc3Mi» I^cal Union Ho. 73, 
Iiit«rmUonAl Al.l&nc*. and Thorn* Heddlng. v^jgar Kay, 
B, A, Kchooley, amJ Paul Chriatraan^ \itfitn4mntm Turtai, . 
f^r^-tnTr--rF*rotftxr jnw^rmtm«<^-^ ^ 

^^Oi* t<»w»~«^H«jyH3h ^ttm»l«ira*nt olalata she wa» ^ntUXed 
-40 recorrsr a ««rtaln death benefit or in»ttranc« fund, as 
.a-reawlt of th*^ death of Ih^ ti^ycedont, her hualiand. 

ita. PirJUDIHa JIJSTI.JE pais doliTer«u the t>pinioTi of the 

The bill ©r ooyiplaint alleged th«t th« said 
Abraiia« iiii«f«l waa. at tiie tiiaa of hi a aoath, a meraber 
In ^od «t/mding, of the suld Aaalgamted Shest a«Ul 
Worker*' Loaai union 3fo. ?3, Int«rnational Allianoa; 
that upon Hi» d«ath oowplainant was ^ntitl«d to th« d«ath 
benefit, puraunnt to th« by-lawa of th^ said union, which 

e i) 

^Q .A.I 8 



V-Jlair* wwro eftt forth in th© bill, Th« bill further 

«ll&ged thai aaid death ben<»fit <3oa«i0t«<al. of a miaa of 
money jsstd© up by tiic ssRttftaaQnt of one <St>llar uf>on «moh 
nwaboar of ifaid unif»n, a^id &»8e!s«mftnt to b«? levied and 
aolloctr^d, and paid to th«t oonplAinant} tliat nald B» A* 
CahcoXfliy, on© of ih« offim^rn of »aid unAon* rftfueed to 
porform hlo duty to o<>liflot aaid a»««?»em<»r'jtj thnt Thewae 
Redding, Kd^r Rtiy, 3, A, Soh<»rl«y and Paul OKristimn 
vas'-r? the duly qualified iftfi4 authorized offioora w)io were 
ohars-d with Uir> adminiistrntion of th-'v affairs of th*?" 
»ait' uxiion, and t)i«' aollRotion and dii^burees'-^nt o; itis 
fujads; iimt ©aid of fi core refuni'd »mi n«gl<i»«ti^d to p«jr» 
form th«ir duty and \>ff*ro oe-nfedwrRting to injur* land 
d « fraud co jnp I a .1 asi :-jt • 

' To tiUts biil, anBw«r« were filed by th® AiMilfHWi* 
atod iihe«t M«t».l Worker*' Looal Union Kg, 73, ami by tb«j 
«eY«rttl indiYidual d«*f«»»dftnt», puttirig in iasia© the allegft- 
tlons in th© bill cf auraplaint* 

Upon 3A }warJ.n(5 on ■aat-.i bill and aii«wera, the chan» 

o«llor found tho iossuaa for tii-: oora,pXsUjiaat and entered a 

"That tiu'^ ti«:r€»rnj.L^nt, AJBalgataated .^h6>ttt 
Stettil Workers* Unlun, uocal Ho. 73, Internaticmil. 
Alliance, pay to th^ oosaplainant, thf? ©uj-a of 
^1331»v0 witiiin t«n day« frotu the «xitry of thia 
dOQr««, and that tii«? otix'?jf defendants, Thomao 
Haddins, Mgar Eay, B. A. 3<;hool<ty nnd Paul Cbriet- 
nan, offic«7ro of the ©alii def«>mUint aorpcjrsjtion, 
eaua« saiU »uu Of $1,1531. (0 to b*? paid by eaid 
defondant Union within ten dsiya, in default tlr reof 
thf^ aoiiiJlslRR-nt h'jB th-> r.ifrht to Apoly to thi© 
oourt hcr«j&ft«r for all nftoetssary orders to enforce 
tmd obtain t>i« r^s;* iof ^fr-int-"! "Ijy tJtir. d<^or«o, huiI 
thii3 court retain© jurisdiction of thltt cmoa for 
aaid puri>* »»♦♦• 

ii.t>jli» K . ' ' ', " ,:.-•■ ■ ■ ■ :■•' ■ - - ■ 

•A •£ lbiiA« 

bus <!» ;* 3nril,*«i»i>»'l".: - -:,-'» 

A ittfittinw fcftjBt ttmnXMl , ■■j't. toXX<?c 




In eaici cip^orao thf r wna inGorp««it«4 tli« 
»r«yer for »n appeal, whloh wan in tlift f oiicrine laru-Tuage: 

"AriKl tiie dRf«nci«*.nt» by t.h«?ir solioitopo 
(Jul:/ cxo0;)t the entry of paid cieoi-.s«, ana 
*5*^.f^' APP«ai fnor^rrom to t>*c Appellate 'lourt 
of niinoie, Fir«t aiutriot. wJUoh In allo¥;»d 
»f' " ti^- <^ot-ncnnt£ filing « >,ond in the eua of 
jixtmen hundr-u t^ U> b<» appro v^>d within 
fo.ct.y aayK l.y t/.' court, and t;>« iiliffsna^ -its 
*ff V*''*'" ^**''''*' ^'' ^^^« * oertlficate o/"7vid.-n j^ 

ThiB Ifi a Motion n bej^xalf of the oomplninant 
to di»«a». U)e appeal for failure on the part of app^llaato 
to comply with tf;o ^Tm:^fiT and orarr of appeal. 

The rftoord p.ho«o thnl thi- appeal v?aa yrfiy«»fi for 
by ttil dafen<lantfi and tms allowod for &11 of Uma, The 
^T&^^v for the appp&l Tfa« Joint and not Bevcr&l. ?he 
docreo allowinfe' thp apical required a bond to be filed 
by all %• dofendante. Th^ record vhows that the ftppeal 
bond was eigned by only three of tho five dcfendantej 
defonci^Bte tiay una Chpletmiin not l.nving joined thr-reln. 

Th»> »uthorltl«»e in cur tate uniformly hold th^t 
/-the ri4;ht of appeal 1b purely a statutory on« encj can be 
; ftTftiled of only when allowed by court, «.mi ;uBt Uttn be m 
( oonforaaty with the i^x^^-^t for the_appeftl and the ordor of 

1^yU\,^lX W^^pn Jjt. iMjjgon^, et a^., 189 iU. 47C; 
laiLtiASft ii. £aii2£i. ^C7 ill , p^i Tedri^k for uee.T. i^ells. 
I6S' III. 214j Lingle v\ Cit/ of Chicago . 810 111. 600 

Thr rf corii bkowc th»t. while thp ap;>ftal was en-mtr^d 
to all the detendante. it wu perfected by only threo of 
theau Thie ia not in ooaplianoe with thw prayer or order 
of apie&l, and th refore tho r:u)tion to dlBmiee the appeal 
rauBt be allowed. 3 

i)»Xi!k •¥ o;f fen ©if f rx» »%i09b 

Ir- ■- ■• - - — .,,„ . ,,,„ ,. «rtr • ;- XJ^ 

;o?^ .ill eex » . ai2 

OOa .III OIS . oaxsoirfO 1o YJiD _jjr elani d ^M -X 

to ni*\i: • bmt9n\%»% » il'u Oi 

Xa9'.,qjs atU »«» •■•>• '-♦ '•• ■» ,i.„A.Qjj lo 

£a ad iniuB 

In oountf*r ewcg<»RticB!3 to the app«ll«fo*» 
m»tion Xi> dismiss the ^;,>«!al, oouncvX oontond t>tat the 
ftnl/ r«al def i^n«*).at was Xno Am»l<;siin»ted rih#<*t Vetal 
Worknm* Loeftl tin ion ?fo. 73, If tbn' it* tr«<*, why did 
ThosBft* K«klclj.r'g »nd 1:-. A. Schocley.^loin in the anp«al »n<l 
in Xhm «pp<*ftX l»ond? jlorooT«r, tti« bill mmAti >K)th Chrlstoaa 
and ]R«ty drf»na«ntB, P.nU iaad« certain aharf/'B aciainet th«a# 
th»fi« «hArgf» yn*.r<t m»% lay «»«wfr« en 'behi&lf of onid 
dof«Bd/?nt«. Th#» d«cr©f» ©rd r«d aJll individu*! dpfenirant», 
Ineludins 'vhrii»tM«n »nd Hny, (vho did not join In the a>pp«ail} 
to perform Of^rt^^in actis. The ^j^rn^ynr of thf* appeal o.hioi»fid 
th«t ail d<*ir«}R<;.i?.ntii folt thrma*"!"?®!? arf^rieved, and '?o.n»ii«» 
qw^ntXy th?*/ all joined In tJ^to prayer for the appesd* 

If there ■arcrnj any finding;* in ih*! ceoroe which 
Affected one av eeparntc froKi tho oih^^re, whrreljy th« 
yiurti^s did n«t with to proeeoute the v%ppe«l Jointly* It 
«ae th ir pri'fiiege at fn-- liiwi*5> the decrfi-e -mi* *:'ntr.r'5'«j , lo 
/pray neparate app'^als. Thi« th«^y fallf'd tt? do, nnc the 
aere fact that eojn«el augf,f*et that no r'u1»0!tnntlal right* 
of the taia defendant*, Chriotaan en'i Ray, werr affected 
toy tivis dccr««, carjuot b<? uirged .'fcf;aii»stt the plain proTiuion 
•f ViS XftW, that honring prayed on apj»»«a jointly, it nuiet 
\>c perfected jointly. 


nriS lAx{i baf*inot I«Qn;iioo ^i»9q^n ) 

iKiJslafiD liiotf ftDMi iXitf «d^ ,««T<»i»'vfm fto^ XAfto.^ii vif^ .1 

•ar!>f(^ ;^«ni3»nyt •'^rcotto nl«Hs»! ,ii#««/tm»*J9l» v^ *"« 

'">(^4^' '■<iJ ai nlot ^eo bib a..... ,^,,.- :-:--■ 'm^ : .-.f f-i^d 

• Irt»'tCTJ! flui<#''i«1: Y^'fA'sii '^►n-T srs to»; nj x-l^wwp 

it tti^Biol I»-- >q 

0J , Iv^'i^j^fl'S i8nv « ., j^iw 

^rt* bftw ,0b <»J fc^ff^* ^» V^^ 

">iaJ:TO'iq ttljnXcf ?il.* 1 .a 

.(ir 1 ai ■ 

169 - 20483 

* I ) 

-cfenflaj|C Irs rpctr, ) vmm^ TO 


m. JUcnCHWnrtK dollvorod th© cmlnlon cf the eourt* 

\'?1se dtffwl^nt iT) error, hor€'.lmner rof©rrt5^3 to 
A9 plaintiff ,,/r«ooV|-r©d a .l^^.^^x^t ar:/-!!!?;^ th© tjlaltttlf f - |n 
0rror >^:\r;'lt^(.fter i*cforr^(l tc.\us -J^ffendRik, Iter "f^i-^J 
^'T'nr-^}^; ?mdc:mc It a-^oared ^t the ^■ — --' - ■ ^"'r/"" 

^"^ and the Grphour- Lontal '.arlcrs. "c CT?iie<I on« tiharo f;^ stocv 
^ - ©aeh ccrporatlen. Plaintiff cff?>rM In evidence a n^ te 

"^ Of -T. I. rorahtte ft>r ^846,9js, djtod -©ptember lo» i-j.f». pay^ 

^' abl« three ©enthe after date to tho fyvC^xav rf th© yls-irstlff , 

trfth int^ro t at six per cent, ror ftmuj-, txA alo^ the frl- 
"'^wlng dootsaent: 


r^itsl<*r -^OEs^any. 
chloa^, 111. 



Iiereby ai^tl-iorlzod te Inaot^ sdNrar- 

■■'■ot lr> £my 
' ..^r ."fi — - v ■■f—o tr* be re- 
■>"c»m-j3 r^er*ect fully,, 

.wTthe foil 

TTnci^maath this ai^eadr the following, notation 

iiriee due on aocoimt t* 

or otaa 
■■^11 -are 
" > :1- 

^'-^'^ c^^m:.^^.^^^ 

K8I-0S - eai 

""b.© -leferKlftrst teiatlfisa tfeat this* w&tatloti ~mn In hi© ©■^'ju 
hai*?i^!tlng, arrl TRole TS/- hlia at th« tltK:> the ttOt© i*frf©n»eMS 
t^ 'mm clpid and flellversd. 


fe© rrlnolplo upon ^saiSo- dl<|fendia«it ee^k© to 
revors© tJil.e ^u^^-r^mit Is t^^At this nctatiorj at tlh© bott«i 
of tlj© advert i.»ir;:p otmtr'vot* if binding at alif lo t3<j 
Bsoy® tlmn a co-t^-liaf^cifit *naa«atity of th^ i*ot®» '© eaim^^t 
u-"&.ir<»0 -Itli tlii© vi©w. T;i7 tbe oontr«i6t tbe a^feMn^t, 's'^tl^ 
'"•oiialmie* orderM tJ'^e iicsMrtl©?^ of tli® af^vert i»t»gi ais^ 
agreed to b© resftOKiisibl © for It, and ©or!«ie<?u©«tl^ im© 
i^-rtmrlly llabl© tc the ©xteist of th© &r.i?yT?.t cr€o'r--'f% 
na- ely* -yso^rK). '■'h«??. the «1ftf':^irw^a.rtt, by "writing the; wo* 
titlon at the foci pf the- contratjt, R:'.ya» *'fel0 applies 
t*.-- «ot® of .'!» T . r'Or-a?iuo , •* ©to*, h& save QirpresBly timt 
h?r &0m9B to 1>e ■ respr'UBlblo for thsit nfto; '»h®r: he eay®, 
•"^;ils:«K in pa^poct of tj&lajjoo flti© on «^e/^■;■.|lt tf dat^,* 
-'« eaye ncthinjj; loon than that tSi*? Oidvartlsitig: Imd T:f.'«« 
5Puri5i«he<^ an :i nart <-f ih© m,r:Q aoeoutst, which it apt^eaip® , 
h^ "bi&ors'ocotrr^t€ia for by 5erf©n;lar»t ai^ ■"oiaahu© ,1©ititly. 
This £5c«t'Ba©Kt is, ir,. ©m- vlc'w, a tUr©ot SMftis-lftBlors that 
\tpon d;<&f©nf1ant*f?. on'. or ¥?;ri hM Men pcirfc3?«©<i hy tMi 
pl&i^'tlff to' tb© aj»u*:t of ?'S4a*'''S^, tor f^'eh h0 ^m© 
r®«s|j«sn«ibS.<i • "■Imt >>0lR^ ^n aoooinst stated # plaintiff ?ras! 
©istitX©^ te interact* ayf4 thi® slv'itiij c'- a, n«* e ^'f on^ 
,io1r»tly liabi© wcftL'U wet oo!T»tlt«te a p&ys^wt (^ th© 
obligation ut^lss© t-o not© itsaif wasj pain?* '■'eri&oire'r, 
;f,r ft TTOr:? adUaltteil that def^ntlar^t was wot liable on the 
ffounfl tlmt be ^ao one of tb® parfcictJ contracting; -fop tb^? 
.ulvfjritelngj it Ic cl'^ar th';.t be vmt- ar a%»oltit@ lasiapanter 
■•■:*■' tbe n^i© in ovlf5<ms •■■■.. J:'--;'' baa said In worAe that bl® 
ccntrfflist t' b© rocT'ORiilblo for Uj© advortl^lng aoco^jst 
appllso (anS ^e enjct a^ffyf*® It aprriift.« .vitli ©"ua! fare©) 
t- tt® note given In pa^^aent of t^ br»lance dije on tbe 




casKj oocount* ■■© do not so© hew lanpsx.i??© ooiiH bo w£>#d 
whloh t»wl<3. s,'XiiireK^© mcr© ol®^--rly sot IrstoRtlru t© he 
6tec3.ut«Xy r&etwBoibls for the payment of the r^t©. 
D0f?3iTa-imt*<J cofctOTtion tJtot thJa lar^jpa-^ "riwBt "he eon- . 
0trtiod sso&t utront^l^' in favor cf the guarantor,* 1.s «on- 
tmry to thti msllTig of otir r:-Uprcj5« Oourt in r^i ^i <^r v. 
Dgj^e^ng, 2(H 111. ^01% ?rlmr<? it is said at p. '^ast 
•?h8 o«mtract of inxarawtv shoultl be ocBstrued as favorably 
to t&0 <:i?©dlt<^ «i» othnr written oontraetsi!*'* It tli^efoi™* 
follcws titat »B the not© ^sR^r, not pkiA, rla?ntlff ^ic eis- 
tltl«€l %^ Jwapsseni a-ninct th© asf»T3dan.t i?!thout aJis)''?!*!© 
any att^sipt to ftjfor^e payEtent a-alnr-t tl^ i3alf*ar of t'-« 
iiot«' J« tills v*©w of tho imtter it will not !k^ noeereary 
t^-^ oonalder tb© rul5ng» of the coitrt wit- r®f©r©«eo to 
the adjalOBloB awdl ©.^cluei'^n of ©vid.^no©, a® that ovl^s?ico 
bad only to do with tho ^it^stlORr. cf iTrisiclV'-^noy aM tllllgonoo 
The ^mrymmt of the ?:nm!.elpal ''^o'.jrt will be sifflnnoa. 

,ai^t i 

274 - 20601 


Defendant in 


Plaintiff/in Krror, 




193 I.A. 100 

mi. JUSTICE GOODWIK delirered. the cpiniov, of the court: 

This writ of error was sued out to rpverse a 
judgmsnt a^vainet the plaintiff in error, hereinafter 
referred to as defendant, in favor of the defendant in 
error, herf^inafter referred to as plaiiitiff, for twenty- 
seTPn dcaye' v/egec ac a carijcntor in the polion dopartraent. 
liifi trial was uefore the court v/ithout a jury, and the 
evidftncG wrs preserved by a stenograpliio report of the 
trial. Plaintiff contends th^t ae th .re '.Yas no statement 
Of any judgnont incorp; rated in the steriograpiiic report, 
the judgment muEt he affirmed. Cur ilupreme Court, however, 
in li'iller v. Anderson , 269 111. 608, has held that unaer 
the amendment enacted in 1911 to section 81 of the Practice 
Act, it is not necessary to preserve an exception to the 
judgment, nor is it necessary to r- cite the judgKent in 
the Btenographic report or bilT of exceptions. <3iiJpcn tne 
""^^^^ trial it appeared thit of the 27 days for which plnintiff 
recov^redjp 10 days ncn) in May, 1913, while he was absent, 
J C^ as he claimed, en a "dc-ble header" vacation of 21 days, 
<cv>^ and 17 made up the period in '^^cvember, 1913, durinti which he 

\t- Y^ was suspended frn-i duty pendinij; lnv'?ctit;Ji-tion of charges. 

"^ H. It Rubecquently wppesred fro^-i hi& own testimony that the 

XOdCS ~ fkVS 

OX aomm. ( 

( ,io'''ipi ftl J-njb.xifiolee 

giasavJAV .a Aarwo 



jB 9ai5)Vft"i oJ- i'uo bejU'i aaw toTxe> lo .fiiw HiiiV 
,^n3i?i^ifiq>l> 'voiXoq »iU rti x^Sti&qtiio « 3» t(«»sj»w 'BACijJb nf^vfia 

jiioasi oii!q«'X30ri»;ra nrf^ ni £)9^ai.>qioo«i j-noiaabwt ^nxs "to 

•xoijni/ i^jcjrid- i>I?*ii aari ,80d .X.Cl 9dS . non-xe^hn^. j^l laXJiju nl 

90iJ-oaiS[ 9iii lo 18 nux^r/©ii u:^ XI(?X «i i)9;»oan'.> ^^nnattonedia arfJ' 

etii ns noiJqeox© n* 9vi»a^iq oi -^laaaoo^n ; ou aX li «J"oA 

9iii noqU#c> ,artoxJi9t)X» lo lid to iioq^-i^^onsis axlJ 


Tli:lni;jXq liohiM 10^ tx^fc VR 9ri.t '\o cTyrfi J3»i*59q<xA 1 1 £«Xal 
(^fnoacfa siw Sii sXirlw ^Cl<Sl t^r'H nl stoir a>ix>l> OX ^«if»yoo»rK 

,a\;.aJb XS: to aoliBtisiV "taX-nftH '.tIcf;.ol)* jb no , bJ?mi«Xo ^-jf 8« cr. 

=rf r<.uti{vi i,,aX"XJji) ,5XCX , 'xscfaiVToS^ nX ftoXioq sxlJ Q[>j ebaJB VX fan* ^■ 

,u9^iaAo lo n(JxiJij]Xj^-3«>TftX B"-t*>«<'*l M*wl) rjoil i»9Jb«nq9ua aaw ^ 

. odJ J,«Brf^ \;nomxJaf>* nwo aXil coil Zj**iM'>qq>! \,X.tA».t'p»stfu?5 JI --' 

charges were sustained and he was dismissed froi the 
City's employ, 

From a» oJ-dinance in force January 15, 1912, 

it appearl'-'^hat skilled laborers who had been in the 

service at least a year were entitled to a vacation of 

eleven working days .-<. (Plaintiff claimed that he was \ 

-^^^trtitled to ana had been allowed a "double vacation" * 
1 i 

/ in May on account of his failure to a vacation iL.. 

^l^^ring the previous year^ but the ordinance in evidence 

^''specifically provided that "All persons eligible 


for leave of absence with full pay, as hereinbefore 
provided, shall be entitled to such leave of absence 
during any f local year, and in no case shall these / 
periods be cumulative."/ Plaintiff was allowed, and received 
full compensation for, eleven days' vacation in May,-s ajajL 
] ,^ ii»d^*^jptjj^ erdinanoe-^^^^^ to anything n*re, 

[ ABd no authority i« Shown in any officer to grant him the 

,!^ "double-headet" vacation claimed^/but, on the contrary, 
the ordinance itself expressly forbids the allowance of 
Tany such cumulative vacation. 

Under Chi c age jj^. People ^ .fix rftl aray, 210 111.84, 
a civil service employe of a raunicipality 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 
Bhov/s that the claim of plaintiff was entirely without basis 
in law. The judgment of the unicipal Court must, th^-refore, 
be reversed. 


,SieX , ax xtjtsjc,i?:T» ©c-xo^t ni scnaniMo urn i.:oi'l 

9(1^ nx need" h^d or(w a'xsiooci r!9lli>ta J-sr^J' sissqqjs tl 

to ««v £ oj bslcfij-fte 9if»w ia9\ a ia^si &b ©oJcvtss 

; a«w sxi ^iSA'J- t>=tasijRlp llLtniall ■■",«\;jbJI> ^sniJiiow nsvsis 

"noiJ-jBoav ©Idxrori" a boyralls n^ecf bjBxi crtjs ot bsliliOB^^ 

;. . ij-^oisv A S2[J^c^ oS ©lAjIJl.ft'i si.i io ji-r.;.ooo» no >j«M ni \ 

I w^ESix v» ni sonjstniij'io arfj turf x"^**"^ ax/oxvaiq sri^ .anl^i/Jb^ 

\ •Icfxsxls anosTsq IIA" isd^ .fesfjxvotq xiljBoilxosqa^ jps 

' A 

9iotscfnJ:9t6ii asR ^x&q lisj'i .itiw eorrsacfi? lo ovaoL tol 

eoKsacfjR 'to 9VA»I lioisa oi t5>Id-iJ-.fre ecf Ilsrfa , J!>9i>J:v©*xq 

©saii* IlAiia ,tf««i> 'OA nx ut , xas-j, IsorxI v^ns anxixfij 

&c>vx*JOf-i trfs ,^)9woIIis ajsw'i ■^ •♦ .srxd-AXxrraio sd a-boxieq 

sxlcf mxrf tsuif^s oj i&oitlo -vJ-kb ni aworfa** ijd'xio. . .-iw». 

j-^T:-i:fi'ro'Ttoo anf rto. , c}'*fcr'--^i)»iKx^Io noxc-'sosv "TTfshB^^T'-sIcfjjoi)'' 
'io 9on£v/oIIi? srfj- a£>i:c<"T:o1- Y^sasigx© "iXsaJ-x soiaArtxb-xo adi 

.rroxd-AO-Ev avi^faXjjrmo xiox/a ^a 

.^8. XXI OXS .jjaijO^Jtsi 3S£. ^aJgo Q^ jjr OB^iiilliL '■c^^a^^ 

asTooai .+ onniiO \;^xiAqJ:oirtjjai ^ lo 9\;oXq£i9 scxv^tsa livxo a 

noxansgeus labrw asw exf rfoxdw aniixri) Jbox-saq a lot bssaw 

Xli9qo-iq xj&scf Bfijti arf Xitmr ^rxis aaoinx; i-s:}* cfea i)xb Jbnje 

Qd:- io"!!: i'TlAlo a • 'fixj-axjjXq Io HsaoqaxJb ai: r, .bs^i^J-artisi 

axsBcf ;^i./orfcJ^xw Y-Cf^ii^ns saw 11x;)'nxAXq to xhXjsXo ',fi J-isrfJ- 3w0ilB 
jG'iotsi irf^ ,;fajjflT cfij.'oO loqxoxni/' 9xid- lo JneciaJbut srfT .wssL nl 

.bfie'iBVB'i scf 

32 - S0#5i. 

\ v.. / \ 

j?B?.rR T€ 

. co«i>«rT. x^^^ ^,^ ,^^^_ j 9 3 I .A. 1 2 

'■n, JOr-Ticr: iifX>D^i»T dellv©r'.-a tfee <?p1»i1or of the court- 
■miB t!?rit cf error ic ivrc«^t by the rlalntiff Iti 

«rrcr, hor^'i mf *t«r r«:=ferr0c5 tc a© the def^nSant, ^^fainot 
th© ctofcJ^-.nt Ir- orrcp, hercitsafter referred tc ae tho 
pl-lntiffi to r^vorfiB r jud-iar^t for 5CC cbtal«<»f! w|5ob 
a ©hsolr drawn by tJvS' defend nt In favor cf th© 'r^sjin*- 
'rBroeltonridii^ Corpany» and br It endorsed to the plaintiff. 
In tin© '•imfoipal Court the 6of<L>n^.tmt f IX <■!•<? am affld^-vlt 
tf sRsrlte stating: that the ehc^lt -m.© prf>o«r©d froir th© 
def er.d t-st by th© payee hy fratad '■■—d cslerepree ntatlon? 
that pa^eot at tho tiw® the ehecJr -mkB riven, frai5dulotfjtly 
r«|sre»0nt®d to dorendaiit that it mie? the csmer of certain 
TTT^^deeory rjcte© %'• tl^o value- of ;'S,0OOt that ea'^l nctss 
sfOf.:ld b<!> paid at maturity I that ir^alsere of «fitd notefi ^iror«^ 
solvent ard would pay th© ©ajw 'sd^;®?! dw«j that «ald malrerss 
were. In faet, irjEjclvor.t and payee *^.«ew theis to be tawol* 
▼«nt and that th© notos w «ld not he paid-; t4feit d^jfsndant 
believed csald r©pr»s^''e«tatloTO5 .at^--^ i^av© t^ay©^ a ■■'heclr for 
fsoo? that all ctateerontf/ made vtere faloc, ard l^nown ^^y 
ray^© to he f&le© cM f ^iiadiilont » and rud© frr the purpo»© 
of chtAlnlrtg th© ©h<3ok for 5''0t that plaintiff ncsver mid 
»n>' valwo for tho ehe<;lr a.M w.s nrt an 3nnccont h-lcior? 
and that the ©hoclr wao d-^llvertd tf^ hJi» for th® pwrpcs© 
of isakin^ It eipptmir that h© iwae th© o'mt:»r and hrldor '^f 
ssaid ohccl frr value. 


or .A.I BQk 



Or, th© trial, ^5 ©3^ 'stob birfore tbe court -^ith- 
eut ft $aFf» a deposition of the riaii^tlff -^rne received 
In erMmme to tlje offset tluit ho hsiid hcwS br -cine 90 '!':ml* 
lr.0B with the paysMS of thti ©he-clE f«r a ?>©r1o4 r^t tw: year©? 
that Bor.o tlJttB between F(t5T€Kl^n!» 7, the date tt the ©T-cct;, 
Aiad 5''e.v©Ba*«r ?i?6, ife€< d;at<& It tm;-^ protest «<1, tte r^JoeivwS 
it to a -ply on an aoooimt of stK5ut '4,nrf pwirr Mc, /-nd 
tf^t ne part "^f that azsoimt Jme ever been raid? that b© 
d©pf sited It 1r the hmnil. , ways credited with lt» and after- 
tmrde It ira pr<"to6ted and returrw^d. 

"lae d9fmi&>mt iras e&l*!o<3 In hi© f«r> behalf* fiti<!. 
teJ3tiflc<5 thc.",t h© hadl a ceiwereatlon with the yr^sl.'^csrst 
ef tb.0 T>ay©« coflspatiy at thr tltn© h© el^vero^l the chcclr 
tc hits \CbJ©ct1on to this ccnvorsiatloa was etiotalr^ea . ^ 
7i» «t<ttn»©l offeror to f»rov©TtSt en the day the oheek"""" 

wae dattiNd. the preel-^ent of tha T'sy©© ocsarsany ?3t&t«^a t-** 
defendimt that lie would, m^t mbo th© ch©ct-r wjd®r any ©lr~ 
oiJKBtanoss ? thsxt plaintiff '>?a© n^t InSebte^ to th«i T?fvy«e 
at that tir^e and "that upor? ©aid rcpref'f^tatlov'^s that 
!-e wowld not UP9 tlw 9h<?c3?r rieanlBg th©y woialt'j ret put It 
In tl;e bajik for ©<-llo©tlon.* 'rtefon^lant pi's'© hlrt? thiS' oh©o^} 
that th© T.^ye« cfir-mny hs«2 cfferc'd for R;"lr ti' defonrlimt 
OR ©aid dates. rot©e. t' th© atrotirt f'if ^^?,f'OC:. that Ba?d 
ncteo 's^eiTO t^f I5-:- valu©t th^at the psyeo craro© ; trriue r.vor 
5-*©tOOC, Bind th^t tim pt^r-iatmt <^f th© Tmyee hnd th»^ nrt© 
In M© T*©©©-:; eclon a© lat© a© the ^th <?f "oveRber' ab1^<s 
frc«t the pro«"-f inede Ir rerar^ tc th© ':H«tar»ei? rf dlffer-rt 
towRB trorvi CbHov,^, this was all th© ovld©n©© cfforrd or 
r©o©lv^?d . 

rt l8 clear th&t vtptm th© ©vl^.miefl r©nolv<5d, 
rln.lrtlff -mil entHlfid to 5u<? ■-r.ent . ' h© qu^ntlcn then 
ar3»oc uptr 135® fl©f endant ' s? eont&nti<^n thit th* oeurt «>rr©<'! 
Ir ©xel'Jdlng <3Tl<a©iioe offer©d on bcshalf of the dofendgmt. 





^Jttt ljft» 



k ooinpariertt of tro affidavit of i!^«'ltorlouc clef ©Dee one! 
th^ »vl(5sno® offeree! wr^ ^ ciiKled, nho^^ n conn©«tlon 
b«fcw»«T5 the two It) his affi<l::vlt dofer^ar-t alloj^c that 
pajr** obtained tf>© cheol* ^y fraixftalently reprenentlwf, tl»t 
h© ^?a8 the cwn-'^ of cortaln procile;se5ry notoc cf a ©(jrt-aln 
•ral'-e- wlir> eclvent sjakfip©, araS ^-^eh wfj«!)^ be p'.lcl at 
sjattirity. '"h© isrorf off»rv<l ic opI^ that th© pay©© nal«Sl 
tJbet h€ would not i3e« tlif' chccfe imflcr anv clroittrastc-.ncos, 
jr«aniiig tficy wow:'-l r^ot |njt H In tbc ban'- ff^r ooll-otlon 
<a raatter «!n oi? le In n*" ^ray relied upon in the r^ff Id^vifit 
that payee hft4 offore<S for Oi^le tc the '^^ntSiant note- tc 
tbo acioont cf i9ffjiO<J, wtJl©h «ere c-f ne '/aLuot an*! d©fer»5ant 
at the tire r'f the trial wao not Inde^-t***-! tc tB<? pay©©. 
Thi© ^oee not in ^m^ ay saJire out the "ofens© r^-lte^ tjp<^n 

^ at, In fact, ar-y flefenst. Had this evldcnoe been roe^lv«4, 
t^ It wotjld otl 1 ? hev0 "been th« -uty of the- cotirt t^ ont©r 
^udgJaent- TImi offer • f t^cof -^ae rixde !•■ o«»«m«HJt3.'-n -Itfe 
t^* teet irony cf i!l©ferda!*?t, -ffh^, hlffieelf , cwor© to tbo 
aff !<!n,vlt of i?.©rlte %t^ tji^J.o'' it im.c- ©tr,t<^1 that the falB« 
aed fr»«diilGnt ro'^x^ecntatlons *©r^ imd© to hi®. -© did 
not E3ake the affidavit upm infcarc^tien and belief, but 
a» <-f hi® nm lrno^.7l©d^» yet, «*i©n >•« ic en thts stand and 

^ his eow»ol. r«fcO0 an cffer f f Tiroof , bo do*:^6 not c»ff©r to 

TT^37& f*aots or c'roiarsBtanooe st30ta!ninj» the de.ffniB* allseed. 

It le a woll a^ttlo-'^ rule '"f law tlmt -^-fcere th© -evidence- 
/ cause of action 

•stablieJ'^o jy'a&EDEKBcaB: , ',%n& ^-lafanflant r?akoo an offer of 

i proof ^fta^ch ie 0sc3u.1©d# the .lixlsofint will nnt be rovoroad 

■ imlese the i^p^clfic facte c€'f 6r«d t© be proved ar» nwfflolont 

t'- ©otat^l'0h a defwoaa* fLueao v. .job©., ^*'' Til. 4'^7.1 ?t 

iB, of oGurea, not neeeesf'-r^ th^.t tS-jo pre<!;f offerwfl ehould. 

In itaolf, ake out tli© defcmae It trorlfl be ©wff1oi«nt if 

the proff effcr-«''d eoul^l, ■^len viewed in it?' K^rjc-t favorablf* 

li^bt and ooneldored in connection with tho rther cvl«1oi»© 

rt«f ,lt©!i 

noiiOG to eajjnr 
fr^ ." « xxxxxxx\_ 


,feCii .f»i«o«ff i'on < 

r«iielv©<5 cf ©«pTO£3s-ly off©rfi4 cm ^•^fib.alf ef the dsfwi^lsMit* 
eo^etHtite a dcffiarsr.©. In thJi?. oasit tho <Scf ftivl««3t * s' o-jts 
tcfttti2«:*Cti' ^:s.B all that wae r^ffe'i*©''! In bla 'bohs.lf * "h© 
t««tt!sony offered '^d6 f«5t ecnt^titut© a defonec Ir. Iteelf 
rr i!»!h«f5 t&feim in oowneetiois wStl^ t-he otfccf facte Ir, ©iii. 
d0ne© '"•*• ®c*lol7 i-ifJ ©oimeotlets with Ms t^mx afelt.te<3 t©0- 
ti}S50tjy» r.or mi& it eupplosr^nted by snj- offer of cthor ovldefiee 
Th« 5^Jd>-?weRt is«ct» thop^rere, be af^Srjaea. 


698 «\aC056, 




198 I.A. 104 

l«JI*JW!rXGS5 aocawjar d«Ilv©r«d tb« ©iaiHon cf th« a^urt, 

tiffs, l>rcu«iht »u4t. tt^ainvt tJie uyp«ix'«»a», hwr'-iisajftoy 

r«ferr«a to «(,« dfff<t?ndant», to rooov«r d^4J2lu8;^it«e f'or ti'ie 
ti®foaaiait«» failure to termijtmte oerti^ia leases tht-n in 
««i«tffino«, bj i^;iving %hft printer sijrty^day ncticw sjp that 
tho right to po»s««t;lon of eaid pr^suiBew would atjoru* to 
plaiiniiTtt un«i«r tht>- t<*r«»« of &. X««.tt« fjp»m thn 4.rf«n<attnt« 
jU^pi&ArHU"£a.y' in th» l9a»« «u®d en, dated i>rlx '2©, "igio, 
th© «l«feij<iaatii 4«iiii8«ii t© plaintiffo two stores fvva viay 
7. X910, tt> April 3C, 1080, The tfttith olmifitt of th« l#i&»« 
provided that "It is further 0©T«»mnt®d una t\^Tn&A by Ui& 
pArtl«B »f tis<' firet part th«tt the pttrtiisd* ©f th« 80oon4 
part uimXl h»vii »«ia disiaieed pr^nia^m frm of «i«y rent to 
July I, 1910, but ftaid parti«» of th« B©oo»<a part agree to 
resume «*ll rf^sponuibility ef eviotion, if .n«o«aaai*y, th« 
proeent lotssoott of uuiti d«mi«ea preiaieeo, tmt partite of 
tht first part si^ro« to gorvo as wit«®»c«» ohouia their 
t«»tlsaoay be rftquirod," 

.>^>an the fir»t trial of this o«iUO«, Jiiclis«- aiHM^'U 
Btruelc the plaintiff** jst&t«r»«Mt of alaia frcei tho filoo on 
the t^round that it did aot otAto sk oauso of «otion, and 0111^ 



Dr.«os/» 890 

?«• kiv-v.r* 



io rtotai 

»(iS ro^ rtn*-.-r.iii ^«> 

,»iMX tl Klu^ 


fio «»Xil eciJ «;*^"i mlAlt lo i«»ri«*,ei« ••ttl^nitJtX<j -»t« slouttm 
^ «o l)a« «aeX#8« 14 —um / •^«»« ion bij> $l SmU iiau9^u *>ti» 

l&S III. App, 154.) it wiAHs aeld tii&t th9 tenth seotioii 

of th' !<«»« pi»<s«wi th« duty of iterjaiatiting tliis j>fi5r lettaiet 

by ,-ia^ ?|> up©ij tJja d4t:f«ndjjnt« an<l X^ttaere. Mr. Justice 

i»# tv tije pXaitttiffft implied & oweaant for 
«iU<^y^f«»t» but (lid nvt i;ajjly o: 
pXtk&e U^ie TO^oGd i>&rty in i*o«j 
tlMit tii« psiitielfts^f tij^-^rat jpturt hstd tliie ldt;ai right to \ 

.«d a owftMtant Tor sjiHret ^,. 

ittpMsfon^ Tiiat i», it iiapiloi 

giiro ftnd tii« i>jirtl©»^^.^s aoocnd part the XogAi ri£>ht to 
enforoo >>«e8e&aion of the prihaioee for tt;n torat rwoorroii^ 
lM*t ir«ft to thf BOecmd purtgr the lJurd5n~Trf--««iJajM>A^;^t^ 
-X' Xu u l, f OiUMwjtf ^l ^v , iwicTiio» i ^ , 73 . ill ., 7 S ^) Vrhe cl&uec is 
queotiQa «» wo ooa&truo it did notijilna; taavp. th»n saaJ&ts an 
oa^r«OB otst^aent of tli« oituatlon which the l«t« tutdo 
without it.*x 

^OpoR tlio «««e«ui triftl th© iunicipal Caurt s4* 


silttoa t«i3tiacir^ offer^n. for Ui« puTp&ee' uf showing Uuit 
tho intOKtioa of tiio 3»&rti«»B was to plaoc: ta»* burden of 
tarsiiimting th-?' Xonoo on the .aaintiffs Krui lf:5tj«efjs, -aid 
on tht< <«vid«nao eo offered th<:r ocurt hold thftt th« plain* 
tiffs w?;ro o*ii*rgod with th«.t dut^r, imd »o antsred jud^aent 
for the d8fe«daat», Ae th^vre ^ao nothing luabiguouo in the 
langua^o of the l«aoo, it could «ot ho vstried »y any «3&» 
tranaio oridonoe. rne OK.t?© of grav«t W)^ |Hose . 246 Hi ♦ 
BO, cited hy dofcndunto in ouppoz't of thoir ocnt«rttioii 
thot ovideaoe ma^ bo r'^ccived for the pturpuoo of showiog 

.iul 12. ^k jiJL JsL, d± t^t^mi^ '^" 

t S*t»^ limmi *H$ hi' . vOlliiMj •« 

. >«r^j 

""" "" ■' /■ 

timt Van lan«uai««, when applied %-. th^ faot», wa« r>r-*lly 
ttmbii^ous, vfKB & oaso iavclTlne the queistica of latent 
anbiguiUtte ia will a, and hiMi w> «p;?UoaUt>n h«r«, 

Uj>«« tiic t.u!>att«di faotft plaintiff » werr exoludfjcl 
from tha pcwaaaaton of tii*^ pr«ral««9 d«aiae4, bj; roaeon of 
the <ief endimta* failura to p«rf©ra Vi^ir impllaa oov«nant 
for qui«t anjoyaant, i*n«i aa Uiits oourt baa already held in 
Miqigr Y. iifirnst^i^^ B>ijL^!:aji pl«intiffe were ontitlfid to 
recover on acaount ©f that defftult. Tha quootlon then ie 
as to the usacunt isbioh th<^y ur« ontitl^d tc raoover, X^ain^ 
tiff«» olai« ih<t rifcciit to reoov-Rr titc value of the u»« of 
the daaieeu pr«ialB^>e faroa ?,;ay 7 to August 31, th dixy tht^y 
obtained j)o»8«»8ioii, inolusiva, «• ajre ©f the Oi>inion, 
^weTor, %}u-r.i utter plaintiff o h«d lf?urn«?d thjit tlin loaoea 
of thooa in poaaaaoion h&^d not Vjoen terKilnatod, tiiey qouIAd 
bgr th« e^-^rvioe of tlsa^ notioos, Juivo terminated tna laaaaa- 
% July 31, and tlmt tite proiier moasure of tli«>ir daimgaa 
^'it tn« VHlua of tije u»« qf the pre.siiaea from May 7, whan 

undor thfi ttrwi of tUc^ I'^aao the-y vvg entitled to posBoaaion 
to that data. Tha undisv>ut«)d avidon;© off.^red in tha oourt 
)>«low »how6 that tho Vfcluo of the utia of the pr»iaiB«a during 
that period waa §300 a jsonth, ahloh iu the rental rflaarrwd 
in th« !««»•• ?hl« ista not oontradleted by any ©ttideneo 
Offered hy tho dsf<tnaants, an«i no exception was prrjserv'^d 
by the plaintiffs to a fxndlilg by th« court buoed ^ n 
that ▼wluation. In thin etate of th© r&cerd wn must 
hold thMt th» v«lua of the u»e of the preialapa ie oonoluwiva. 
ly Bimmn to ba the au» af #300 a aonth. It therefore apixtajrs 
that by rt^aaca of th» dafandanta* failure to perforra tha 
Iwpliad oovemmt of Ui*ir leaaa for quiet en^oyaient during 

10 0o»js»a N.ti ,*►«> 

««rfw ,V 

li^Tt^tkotq sura noi 

Anui, : 
••▼louXc-rfoc f?J • 


the tlKw <l*aii?««S, t.h« pl»intifft wfir« unlawfully d«prlvod 
Lx^cf the pti^vTilu^B fro.K ^'ay 7, ISIO, to July 31, 1910, «ii«i 
air'; ontitlea tf> rocov«?r the value of the prRtaioee for 
th«t .i»«ri.04l, wbich le Bhorn to "b© ^»3C. Tb« JutvgRmnt 
of t!ie ;.:unioi,.aX CJoujrt -s?!!!, ther«foro, b« revcroed and 
judgupnt ent<Tr«'d h'-rc for tlmt jtim* 

HKvmtaKU AM) .fumunm mmK» 


19SI.A. 104 

m» J0STICJ? fisooDifiir «eiJ,vet^«! th© following ©pinlen. 

Th^^ ftp|>«ll«©« hav» fllea a petition for r®- 
hearing In i^«fe tli»y wrg©, fl) that oral « t Tsno© 

im» e««np«t«Rt b»e»ii«e ebjBc'.ion w-^n «alv©<lT (?^ that 
©15 the evldenee the ,1ud;'5!!ent of th« ooiart bftlow ims 

eX««M»ly rlitht^ {:n) tbat th« oourt (^rr®d Sn crmstming 
tSie !«*»••? and (4) that tfe« aj»p«lUnt© ootil4 mt t^©»^ 
filbly b« «ntltl<j^ to -ore than ~??0. 

T« •r«?»T?©3»t <?f thi^lr ©onfcentlon that U\e 
court ©rr^'S Ir tbo eorttit.rtiotlc^ of the Uar©, em?r«9l 
f«f the •••tltloRors eo^t««d th&t th® ©"Rirlon of 'r.. 
;T»a«tlo« "'jwrw Ir.; the foj'Kfla* apr^«al tld net att#P!jit to 
ooRstru© th© leae© In r^©»tloti, hut rathcjr (if w \m3er- 
atand oouriBcl eorreotly^ plaioea » tontative «on»tytaotlor 
ttpe« »n InatEnatssuRt ifhl«h he hlr««lf «ior9i<l«r©/| ^^w^btful, 
fu^ that 9tmmmmmX7, lt» r«anlag amy be detericlnw! by 
rosortlns te parel ©vldem©. Upm ■■. mr>»f\il tmshHna.^ 
tlon of ©ourMiol'jg ariruss&nt, m romln f Ir- ly of the 
opinion thnt thi3 Appeaiat© Court 1?-^ th« fomor ea»e 
•omtru^d the ir»t:snir«nt In «»»B6tlon' that that eon- 
fttntotion i» 'blr?«$lR^ or u« now anri storocver 'tgiB, in 
my OTJlnlom nX l^jWBt. oorroot 

The *4off:-n<1r.ntB ha?S loneed th© pT^'e^^lisa© Irs 
flftiootlOB to th© plaintiffs for a torw to «rt«Tid fror- 
•ay 7, mo, to April ??C, ItJSO. -h«ro ^n an outotani. 

'^01 .A.ieei 

#lW#lns leo«-ic 'vhlofc oould l»« ter^-lnctoa bv sjvitafel© 

ct Icr. &r the part cf th» ^ef sfrfant© « I' ^iti) !■ a.-ta v>f - 

their set of d<t?«»J.©linjgr->^c 
had the l«fiml rlfrM tc ;t1 

icee for th»„Jrtte^s 

}Mi.^tyi) --110 ':*u«»tlow tim.t ftare©0 It?. thl«« oa.»© wnk? aa t^ 
'fhe.tlmr th» lOtb ai^ 11th «:^au»f:f8» wl'jer. ro.-iS tajp-eth^p, 
cr«n,t0t.? n dlffterf^Txt situatlfnn. '^he lOth ol«ua© rr«vi*!«?5 
tiT&.t th« Issoere should h&yn th» 'lerieoa prerla^e fr©o 
cf tt»y rent to Jttly 1, l<53r., ijui puld -rmrtUv «f tis© 
«©©nd p«rt (plftlnttffel afr*^ tc ftRo«T:^« •all rtiapen* 
'Tilllty <^ ©viotien, if ne^^ssary, th© pp^Bsnt l©ii«eoK 
■r :-?ai-l "5©i?^i««jd pt*®«'"'ieof^ » Mit the T^.mrtl«e ff t*se flTBt 
• arfc agrofi to e©Tr# ar- •'tn-'ase*!', si^cnl'! their t«nsti?-cny 

h.- rd^lred." 17^=^—^ — T-Htf. the ra'rti*'^! if l^^k^ wiuuv**"^ 

"'■f- #vlct th© pr«ernt lee-fter. If miee^eiiMfyi 
to *tsp<Mie«»tt, pinp^mpifst t«^ J«dlolal' <^core«j, 
^'vti.-lly lr> ^(?sc.e8j:lcr, „«i^"^ the roeu^^ral- 

f necv:;0ury 

bllty of «vlatio 

t 'io«© Ir? T)C'.;c ©«•!€«., if >f5© 


.tjfully wlthfeeld It. 

©tlil©iii«r«5 fteefe to,-fitt«rpr(5t the. w5Tp< 'e^»i«jt;i<^n* te s?^ 
ifot c«r^l;? exr^^iinis thf»i?.e ^^^o «i*© imla-^v'fHJiJI, y Ir wirr- 
^jw*- the rr^eff-stt ef leit^ally tw^^lnatlnr tho thehsexli^^ 

■'••onir.'ry tf^ 
■^^vlotleTr," andi i» ^ ■ b- 

f^ of the""f!TmT?tTrti^''^"'wNly----^4^*-' i^t»o0 aB.! P^ ^ .w.Ki:5.a2i:wi 

leasee y/'iadh a aowtontlon if "■ *.t--- futl- 
kft&r.^rf of the 




■^t'Sli ''1 tr the flJwrtMi^|Mi*sai^ 

a?»rf t" 1m!> ste 

total eojst ®f' sutiitf »lt«tuti<m® an<a l?s|sroT«3n0Rts5 -" ''JJtsll» 
It imfit fcgpe^dl titaitt tiMi iklteT»ation» asid iit^-provejratRt® «h<mM 
."test ftt %»m&t tJisHt ausmmt ^ :-^#--»«»«*4a«^*i;*ir'iirpiifW^^ ' 

r^iat t<? ^^jr* tPlGf w»«( f!^v«'i3 In «ewjsl-'- ;; ■■'■:■ ■ ".h^i^ 

a»bi»sln^ th#N^jnJI«ii «>f ®Ti«tt»|; tl» t«s^Bt«t awS t-.- o«v«^ 

t>t|s tlR® tlmt lt^*i8s\il^ tjako tc sfjrlwt th«!!a» i« wlthwit 

*- If' b« df#i:MetC;2«. tUe 0tat#w f...oi«, it 1.« that th,! 
th«^ l^tig^f Um that Uie^ ■pl.aj.tlffe ^^^i t^^ mr%^ 

hm -vori^', S-. .J^UtJif ttlcust. atlfit 

rely that plal.Rtlffu sijonld 
l<;qTj» _ lyMt ..ghpuXd have aotual *>^e!;- 

If tills eoin«tro«>,*io!r! l» c©|?rllit, th©y5* it oat^ 
i«|aki>Aio fHtter^-nm '^hfy:^^- " '- -*'icm t-? th«» crel ert-l^^iitje 

•ujAmired or nm, for i- ,M,^iaasryse hnA b^cn iRf- 

Hjit^d without ©l»|^tl^r it ooult not ha^^^th© off»et 
cdifyltss. ^l»at l&n-iQlA t "be &r tJns.^'Mjiru^ul T»ritt«n 
i«truia©nt» in cfc^«r 'snrdg, tSio rule wSilah i^^vente tie 
v^ltrylRg of a.'Wit.tijn iKCv.riSiit^^'^'^ST''*--.*'^ "~ ^^ 
«dil0?i «S,-^lo^ c-u«^ an mffmt to perol mri^y 
It i» pr<Mferiy fr. the i»«>««5r4 , | Inat m 'll/p0% thin^ ttiat 


ara pf-perly ob^eot®*? 



jtho plaintiff ^'<jT»lctl, 

^a all r'^'trr.' Ir evl'lrtt 

at T^lnln- 


ti^fta \w»lys?d o-bJ*?:el!1^rtc that ¥ort"0f ftvi^oiws® by intro| 

^'. i.j««,^^,, :v,ifi«d in r©«pr« tr a e«mva?Bntl©f? trith the 
d©f«rd;'.et :5<}PT3e6telr! in r^^rd tc tfe® eenrlov of the »lxty- 
d«^5' nctl«« UT>on thf tenaittjs, B^nwtalri t«Gtlfl«'l dir-otly 
contrary t" -'Cisijr* &?sd in ad<niioK r«lfvt*si? m allef^e-i 
•0iiT»r»at!oR with ?>«1|!;mp in whlob th^r dlis«uet»«<l th« 
l«wi5th (yc tlf?.o It mviU tak* is-; g^^t thr- t«rt&nf.» ot;t» ai*^ 
tt« t^ ftii aHe-amc or uisrty ^laye. <m that .Moount. o ro- 
b«i thl« t«««tlg»»y which aiiser. ilt«4 th<? t»«ti'>eny «tf 
'!iii|5Mr wpoR tha wit«rlii.2. poAnt •*■*• 'stss^t huA "bt^en n.-ld-rlth 


reforerJOKj tc tl'-a no-: loiJi; Ai&viar bcnns t^9ix^>v4, .^T«lf^if «t->*t«d 
©K r«buttal^ In «h3ef, thr^t th^re «»e nothlrg ©aid by 

«feleh would lie rof!t3lr«d tc- iB«»t ©tit the teiwiitft* T?'* ssl»<? 
eaid- *••"« dS4->ewe?;iiia th« l«!tt,r?th s^' tl?!^« it we«xa ta^et t<P> 
p«t in tM r«tmlii^(, &rd "■©iwtfteln aip*©©*! ie atXe^r tirtjr 
<!%y», K"^ Ir- aa€lti©r. to that* h« ^/ae tc alXmr fm^ f©r 
the Irppcr^wetttet" tli5?.t tfee vwlX<«»ffi eic|?®oteKS te »ar|y«9w!, 
tw'- rr tbre® th€ni«?*n<5 del 'are awfl tlisat It wom'!^ t»t?t oow- 
0i4«rftMe tiffHB befep«» tlMijr ♦««sld odou|»y tl^t preriee*^, ^^ 
that ■''■•m.etdln Jaarft «et eai^ that hB did not I'now :3*ietb?!r 
er XKJt tfee !!sotleee Imd b(i5«r> Ic-jjallir eerv^d. Tlalrtlffe 
fesad psr^peyly lnty«?4tJ©!ad evld«wc« in r^^vd to -rh-it had b«e« 
eaid with roffjrerw© to notldtj't*' having boers u»nr«td, olnae 
the? fatltire pr^-inerly tr »«rve «otl©€i8 and ter^lfiate the 

;e.fer>4ft.r5t« 1' ^ctlttf, th!^ t«Ptl- 

vmifi and tf>f?t ir^iw dttallB tr« r«-®ftf»«l. t<* iJhet tl^ev «la«m0d- 
hud aetuaXly be«is ©aid, It w&& vx^i^r fe-r tfe«! Plaintiff o 
tc i«eoaJl th«lr xitn-ertt antJ «>«mtarei-'l«t tho«ne i»t^-tt©»®T7tBt 
wot t-:^ ha^0 d«m© ©t irowld hav<i Meit /9i.«i iwpllt^i «or!;f«0»lon 
that 8tat©«H»tii» had b^eift Rs&da «kl©h. wwtp «tt«i»ly at var- 
lama ^ith rlaintlffs* ifltm««* ori^Elfsal tfmtimei^* "Jtsie 
t«»tlT5«ny did not In tmy -my ecnotitot* ?s ^ralT©r of th« 
- * * "^0 mado t© :'»rnotatt».'o tcr.tliaQisjr. tImi r-aat ^'f 
igie«>' of '.^MjMir ^wct«!?» tr» -lalntlffs' r>©tHim 
fcr r® hearing ^ais bro-'?!5fet ©wt on aroftR-^^isaiBiwatlofi a»3 
fctr th/tt i^lalntlffa urare nc^t raapenelTjlc. A» thft ©©ntrrn- 
tlor-' thtit thf* ai!i«nj?-!t "f *' -t is^Xlt.-m*^ h^rre Tr.n ©r-if 

rerooue i« fe';i>©d t3r-<^^i" oot'c ^ ._ ... -"^.rwim frr^yr r^aip^a «3vld»we 
which we har© hald tc hav« hi>«?i lm|srep«rly admitted » H .!» 
al»o vlth«ut Tscpit. 

MH. jyi;tia^ C^aoimcm, ©peelally ooaoujrrin{3: 

I «;:jjour in th« fimil aottolusion ti^&t the .7»ctl« 
tion for rehearing ehould bo de^ni*^, 'but not in all tlie 
r<rafconlng of the forc^giolng opinion, i «wa of the opiaion 

ti»ii>t til© <tu«i»tlon ii®r« r«iii»e«l, aw to th<i ati«»truotioa ol' 
tlie l«:7»ij«, wsiB detoruxncKi on «i forsswr apj^iirati is thiii oeurt, 
in an opiatcij toy Mr. Jactlao Brown ( MulXgy jju MlMMiM* 
X&3 ill, Ap|)» 157) • The »ai.MT «i4B«( i& preoeated on tai» 
m^pmil a« wn© pr««»»!ateHiS ©n th« forster appeal, a.nd th© 
9iirtit«« &r« thft anme* the lav an atmouruj^^itt in th« 0£>iaic>a 
•f this oourt on th» forcit^r appeta is, tiu>reforo, tlic law 
©f thi» Qu»«, ami t«© ooiwstanu/Jtion. oS" th« loa.»« io liot 
1*0* tta open <|u«6tion« 

aoiai":^^ ads 'ic .C4;,j J. 

'to noi*sjAn^«f?ac 'dvT ^t ma tbnultn 

a-...., ..-.• ^ .... 

81617 • 388 


\ / 198 I.A. 108 

m. y^Utl-.- W.W!«ra«liy«,.^4 t)m opinion «,f th.. co .rtj 
Tiaa xtrit of fsrj^r -»&« 8uo4 out to r«T«r»e « 

M s '^_fi;fr_MaUl6a Jj thi9ut»„^ 

At tJi.« hwk-rii^ It ap?»«ir«^ tm^t the pl&intltf in 
error iwi4 s»r«irAoumy h^m mrrl«4 to eB« iva ti&y Mtty^rtt^ wi-^ 
w»» ai-anted n di.w&rm tro^ hii^ j«ae &, i^tft, ir* ti»« Superior 
QOv^rt of 3C'::!k '^uat/, &*i4 tm.t 'm m.rTUA th^ co«i»Xiiiiit«g 

It i« alcayly th« I«w oif titis 8tat» that, after 
J'uli^ i. 19C:6, sth*m th« Kct of ..^ is. 1906 ocnc^rnin,; Ui« 
Ka»rrir*^« of «iY«roi»4 |i«r»oaB w®Ri tBt<j «ff«at, nc parly to 
a iiivorc©, g;r«nt#d for aoy of the Q>^utic» m&ti,ln^ la »«atiOR 
1 of tu« siiyortt« fto%» CO id ocatraat e valid murilago {•xo«pt 
a re«a«trrla«» to thx^ ©th*^r pairty to tli« dtwron) within « 
y«ai' froi^ t2M deittt of tJie diwree dear.*«, *v»a tlwu^^h timt 
<S«>«r»*«» km4 fe<*«n enter^fd prior to Uw tiim wisc-n t)i*> &et of 

i^m took «f f eot* ,gtea. mmu .a^^ a* Imjii. js& ria 

B4«SSi2£. ^^. 2X9 III. 4C{ ygsoia v^ Cock. 266 111. ^00. 

yrcsB t)5le it oif'aily fclioi»ft Vist, utW^r tfa« f«ot» 
iii«ala««d, tjj.^! aoisplttiRine: v/itn^jus »fc» not the wlf« of plain. 
tiff in error and, ocuB«^:ju«ntiy, hi» oonviotion, una*?r th« 
ijif«jrii«ti^n in tiUB cua©, o«raiol W 8u»t«itt©«i. 



oisti a 

WXS4 lO 

,i^.* . ,^noo 'Jiit b''1^t'l 

ico^tii ,tAiU 9ia$B 9i^ !• v«a 

9$ X3 -- 
ftOi#f!^>« . , _ 

lo Ss>a '■'"'■' -..-...-•. - '-,^^i^^i^ 

.JsuL an ^ _:. .- ^ ^ t - ^ -^ eo«x 

««X4ij;q lo ttllw odt ton a«« «»'Mt^Jt«» i^nlAliil' lb 




647 - 2^986 


Co rpo ration. 


198 I.A. 109 


MB, JUi^Tias 0»aCimoK deliver'- U tho opinioa of ti*c co irt: 

TMa i» an aoticn on the ouas broujjht by 
appeXltte against appellant* to reoever for peri^onul in* 
Juriea« A 4u«ifi;aent was «nt* r«d for $2000 in favor of the 
aippelXetff a^^aioat th« appollmit* 7h« parti^cfi ^ill he 
designated ;^laintlff rm^ defandtuit as In the oeurt below* 

the faot» aro,jyK;u«jj! April 19, 1910, at about 11 ©'olook 
In the forenoon, plaintiff *&» riding eaat in Waahiniijton 
boulevard, Chioag©, on hies btoyole, Waeitinfston boulevard 
runo eafit and «r«et and la intorseoted at ri4;)iit angl<3& by 
Collfomia avenue. As ^aintiff reaohed the intersection 
of California nvonae, a funeral ppooesaionjConsioting of 
about thirty oarriiagiaa was moving north in the center of 
aaid avenue* Plaintiff di»mounted froBi his wheel, waiting 
for thf) prooeosi n to ^xtee, and atood near the aouthweat 
oorner of tue interaection of ©aid boulevard and avenue. 
At the tine th<» funeral proceseie;! wuti paeaing, a two«horoe 
team belon^inii to the d«f«?rtd«"mt, with driver and empty wagon, 
waa goinis weat in i^ake street, which rune parallel witlri 
and is two blocks north of Waahington boulevard. When the 
team reached California avenue, the funeral prooeaaxon waa 

'Iv .;:; - Vfrd 

\ \ 

♦ ZiWy-Vv' /i.;vj. 

A A r « T O 





tilt OS) 9ii# to Adioi«o itdi b««»vii 

«4tl laaonxr, > 6«£X»qQi 

itl^ to lavjil j; ftx0 MMT ^irMKsit»«rC 

v«"^r"^! ■'• ■ '"^. -aii iMlJ^«t^^*..-.- 
rtoi^::«aTt»loA mit * - 

' — ^ - •-.'•aiuotf ttr.* -- ■ -^ 




AriTcrp to avoid 4«?lGgr and not beirti;; nble to p«Ott through 

th© funaral proceeiRion, iarn<:!d ocutli in .'alifornia uv«iiu« 
and drovfi alctng the eaat »l.cS# of paics Rir»nu9t th«J furns'rn.l 
proo«;faiion prooffi^-ding north ftboiit th<? o«»nt«r of th« ftam**. 
th& 0Vidi»no« tenae to ot\ow that as the tatain itpproiiohed 
the north eia« «f i/»»hington Ijoulevard, the last oarrls^e 
in %im funeral pro««»«ioii wa« nwaring tho eo ..tli «i<Ji;i of 
•aid boul«vair<l# A» thfl last otirrlagtt ftppro«o*t«d 'tfathingtott 
toouieTRrd, plraiatiff Eaountwdi hie wheel ixtX^nsO-ne, f,o cross 
the av«»nu.« ami prooo^scl east on ^aehineton boulevard, H» 
turned towards ttie wjuth to go around th«f rerar of th» 
l«»t carriage, *:ifia thou turned tuaat or north«a8t. ab 
h® csiuaift around th« rf?ur of the last ourrla^** d*'fr'nd.'xnt*& 

,,'''^. toam, iBfhioh wa» *'<5oing south on a fast trot* as one witness* 

'^ put it, turmtd to the? »«>attiw««t «o &« tt got on tho w^ut 

aid«^ of th© 8tr«et, and oollidod with the plaintiff. 

Koitbor the driver ctf Ui«? team nor %'nt, plaintiff lcn«w of tha 

a,l>pro«.oli of th*« other until th«y wtrff but a few feet aipart* 

Both Iha %rtfiiv mni thr plaintiff trl®d to avoid th« 

oollioiont, but »-er« unaljl*^' to do bo» The 3>ol« of tlia 

*»('>!;« »truak the i)l«..intiff in the Jaw and ii» wao thrown 

to tn«» navejaentj JsuBtaining: nn oblit^ue fraoturra of th« 

left lowwr ,)«w bone, a fracture of the rtiitot claviole, 

and h« was othfirwi»a brui»«d and injurod. The driver 

tttoppad the team and aaeiatod th© plaintiff to a doGtor'o 

ofrio© ia the vloinity* i^lalntiff was in the hfrsr-ital 

for.two weekB, Af t«9r ti«<r injury he mcsj unablo to isfork for 

about thirteen weolfca. '«?hen hei returned to «ork ho 'tttxn 

unablo ic pro;jerly do hi® work on «<500unt of th.e injuriwo. 


*»»tr '^H^' CTO log o,t ^ 'fu^ ,il Juq 

•r{# blOTJi o# fe*li[# ttiiniat^ ^t^i una ii»iri«li oUi aUoH 

to «»X<Ki mlt ••i' ' •iir>i«ilXee 

i a/tw atf tone v«tt ; iitta flOBMr 

XAtli.noiii orij nX » r ,v,,7 to 

to'S sitow o* oXdAou ai «w owt 'tol 






Prior Uf the »aeidcnt ^Isiiniitf w&s BsupKtyd nn a night 
watciuaan, doin^; janitor work and invteplni; up thr? floor* 
around a faotorj. He e«4rn<Mi $12 p<»r iwutek. Th« csac» 
wa« triffdk before thft t?ourt and jury, anci et Judgmpnt 
for laoOC wa» r?nfc' r«d in favor tf the plaintiff. An 
appeutl vao taken to tuis court, wh^rw tho juiig^tarnt wa» 
rnvffroad »nd th« oau8« rit<«(tando<l fof errore of ii^ir, 
(104 111, App.5S)« Cm a ©econd trial a vctrdiot was 
r«!!turn«d and a judgiaent onterati for th(» ean« aaoimt 
in fnvor of t:vn plaintiff to rtiiy«r»« which this 
appeal iff proaoouted* 

Defendant ccntonds tlHit thit plaintirf aiu not 
«xeroi»« dua oaro an<i oaution for hie own aaf^ty; triat 
the «vidonao tnnds "to show thattite plaintiff was injura4 
as a r^^ault of hies own neglit:^nnt c<mdu<st«* This c-;>nt«ll» 
tion raises; the queotion a« to whoth^'r the plaintiff was 
guilty of o ntrlbutory n«glig<%Ro«» thits iR gf*n«rally a 
quoBtion of fa :t for th« juiry, { PSft,^<?rnon j^ ^^hl^'i^ft fi «iilX 
iiiU -22a» ^"^* ^l^lf* A]>:.s«*llnte Court, Firot Bistriatj 
W/^^^n Is. ^.MSUm Ma^kMxmjL I^Max ^'^'f ^ll* a??, 673J 
9.|^iot^i'.o Union Xracticn Co. Xfc focobaoQ^ 217 H 1 , 4C4 ) , 
But wh«n ths' inf«r«nn<?» of nfiglljjence nooeas^rily resulto 
from the cviCfnom, It ht^o-mtiv. a question of law for th«' 
court, ( ^ith Y» , C?« Gen^ Hy . Q o^ » 86 ill. App. 64<li 
i:£IL Xfc ^^t^'' ^o . -- •• t.-. ip. CO,. 127 111. App« 610j 3^ntr.,;i.o,iy ig. 
ghiGf;5^?;o ;it./ By « .lo > . 141 ill, App, 459, Pttt «? rpon Y» 
Qhimtiio -Uty jty. ^, , oupra. ) . ^md<-v all the facte in the 
eano at bar aa disoloBed by thca ovideooe, which was ocn* 
fiioting, wa are of tlio opinion that wh«th«r plaintiff 
was guilty of a ntributory neglig^noa was a qusstion of 

9-%t^*si>r ^nAt fur Ttftlttntmn ttn» li^mr 'i 

■ .. « ^^ %\-^- 

. ,3i-.-t 'HU 'JOl' iittTWi'W'v .; 


Wi -nit wmt ^o i\ 

_,. V. .^^^ •^^* '^^I J^*'' . 


fa(3t to be tietonainoa by tn^ jury j l^ngr. v. ■':thloa.ip Uty 
iJLa. J2a» Jl'^i J^l^* -^PP« <iM5 ,v'l^icfiiF:p Uni^n y rtj^atior^ ;,('c. x». 

IMBfenUant further ocntends that thore s?aB no 

«vldena« tenUini^i; to eiiow smj/ aealigenoe on the part of 

the aef«iwi«mi» ami timt tj.a court, tJifj.refoi-©, aho-uid ii&ve 

p«r«mptpriljr irtBtructeU tho jury at tho oloee of all the 

•Vidvn.ft to fina in favor of the defwndant. Tht* rul® an 

to wheci euoa an inBtruotion ohoultl b® given ie al early 

Btatfta ia th« rusc of Ubby . i^ qK<^i2.X ^ J ^ hMv X* vQQ]^. 222 

111. 206*2X2, wher« it is Kaidl ""If th4»rf> is no evidencJt, 

or but a scintilla of evidmo©, tending to prove tiio 

natorlal ftv«naent8 of the d€jclaraticn» th« jury shou d he 

direotPti to return a verdict for t)j*j ctefRnuimt* Xf , 

hovover* there is in th« record any ©vi<i»n';;e f ri ra wViich if 

it stood i^OQO, th« jury oould» * without acting unreascnably 

in the «y«r of the law,* find Umt &X1 tin© material fivor* 

a«ntB of the doalaraticn had Veen proT«ni» then the oauoo 

ehould he 9ul>^tt9d to th*? jury," In the <m»« at Var tho 

evidono© tonds to B^iow that, at ana prior to the time 

of Uie iBJux7, the t«aia wa» be! .g driven on a fast trot 

and va« not aiidor propor oontrol. and it i^^e nonoedod Vy 

the dof sntiant that the tea^ and w» -.on ivere on th4» "wrong 

BlaklcsJe e's T^yprcBB Go .v. 
©ide of the etre«t"» la the case o f x^2xs^x>ff »c y^oa>5xx;^cp aRtfc 
35»SB3cp!lac, 215 II !• 230, it was held ti^tat, whil« tlie oo ^rt 

would not say that tlio failure of th(S dafrmcUint to ic«ep 

on tho ri^ht 8id« of th<» 8tr««t wae n«gXis<smo« yjgr <^ ,|e» 

yot it waa a ciroumatfoioe whioh tended to prov« n«gXii;»no«« 

¥o tinink that und-r all t^u> oirouastanoos tthotm hy tho 

«vid©n«« anU in ti<<s light of the above rule, th^ aR«« 

'•'-■-■ '- «J!jbU- ..... ,*-^.... ..*......*.— .:^-. ^^^- - - 

■a 8^5% o'iwjii : .:. -■-<■,.-■■■ .... . . ,., 

lo itmi 9di no ' '"^ 

,11 ,$mmn^t-»b ^ .■ :■.. ..-. .. ...... • -vJ ti»tO'.y'ilb 

^»v« l»ltt*iim 9tiS Um i«*r iwil •*i»»X *ri^ lo »>cft 

rr<i>^ ,,tR.'i^ ii£«cf MW #i «OCtt •XXI 4XS «;«>cxjoq«c 
4«*iv jr»<rt^« «mII to vti 


.00 . 




iTi. «> 

'.5...J 'V r 


•» an 

AMSftft » 


: nvi'O,'; 

wtM A proper one to oulsttit to th& j-iry, 

A furt)i«r oont«ntion it» iiMWlft UiAt the teettaony 
of Dr, JrioucH, ft wltn(>es for tha plaintiff, wa» inadniuGible^ 
for tiic rfSiason that it appeared from tue doctor's tostJUioniy 
t>x»t h« first MW th« plaintiff on th« day of the trial j 
tiiat h« then aua*? an «xi*Eixna.tion of hiia for the purpon* 
of teotifyins; tlmt hfi ao-r^r Jcn«w anytiiing about th« 
oaott until he mi>.d« tlte wjcarainatlcn) that *hin opinion Wii» 
based upon eubjeetlvo «xa;^ii nation, no twith«t landing the 
doctor* 8 0l&t& Uiat it >m« b«s«d aXtogethftr upon an 
OlDj«otlvo extmlBsti n," ana that the teotis'tijny should 
hmre l»«<«n «trloken out bi!itoAU@o lB«is»d upon a. »ubJ@!Otlvo 
oxfitiaiimtiori. The t«?«tifi3i0n>' of thr- ciootor clearly uliO/fs 
tiittt iiiK opinio?; viae baeod up n objaotivo aymptorae. H« 
MRdtt a dig! ted vxoEtin&tioil and found cusoni; oXh^T ttUngs 
a •d«pr<?»»ion In faront of tho angle of iho loft lower Jaw 
1»oii««* and a «fatl»« Joint* in tho oljaviolo. It i» further 
ur<ued that what wi4» ftjiiu b«»tw©on Ux*> doctor and plaintiff 
during the «aia«iination ^as lmidai»^fsiible. Kn exsunination 
of tiio reaord Bho^a that this ^aa brou^t out b> the 
defendant on oro8»««ataiaination# Xh«s doctor's testiajony 
liiaa properly admitted, G; ^t ^ , o£ ^hi -^a^Q 2j. ^ffi,? fally. 227 
111. 14; qrii.iittk.q x«. JMaUiS. ff. \V ii^ ia« ^'*^* ^^.l. &64« 

The defttndant alco cont^ncK tl'iiM tise court 
liaproperly lijaitod the cro80««xsifii;.nation of the plaintiff* 
tha o«ijB4ilaint b®in^; aa ahosm by th« reoordj «Mr. Boiwui: 

H»w taany oalldrea h«.v« youf A I ts^t thr«« living, 
ii# Wimt aro tbe a^os of th« <^iildr«ft who are living? 
Tho CiourtJ I don't ee« wby you should go into tliat. 

^^laioaXaiisuii a taXq •di lol 

• rtaqtuq '^rif TOl wl/f 1<0 i 

B« Alia \;iiAO i© 1 o J c < a j- an iawK* 

: iiitut Hi il .nlolTJiX© r>vi ni *«alot Wl*^* » ham *«MiiMr 
lllJal«X<; turn mo. 

• W»<i ..i.AA *** jjj^ jiJUi. . .4i<k. XS. iSaUdliatafc i'*'^ '^-^^ 

ttxtoo f' >aXa ia»^. 

•j^tUTlI •♦»tri^ *«a I A ttfbx •v jH 

^HaiTiX «<U) orfw R«%l)Xiilto aili to ■•»■ MOT «!> 

iOrta uox V<w <^^> l*ROl> 1 tliv«0 ttff 

Sy, Bchsnt If 0«iima«l win adniit thCj* »r« not rslnor* •• 
I wouAd like to h*sY« tljr? record* ehovf th*».re arm ao 
Qliilar«n dep«nd«nt upon Mr. Irfki-soa for Buj>port»* T}i« 
oeurt r(»fu«<?c to p9r:i«it further curo«s*«XHminfttioa tknd 
was aX«?&r^y oorreot in so doin^i. 

Th« ©oatetttion i» aXao 'rfid*> t:iat th« (3© ^rt 
•rreci in giTlng inatructiorts ^'o», 6 and 9, on behalf of th© 
plaiatlff* Imitr\iotlon IS^o. 6 ounnlwtea of thr«»e paragn&s>h«« 
It dftfineci "ordinary care* a«d *neitliffeno«* «.» u««d in 
th« instruotion*. tma tola th« Jury tiunt i.f they b«liPT«cl 
frois th« «nrid«af>« tlu»t the plaintiff wnft injured and 
vuetainmi diu»a«ftii it* ikll^ged in tht^ d»:ilarisition or sosiq 
count thnraef, "vhil* in the «oc«srol«« of ordinary care* 
it Wiie th?.ir duty to find a verUiot in fi^vor of ta« plfti»»> 
tiff. The objeotion it tiiJii th«» instruction "litaiti* Uie 
exsroio* of ordimiry aar#? on th"*^ jnirt of the ^^laxiitiff 
to the «xaot feim« t)mi fwn collision ooourr»d»* Th« 
first paragraph of the in8tn*ction Aefiaod "ordinary csro* 
ae tJiat dftgrf^e of oaro wiiieh a reaoonably prud«»nt or oau* 
tious person "before and at th« ti»»« in qu? r.tton would tftke 
I to sivoid the injury und»*r like olrffuiastrmoee*" uiailar 
Xangi»ag« wao u»ed in two dtfferi&nt paragrnphB of inRtrue* 
tion So. 7, «o it ajipi^Rre tnwt tho jury »f«r«( instructed 
tlfcdttbefore the lilaintiff ooulu reoovfr, th«» Rvidrmoe auot 
ehow that beforo and at the time Of the injury ooaplained . of 
plaintiff wao ueisv. ordinary care for hie own oafety* 
y yurihf?r«ioro tiie objection urg«d to thf? Xansjuage •♦while in the 
uae of ordinary oare* ic untenable, j^, J fiui^ Ikit * |>to,ojc 

Yard8 Xx. MMl^» 1^3 ^ii« ^'"^^s 2' 1 A» ^« ii« ^* It i;iisia^» 

141 ill, 614; P^^oat^ri y,* ': i ^ qi ty i.^.. ,go... 186 111. App. 

•• atOHixt jovi •'^n \pidi ^lislm ittv 

p*ii!»fi * Tv: 

b9r * ' ■ 

.%]lSfn»q $9111 


•tS* Th-r? Btt£3« lii&gua^je ■««*« uBi-*d la «m inetruotion 
wad tA<: ««jEy& ccmtealicn vaa «iadc ir* <?*c>i ©f t*3,«f «4i>c--T«s 

tfa» net «ubje«t ie Uio objeeticn ficss ;3«d«, 

Xnnf.ruotion To. 9, ,;:i'r?)n oa beU^lf of th*' 
jilaintiff , MO ffiir as {, 'sas as follivw*; "The 
ooarfc infit,rui3t» thr? Jury tlutt th^ statutt* Xnts of t,li€ 
State of JLitttJiB proYiiicB txiut wiie»«ryes* tua.v periitne 
tiavalAiig with <T.ixrifm&» anfiXX ."se«t os ftny tura!f»ik«*, 
r«au Oi rtJiiy public hiiihway in Ihir^ v*t':tc, th-: ;'?y!f-onB 
ac triweiiriy; «>a«a"l •<s^h«ri!»*rf©r practic^'bl.'s, e«»a!r.<j«is.i'ly turr* 
Uioir caxi-ia^fts to th?? yit-ht «! the. beatiBji tratck, so ae 
to permit I3i«t.tiii £&ji'il«^« «,v> piu«6 without itttei'fr-x'irs^ oar 
Intojrruptiu,^;.* Taie Is »ubi5t£vr*ti«iH>'; irt th.- lA4ft4i:ttai<« 
i,^^ of ttk^ etf«tute, which ip ti<si!ii;n&i«d a.n the "Law of th«' 

nca4" 6 J,f^ f^ ^«, r't«tut»B . ilimjj, iCl, r>ec. 77, pp. i>73l-:;i&-54. 
tH« olijeetion urjg^'d iv thnt thf? tJctructtcK ie no apraic/^bl® 
to the f; ;;tK ef tl^« <!a»«, 'onoedin« th&t the insstrwotiMn io 
%»A, yet it Ik 'seli eeUil^A i ftherf th.^^t rsot ifY«sy 03r.Tc>neo«» 
intitiuctiun will o'n»*.it\ite r<^^'V«r6iM« error. If th<3 infttruo* 
ti.<m t#rid(j<i to snifiinaii the Jury, Cu'-; «srro jf 1« .UTij^j i '. It 
r«v9rsll)Io; but, ii% a.^ a «3Mi"4ifsati<a of th<» «».ntir*? ?«*"i^r<l, the 
r<L>vlewin£ ocurt Siin 3«e fr-sa th?* imturt; of ths ffii^«« thett it imA 
no BucJj t'andanoy, though iSjpropi»rly glVCG, it uill afford SM» 
ground of r0v^:?r8iaa. iin,it^a ;^., ta.t^ a M^,U.^s '^l^'t ^ ;'<I*T« liiiLS£» 
116 m, IOC; rcnta.;:ii^e v* Pet^pla. 14X Xll, 76. Taj* factt 
tn thf? nape ae dits^jloeed t>.y ti*?' evidence ««rr not «reaplto».t«il, 
but m'-rii aiaapltt, cmU ??« t;re of the cginlfin th»t t tJu; In^truc- 

'«i'-!V«mo*i'w ..-.JirJ SOS: Stoic; «. 



iii ^b :' r^ -^ ■• •■■"■■ • 

■ iXi 

rt axx 

tion -did not tend t© tht^ Jury* 

tiie atifiinaimt furth<-r aont«»«ls i/hat. thft oourt 
«rr«a in refueing to t;iv« iastruetion So. 16, r«f<:ju«Bt«4 
on behalf of Xhn dof e«(tt*.at* That inotruotitm told th« 
Jury that th»j pyepoRderanc: did not Xi« su-l^ljr in th«* 
gr««t«T nuoftbor of wit»««B«», but that th« ^ri^ater auiaber 
of orediMe afitnes»«o on %hn one ride or th^? ©thf^r oii aiiy 
dieputed poiat ^ao jjn'o <»r to b« co^uid^irad in deteraiinia^j 
th« Question at pr®]?oaderaaae} tiiat irj tiisterttialne; the 
quctatioa^ t)i@ jury mi«::ht aXsi^ ti&k« xntc i.'ui}Bi^c<r»iti; n tlio 
positioa of the wlta«se«s at th"' tl^et of tht^ «vd«ia«»t, an<i 
*«T«rythi«g t«il(jli. lipp^alo to jf- -it jud^^aent its aff«-jftiijg 
tiie valu« and relial»iiity t»f tiu»ir t^otiiaiinyt* in our 
©yiaion thir. inntruotion rmt ;>r<>;-»rly r'5fu«<?'d, for tije 
r«a»oa th^^t It wimi adeleadinis* It «nuak«rat'»d eortaia 
things proper to bt^ ocnsider^d by the Juxy la clfi'tftraLitu^tfi 
the r,uitt^r of th<-> prspoadl^ranoe of the «vi<l«nce, but, did 
not Ic^avo tii« jury free to consid'sr all the aviUenc© int^» 
<iu9«d|^ aiwl all the facts asi<i oircua«t&ncj?-i) i« «via«'«:if5e. In 
dttermlniaff «rhex» thi* i>r^s>«r»noe or gr<Efftt«r .tftlgVit of 
th® evidence li«»a, ( QiU aai^.o ^lja|ioR 1^2t£lit?i4 ii©. JU. iiibaEfi* 
C23 111. 547; V^.rXn^ T* q^ilc^^go ^ i ,^ ^. il>r. ^ <:., 176 111, App* 
2*3Lj ^.4er» V jf, ?;u , ls-| ; ;/9 »« 17i> ill, hap, 49; ^mi.vh y . ^ , Sm^t m 
163 111. Api». Bta,) the objffeticn to iIk- ijtetruotion in tko 
0A.9tt at V.>a.r, whldh ■ft-e h;-.Ye dierjupc^d, a^tnru) not to ;4s.y« b*;;*!! 
lasMlti in til-? oajstt of c;i^Jrtf.e ilLk. ikj. ^» X*. i2fiii£IIJ2.» ^*-^ 
III* Ajpp, 463, ott«<i by dsfsndant. 

T}.-.f' dofojiaant r4«3Ct conteMs thiit t«<? diiua»g«» 
air':;i exo^at^ive, '~he evi'i<?ncs© tsrKlsi to ahow tJiuat th« olaiW* 

t^Vii 9di JbM'^XniH ^ iuwi ton bib n^l) 


.^.A ^^ i •! ^„ 


"iO Jf; -if)-' *i 

•ISteidi JJL • -.. ... 

•qtiA ♦XXI ftvx ,jt^ ,jui -v/^ Bi^Bt^.4^ v^ , iv*c .XXI ess 

tiff 0uetfeiB««l a fracturw of txiQ i«ft low©r ^tiv, a 
fri»ctur«j of tii« Qollcr bon«, »MV^ral bruleeB an fJ.iff«rcrtt 

aiod tms uaiUT ir«?at!3s««t fey two oy thr<?i! w-ntHs. At t>i« 
tisae ©f th.e (i«a.--nti trial (jasor« thsta feuy yiw?,s*« af t®r tii«« 
iiio<3i(l<»nt) ii«ithe.f tijH* collar Ti»gj3« ncur ivb# <rlavial@ imid 
ttnit««i» iUaittti ff*6 fa«» ii! di«ft|jur*Hi, tm^ th« dftator 
testified thitt in hi» o,'i«icn the <3oiidlticn of tji® Jtiw 
lioae aed the oi«vlol» i<» p«rniane«t. ''ti»f o«"# has be'en 
eubsiitted to twc 4uri«« nnd a verdi«t fcr |2»<>C€ w?,c 
rendered e».Qh fciwse in favojr cf t}io plaAntiff » the»« 
ver-JietB hBVe l^^n ap,.;rctfeji by tia,?- tri'';l judiree, sijifl lia 
cur opinlan BulaptiurstiRl Jjueftice tefS fc<?«R df;r:e, ':"h« 
^u^giEseat of tJU« Superior Sourt will th«»rtifore \j«? af f iria^ d. 

' (SO »9niuii!f L ...-, >. ,.^,;- -.„ ..,- ; -wit.Vi.'.ll 

•io*j>«4i «n'^i liiM ,JN!"i;ir||il»^t;> « ■. . -. . — 

•if* »* « RO^jt 

115 • 2l(M9 
OW»K ii. VAOGHir, 

Plaintiff Mn ?:rror, 

miiOR TO 


\ Defen^t in Irror. ) 

19SI.A. 114 

mu JU«Tiag O'CCIiNOK d«XiTereii the o,>ini©n ©f tho co^a-tj 

The writ of ^rri^r in thia o&«e scf^ka to review 
thfi judgment of th« Circuit ;ourt of ::©ck ^^ounty tn sue- 
tRi nine a d«raurr«r to a petition for a writ of mnnd^unus, 
ana ciifir;:iB0ing th» s>«tUic.n at plaintiff in error't: ooatt. 
The pftrtisB will bf <s«8ii^...t6d nc pfttitioner and reapondcnt 
aa In thr oourt b«i,ow. 

The p«tition eai«e«8. in eub»tancj©» that rf^epon- 

dent iB a siunicipnl ocrpDration; th? 1; en April 18, 1331, ite 

«lty 00. moil paB»e;5 p.^,» *which oreate.i an «x«cutiYe 

dffptirtraent, » * * kriotm ae the polioe d<^i?artaont which 

««brao«d and created ♦ * * 9 »iliotiB or •szapleyment of pntrol- 

wen nd otfarr en.ployoo« «48 aay b« provided by ordinancoj* . 

that owin« to Ui>- growth of th« r« ^pond-nt it hcamnet neouBBAjry 

to eiaploy carp<*nt*»rB to remodel and build polico rtntinno, 

etc.; that f»aoh yoar thp oitj council pasoeu an annunl 

appropriation ordim^ne«, appropriating money -ith widch 

to pnj/eftrpftntf^re to be eniployftd in th(4 police d«part.':^^nt; 

tJiat ti.e poHiticn or employment of cusrpenter in the pclloe 


.I'll .A. J •■ "■ *' 

w^iv^^'t at Ni:^o9« »•«• 

ri. - , - -, -: 

■.•J.' :a«»»«>ll •!» ■ s a4 

department wa« reguXarly oalaalfleU by th« Civil 
e«rvic;<» Ckiamir-Bion; that for rjorn thnn two yr^aro s«ctioa 
1908 of The iliaieago (X>d« of 19H was in fere© and «ff«ot 
in the ::it^ of Jhioag©; tb/^t *8«Uld s«cti<?n cro&tea vaTii>uB 
Offio«B ©f thu police depRrtinent^* * * and or -a ted euoh 
Other •mployeea as the city council in it» annual appropria* 
tioa ordinancf»8 herainaftftr provide for;" that hj 
ordinancfiB thft couaoil appropriated money for the p«^iaent 
of nix earpentwrs; timt the petitioner took the civil 
servioe examination for carpenter of that police departm*?nt, 
duly paoBOd ana quollfipd for such poBition, and entered 
upon his duties ao nuoh. Jun<?' ZC, 1696} tV^at in 1914, 
the petitioner sued the rocpondffnt in the tunioipal "ourt 
of Ghicago for salary or wagea due and ov/inij: to Itin prior 
to iJovember 28, 1913, setting up the foregoing facte j that 
Bsaid 00 rt *f&djudicated tiiat petitioner » * * was entitled 
to reoover because of the f^ietence of said facto ub here- 
to fore allegod hert^in ami respondent herein is by the 
said Judgiiifmt of tiie f^unioipnl Court as aforeeaid estopped 
from denying of disputing thft foregoing facte;* that 
petitionc^r hnu not violated any lav or ordimmoe prescribed 
by r«apoiident or by th<; oivil eervioo act; that November 
13, 1913, the superintendent of police f^led chaxKee fti^ainBt 
the petitioner witn the Civil r.arvicse CoiaKiieBion; that enid 
charge® vver eet for hearing Hoveraber P.6, 1913, before 
•the police trial board, which trial board o.neiBted of 
oivil eervice comdeeionfira, nynn and Lower, i:,nd one H^r^mn 
F. r*olmettl«r. First Deputy iJuperintenuent of Pciicej" that 
eaid hoard was c nstituted in Hcctrdance witr. the rul^-B and 
regulations of tl4« -JoMmisBioa; that the petitionrr and hie 
oounael w<*rr present at th<i time and ,;laoc .-lention- d for eaid 
hearing, ana th reupon the uiatter was ocntinued until Sevefiber 

iOfjTfliP i>nA wo'ial mx ftv^m 1191 lo *li«c on«»-Wr •rfT lo «0«1 

aiioi%«T bst»»<zt> noi$99n luUn** <tml;r ;»;«)^t>xtAv' lo ii^if. 9Jii oi 

rfouo fttj^jfl'-nto boa ■" <* *^ i? ©oiofj "^0 

•iii'j'-rotqqft leuitfu* ii;^! mi liOii ,,,... «iiW •« a. ., - . o 

itf isaU ";ict »l»iT«Tf^ :t«!»;J1tjiiiti«»T;'irf »«f»fiBif^'x« fla>i* 

livlo Sri;) liotn tmaoiiifq 9tLi 3Mii i»%»i(i»qxm xia !• 

Jjtti^Jos irfi; ,noi*x«uq ift>i . i xXwb 

's-elaq suiii «i HnJ^vo i>mi oub a«^w to ^^XiSii lel •s^oitf) t9 
J lit ; ;lo8»^ol "»riJ <J*>f ani4^,too ,£X<?X «as t«tfmsTor 9^ 

-eic^il a« ato^'ii'l bin* !• •oii»Aaiic» ■»cii \<» i^muMO*ti i^iiroDni oJ 

9ffi ^if sX nXo'xeii ^H<»fiJxoq«ii!'s iMm nXtmtui l>«»a»IX« vtot •# 

ittqqo^ra^ bi&ar>i9\a *m itxjoV: tf^' U >© j-ftociatx^t i>Xji« 

iBtiJitujA aftaisfio bftXXl «aiX9(; lo itt»bn9SiU*x9^Ui9 'HsU «&X9X ,ex 

bX«« iari* jnoi ««XjbimoO «i>iTi[«a XlTiO srfl a^iw isnoi^Xisq ♦ri^ 

oioitwtf ,1191 ,dS' i?*«toeiroV j|«liJ»»rf rot #•« is* ms'M^ 

lo i,<;>JaXo«oo bisio4 l«i1t* Hoi'tvr . ^— '^^ i i-^^ »»i^«< •«"" 

aii», iitu. -i-^noiJiisii >ii^ ♦art* jfloiiT3i.f«or ^tlS ' o-x 

oijjd lo't b«noiiHO«j »t>*X<; bnn »»Xi -^tii i« la^aa-xq ot> 

• 3- 
28, 1913, at w/iioii tiisa petitioner anci hi» attorney 
a^jain &pp.mrft<i before tr« boEtr-tij livtt eaia;:--dEjBi0iJ»'r8 
Flynn anci Lower vf^m pr©8«ntat. the "beginning of tnf tri&l; 
t^iat ei«id Sobu«ttler a^fpoared l5«for« ail the CYid«nce 
wa« haard and »at as «. pftrt cf thf? bORrd »>ntil th« ©nd 
of tJu* trial; Umt aftftX" the: hearing waB tjcn eluded, tiio 
beard tcx'-fc ti-.e ciaaft and' r a4vi cement; "that naiu txvial 
board /ias not yet asade an/ fmUingK or rf^pcrtr^d itt* finding* 
to t!ie ::ivil ?«rvACO Cojoiiietiiiin;** that the* ninutee cT th« 
Oc^Klssicr. cf ;%cT«sa|»«r £a, 1913, Btat« tJt.nt thm c:'f.srg©» 
*erft hcarft by th* OlTii SiLrvice ComawLsBion tn t^tai d»;t«, 
and thait tv;« Coii&;ii«aii;.a found tn^ pwtiti n^T guilty and 
ord'rred tJtmt he to« rerjiVfttS frnia th** sfirvicr of t>s<; cityj 
that suah order waR void m tJri^.i the aas* *;iti he&i'd by 
the trial board; •that the JlTil S«rvic« CoioaiBaxon ae 
a ooianiieeion, did not iiear the chartjee;* that tne peti* 
tion«r jaa<ie dwwind for reins tat «i;tont which v»as refueedi; 
that *no or<.ii»,«.no« v^ao ever pnoeed b,y th<» r"«Bpondent 
whicii in exact worasi or'«Ht«a thf positio-, or ewploysient 
01 carpentS'r.* The petition tfjiss aftorwards amended, A 
d«miTr«r was r-uK taln^sd, and t;»*s p/Dtitiofi a» atnendeu waft 
dii;ir.xe»ed at petitioner's coetit* Thi» writ of mxx-^r 

Th*" per tition'^r cont' ndo thiu. (1) he has shOVll 

by J:i6 petition tho legal existence of the ofi'i ;:« or 
pOBition of carpenter of t.-.o poiioe dfip&rtuent; that hft is 
ftntltlftd ther«»to, ae h» ^'.ns ill^r^^ally diatjhargRd by the 
ClTii o»rvic« CotoEalasion, the arguu^icnt biRin^ that ae the 
ca»e rms heard before the police trl41 board, thiist board 
should }pxve reported to the CiTil J^ervice :.1ojatsi scion before 
said Jonmieeion oftuld leg&lly «nt«r an order disoyiargine hira; 

X«j^i i^iiia t»>V** ;, . : intAorf 

H3nil»nil nil bitfioq^i to a^xi>/ixl v0« tdjus ^»i£ ioa MUi AxaocT 

,&v : > «oia«i«lwS>-'*«iyT£«c; iiviu *iw •^«... ..)-TLa.Jirl ait* 

8ft i}oi««i«iaiO& f)oirx»8 XiviC •«i;r imtit* ikrtM&€ lattt •tU 

{tr6>uul»7 Qii'ei (xQitiw ititmt<)iiSstiittt tot J»0i-i«mti abam ttm-ii 

tJRW iiftbtt-JiUft «j» riGijj... i, ■:. .» JtSOA ,l>ftfll»t?(U' s» -.w itf>i;Tusn»l> 
ff>o.da ONCi ♦«! (f) -^ ■ 

;mirt Jifiijitatin-iib "xobio n« -jftjn* \:Xiji»0X bXji«)» udiaalJMioO |>iMi 

and (2) the Jucl^aent enterod by ths :.;unici.ijal Court, 
wherein he wae awarded: is Id salary or wftfl:<»c ub c&.jrpcnt«r 
*'® XSL§. ®!^UiiliiS2^ ^^ ^-^^ legal exint^rtcf; oj' the oiricfr 
or pcoltion vxic hie. ri.;s-ht-- tVjj»r«to. 

A liert^ou «e*itiii4i reinstateraffit by a writ of 
sianUarBUR mui? t show tL«? logaX exii3t«^nc<* of tfao office or 
pofiittcn, hi;- oioar rit;nt to th« of floe, ana th© ^uty 
on thr j»firt of -)i" I'esp' nd<rite tt/ pyTform th'" net Bought 
to be 'j-nforeed, ] >f Co. p t ^ ». t ^ , a?af » 21A 111, 4C; ,£4 , 1110 Yg, 
QA iv , £f ^Lk^istSL* ^'^^ ^l^- '*''2 ^xersch tTj^, qi,t,^ ^f CJklcfai. ;Q., 
25C 111, Srjij; liick-lHaik Jj^ Oit.y of ^iija »a^-,o. . Ho. 2(699, 
App'^M'itP :curt, .-'irDt Dl«t.; XliOH 3Ls. -Lk^ Si. !}liksBM» 
Vo^ 2C641, iii, /ill. allGt;atii.;nK in t>^<» p*>tition thnt 
ttr« well pX«2kd«ti ar««ci b.v th^ aemurr«r, ;if?re 
^ oonolusicns of Ute pleader, h«Wr©Ter, are not bo »<li&itted. 
1 The putiti n av«re tJi-iat the city coimcil pawfseu tm ordinsince 
"whiota created aj: oxecutive d«j>aria'»nt » * * known as tkxe 
poll('.« dopRrtii»;nt'* nmi chioh ercatcc Jsuo>i olh^r ,uo«?itions 
or "^iijiioyraent "'a* ituay be provided by ordinanoe»* The 
repptntient oonteads that th'- offlQf or poeiticn to wiiich 
he r-tt^ki! rf^lnstatement ia cr<«&ted by ordinance, and hk It 
ws.e- n^c^ssnary to srntaDiioh the legal exlBt«*nce of tf}*:' office 
or i;)OHit:vOii, thip could be uone only by pleading th« ordi» 
nano<?e rolled u.;on. '^lethr such ordlKantjee oretxted tiie 
office or |)C8ltion wae « queetion of law, Yhe pptiticncr 
did not set up the proviBione of tao crdirumces lior the 
L,.-' «ubetano« th reof, but fiisiply hie concluPitmo th;i.t the 

office or poeition w«» eetabliBhed by th*!' ordiminces. The 
1- petition wsiB olearly deraurr»ble. ^oln n y. Cit?/ of . -hi otu^o ■ 
17a ill. App. 116; Oit ^ of ::hicar.OY ,, grry , 2X0 ill, 84; 

to axfli'n?) ^Jd.t i ;..^. .-; 

,C<?*.)S .»M. .. ^vai.- . „. ...,jix jOt tf^ , i» , X,ip, ^U iidG .ixr o«g 

. K*'»'»,iMxfet».i ■ ■■■ J ; ' --■ ■ 

«»aoUi«9q 1*»:i.'0 .^W jDb>JUiw toil .i."oq 

(ioiiivr o^ n - - I 

i i aij hct^i ,'•■■ 'it^ 

»riJ toil «r ;ij io rm^fiir^i^^ mii siu :?•« *«ft toito 

«£5iiEii£i J2 v^^i' xl £i:2iiii .•Xrf*Ttw»»lii tXio^Xo saw iiojr.tJt#i»<| -J 
•" ' ^'' -y-V-p ^ ror^jfitntCi: \o jr: ;aXi ^qqk •XXi 8VX 


&eiy>»iaiy Xs. h^^^ £l Qhjcc,^'^ . 2SC Ul. 435, 

Th« petitioner c ontende tJmt tVi* ordor removing 
hia fri>a thp of?rvice of Uw^^ oity is void, the ajrgxi:'i«nt 
Ijftinu that ihe evidonc© to »uwt«.iB tii<? oharu^e filf^d 
a^jTAinet him beforo the ;*!lvil K®jrvlce CoramiBeicn was h«*rd 
by a trial bo*rd ounaieting of thr«e ja«aib«r», two of whca 
wer»» aivii eervloc oojaiaieaionore, but thfNt in tiK- hearing 
of B»id «videnoo, the thr<ie wer« (sitting cte a trtisl board, 
antl none of th4*ci wtt« «iitting as ooejuiiiesionor, Praotically 
thi» aamo ooitterntion was fajiide in t>ie o^s** of .' ■ll^el cl.t. v^ 
<;Sj^ty o f JHilB^t 1^^ -ll* •'^PP' fil^i, wh«r<^ it v?«,r hrld that 
th«» aontcntion was opixjsod to both reaecrt nnd jiutViorlty} 
thftt tjtf oivxl B«rvic« act yn's.B not intended to bra lnt«r» 
prctftd in exij ach narrow fAohicsn. Alco th<? civil aervico 
act jiTOvid*"©, iec. X, that two tsf th*; oivil Bi^rvion oob»» 
MloBionfrn shall con«titut« a (|uorum; : ec. 12 of th<;^ oaiM 
«ct yrovidea thst nooffioor or employe in tho cl&a&ifiod 
oivil eervioe shall he di»o)mrged «xo«pt upon wvitton 
ohargfte aft^r hearing} th»t ©Rid ohargee chall be inv^oti- 
gatea by tfx' wlvii i-crvice Ooaaiosion, or Boaif oth»=r officer 
or lioai-d appointed by the Coauaieeionj th&t thf? firtidiiiig or 
do€l»ioa of the civil oorvloc eosamiBoioner or inytotigating 
lM<ird, when ftpprov«»d by the :*vmmitBian, shall be cr-rtified to 
tho nppointintir officer. In ihn o&b«j at btir, two mejabero of 
tho trial board w<;ro civil uorvico eoasaise loner o, and it «ould 
be «a absurdity to oay t)mt thf-y ©hould report to th<>m«elv»»# 
KUfBldt ia. ■^%-:>>' <^t ;:hica;v:o. . ^upra ; Hvgrn^ x». ilitlseaa 
^j^ergf Hy, ..o.. 104 111, 462; Layrgnae Y» tt , rangg . 1^16 111. 
474, The aontewtion Of the pttitiotfr iBunten^bl©, 

.-'.,.i"t «*■-- '■ ■■•■♦ ai&idum «.♦ o..,. .■*■,• ,. .. 

■-'■ ^ f- '"•■■•' . •■ ■•■■^ ' ;»aiL(aj6it)0 <&» 3«i4^1» nm/ tiwrf* Tt« •fioir imfi 

•^»»Ri »*.■ o^ fo«t>M».;fjti TOR »*!»' r;s: iao,iv/' ini j*rft 

b9l1ian»lt^ 9tQ at axe -iitrtltl^ ■■, aviniM ^o« 

t-»f?ltlQ iH{fj« 9n«fl no ,e}'^Jl4ssiifltt«0 ♦piv:*'- -erf 5»J4» 

,«i»vX»«ivsAH4 »i ♦•).)«|9'« i>X)i,oit« x;*rt* <*«<♦ %m 0^ t**iMW»<'« «* '♦^^ 

Th« furth^T contention of the potitictoer that the 
jar.gRrnt r^ntt-r^n in iiis f«Ycr by th<» 'unieipal Tourt for 
8aJ.a3ry prior to myim\ftr 88, 1013, is y,*--8 jif,^J udi oa ta. of 
the 'i.«A':*l. ^►xistftncn of t)i'^ orficf- or powiticn he in now 
»ef!tein^ ana niu ri^at tij<"rrto» cannol bt imintulned* 
For aught timt appeara fro,.. th« p»tii-icn, fcSie ju-iltpa^nt 
in that oaa« jsaay navQ been r*nd^,-red upon ih<'-» ground that 
the petitioner hs:d performf^d tn<i' sj-^rviccy for ^'iiichi h« 
win se«klng P®^ • Furthi^riior^, -wc h^vethit dfiy rf-ifers!f»d Pttid 
Ju^^iaont of tJifi i^uniclpal 'Jourt. »/« )iav« cer«i'ul ly exajninod 
the r«oord nnd nr« of th« r-^inion that th*» d^aurrer wrb 
properly sarjtBin«<l, anti t!.<» p«tltion p.* ftjcmndwd dietaiJ-<6©d» 

Th« ^udgjjiont of twfr 'Virouit nourt of ^ook; 
County ^ili, th«rffifev«, bw a.ffiris«tl. 

WOK !li 9U llH»Jlvfi «0J4 !:'» »Oi1tl« !»fttf 


246 - 21227 

PaT.-in CUISTOFJiKO and VI :G:iNT 
DI CICCO, for use of Peter 

Defendants in -rror, / ) 13RU0R TO 


YB. S 


Plaintiffs in Mr tot, ) 


198I.A. I5I 


rhia writ of error waa aued out by J&nes Anion to 
reyerae a judgment for #158,85 entered by the Municipal Court 
of Chicago against him and //illiam Anton, On March 11, 1915, 
on motion of defendants in error (plaintiffs), the statement 
of facts contained in the tranucript of the record wao stricken 
therefrom, and the alleged grounds for reversal are b^aed uuon 
the conOTon liw record. 

The action in the J/unicipal Court was against 
iVilxiam, Nick and James /^nton, doing "buainosa as Anton Eros., 
defendants, and only '/illiara Anton and James Anton were served 
with process. Plaintiffs* claim was for the sum of .jU5a.85 
upon an account stated and for merchandise sold and delivered. 
It appears from the summons thot the defendants were directed 
to appear in the liunicipal Court on a certain named day to 
anBwer unto "Peter Christofano," Jajnes 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. /illiiu.i /jiton did not 
appear and wad defaulted. The court fouand the is ues in favor 
of plaintiffs, aaoensed plaintiffs' damages at the sura of 
1158.85, and entered judgment against Villiam y\nton and James 

vssxs - dii- 


ct rtc- txA uatntfi x-' ^■'JO fcoua biiw 'io^in to rf^i'iv/ aiill 

.ciXei ,iX ilou^isi nO .ttofi-u. i-TifiiXXJtv toitfl miri ^enijBj^ 03110 JiiO to 
inom&3n3a Qiii , ( al'ii.-^nxijXq) lario ni siru^hnalnL lo noiJom «o 

.i)'xoo&-i w X noTTOoo 9Ai 

,,ao'u! aoinf. ea aaanxauJ ynxob .noiriA e&coisX, bn* >[oikl ,ra/3l.Xlw 

bsv'ies a-cen? no*ru\ asfiial bna notfn/i cisilXi?! \:;Xfio bne .eJ-fiabneleb 

se.aeXC to mue eiH tnl ubw mislo ♦felliJniiiX'i .auoooiq rftflw 

, 5©*j:«»vxX9b bnfi bXoa saxbmsrfo'i^rjin loT: bos baiBJH cfirircoofi ns aoqu 

od" "^Bb baman nxficftoo a xio iii.'oL' Xtiqioxnuw sjfj- ni ijaaqqa 0* 

alri fioned-Hs no^tctA ssuubL ••. ortslodeiii^'i larfeq;" oinij towana 

boinoi-j sri ifoiriw nl «*1^»3J lo tirHbUlu an bsXilr bmi sorwiftaqqa 

bflrf ,adn.»f)n3l9b-oo axri x(J-xw \;X:fni:ot 10 \:XX«tfbxvxbnx »9ri dari^f 

iieva bnri '10 .HitiifliBXq zhoiI yolJbrisrfoiom xna booBdotijq isva 

don iiiJb noJ-n.\ twj&tlLtv . 8^tlx:^^l»Xf/ rfdi-v Jxiuootis rm bsdada 

•iova^ ni aou 81I end boiio'J diuo-o oriT ,b»tlusil9b bae iAeqq« 

Ic mi/B ©riJ- .tij aa^arajab 'BltiJ^nlaXq boe;i©a«« , elli^nijaXq lo 

M^/iX, bfifl nndnA ntislXXlv. denlB;^ dn»«»bjJt beis^no bxuK ,a8.8ax$ 

Anton on the finding* 

oome of the points relied upon for a reversal of 
the Judgment by counsel for Jamos Anton are, in our opinion, 
hypercritical and without merit. The trial court certainly 
had a right to enter judgment against the two defendants, 
Williara and Jumes /\nton, notwithstajid mg the fact that their 
co-defendant, Nick ;jiton, w;is not served with process, (Jec, 
14 ir'ractice Act.) It is irged that there is a variance 
between the statement of claim and the summons, in that it 
appears from the former that the plaintiff o .vere 'Peter 
Cristofano and .incent :>i Cicco, for use of Peter ?hristofano, " 
whilst in the latter the dufandanti;. were directed to appear and 
answer unto "Poter Chri^tof ano," Jacieo /aiton is in no 
position to complain of this, lie did not raise the point in 
an appropriate manner in the trial court, i?e appeared and 
filed an affidavit of 'aerits. After the finding he could not 
take advantage of the variarice, if auch there w<j.r. , on a motion 
in arrest of judgrrvent ( Toledo . W, .^ ^, ^, Zo, v, McLaughlin , 
63 111, 389, 391); nor can he on a writ of error (C ruikshanic 
V. Brown . 5 Oilm. 7 5, 77), The judgment is affirmed, 


.Snifcwil eriJ- no no;^nA 

,tiiniibno'i.ob omi iiciS isnisjjjfi in&cn^'ml tad cm ol ixiaiTC a i-ari 

eoasi'iiiT jk ei aif^riJ cfflrW baara; si il (.,to/^ 3oii'OiJi4. ^I 

tois^J ©19K BlT:i:fniiJiq s-ili ^Mtit. lomicl 9tii taorl anasqqa 

" jon.s'iod^siiii'. lei'e'l "io »ujj nol ,oo&iO iC JneoniY i;ruB onBlo^JeiiO 

btui ii;erq/; ocf toJ■r:^^^i.^ e'l^w jinBbm V^b sriJ i.e^d'i'.I &xl5 ni Jeiiriw 

on ni fci «oin/. :j»ji1jsu " ,nmiioi-hiiii'y) asia-i" odnu iswaxis 

rti cffixoq uii^ dt:i>n. d^Oii bib sil .eiiW lo niisltpiaoo oi nox^iaoq 

fciXB beiiioqqs ©H .iiuco Xfli"i;f 9ii;t ai lonnxsat B^Bitqoiqqa as 

ct^on bXifoo Bx{ anibnil aaJt "ja^lA ,B;fxi9m lo iiyAbitIja jui beXxl 

nox;foirt jg no ,c..;w Qieifj ;-fou.-i 'U ,90»ni3Xi/iV sxiJ 'io 9a^i,t ii^ybe siai 

^XLETfa^xijrjC' ) ton: 10 lo ;tx'iw -a no oii n*5C -icn ;(XCe: ,GHC ,XX1 eo 
.berffxxllfi ai jrctmatift ©ff- . ( ^V ^dS' ,mXx{; t^ . nwcig ,v 

257 - 21239 


Defendant in ':^rro3#. 



PlaiiUiff ir/^TTOT, 

jsrhor to 


198 I.A. 152 


Plaintiff nom'rencod this action to recovejr the sum 
of $375,02 for two conaignments of fioh sold and delivered to 
defendant in December, 1913. At the beginning of the trial 
the attorney for defendant admitted that defendant had received 
the fish and that the number of oounds ch^urged for was correct, 
;ind stated in aubat.-Mice that the only -luostion in the case was 
whether plaintiff was the vendor of the fiali or plaintiff's 
parents, M. ilhrlich and Pimnie .vhrlich; in other words, ti^ether 
immediately prior to the sale and delivery plaintiff was the 
owner thereof or plaintiff's parents .Thereupon the court 
suggested that this issue had be:lcr be determined by a jury, 
and the trial proceeded before a jury.t— 41 tiie conclusion of 

tlie- hearing of the frridenee the eourt Gharjjod th<i jury orally, 

Ija part as follows: 

-^-.„,,., "?h«-p lain tiff in his statement of claim in thta, 

^uit ia aaking for $375, the fish shipped on two consignments, 
"he defend<.,nt denies th;^t the fish wat; b -^ught from this 
jjlaintifi". The question for you to decide is whether or not 
under the evidence the fieh bcjl^nRed to tltf; plaintii'f, or was 
■;he plaintiff acting as thf.^ agent for his pr.rcrits and the 

iitle of the fish waa in the parents and not in this yung 
nan. * * iSTen though the fish mi^ht be his, nevertheless ! 

Lf he representefl that the ' ish belonpred to the father or the [ 
parents then, under that phase of the case if you should find 
fC.'^-you would have to find for the eadAnt." 

At^ the conclusion of the charge, i!h response t<r--bhe 

court's inquiry, the attorney for defendant stated that he had 

ess If 



sgi .AJ 8^eii 


Aoit?: nJ: ^rmjfaxiotsQ 

HM'ayo l>Jto HiiX-i ^i. 

c, Wi ni|^l 





TmvOO gfHT «0 KOIKI^ SJtT 

Y2f*icafli) 5iOITfc.UL fulfil <iSI> 

aflw 9SJ30 ^riJ ak noitanisp xlno etii Sarii sonclecfuE ni h&Su^e bar 
s^ltiiaisXq t.o rlBl'\ otii tG rs:©hn»y ♦if# ecw 'iliir.i&iq terijfex'Cw 

■ i^ ■»f>Tf9bkrr^ oTii to ■^mran^tLM^i 

,%XX«io -^«ut €wW i>«R'j:jri< 

^oXXot «fl **i«(i fll 

«4f(,t jii mir.r- 
,Biii.timix-ii.enoo ■■ 
axi!# mo-. 
v^on 10 10/f^'-) 
.'vw 10 ,'rt.tir>: 

f^^^;^ bmi s.i ■ •, ... 

RfWY alilcf «i .ion • 

BesXoiUlfiTQn ,otrf r;- 

1ml 1: oiinidB w^x Is. 

«»^.>...:.... ...,. „ 

f sK i*srf:f biiia^B ^nabnoltafc tot ■v;»niOvt*fl ort^ ,XiiupnX B':tii/r>o 

i 10 1 i.; 

. ..Xi># i'. i 

.tf rfrul 

. \'-?i drU •; ' ;>■ 

. . ,1* 

L^ilt Tto ©X*li 

' : •^ --^ . rjjsit! 

.:i.* ^.,iU 

' '■ 

JjWi^ -3. 

.-/.. ml'X oi e-v . 

I .vx.. 


^ ., 1ft^M««*l«n to the c!xi?i?r>The jury returned a Yordict in 
^L ^^^°^ ^^ plaintiff «,nd assessed his d-mageo at the B^xin of 
-^ ^o75.02, upon which verdict the c-^urt entered judgment 
against the defendant. ^ 

Plaintiff testified in substance that he was >:3 
years of age ana resided at La Croase, Vvisconsin, 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 business but Ihiit he hr^d had no 
buainesB connection with them for three yours; th.-ii he was the 
owner of the fish in nuestjon and sold tliem to defondfuit on 
his own account and not n,^ apent for his parents; that on 
Dece.vber 1, 191LS he cnlled at the office of the defendiint in 
Chicago and had an interview- with ">cnjaOTin, acks, pro>;ident 
of defendant, and at thf^t time ^ackn orlored the fish to be 
shipped; that subsentjcntly he had another intor-yi«r.7 ^rith 
Sacks at which ti^ne it wnp deterrainod th.'i; the value of the 
fish received by defendnnt was ^.375. nJ>; tJiv-.i thc^reuron .-acks 
said to him: "I will ,^ive y^M., ^ check for :^7?5.r!2; your father 
owes me ^300 and I am going to taJ^d it off"; that he (plain- 
tiff) replied: "You cannot take off one cent from me, the fish 
were mine and I want my money*; that thereupon i>acks suggested 
that the matter could only be settled by ouit, and that he 
(plaintiff) shortly thereafter com.' enced the presiont action, 
Pannie :shrlich, mother of plaintiff, testified that she and her 
husband, Meyer Chrlich, were partners in the fish business and 
that plaintiff had not been in their eriploy for three years. 

For the defendant viacks testified in substance that 
on Oeceniber 1, 1913, plaintiff called on him and said that 
his parents had certain fish they wanted to bell and inquired 
if defendant would buy them, and further stated that his 
mother wati then at Brownsville, Minnesota, where some oi the 


borf Jbrta rieil 'a«i-t-Cf>« bnt- :^akxu6 T:o c;ao«i«wcr sri^ ai b&:^^nft 

^a19^S1Bq c.e ti.9xW0Bt ( n^i iof{.t«l Ei:r< cfr.rii jf^tapy seirirf not nescf 

on bijrf hr^d ©rf i.'iilJ^ ;^t'cf uaenisuo ti&i'\ 9riS rti b9^:gn» oala ensw 

no itn«f n i'i'il: oJ- lauiii' fcXoa bn/u RPtiafti/r nl cieit oil.t Ito larwo 

no tMi:iS ;a*f!o'j..i3q eirf lol ^rto"^^ ?^/': Jon trt« JnjL'oosa two eiii 

ai d-niibffsloJb 3^^:* lo dol'i'ic eif* i^r, bollon art ,c,I^I ,X aadroosa 

iltlv/ yt&iviiySni todiowR be^ri sri y;!^ ne up » a cfua imii \beiqqlit9 
esii lo oi/I:tv srii ;■ ^rfj hrnisfnoi^^ft piw* Ji etrif ifoxriw ia s^toaS 

•xarfd "."^ iiroy ;S'^,c?Vi: •ro'r rfoorio n t/'y svi^?, iX£w I* :airi o* Maa 

-nielti) ari ton'* ;*'l'io .tx ^^.^'^^ o;t ?,nio?', m..? i bna OOii am aawo 

rfall 9r(;f ,9m aiO'xl ^«oo i^rto 1'io ?>JlHi ^forrnno uoY" :dailg9i ("i^i^t 

])9je9^<j3wa ajtojB'' nogaatorfj .^udi ;*y©noflt yn J-obw I baa &nl!a enow 

erf d-sri* boB t^iwa yJ i/^I^Joe «>;'■ yino fol'.ro 'X3;f;tfln\ siii c^nriJ 

,noxJ-DK inoi.&iq arii i)9ons tnoo leJlcBisri:^ xLiiotiu {llliataLq) 

zod bna eriu it-.iii b^iiJiiHoi ^IJiirdala lo locitom .tioiliii^i dinaa'i 

bna SBdiixaucf sialt khJ- nt. M'lencfrjsq otsi^ .ffniXirC- ^aysM .bnaefawri 

.aiaoy asirJi^ 'col yoXqn.' '^.s.QiiS aX nnar^ cfcn bsrf ttitnlaXq ;tflx(;t 

Jfirii aone^tBcfwa nl bollliaoi B3Loa<^ tnr.^no'tGb otit 19'K 

^Hdt fai^io bnu ntii no *>^XXdo tlltniaXq ,^ XPX ,X -tarfiraOo'f no 
beiiur nl trm ll^d of bacfnjsv yorf* rtRll nicJTao bad -Jinotjuq eirf 

fish were, and that he (ijacks) had h«?;;ter telcpVirtie her 
ejid arrange with her as to nrice, etc.; that he (jacks) 
on the-; same da,; talked with IVre, ^hrlich over the long 
distance phone, and that subsecjuontly the fish were received 
by defendant; that at the time of the interview with plaintiff 
cUifendyjit had in its possession two demand notes, each for 
$150, signed by Fannie and oyer :;hrlich end payable to 
defendant, and so adrised plaintiff; and that ho (>»acks) during 
hie long distance telephone convors, tion r:ith "Parnifc hrlich 
told her that defendjmt would credit the ralus of the- fish to be 
shipped on said notes. Fannie hrlich denisd th.^t while she was 
at Brov;naville on Df^oevber lr>t she had ir.y telephone conversa- 
tion with aaeks. The latter further testified that aTt-er the 
fish had been received by defendant, plaintiff t'^^ain called and 
demanded that p.-iyrrent for the fi3}i be nM'^o to hin, vfha ch demand 
wue refueed, and that he CBncks) did not then tender to plaintiff 
a check for .175. OS, or for any nrn'^itnt, in c^ettloment. reyer 
Finder, treasurer of defeninnt, and Morrie a.ipe, bookkeeper for 
defendant, also gave certain testirpony on behalf of dofond;int, 
as did ileary Johnson, a dealer in fich in Chicago, 

it is first contended by crunsel for dofendiix^t that, 
even upon the theory that plaintiff ivrs the owner of the fish, 
plaintiff* a evidence does not '"'■nrrar-t a vrdict anl Judgment in 
excess of •j44,72. "fe cannot agree with coun'^el, Under the 
pleadings and the admissions made by the attorney for defendant 
during the trial, the value of the fieh ( '?37?5.0-'^) received by 
defendant was not in dispute. The sole insue presented to the 
jury was whether at tho time of the sale plaintiff wru: the owner 
of the fish and sold th sm to def -ndtjit for his own account, or 
whether oigintiff's parents were the owners thereof and plaintiff 
act'id merely as gent for them in making the sale. "In the 
trial of a cause the admissions of counsel, es to matters to be 

l3*>vi:€>oatt oiew ^iexl ari^ xLitmttpoo(Si.\B iBtii brui .snoiiq ydnjB;faifc 

lo'i f{D,-;9 jSO^ofi bm'ffleJb ow^ itoJtaBoasoq B*i ni fciiri SiMbnott.b 
0^ olcfsviiq bits rf.oiIrEXf;' iotco*' ^rta oinn«> >ta" bgnj^ia ,oex;': 

xioiltjrl elnois'sr rf.+ i.T jt* 1^ .st'^TnoD ^aadqal^t oonstfaib anoX airi 

9rf oi liRxl. idi lo sijXiST -^cf.f tiba-rn Muow cTnn.brr'jtac t,ori^ i&d bloi 

aji'^ Grfa alliiw iadi b^Xa^h rfoilicrf skinrus"!^ .a9.->on btAa no baqalrfs 

-seiovmo .) nnori'^oXa;? x^* ^-"^ ^"^8 ^^'sX ^9cf.-©t»f)< no olXi vanwcia is 

9di is*l^ iid) h<!il'):xie9^ •r^if.ttu'i i9.+ ctal aitT ,aaiti^.u iiitw noli 

minXaXq o* ichct^i norf+ .ton bth ' ajLos'd^ art i-iiitcf I'Ob ,i3t»aij'^ 

,?^ru;i?nD'i:ji) lo lX«rfocf no ynoTil.'raQ j- (.ia.^Tso 9/y;>. oaXe .jiiebnp'iob 

♦ ojjsolrfO nX ilail nl i(5lB«b ? ^noenriou xiiisil Lit' aa 

,:t,aii,J ^nabneleb lot Xsanuoo vtf •■ isii't ai t: 

fdail 9di lo i'?nwo aticf ntw Ir'il.tnxjijXq ts.'ijii \io^(ii ^di nocw adV9 

111 cfns'nsbiJ i. ' fai JoibTOT « in»fUif ion a^cb ?>fM:isbiTS a'lll^niaXg 

9d& isbnl' ,I?^ni;co rf^lw oo^csa Jonrusr sv .ST.^^f lo ueaoxa 

(tnr.bnalob lol ■^emod'J^^ ariJ^ X<f pbi^in Bnolveleiba f)di bnu tsnibaeXq 

•\£{f b«Ti909i (SO.^TS^) riQil "^rCt lo biiLkv art.' ,i«xi^ sri* jiotiub 

sdi oS b9ono«€«iq ©wen.?; ol^. .v.ttrq^ib ni Jon i!cw cTok^bnolob 

istmo Qdi ;.ow llld^alr.I.;! »I,rJ3 u;:^ 1q atfiii /^di ii^ todS^dw oaw xrul 

10 .ini o-ioA two aid tol ia*ibn' t^b cS mf di bXoo btu dull sitt lo 

lliiniBlq ba« loeiailJ^ ai:onwo »ri:f t^iaw vta&taq a')liJni«ic asdiaifw 

srii aJ " .oxjBS tjri^ SniJfBin nx mon.? nol in«)ji. aa xXois>«t ba^os 

•rf o* BiiJjJflni o* GP .Xssni'oo lo enolfiaimlijj o/i;f ©cwao a Ic Xjali* 

proved, are constantly received and acted upon. They may 

dispense with procf -;f facts for wnich witnesses would 

otherwiee be caLlsd, niey racy limit the demand .made or the 

set-off clciimed. Indeed, any fart, be-iring upon the isBuea 

involved, udmitted Ly counsol, may be the ground of the 

court's procedure equally ac if entablished by the cle;irest 

proof." ( Oacarxyan v, Arros^Co., 103 TJ. cj. 261, ^63; yjlaon 

▼ . ^>pring . 64 Hi, 14; 'I ill Constructio n Co,, v. Chicago 

Si* !• & ^' ^^y« Jo. . 174 111, App, 600,) 

>nd ive cannot say after due considerati en of the 

record bv^fore us that the verdict is contrary to the weight 

of the evidence, af^ contended by counsel, on the question 

whether or not plaintiff wao the owner of the fish at the 

time of the sale, 

1 1 is further conten'led by coixnsel that the triad 

1/ court errod in rifvaing to admit in evidence the book accounts 

of defend>int and c^rtar'.n entries made in defen-iant's books 

relauive to th:- sole in question. If certain on tries in the 

account bo oka of cJefeninnt showod that the purchase of the fish 

in question w^s from plaintiff's parents or from Iioyer Shrlich, 

rathcir Uian from plaint. ff, said entries would not be competent 

evidence ai^ainst plc?,intiff. The defon jjnt could not bind 

i plaintiff by err/ statements witten in a book of account kept 

by def enuant . "e think that th^? ruling of the court was a 

proper one, ( 3.-?nf or d v. Mille r, 19 111, App. 536; Suromers v, 

jjt'Kia. 13 iierc '"- "^awle Rep, (Pa.), 4*^5, 411; Dai ley v, 

S onnerborni 35 Tex, 60, 6^2.) In the case last cit-.-d it is 

said: "Perhaps the strongest reason why the purchaser's books 

should/be adjuitted ae against the seller, cons is te in the fact 

that it would be an additional inducement to dishonesty and 

fraud, which v/oiild thereby plnce the merchant, or seller, in 

the power of his debtor," 

Complaint is made of several other rulings of the 

%3n x^stl .noou h&soB him Jbevif^osi \rXiweJanoo eta ,5?vciq 

orii -10 abx-m bmmub jxli Uniil Y.ats: •'isil'^ ,f>5XIi:o ocf oexwiarfjo 
a»uaei srf# ncnni ^rtiii'>od .^f^n^ •\C«« ,l>r)Pbi3ii: .bomi&Xo 'i*Jo-;fea 

^a»iB8Xo <=Jri;f y*^ borf8J:IrfjB,+arj y.i or. v.XXairps ©iifbGooisi a';tauoD^ ;6Sf:: ,XSS . . .U f.ox ..or DgriA ,v i-mxcinouo ] ".looiq 

2Jlii2.liiii ''^ ''Pii £E9j^Jl?i!!^ifi?5L^. iJiAL '^•'^ .JXI ^o «asi22ii *^ 

i,.y'& .;iqA .1X1 ^VX ,.ft£C ,s^ .^ A .1 .H 

erf* to ct! i^iiiBbkartoo e>sjb i-sfiR J-onm-.o o?. bn'. 

j-x<3j|X9V7 9rfJ oi x'lsi'iSmo Bi J-oxfcisv ^rW tadi sv o'lolscf i>iony'i 

rtoxvfaswp &di no ,l9am)oo \;d" hsba^.tnoo ^.,e. ,»on:ii)irt« eri* lo 

»rfj' is', rfeil -^ifj 'to i';^'?© od& 'j.«w T-*5-.t,niJ;BXcf dfo« xo te/iioxlw 

.sXse r>rfi "io eajii 

Boiootf a 'c^ilJk5ii.>fIt>i9j^ ni dJbi?i(Tf 5i«irtJTT3 rJ.sii'fe:^ bca i^fiiibixe Isb lo 
oifJ- ni Qt>itiivd nia^nao "^rl .rso'^tBrHfr ni aX.cs erf* oc^ eviJaXdi 

jriaiXTiii T9\;3i',' moil to ac^hsinq p.*'\JiSni.s£q wotl opv iioid-ej&iip «i 

jTf©*eq.T!:oo oif Joii bi'i/ow asiii'/ie binp. ,?'?:: ct-niaXq ntoal iXA/li ioriJ\8i 

bnxcf ion hli.oo ^mjinetsh sdT . '^tiv+ni.sXg ^biujbs^ 5(0Cfai>xTe 

J-q».'i .i^niioooii 'io ^ca<f a nl nf»iitv> BvI noraoc^ iut a xv::^, "^cf lliJ'nxaXq 

'^ 552i2S!Lyii J^^'^- •^l^lA ,XXJ. 91 ^rslliU .t b-xn ^ta'-io ) ,»no isqoaq 

ei *i bo^in imni »Si'.o 9r(;t nl {.Pd ,0d ,x»''T dt ,n-iOrfisnno 3 

eatoocf a'aaea-ioiifq «*ri.t \iriw nosusi tB9p,norte &[iS aqiirfrtci" :blii8 

Joal oriJ^ ni aJaisnoo ^iHilsa orii- ;tonii< sb b?jJd-iLaJr;-i 3d\bIisorfa 

bns x^60HOx{aib nj ;t!safiffiotjbfii Xanoi*ibbr» an ©o bXuow ^i cfjstO' 

, '.iido ao ,:rn«xlciaft!n nrf^f sonXq xdt:>ifiiii bXi/r.w rloii-iw ,bx;«-xl 

*,iotd9b «iri lo :tswoq ari;f 

court on the admiaaihility of evidence, "but we do not think 
that any error prejudicial to the defendant was coBaiaitted, 

Finding no reversible error In the record the 
judgBient of the Municipal Court le affirmed, 


jiaxtU ton ofc ©*- ,-rjfn .enfts-hlvs le ^;J•i;Xxcfj:ssi^Jr'.e ©rfi^ no &ii}Ot> 
ail* b'iootPi oiij' fil 10119 aXcfisiflvai OiJ j^niJbni'*! 

211 - 21189 

JAlCgS CLINIC, doing buslneaa 
as J, & D, CLIN.;, 



' v.„J^ellant, 




198 I.A. 163 


Appellee recovered a judgment for d.-imagea to his 
automobile- truck and the goods it contained resulting from 
a collision with appellant's locoraotiYe engine at, n pu>iliG 
croBoing, The negligence charged in t^ie doclarution was 
the running of uaid engine across said highway "without 
causing a bell to be rung or a ote^jn vhistle to be whistled 
at a distance of 30 rods from said crossing, and without 
causing a bell to be kept ringing or a stei^ whistle to be 
kept whistling, while said locomotive engine was approach* 
ing said crossing from 80 rods therefrom until it had 
reached the Game," 

Appellant contends there should have been a 
directed verdict in its favor on the grounds that the 
evidence does not disclose thr negligence charged and shows 
contributory negligence. 

At said crossiing the railroad tracks are double 
and its right of way is loo feet wide, running; about north 
and south at right angles to the highway. At the time of 
the collision the locomotive cn,;ine, drawing three oth<-rs, 
was northbound on the ea:iterly track and appelle* was going 
east. The latter and his chauffeur who operated the auto- 
mobile testified that though they looked they did not iee 




•eeniautf ^niob ,;<>HIXJ aHMivl 


,TJ! '00 KHT TO MOIMITO *'HT a2BSVlJ5iG SSmiAE KOITulTt ,flll 

Eoil Bn-i'^-f-i'^'Ci i?y«iaiiicp d"! Hboo^ aril !)«« :.'ii}ific*-«Xi<fo«o,)i;« 

olXcfirq a ,1^ ani7irtt» 9Tl;*omo3oX a '*fu»iXt»iy*i rillw aoiaiXXoo a 

axiw noxJ.HrtjaX»«iib Rdi at b»si«r{o sOiiogiXsoa »riT .gnlaaono 

lUMri(txi9" >C'«*J^;^J>^ falijo aaoTcojis driign@ tixjiu to :^nlt\nui vnii 

beXleiiiP 3Cf oct sjj;iaXrt« oiivsla -^. 10 :Qnui srf oi iXorf jb }]nl9uno 

IwoiUi^ bn.B 4?inj;K«o7o l?iBe ato*xl aboi 06 to 90ftP.laJ:I> a Sa 

9rf oj sXieiffw rjtijo^a j© "XO ^ttij^niit ;tq»:J erf o* IXarf js anlauaa 

I)iirf *i Xx^ntt' Moi'Ja'XrifU afcOT 08 moil s«i«aorxo 1)2*2 ^nJ 

JB nosn DViirf bXuoxle oisrtt ai>r(9,tnoo lasiisqqA 
erf* l«r(l af>m/r«ta »rii «© ttov^T: 8*i nl ^oii'isv b»l09ill) 
aworfe bn/3 hbJ^^«rio snn-jr.iXa'^n -rfi aeoXotiib Ion si»oi> •oiidblrs 

•Xcfuot) 814=1 taiODti bnotLti.ii erfd' swiaeoT.*} bins ik 
ciiton J-Jjoda aninnui ,ofclr S9»Ti ftOX ti yx^« "10 +rt:^ii a^l bo* 

to araii ari* iA .x-awrlslrf orii ol aoXan« ^tri^Jti iji rWi:oa bnc 

,3i'>xl;fc aeirii gniw-nb ,oni. ;n£i evllomoooX »rW nololXXoo ori* 

Tiniog enw ©olXoqqi; ijfta >fojBi* ^XnaiKW© 9rii no bnuocfrflion aew 

-olUK aril bolAieqn oriw iiislluur'o eXri ba» i»iiM£ eriT .la«» 

00a ion bib xmdi bealooX ^aili riau^rfl liiril haltliesl ©XlcfOiTi 

the locomotive until they were on the westerly tracks when 

they jiuirped permittintr it to continue under power and collide 

with the engine. They also tentified that they heard no 

whistle or hell or gong. 

The uncontroverted evidence as to the physical 

conditions clearly Bhowb, however, that had appellee looked 

to avoid danger 
when the exercise of due care 3&OKx±QtSDUGau&x«3«;!riiPt^ luider 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 iO 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 crooning. 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, Vhether 
or how much the bushes may have hung over the line does not 
appear. Their estimated distance from the track was froin 20 
to ^^ feet, dine 'judged* about 20 feet and Bleimehl's 
brother about 25, The chauffeur said he could not see the 
track until within 10 f e- t of it. But their testimony ioes 
not conform to a plat made to a scale and a photograph show- 
ing actual con^litions, 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 

asdv i::^.onii y.Insd-aQw erf^ no Qfor y;9rf.t llinu oviJomoooX adi 
sbiXIoo bfMi iswoQ i?^[)mi 9;.iJiJ: J «oo oi .ti ^unld^iiiH'isq b9qfli*/t x^rf^t 

.gaoj) 10 iXad 10 aliajtxftr 

bH;(ooI 99il»qae Jbari ;J.axW .■^csiTswoa ,«wof(iJ y.Xi«oXo anoxj'j.bfloo 

issnflb biovs oJ- 
rfajjs Twbm/ ^f9Gii:%»KXMiG9UQaciBitX3B(3e 9*i«o »i/ij "io ssio-xaxa 3ri;t noriw 

avAii Jblw-^'O »ri 2I00X oi raxrt betiupoi. ^'^^'j'^'^in-®^' B©oft8,taini/oiio 

.aoxalXioo m ttftya oi smiS ni nlBti*iqqi-j 9iii nsea 

ml.- ifi c^njr-rfsv ij Qxitodtuii donahlm &rii Io cfri^xew siU bkb loK 

.iwoid 9X.-t.:;XJfw iQti 7ini/T: BMW XXsjcf on isiii x'^09tii 

"io i^«9w ^jjsI Ol' oi 05 moil: lo 9oni3.taib s i'^ :awor(B »o«sbXT9 

©xi^ 'to w»iv bstJ-Diniscfonu ixk n«» s-s^rfj jtojsi^ -^Ins^Bfl© 91I* 

ie*'.t«urj ©no moil be^airfi^a© sviwo s hnox^d a^ riiuoa e>toBi;f 

-oi^oriq fi mo'tl: T,i^ni:^b«T, .JixtiRoo-jo 9f^# 'nortl »Xiai a tXflrf ©no oi 

dtuos odf .ta .aXifTf J.Lfiii sno iei : gonsbxvfl ni rfqeig 

a';}'m-!XXecvq4s Jbn« \swri?^xrl Qdi Io noivrontJr, Sifd' Io nonioo *a9w 

£ SBw siorli siaxfv ,Xri9ffti9X?^ ano Io ;*oX »ri;^ wo '^aw Io ^trfgli 

riOBoncjqja oiW qnoXij aons^aib a 10I rfoiriw osriewd aasw ,n(oXA« 

Tiori^^sriV ,89rioax 6 bnm ieal V* 8«w 3fo>^id' YXi»*8*je axU o;f x«w "io 

J-on aaob 3«iX &i\S -ssvo s^J^ »vj^rf "^aar eorf'iucf ©ricf riojum iroil tto 

OS rdo'xt asw 2(oj3T* stii^ fltoit 9D^ac^aib bsJ-jami^as liarlT .xseqqA 

a'XiismisXa; bna ;fo€i'i: Of» .tuocffi 'bi^^buf sniX • .tsel O^ o;^ 

eAt »oe ;ton bXi/'^^^ oil bjtoe TUsHwxirio srfT .?.S' *i/otf« locitoid 

aoob Yooml^asi ilerii *ua ,tl Io J at OX nJtrfJxw liims :ioeti 

-woiiiz rIq«T80^n((q « bne, bLaos a oi ebs\at Sy>Lq js oi flnolnoo ton 

,B&BBf>nttvr Xaaovea xd ni bBi.'iiiin&it on ,anol;tlimoo lauioa ^ni 

rtol ©•Xflri.t bovlX bjed oifw OHcisnnilw seirirf "Io \;nomX^B8;t oriT 

aofl«;f'8ib ailA batmlq x^i^^ •^OAii »iit beaaoio ba» atLBS'^ XjBnsYsa 


from .30 to 45 feet. One aaid ••all of 30 feet," the othtr two 

35 to 40 « "lioir testiMony ia consistent with every other part 

of the r' cord sihowinc thwt 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 p,x\ np ^roach- 

Ing train there was fipv^arently no necee ity of a coiiiBion. 

jintsring into th'=' situation somewhat is the auestion of speed. 

The truck was going from 7 to 10 miles an hour. As to the 

opeed of the train the testimony af^ain varies , Bleiniehl said 

"40 or 50 miles T*^,r hour" and Cline "'6^ or 40, ♦• and the 

engineer 12 or 14, vliatever the speed it does not enter into 

the qu.jrjtion of negligence in this case nor affect materially 

tho question of timely opportunity to ovoid the cnllinion; for 

if the train did not get in sight until after the truck had pasaed 

the t rucl|g 
the bushes/jfat ungues tionably could have gone over the 30 to 40 

feet before the train got there, and if it was in sight thwi 
it could have been seen in plenty of time to have stopped the 
truck before re-iching even the westerly track, 'hatever its 
speed the train was unquestionably in sight when the truck 
nassed the bushes, sstiming it waa going at tho rate of spe-.^d 
testified to by wline - fiv« tiroes bs fast as tlie truck, then it 
had only 150 to 200 f©nt to go ^rhen plaintiff reached the point 
30 to 40 feet away. 

They knew they were aporoaching a railroad crossing 
and of thej dan(;er, Mach said h" waa looking in both direc- 
tions, .ach claimed he did not see the train until the truck 
WMS on the western track. The physical facts were such thut 
the train could have been seen after renching a point 30 to 
40 feet west of the point of collision. The truck could have 
been stopped within lo feet. Hence, we are driven to the con- 
clusion reached in a similar case ( G, P. fe St, L, Hy, Co , v, 
De freitas , 109 111. ,pp. 104) that they "either looked 
as they aay they did M.nd sow t'iie train approach 

ow* i/srtfo ^Ai ".Jsat Ot lo ila* bi/ia »nO .^»ol fl^ o;f Of mo-tlr 
+ t«q tndSo xi-'*" iliMw tna^aiafloo si xaonJLiimit lieifV .0^ of a£ 

iftiXnp ton 1i -^ii^^m lot ritfuoe aiocT:.? 5x1:) 1© W9iv boSt>uii9diomi 

*»iii o$ ISA , iiJOii «« 8»Xiai OX o* V mo7'* »fll<^Si asrw itoon* 9riT 

bJtos Xrls>!ni^>Xa .Rsi'Unv niAjv^ \,nomlia9.i «r{# niutt '•/<* lo basqe 

©il;f ftae *,0^ io f'.^» aaiX: bas *"Jtiiori ^nq aaXiai 06 to 0^* 

oi'ni t'.-ii na ion &90h il b©»qu BiiS •i»vt*;f«/f». ,I>X i© ^JX Toc>Ki*in» 

YXXeiio^KJw ^a»Ttj» ina »a?4n mini ni 9om>3^J:Xgnn lo ftoi;f e*->iip nAi 

lo't ;.ioiftlXXf»o «f{;f bior/* et xjiiajiiceiqe i{X»iwi;j to nri;t&«»i>p nAi 

}&&s»q baii Aotni '>nS •ie^'ia liitw *r<,x)Xa nl *«>^ ton '>l^ rjj; ^Ti tri* TtX 

4du ij Slit 
0* o5 0& oiW "xoro »«os dvjttri bXiroo ^X«f««oiJef»«rKM idE\of?riat(tf ariJ 

forfi .tifjula nl isr-.w .ti lit !>«» ^oiofii ;?»jt ni^oi «rf;r oiel»cf lot"* 

jrf^ baqqoia 3Vi<ri orf extii lo X^***^*! *^Jt "f»»« ft»»rf »y«iri ^Xuc©^#t 

^^nu-i^ ciri? n9d«r iii^iH fit. y;Xcfa(i^i#8»upi<i» aiiw nJLaiJ -^'di bonqa 
h«>eqH lo !»;liKT r)dj *fi >inXo|i i.^w ii isnlwiisuA .89;l8ji<f 3ifJ fo^aaaq 

^rtioq »xf^ b»tiosi9i I'ttinlnlq n&fir oa o:^ fr^T^")- noS o* 08X v.Xno bAti 

,y,a'nc t^^nli 0* o;r 0£ 
BrtXQaoio Jb-fjoiXlaTi « j^ni.'iojao-xi q« eiaw Y.»ii* wftrol yoiiT 

ioui;^ 9[ii llinu ttti.itt oiiJ »•« ion l>lb <ni b9(aij»Xo tio^ .annii 

.twrt;^ rfowo J*^flw Bloiil Xaolsxrtq »x"lT .iLoBXi tnwteB^ sK-t no s^sw 

Oi OS Jnioq ja 3iuiri0f^*»«c *i»,tf« n9»« n»»ff ovnr bj,*" f> ril.B'X* ttfii 

dvxjfl bXjJ^o 2{5i/i* fl>dfT .noiaxiXoo to ^frtlaq ©rU 1« luew io«l 0> 

-noo &dS oi n^tyktb una »w ,*f»««K .JaaTc OX nlrt^iw bsnooJn rj««cf 

, Y .0'.) .X? ,,l ,iii jS ,^ .D ) •aso iBXJtmlB a ni faertoajji noiauXo 

b»j£ooX iBrfii*" ^»ri* *«!(;» {*0X .qqA ,XXI. OOX .i tnllaiiT #0 

rioaoicrqu ni«t.t 9/ J -*«« fmi fcii^ t«rtJ x«a Xo^i b« 

ing, cmd at temp ted to cros» in front of it, or thi.t they 
did not look," In th-it case it was auid nlao: *The l?iw 
will not tolerate the absurdity of allowing a person to 
testify that he looked hxit did not see the train when the 
view waa unobstructed and where if he h;:d properly exercised 
his sight he must have seen it," (106,) (Uee olso, £, & A, 
R, R, ^. V, Vreimeister . 112 111, App, S46; Kennedy v, 
A, £• &• ot. L. Tr, Co., 180 id, 146,) In the language of 
the last decinion: "The uncontroverted facts carry us to 
the inevitable conclusion to wnich all reasonable minds must 
arrive that the driver ♦ • * "by his conduct in attenpting 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 .md the cfitabliBhed rule of law operates na a 
bar to tmy recovery in the ofise," (p, 149,) 

l^Aa to the negligence charged in the declaration 

three witnesses on each side testified directly on the subject. 
Those for plaintiff - himself, yiia chauffeur, and Bleimehl»o 
brother, said they heard no whistle or bell and none was ooundedl 

But the record dlscloaea reasons why thsy would not hare heard 
them. One alone lo auff icient to mention. - the noise Mads . /, 

by the loaded truck. t4 in nrlmltt^Jgfe muffler was open, 

_ ,.._._ /^ ^ 

One witness a block and a half west while doing his chores 
wao attracted to th« truck's xianning by its "terrible noise," 
Another whom it passed within a half block of the tracks 
described its noine nB 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 stopj Und< r such conditions the negative testimony of 
those on the truck and of Bleimehl, whom it pasned while 
engaged in sweepin in front of the saloon, can not be taken 
in preference to the Hfrimative testimony of throe witnesses 

X^iU i'HU to ,Ji \o ino-^J ni uuoio oi b^.iqm&ii» jbtw- ^^tti 
vrnL sriT* iooXjb blaa aj4iw tl »*-,'«o ^istii ai *',iLcc£ ion bib 

Kili noiiw nlwi* e/fi »9a ,^on bib ^wflf b?»3irol ori ^urij x"^l^«9^ 

fc©aioi©XB xlTeqoTtq hiri f>ti 11 etoii^ hem h?^^rJWi^Rcfomj aj»w wsiv 

•«i ^ ,0. ,08X.«> sofi) (,a0X) ",;Ji: n;^oc »v«ri i^um axf ^ff^ia eiri 

•■'^' X;fio ,fft! ^, j <, t***^' ♦Q^'i' ♦XXl SXX « T:siQ xafti»>T:V ♦v ,Oj> ,>^ ,H 

lo ej^mf^s^flfiX »iiU fli (.a^X ,bi 08X ,.oO .^^ •! 'lit *&. •£ '^ 

;faifljj fiboiiH s>Xcf«nowx»»n iXr rfoip-jv oi iTKJi««Xf>noo eXdAalvsnl srii 

bib ©ff .tniii i9nm?a ort^ txl baa 9miJ s-rti **■ sato-siEi »ri;f saoio 

Yiw|;cfi flriif o^ baJuefXtJ^noo rioiiiw e>sni»^lXs«)n 1o Y.iXlwa aaw 

ia a*-- B?»^jsir:jqo waX lo aXirrr t'^rf«iX<f«^K?' »fii bn« to bonlulqtaoo 

{,9^1 ,g) **.fttJi^r/ fna ni y,'sc*voo9'x y.xib oi iBrf 

m->i::?«ieXoa). orij- nl b»gT«£lo donoglXj'^'dn sril Oi bA J 

,S Mldun t^iii no itX^o»ilb i>eiti;f'c9l able tl»«p no a»oa»nJ^iw setrf^ I 

«'Xf{i9aJtsXa; bK« ,Tjf9ll«*'.rio aiil ,T:Xo>.!niii - fMSaknlci to^ «aorfT !' 

r- , 

ib9bni/os sj>v 9noH bn^s XX»<f -tfo oX^aixiw on b'M9d x^tii biBn ,totiio^'i 

b'taerl »Tflrf ^on bXu'^w YiOftrf ^rfw snn»a9i ti»<'<oXDaXb btooei adi ^irS 

9hism seion 9if^ - ,noi/ nsm OJ ;rflaioJ:t'Xu8 ai 9XieXe ohO .Moxfi 

h r^ - ■ — -y 

aotoKo sixf ^niob dXiiiv tanv IIaA a baa isrioXcf « Ji«ftn;tiw 9iiO \ 
*,98ion 9Xdi7Ttft^* aJl v.ri nii^isrtq n'^atrtJ orijf o5 bw^tonni^n Oiw | 
•atOiST^ »rfi 1:n XaeXrf IXju-t « nirWiw b9«i(i*oq it mod* loriloaA i 
j^nirfso'wt.'t bXo n« oxj.X" ,X*iu8umf art ^niion nil b9di'X3a9b 
rfS-M"fW oX^ai^ >iil btm nJtiiit oiU b«i«»ri lovowoil :>■ ".©nirtDiun 
o;f Dinuti^ s'Ai •To"t iniqqoJa aXlrfw .ftinii f>d& 90b v+Ofj bXwoo »ri i 
Aouii fiAJi rorii*>ciw :?.nlii:(il^titiB anv btw mkti OMHq bna qv 9»oo I 
lo \nomiin'ii ;vi.tfa>i3n '>r{> k no l.f I i>n»Ti ciouB ihtHl ^oi« bXwow; 

9XifftT b»ofiA« SI woriw ,Xri9mi»X« lo bna Jlnoti wrfi^ JM •aorf/ 

n8>{fii »{f ion nAO ,i<io<iX«» ftrf^ lo .Inro-xl ni niqoowo nt bdjiAsae 

asMaon^tiw sioirii lo ynomiia** wvi^nnrti^lU •rLJ o.t 9on«T»loiq nl 

includlofT the engineer that thf> whistle wae blowi.J"wi« 

engineer toatified thnt the fU-^jnan wkb continuouGly 
ringing the bell from 80 rodn s-uth vrhere he hlow the 
whittle fmd which he rppestod within 40^^ fe«t of the 
croesinff. The fireman wao not a witnesB boinf: ot tt'.o 
time in the r-gulAr army in the K«et. But two other ^iU 
"e38es,_j«ho_«^piirt?nijir-«^14-aiav«-RO apec^^ motive ia a^- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^T-^^^-rreir-br^ confirmed the engineer's tentiraony 
OS to the whittling, me T.-ao on the tracks 40r feet north 
of the crosGin.? cjoinfr south, the other within one half 
block of the tracks on the hif^way ,roing onnt. Both of them 
also henrd the gonr: at th.. croo^^ing sounding, but could not 
^^oay^othei-the bell wa-^ r inkling or not.) -The rule ns IrAd 
down by the courts IrTthlB state is th.^t positive evidence 
as to the fact thnt a bell -.van rln^-lng or ;. whiotle anunded. 
la entitled to more wci^rht than negative evidence in rcl;:.tion 
to said fact." (C. R. I. ft p. n^. v. JoneB. l^.r. m. App. 380 
and cnnes cited p. 385; ;.lso v^- £0. v. B^arS. 30 m. 528; 
Z> n. Co. V. 2ick3m, B8 id. 431; n, IX. no, V. iiobinson, 106 
id. IIS.) Thlo rule imit-t be giver: force vrhen-'ver, ns in thio 
ce3G, the situation for hearing is leeo favorable to those 
who testify on the nogfitive aide of the question. Preaumbly 
if they could not hear the sharp whistle they could not hear 
the bell. 

''e think, th?;rf>foro, thnt the verdict in clo-rly 
against the woif;ht of the evidence both on thr= micstion of 
negligence ard thrit of contributory negligence, and that 
pursuant to a long lino of decisions in ainiilor crseo the 
ju gjn«3nt mint he reversed with a flndin?^ of fact. 

•Zlrxisovntinao a«w xiampin ©t5^ iritJ h»'i\X.tuoi ic^nJt^rta 
orfvt woIff Bff 9t!>r(w ff^U'S nhoi 08 ftioit Had ftrti" anJtsnlt 

o.'tf it;j ::^rtierf aaHrttlw n .ton b*?v nBm'>^i:t ^fC* .i^nJkaaorto 
-j-iw teri^o ovi^ iuH .^^rjB.M wrf;J nl v^mta 'u^XifiV'T orl.-r ni ami* 

fUlon *o»1 30^ asloaic;* t»rii no »rw arrO .s^niXc^airiw aiij o# sb 

aioxf^f '•o rlSoi^ ,*nno grtior ^swrf^^lri ori^ rro ecs'&flii orf^ lo afetfXtf 

*on hlLfCD cftfrf ,';;^nibrOwrr B }]at=. ix»to '■■■dS .tja rinojj er{^ b*t«»if e«£it 

blaX an t'Xirj: frfT" .■♦-^- " ' */ ^"-^ -m ll»(f srfi lori^'ftrhr x*o 

•onyhlre »Tl*i»oq • : rti etrri/oo »rW "^rf nvofi 

jbabmma t^ltGiiiv y. te ^nl-:\ntn 'um IX©<< jb Inrti ^s#»l- orf,f ni an 

Oac .(T'l^^ .1/1 ^''I .Bg.noT. .V .xLfi .3 i* .1 .il .0) ".*o«l bloa oi 

;8Sf ,1X1 08 ^tTvi^xS .'' .oT;. .Xll ^■•'^''- '*^'^' *'''- ^»^Jto 8?jDi50 bna 

aOX .rtoanlrfon .v .or_ .£ ,^ ;!£> ,bi 8«»J .jtt>e3(ox( .v ,^0 ,n .H 

cirI;^ ni nn ^t^tronnciv ooio"! itevAa •tf #«»i«3 oXirr niHT (,fl^X .fri 

YXcffynt/f^oiSt ,noM8?'i;p ©rid '^o oMb »vl*;A?jiP« »ri.t no Y.'^l^aa^ orfw 

.XXsrf mtU 

XXi'irsXr) fii dT.J:f.nyiv ortJ" iatii ,*nc'^«»^9rf^ .atnlrl* «< 

to m'sit.'Mir. prfcr no ri^tocf o»n»blvo •rf* T:» *j<alGw <*jr(^ ^cnXjnso 

ir.Ai hwci ,r)on©7iiXji^n xtoiu'.fiii^fioo lo i^^^^ii h ; »Dnf»slXs9n 

erf;^ ao .'.iD iJjXlmi.'i nl «frojtal9ab lo ^ntl artoX « oJ^ .trtiuatuq 

♦ tool lo ^Aibflil: ji KJ^Xv b«)«ic''rf>fl: *^'i if^utu *nMxa ut 


aii - ;U189 


We find thnt appelLoe, Chicago, Milwaukee 
& ot, t'aul Railt?ay Conrpuny, v-; u nol guilty of -..figliitcnoe 
as chargeu in the declaration, and tiu; t ap;e.llant» Jairses 
Cline, wf:,c t;uilty of contributory nogliReno*!. 

QBlli - XiS 

*9jluijwXiM ,(>?\«oi:i£0 ,r»sil9qt|jB J-Rili bnil •* 



Dofendant in rror, 

WALLACii C. AiiOTT, et a] 

Plaintiffs in iiror, 




198 I.A. 167 


Defendant in error filed hi?? bill of coinplnint 
to wind up .'jiri diByolve a oorpor-stion, The Abbott Preas, 
under Section ^5, Ch, 32 of tJio revised Btatutos.' a 
receiver was appointed to t.ike possesuion of its assets 
to whom the corpor tion, its officers, agents, -to,, were 
dir«ct<2d to surrender them. The bill chflirged among other 
things that the 0» Bonn ell Bromley Co., a corporation, mis 
in posaesGion of aanets belongin,- to The Abbott Presc, and 
h&d acquired such poi3se6Bion through fraudulent trfmofers 
witnout cone idem tion, on which iasue was taken by anovsrer. 
Later the receivor filod a report and p?»tition 

f reiteratin(5 tho charge and alleging a demand on and failure 
by said O'Bonnell Broialey (Jo. and other defendants to turn 
over auch asuets, and asked that they be directed bo to do, 

•^^ and in default thereof to show c.use 'jwhy they should not 
be punisjiod for conter^iot, 

'ihe M&ttcr coming on to bo heard on oaid pitition 
and a joint unswer thereto, .uid Lho aiyorn pleadings in the 
case as evidence, the court ent:red an oraer finain?.^ that 
The Abbott .'reus transferred all of its a;330t» save its 
franohioe to said O'Donnell 'iromley Co, throuj^h another 
defendant, Jeiremioh J, D»Donnell, without ;>ny coneideration, 
and also containing the following finding: '♦That it is 

aoaur: - flS^ 


I \ 

i » '^v 

.m»/oa 21000 ( ,.4:« c?- , ._ 

. ui .A.I 8GI \ 

6n« ,aa»"sH *^o«i(*A »rff o;f j>nl:^rtoX«tf aJaciKs to noia«»aaoq ai 

aaxiiinq, bn& ^ o(f»i e bvirt iwiiso&i firf* io;t!ia 
3-t<;Xiijl hne no fcrujaefc ft ^ia»XX« bru^ fb^'ii\\io pdi ^niisitsJii 

,oi; ci OR ii».to»'si:i> std \t»fl* ^arii hn'tan, bnn ,Bi»usB rioua lavo 
;^on blutHii;. vaifi ynV woriu o^ '^osiR'ii J^iuulrsi' ni bos 

.iqnoJnoD lo't ix?i{airrijq ocf 
nolitS'C] bi.:o no bi^^oii ocf oi »io ynimoo lo^tJ-jam oii'!' 
■jrU ni Uj^aibABlq tncv9 mii baa ^oisiotU icowniui ^'nXo^ a bna 

CfjfLt ^«lfa«l'i HSB'XO ItB b»1.4lf iT.U90 Oitt (QdaiftiiV!* •« 9BM0 

ail arjut) ai9Vi-\ia ail to XXjb ft9i'x«'\armx} «o<?'r'^ ,+*0rfdA aril 

■irtri^oflua Ji^^i'oartJ .or \dXmoifi: XXf>/ino<I»0 i)I«a oi •aJtilanail 

, cfoi^t 1 solaroo xna J-uoriJit/ .IXaniioCO .1. f[nl/ns>n« '-. ,;^a»iibff»lol> 

J: Jx J«r(T^ :jinXbnl1 anifoXXo'i oriJ- nttXnljT^iioo ooX« biM 

- ) 


for the teat interest of all th« p^rtleB to this cult 
thr.t the said r.B.ote Should bn t^ken into the custody of 
thi« court durm,^ th^ pendency of thi. cuil ..nd pro.erved 
until the final ^«.t..rmin.tlor of the in^uos herein-; nrid 
t)ic orrjcr diroct«d. thnt re«pond<^nt9 turn over to the 

receiver Buch ..nets no Ir.npf^rred r<s w..« in their 

po?3neR.,ior, or und.;r their ontmi. 

Thin writ Of error iu Eued out to roview cuth 

order, a motion to di«nii«8 the same on the ground tix^.t 

the order is not final and a writ ^iXl not therefore lie. 

was ;vlthout full consideration ti.ereof reserved to th« 

« can not Bfi:r«<« with the; contention of 
Plaintiff in error that the order is final or an adjudication 
Of the rights of the pr^tiea to the oult to the property in 
question. (>n the oontrory it nerely conte»,plated. a« the 
language quoted therefrom indicates, tho placing of the 
property ^n cuotodl« legin until the lfi«ves raieed. including 
the right thereto, were finally determined in the r.^lar 

It not hein,. r. final order, the writ was improvi- 
<»«ntly granted and launt be dlsroisBed. 


iiisfj nidi o,t Hsiv^-iafr <>-:ii Hit-, la i^^i9ial itfd adi lo'r 

J.uW bm/oiji Oil* no soths »/U BRlmslh o* nol*o« A .tobio 

,o.U oiol-sTorf^ ion XIlw J^iT»» «! hiui ii».ftlt ion el laljico erfi^ 

orii o*!:^*!'.'*! ^o»t©ji4 ncil^-t'^ft IsBOO IXm'Y tuoriilvi emm 

Yc ftfit.t Jn»»t«<>:» .)di diiv 9»'^JHm Son fiAO ov 
"irotqmi sow iliw ari* ,i;ilj<5:o XttnJtl a HOifXf *«n it 

2AX - -IISS?. 


Defend tint, in : rrjj^, 



JO]^ COlill, \i&0 LlirUiir-iKAlT and 
.j:vROM?!; STliy ;<jLi, doing hiielness 

Lain tiff's in .irror« 



) liRROH TO 



198 I.A. 169 



Porter ws.b the ascignee of ;. v»ritten l-:r-ne of 

certain premises froir one Pope t^ ^irr^tn^^^iffv — trr XTT'cr, a 

copartnership, 'bout three Tno-ithg cfter tin eye.-.r.tiori the 

partnership was diasolved, and ite business wc.;' sold to 

Cohn 6: Levin Cloak and Cuit Co,, ^hich ccntin'jcci the game 

buainess in the- aama prercisea a.od paid the rant as it 

accrued to Pope until the aaaignment to Pnrtor o.nd tien to 

the latter. The for the Innt two nonthn of thi^ term 

regained unpaid, for which ,1ud;3raent hy r.onf«S3ion waa 

the case 
entfireu, \)nt/Zi-\H rooponed fir trial >>«f :)re o. Jury, A 

verdict wan '^ar-jcted and ^.hr« iudf^'iont ronf i.rniGd , it 4« urged 
th.-t the jvv,i(7rvirrt in contrviry to the luvv nnd t>;e oyi-'.-rrice, 
the 'l';fonso b^-^in;^ thnt there vfnn a fl'iTyjnrior of th<^ pr-rtniaes 
by tlie lesjHseo rnd t>i',^reof by the- Iceaor jjnd that 
the latter naidc a r«?w leaf e on the same t-:rnB to the ':lo&k 
CoBRprjiy under whtv^h he an'', afterwards .Sorter oolloctcd rent 
a? "forenain, \& th^rt. vxi- .9 direct-^d r-jr-^ict the '-u.'Stion 
arises whether there wp.b any cvidf^nr.e tending to establish 
such defenBc.'? Orrr.jrinf^ the most favorable inferoncei? there- 
from, as we -^re required to do ( olf Co . v, ; on arch 
Refrigerating Co ., 252 111, 491) we do not think it showed 


- It';. 

JOAOIHO \£C' •! 

^^ v» X 

1011;- ni vtltxj fi.c*-i' 

•.ir^^r :»:riT: \.JT, .KM 

9iii aoii'.ronxn fi$\si Bd$nnm .9«Trf* t»««f*. .qlrfeisri^ifiqoo 
^1 Br, fttf)? trlvt hjtflq (UP Bfiexsnato SisifiB ':;rt^ rji 3E*alr»ucf 
now notf-soTrncr Y,(f .-tasrij-.f or. ffolrtw tp7 ,bi.«:qiH.' hftrtlsaiorr 

9 8J80 9Xtf 

A .ACXCj; .c •"Tflnrf Inii,* i&t fe»iwqrn«t ?t;''\ufif .^siytfrr^ 
«30iii^-Wr e.;f;* fni- w;',C »f<v* o^ ^<:X',«l.*«f»o ('* ^fi;>fij\i=-t ">'^* ^'-rf* 

iLaoL^ ntit o& sr-^Ti ©b»jbp 'nii no »?»«{*/ ir«ij « 9batfi «tfi>aX wrfl 

tJpXRnoK'i ,y «pp 1X0; ) 61> 0^ beTl«p»T aiir •» na ,«iori;l 
baworto *1 jinixf* ion ob aw (XSfr i'lil SflS , ,or: }itttiiii »^l%\9P, 



5l ceji' .Xua>^o 01' h r<'loi?e or t'l-:.intift'ii in irror frozn their 

lijdbi^ity unti^^r the original iGii««, ,l^e ovijdencw ai,<:l^t// 

hAyc thtit toiWuncy if tha ff.icts of a chrmge p^poasesaion 

arifi iiee.-iptaiiGV of rent froal thp Cloak/Co. r,tood alone 

i \ \ 

ur*ax^l&inr;cl Tj/vj^ther <;vifl.'mc9. 

Negotiations for a. n<eis' isai^o Tr?;ro at.t*?ra;jt«d but 
never Gon-.imauv^tnu , These Cucl^ ai(il«ft«" unrti*5put<T'l: i,hat when 
th« Cloi'-ic do, iiuoi ov«v plaintiff B in error 'a busi)i«8S one 
Ibiltonbarg, a brnksr, »t the I'Siuaisx of a'^toi-utiyQ for 
plain iiiffo ill yrrox*, ijsked one .ilyon, tJio re^l estate agent 
of Pope, o?'ir ta? tclep-ione whether t)-;!? le0:-5.3 could hd 
a£>i^ignocl to Uoh>i « Levi/i or whether n new lewBe would "be 
giveni, arid x*t=coivect the reply ' to looic thejo up and if they ail right to brinK thts laatter before Him'; t^iut /ilson 
{tilts only party ohowii by the record te huve; beer, authoriaed 
to act i'oi i/op»!) nevtr lu<u ..;iiy other talk ^itVi r^-f erence to 
the Boatttir nor jiOtiotiiiteM any na-v itsuvie; that i'ilti*nberg who 
wtj.8 uhOiwi to /mfo act*)d, not aa <ui a^'^nt fo.f Pope uut at 
the rvjqueut of p.lain oii'f a in error, prepared a ndvr lease 
to Colari fc Levin, and i*n'fc it and a v\uplic«.te tuiBiKi^ied with 
LiSVin requc?KtiU;; iiiin for i'wf er^^incesa a<s to his financial 
standing; that no references were ever furnished; but that 
the rent was paid by the Cloak Co., as^ aforeBaid, in BUms 
and at times as provided for in the original lease, 

'?hil« Levin teatiTieu trmt he sent Iho now leases 
to -iltenber.'^ suid they w«re 3ubst<qu-!sntly r'^'^urned befiring 
thH nnnic of Pone and thut he tJs«t,r'3yed them, yet taiere was 
no attempt to ahow that the ui^jriature waa ^-ope'B or ever 
authorized by him, or thut ihe docuinent evur came to Levin 
from an agent of i^ope. The evidence shoTiod n'>thini; more than 
an attempt to negotiate a new lea :e and payment of re-nt as 


^ad b8;fqj(n»iJjb si.ew 9J4j&«X ^wn -s; "ot ertcx:? 'iiosf M 
a*dw iMsa ih^iu*xelt>a$j ^miili^i n^cu^l asexlT .^o^^is&Atfiuico -xov*n 
•CIO Bef4i*JtQvtf a'ao'X'x^ ai al'ili niy:,lq Vj>vo i^o*.;^ .or^ :UoXO ^di 

ino;^¥i 9<fj%;^ue X#4ei«'x r^rt^ ,not<Xi hno toJlei/. .'xoi^^ rii al'ii^nifiXq: 

aoall- SjitiS ; 'milt jiio'ltfrf Tt3Jd*«» »ii3 siiX'io' oJ ^xiali XXa oi^yt 

i.:i iuo *«j[os 'ipi .}ns>i^ f*u t:*4 ion ^bt*io» i»VMAi oj iwoiiti «;fiw 

dtlw bBtt^ilttan ©JaaiXffA'ii « i^ifJ* ^l i'r^ii i'm; ^aivva A orfoO Oi 

inilit ii/rf J boffa t iiicif 1 isve oiow «»oii»n«lsrr on if^Ai i^nibtXBiH 
umun ni tblaHo-ioliB ni^ « . oO stjioXl) QtU y^d bi&n uaiw ^no-i 9x14 
.£»(j.jvi Xpflis^io ^xli ni itol bflbivo'xq aj^: asnl^ J^o bnu 
aoBH^i won mij Joue »ii Jtuid' £»«i'ki4fi&i ixiv.>J sXirfR 

lays io H*&qoi biiw »i;u;(an7)iii sni itstii itohc o^ .^qms^ia on 

ntvod oj ontwo ijjvj in»OTUuob orfi ;t;>.(^rf to ,Miri x^ bttsticAiUB 

aeuii eiTora ;jnirWrn hot»«r{u oonobivo sulT .•noH lo *rr»ai« mi «o<Xt 

Bfj inMT to i ivmxaq. brus otjaeX w»n xi •;tjl4o3»ri oj l<pmiiA am 


"h»* fftrts p^e rfix*y hifi)il?.u* to thoue in ?, -i-ne3 v, 
H^rthern T^iujvt Co,., tLf^^ :ii;i. lifi, -.•rhoi't? It whs heid^^ t4!i.'-'.t the 
l^BBet: ill not J^cjle-^:if:i froM Vii« exprsas covenjint t^ p«^ 
Jilt unlev:.!; th'i lrina3ior'i hva aocoptcd tl^ei surrender of ih« 


seee ttnd rtie'^.j.ffld hiTu, and l.' the l.<itVcr #oul<"l *.ot "be 


r»Iiev<i;<J \rofn li??Dilit|^ 'Ar.dar the 1 sunt eTiin though rent was 
receiver* fr^jn another ^onsfcrn in po;;iscueioii\ of the premises 
wnaeas thefe tra-j a uuhsltitution of the new V-n&nt in place 

T / \ 

«f|th» original leaaoe, lend t'rl-^.ar intent t^j joe-ie r new 

confttrno* rnth the ;?-irty In poar.estlon aiuJ uo the 

orl«?|nsl ieno«'9 frorc fui-thor liaV^ility aiiasr tiie i.cnue unci 

isn In Wit to no'-!o»>t tha .lurrcsn^lap of tho liui-n fi-oin : aid 

l»«3a«. ^--■'' 

In th*> abocnjO*" of lefj.fJl pronf cf ?. new if.«.Rc cr » 
Burr«nder of the old one or bh i.c>:ei;t4-KGe theiNJof ve t)iink 
a vordict was properly directed. 

Complaint is raade of the exclusion of c<:; 
ovidftnce, vrhich sSf&s only cuicuIj tive in eh&r;-oter. Lut if it 
hud "been re.c.i'-i\<d it woull not hava aup plied iuiy of the 
neceoij^ry eiewents ahovo btatec or have authorized a 
suhmifision of the cnse to the Jury, 



9dS .4. . rCr .hlli ,1/.: JftirfT nT-/a-t»a 

Y*"' .' i'Sv..: VMM ; t;-:'£qxo wiif 

blc mrs.1 ti.i.4v^. orf* 1r ij.irrj i-w» Bxit #^«r>o« oj 0mJnX OB 

,ftORS il 

u -xo i.j;-i,!.*l w3»n M 'to lot, 'i-q X-;,y.'I ''- wcu-.'i' .'^i'- nl 

*i 'ii Ji.'J .•x.ttJo.iTiUly ni t'vjj j.^j.-'Wo 'y;Xno a.Sf- il.Tifiv. ,a:^:T?iiivr» 
SiiJ Ttp \rui holXjijwe ev.'-'.jc! ion llutii^y :ri b-'^vi^'ost nosrf fcoff 
« bosXifirf^tiTij srjirf to baifi^ff" jvocfa olmw^X* t'*^o«»*' 

250 - 21232 

ILLINOIS, ex rel, ifiinma 
L, Parker, 

Plaintiff in ::^or, 


Defijpndantj^n Krror, 

.'MllGR TO 



98 I.A. 171 



determine the/ right of custody to hc-r child 

relator, ,jfer8. Parker, aue/d out a writ of / habeas corpus 
requiring the respondent, (defendant in' error) to produce 
the child in court and show cnufjo of ^ts detention. The 
child was produced unA without a foraial return to th* vjrit 
a hearing was had reiiultlng in reraandinfj the child to the 
care jsnd custody of respondent. _^ 

vhile there waa evidence of the mother's fitness 
to have the care ?jnd cu»tody of the child there was a 
otipulation only as to respondent's fitness, and recognizing 
as a fact the fitness of each, the court's order rested 
wholly on findings that the mother had abandoned the child 
on the date of its birth and thnt ainc thiit time it had 
been in the care nlnd custody of respondent. 

The inquifj'] was not a«r complete n** the in t' rests 
of the BQ^W as fully pswsented as might be desired. Bul^ 
in our opii/ion the tiiriimony hnard^tiid not justify tJie 
court's order, 

l«rs, Parkor, wa8-hx>rn, rear^d-and lived mow L Bf 
t*ce-^ti«e in a country town in Fulton O^^unty, Illinois, ihe 
had been housekeeper for Dr. v:. . Parker of th;vt town, the 
father of the child, and about July 1, 1912, had come to 

sinic - oas 

I. » 

, v.- at m^fnxaXI 

' , ..-,1 I.^L^ ,C?,tf«i 

.TffUOO aiHT TO HOIMI'SO hm .. ...iic.ui. , HM 

©riT .noi^f»*Rl» ail lo -^Ritno worte biia J-iuoo nJt bllrio »xCf 

,in9bnoqv.&i 1o xboSeim ban yi 

tltdo adf bonobsxBdu b^.ti i^tiiom ©rf.f inrit Bj^viXi^nlJ. no xllaitn i-, 

br,r( J^l ^ffltJtJ- intlt c^mia ^«jW hrir. rii"ii<f atl lo yj-j*i> »x(;t no *-a 

,J^^oh^oq^?8>1 lo xt?o^t«Mo ftflfe 9iai} »tit al n»»cf jj[ 

mtBBtfiSnl o/tl ^« f)ieXQM08 »« ion nnw \tiviat »c(T | 

yxiS .fi^iiiaob doT iif^ia Va bji^nsRSflcq xXXvIt alt t^fltviB s>dt It ^ 

9riJ- Y'^ii»i/t *on t)lfi*-'ii>-.tiri \,nr)miJv^S orii noi\iiqr> ii."^ ni -* 

.ToAio s'i'^woo ^, 

'JCT'ThBtim biiyll btte h^'XKV'x ^ntaiiJieM jIsjIi^^ .etM -f 

od .alonilXI ,v;ifw:> CfOilu'< nl nwo* \.iinuoo jd al 9mtt wiS j^ 
i=»rfi ,rtwoi i^Hi to no:rfiB^ , , ,;> ,'XCI lol TC9<if>9j(»«iforL' rro»d biari 
o* f>nton bjBil ,SieX ,X YXi/t iuodu btiM ,l)XJ:rio eriJ lo i9ri*«l 



Chicago pursuant to arrangements mxde by hirr for her 
approaching?; accouchement. It was »B^aC«SKt*y intended th; t 
her condition should he kept secret from their friends and 
especially from hia aged, invalid mother who lived with 
hira and to whom he had made the promise not to mnrry while 
she lived. In view of relator's condition, hov/ever, he 
married her secretly nt Milwaukee, vViaconsin, July ?!4, 19ia, 
and though his motlier died the following month the marriage 
and rtubaequent "birth of Uie child on Kove'^ber IS, 191.^, at 
the Polyclinic Hospital, Chicago, did not apparently become 
public until after his death in Fay, 1914, They never lived 
together after the marriage. 'i%e-n-nrx don ne iii %«ro mefMjre as 
to_.hi»atl;ltude towards her in the~a»fimt4M«, Iwit he o*? ems to 
Jiavej^iven her little, if uny, considarution aside from 
the^S^xaagejffieots for hoopital care, after she was in Chieag©, 
—d ^ i n j i ^^g^Sha^'to hiivt? t!n»«!n left helpless and alone among 
strangers suid amid circumbtanccs with wliich she was unfamiliar 
and unable to cope. In Buch situation ahe 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 
arranr;e to care for the baby," and wanted a good home for it 
if she could not keep it, ,' ccordingly puraunnt to arrange- 

ments (of which i5he was eviciently not fully .idviaeri), the 
child was taken from her arms and the honpital on the day of 
its birth and delivered to the rcaponlcnt» Mrs. Bryson. ohe 
did not icnow who hod the child, and Jr. 'Racon, alone, of all 
hor ac maintances did kno?/. L.he afterwards frequently HSked 
him about it but cot no definite or aatisf .;ctory answer. 
Thrown upon her own retsources and counsel, and t5till feeling 
bound to shield hor husband and conceal the situ.ition, she 
remained in Chic.igo in respectable employment earning only 

i»rf lol mid \,d i&byjn. «*«oinf»jim'Tr.« o^ itrntsatuq ojjaslx!0 

bvti'. abrtaiiTt ilsjt? moil cfp-xoos JcjojI »tf hXi/orfB noicMbnoo -.t ■ 

rf;*iv^ fcs7il orfar laiid'ojn bllarrti ,!»«»*:* airf m«i:1 xXXjuioisaas 

eliriw v.i^»f'- O'^ *on aaiaioiiq (nii slum bi'iti &ri jH©riw oi brus utlri 

:h{ ,iovf>wori ,no.L^l! MOO a'Ti<»tt?;I»n l-o wfoiv nl .hsvll oris 

,S'XPX «frf^ v,Xi/L ,nienooai> ,S}6>fuj»t»XiM ;fH yXi^iof a isri beiiiBm 

fi»3/-}i"rt.Hm 9/i:;t ri.tnom j^niwoilol '^lit b^kb filteia aid li^votii ban 

i» ,?:X^X ,SX TtfldmSYoK «o bli dio »iii "io tiiiXd *m);;pecdu« bns 

asMtf^'i V.X^m>ifltign *on Mb ,or,HOliiO ^lAtlqaoH oi.aJilT>\Lo'< stii 

baviX i''vaa yailT ,*^X©X ,x«!^ nJt rf*««b alrf lo^la Xi;tnu oiXdwq 

^ojHinoJtfiD ni HiHf «ria laili* «»'x.ia Xaiiqaotf i-~ - - '^t 

8nonu'< »noXfl bna 8a»X«iX»»i tfliiX rtwt5r# wv 
..rjiXiiJiflltnj asw »ri« ifeiilw ri^iw eaom^rfKjawa'iij! biatiia bn*? H-sa^nan^fs 
oilt o? ffworrji ^brnsi etia ttr^iiiMtilB rtouR nl .^qon oJ :>Xtfanii luf 
;tnifoooj3 no ^jaif;f <»3jT.firio «i noosR .uC biw Xja^lQ^ori »fW 1o aoi;f«ai 

tl lol ftraoif boos « b'jiftjw bae "/^tf"^'' '»rfit 'lOT: "nK?© o^ •anam.B 
-oaitB'iii^ o.t Jrupi/wiuq M^XynlbTO , tfsoif *tm bXwoo »ffB 11 

».rf^ ^(bttulvb*^ YiXin J-rtn Yi«^iT»t)lv0 BBW lo) Bittern 

lo v;-nb ori,t no XetiqHori &iii fm« Bmtt« nsrf mcxi jnuii;^ bow bXlrio 
9rf' .nOHyjcfl .aiM .;^n»f ttoq^yi <4ii* o* btievlXftb bt<*T iWil of b*1 
XXiB lo ^onoXfl ,no3nff ,itc bnn ^bXlffo orfl bntf oriw womi ^J-on bib 
baaloii yX^rtfiUpe-xl Rbi«w^»J'r.« od. .wnroi bib «&qn«^iiljUV( ; 

,ii'^»n,n x*£0^3»''t®l-^A^B 10 .>ilnllob on loji J^wd ^1 iiiodjs mir 

^nlX«*l lllie bao ^Xsannoo bn« aoonuojjsi nvo i->/( notju nwo^iiT 

9rla ,nnii.;tjSta «rfi Xjasonoo brua hrunixiutl tjii bl^tds oi Inurd 

Xlno ^nln'xae ^notnyoXciiiio ^idaios>qtimi at o^^r.dliO at bBalsai&i 


about enough for her owj support. After her husband's 
SX death the matter becarae public, and learning for the first 

^y* time thmuRh the public press that Mrss, Kryoon hud hor 

cViild she immediatoly deroan'led pousieanion of it, the refuaal 
to g ire which resulted ^_»«rt.d prQee^aings, 

It is not difficult to undorstrmd how un ler such 
circuia5jtan(|'o9 she pursued the couroe ahe dii. Both she and 
Dr. Parker/ were respectjtd and had good stanching in the \ 
com-iunity jln ii'liich they; had nlwyg lived, ;|he came to j 
Chica^to a1, his instiffatkon to conceal the f^cts an<l evidently 
built hop(i)3 upon their aeoret rruirriage. Bujb aftervmrds laeg- 
lected nnri left in the ;h*mds of atrHngers, |ind ntill csrl-ying 
the burdew of a secret thfit had exiled her ^roia home, ahl in 
ignoranoj^' and helplessriass aou/rht what und'|r such c:ircuBa|5tanoQ8 
seemed b^at for hr^r ch^ld, n teiiporary hor^e? for it ;, i l^at, 
hoping i^ a vapiue way l^or a favorable turn ^f events, ^ 
such a Efli^rht, under tJJe atreaa of neoe8i3it|r nnd fear oil 
exporsur^, she may wollfbe excused for 3ubraifttin(!: pasLiiv^ly 
to the guidance of othersj and not prcoain;: Hth more \ 
porsis^ence the imuirptes her rruiternal in0t|nct prumptecj. 
^e do liot think that she thereby forfeited fhe mother's? 
«uperior rx,,ht to the; ^uatody of her own ch|ld. The lavi 
/ Jealously upholds and Jjrotocta th; t right ulless it haa been 
forfeited by abHoluto relinquishment or sonil course of conduct 
or copitionB that rei^^ier its Hssertion inc|iapatible ni^ 
the parental olaim ejicf the child»B best inteifests, { ;7ormck 
V. Marshall, 31.L 111. 1523; Wohlford v. Burck hardt. l-H lU. 
App.|321.) No such J element 8 are prenentecj in this record. 

The moth^ r is u woman of good character and the child was 
not obtained from her in a m\y that preclude her from 
asserting such right, as to hnr ability to fcare for the 
child, it appears that h«r husband died intestate leaving an 



fj ' rnui^'fjyrf 'Toii "loJT:/ .:^•^o^^ti«^ iw© tari loT r';;ons ;^U0'^« 

iail'i. fMii ic1 'jnlrrriT^X brui t^lLdtsq '^i.usosd' io;J^f,m ©/it x^i0e^ 

inxt b/irf r[0»^yi?f .atM i^Oiii aaoiq otlduq 9iii rt?^Moru(.t sml;^ 

XjRaulai &iiS ,$l Jo noincijauoq b^^^uRmpi^ x;X©iBlIw-vmi »ri8 ftllrfo 

r(o«8 -lo/.m; v;^ori tnaS bt- jhtus o* .iXimllllb ion 9l II 

1 oi ftrntio ©fit. .hifviX bx«wXb bud xptit ri»ii{*- nji| ij;*i;rtoinmos 

Xlvtfwbl/ti hfLS oioi** 8fW XROorroo oi noiij,!j\i:iBni sJ;i{ 'in o?i«3irf^ 

"?§»« abtmcxoilH ^uti ,»siiiiiivr i»no:'« liorii nor.u doqod iXlud 

inl-^tTtrctso IXiis boj^ .a^ssaBtiri: ^o ebn«/( strfi ni itaX |?a« JbeiosX 

ni 4da ,9norf tooi't lori boXlxn ijuri ^fuii iatoae *? lo aobiurf orii 

loonuoSiBHioti; iloue ii hm/ i«rfw irt?j?,'os8 eaelnssaXqlsri Isna ^one'xons-i^ 

«t8£l|BX irt ii 101 jsmori Yi^ioaatai n ,ljX|trio isri toI iaicf £>&moaa 

/[i& .airisvf T»i( niwi eXcfsiov^Bl /i toft X-"** 9W74«v « iU ^nlqori 

] Qtom iiiiif r(HJto8oiq .i^-oit hrjjB siEfil^o ^o sjomitiu;^ trii oi 

.boiqjnuuq ioaiieni Lntn&tim i&d a^MiXttpni. ©lii »o«»iful8noq 

f e'ltKCiom ori^ b»ij:p'^ff>*>. xde>i'arl& ert» ixiili atnlrli ioa ob »•«/ 

Irr;! oxlT ,biXcio nwo i.»jii lo x^o^«wc? -.^iii o.-i irf.kJt'i iQli8<i«a' 

fioocf y/^^irf ii «e»X|ti; iris^""^ i'.rii stooiei^ ttm ebXorfqw xlaiioL»9l 

:^-)Ubnpo "Xc OQiuoo yifios TO .immtivittjpalL&'t siwloucfm Y<f boiiot-xol 

c&lif &x<il.iaqmfoni rtolii?m«i» »;H i»lin»n ;)t^ri* anoiiibrtoo io 

3 £oxfflnop ) .aieo^roini iaacf aflbXirto erii feria 5ii«X? X/^inoiajq eili 

.XXI X'-i .i brtj^in|{t)iuK .v b ictXiioV ;Cf.'8 ,XXI j XS ,XXr.f laiB M .▼ 

.bacof^i BJ:i(i ni boineesiq st/i aimMnoXsj rfous oH (.XSCt.V^A 

? [ 

8i»w L'Xirlo oiii' brm ist$OHiado booj to! oamow k< si i TiitM ariT 

moil i»A apbt/Xoenq i«rii x«»' « ttij aari moil bsniflicfo ion 

orfi Tcol siBi^ oi xiiXicfjEi inrf oi BA .irfaii rioi/s Jiniiiona* 

estate of about 31^0^^, rhieh together with ??. proffered 
home on h©r fnther'f mnnll form are now wvnilable to her, 
Corapared -?^lth hfir nntnrs.l riphtn the strain upon the 
f ©tilings 0+' the foster mother in p-rrtin^^ with the child, 
hard 'xn it nay he, ofin not he conaidered, 

e therefore reverse the JufJgreent nnd remand 
the cr.siee, 

R;«VSRS}1T) and Ki5MAHJ.)}SD« 

bdtellto'iq B riJlw toiiSn'^i riox'> ,O0iiXr J^ifrxf-j lo 9:^/■JJ39 

,f)Xirio Sri* riiiw j^niJ-ioq nl ^sxf.toa! totfed nrfi *)o BjjniXrisTt 

.'j-i'i'^hiBnoo ^rf ;?or5 nao ,aci X'"'^ ^•i J** fci^^^ 

•OJIUHAlfcijH QUA CtJgii; 

251 - 21233., 

A. J. BATiLS nVia'j^U'f, 

\efendant in mirror. 


Plai^itiff in/.rror. 


) KRitOH TO 

OF cm C AGO, 

198 I.A. 173 


.ie are ajlcocl to review a Judgniont in an a-ntion 
of replevin «.n i trovor on a VcrUict of guilty and 
assessing damages in the sum of 47''»lO» upon esfeignraents 
of srror relating to the auff ici«?rjcy of th« ovidence, the 
rulings tliertjon, the liwitin^^ of cros:^ ex?:in»ii»tti(!n, and 
to given instruotious. But plaintiff in error' a brief 
containa no referenca to any place in th« ybutrtict vvbere 
we may diocover laiy ruling of tlie Court daisied to be 
erroneous. In aucVi n CJise the court cyn not be expected 
to aearch trirn-jgh the ebu tract to find the ruling?.; com- 
plained of, ( city o f Lincoln v, jT. (V A, _^, _:, C^o,, 262 
111, 98; Toim. etc, v. JUoper. 18? Ill, Apo. 60.) I'Mrther- 
Biore &n exarainqtion of the abstrftot reveals the neceasity 
of an extended exam in.-? t ion of t»ie recori it-;elf to paus 
inteliif/ently UTioa the queotiona Ijatendwd to be preaented. 
For instance tiie ninker of the a^TC-tcact otatee in one part 
of it cli9t <?ue3tionB upon certaia matters were? "asicud'* by 
plaintiff and the court denied def v^nd-unt' s attorney 'the 
priviie.'^e of asKinir the ^ritnes? qiJ.estions along theae 
lines,* Neither tho ousstiona nor evidsnce apcear in the 
a\)s tract, but turning to the page of the record rf?f^rred to 
we find th^t the court merely ruled thwt defendant's counoel 

,&£SX2 - las 

bitrtkil .u .A 

10 'list. (U iy- 

io'i7.\ni Jlii 

<;ijvi6rji Hi ii'iiiaot 

8T I.A.I 8(^1 


timt x-"^jtJkx/s lo JoibivV j* noi&voT* trw niv&Xqai "to 
s*^s»mfI^,l«3« ctoqi/ ,0X,'« VI to »«a ©ri;r nl riss**«^^ yinltBoaaja 

lt>i'itf o*ioi'i& til 'itiinXaXg tuH ,enoiiuirti6ni uttvi^^ oi 

©lorfw ;^o^nJtitff! orii nl don^Xec y;ne oi uonusvVn on finij:}inoo 

Off oi l;»MtiaXy ;^iuoO ©ifi lo anlXui ymj lavoouxb y-sw ow 

SdR «.O0 .ij^ ,h^ .A * ,2 »■» wXtottlu). lo Xli.-'J •'''® JL'«»ni«Xq 

-•xariiii'V (.o» ,tT<rA ,XXI 'iU »:i^iSSii '^ 'Siii »£SJ!l S^* •^■'^^ 

eostj- oi IXes-tt baoo^i 9Xii t* fmitmnimaan bnba9ix» tw to 

ti»q one ni v.tSBiu ios'yiv .n Qi(i 1o laXnm gru ©oitHionx lo"^ 

ycf "bi'aiec" oior sasiiaui niAJ-T5»o noqw anoJ:ik»ur snb it 'le 

8rfi' xonic:fifi ^ •inattfp-'isb bflinpi' Jitfoo 9 tit bfrf 'rtxj niiiXq 

OBjrfJ .Hflolis Kn(ui»'v«p 'srsenii'v Bdt finlxcn to 9}i*>XiTlT^ 

firti nl ia9Q^B 9^>ntbiYo ion unoliocifi- trii •J»ri#49}l *.<»niX 

oi bftii-^Tf-i Monwi 9rii to •sj»ci art! oj ^nlTttisS. inrf ,iocncio<fjQ 

Xnoffljoo c 'iftohnelflb i«rii b^Lui yX^rrs'-T? itwco ojti i*cfl bnll: ofi 

'jsrould not be permitted to f;o over the same oubject for 
tVie third tirre and that he inn ia tod that he ha) the 
riglit to £jO over it "ten timesc to find if Qio -.tltneso 
contradictn himaelf ," - R&in b« complains of an ini;trurtion» 
tho only one out of seventeen tht t ia cibsti*actc;d, ttanif«stly 
an abo tract that requirea us to ,-;o tlirongh the record to 
3scertEln r,hat ^mm the actual rulinga of tho court and 
what were the control Ling features of the avidence and what 
were the instructiona to tho jury douu not meet the purposes 
for which one is required, txnd we cat: not undertake such u 
se.orch. ( f conle v, Jtephena , P.61 111. 121; Kelley v. 
Peopl e Va Fire Ina. £o., 101 111. r.?p, 142,) we have 
ho>»evcr read the abstract and from what it contains t}iink 
subs tan ti??.l juntice wok done. 



od biooon eri* d^y/.r) -uii Oh oi «« a»iitfp«TC i niii ioxiiada nn 

8»PoqiJi/q 9(l;t ianm iot\ u»c(; x^t/t <*'i<^ o^ «r(ox;tOiitJeiil srU niow 

&vud ftr (,?^i .qc.M. .iXl XaX ,.0^^ .«_nl ©ol'^ aVaXgngq 
.oaob 3»yf 9oiir.ul X&lSnaiudvQ 

309 - 20638. 


Plaintiff in/Error, 

ERiiOn TO 



j^efend^t in Error. 

193 I.A. 177 

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE PAM delivered the opinion of the court; 

fSr- — On October 6th, the secona day of the present 

tgxm-oX-tiiis ee-us-t-, an oianion was handed ^own affirming 

. "' the judgrnent of the Municipal Oourt of Chicago dismissing 
the cause of the plaintiff - which was an action for in- 
juries sustained by the plaintiff - because in her state« 
ment of claim it wae not alleged that the statutory no- 
tice of said injuries had been duly served upon the city. 

Since this opinion was filed, our attention has 


been c?.lled to the decision in Enber^ v. City of Chi cago , 
271 111. 404, filed December 22, 1915, (etdvance 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 
in a common law declaration,/ In view of this decision, the 
fVrmer opinion affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court 
Of Chicago is withdrawn, and for the error of the court in 
dismissing the cause of action because plaintiff's statement 
Of' claim did not aver that the statutory notice had been 
served upon the City of Chicago, the judgment is hereby 
reversed and the cause remanded. 


lOiiaVfix 11i:>trTj;j3l<i 


.8£c<0S - e05 
,8c;0H0 .A aiuLvUlH 

..;OAr,IKO 10 I .OOiiOIHO 'iO YTIO 

:r-s;.oo 9ff;t lo noxniqo -^'-(^ ; c^i-,vx [Mb ■J»;i •^L !■■ :;')X OT'iaiSSHI .HM 

anxmiJtlls nwoS f)©I}njari acw noinxoo n^ ^^«o» =%iii4 'i^-mxs* 
3niaaxmaii) 03B0 iriO ^o J-xaoO Isqioini/M sriJ- to tn&n^^bul add- 

-ffx 10I noiio^. ar, aj3w noxi-fw - l'ii;tnxsXq eM to Siuso edi 

^SBiB 191-1 ni «.iL'*-509cf ~ lliinleLq ^.ciJ ^^cf bsnxjsd-ajja aelixft 

►on x^o&u^.p>)s 9.1.W Jjsri'J- beg'^IlB c^oa sbt/ ^x mialo io :tn9fn 

."y^J-xr Hr;t ■-.(;::.'.' beviss /.[.ui- rr^r-d" bj^rf seiii/tnx bxjse "io soid" 

BAf{ rcoxo'rt^;. :v, tuo ,05^1.. -i.p-7/ ;TO^n.EGO axriJ" 9onx8 

(^^ssria ftonBvi;.*) ,3X91 . SS is..in90»a beli'i , K)^ .III IVS 

asaao 88bIo rf;tiiio't ci JBiid- hL&d \;Iaa;iiqx9 bx oi nioisrlw 

(rx9d-oBij3rIo isdi '10 bjbw ijS'f sr easo sxfj'- nx noij-oix ^sit bn&) 

Bdi lo gnivij;; 9di o-g^Lis c) ore ^©9n jhxsIo to itnsm^iAtB a 

XiBaa9o»n al J-nsittisvjs xIolb r{3i;orf.t n«vo ,?oxd-on -^jioJ-u^fjBda 

arid- ,noxai09i) aixfJ- lo waiv nl .noid-siislofli) wjjX noxanoo s at 

tiijoO laqioinuH sild lo dnsnisJbxjt ^^d- jifrxnrtxllB noinxqo ismicfl 

£TX *iiJOo ^ri.d' lo loiia eriJ- 10I b«jB ,nwAiX!iIdi-v ex 05i.>f.ciriO lo 

dneiBSd-jada s'llidnialq seu.eoecf cioi*OB lo aejJBo sric- sniaaiisjaib 

n©9cf bijrf eoldofi -niod-jjda^a axid J-jjrid lavjs ^rors bxb flii.«Xo lo 

Xtfsisri ai Jnsmabul sxld .oa^oJtriO lo \;di:D eriJ- noqw l>»va»« 

,l>»i)njaffl9i eajjBO s/i-t on.i-; be«i»T»i 





437 - 21835 

FRSD mill::h brtI'^'Ing comply, 

a corporation, 

Appellee, /) APPEAL FROM 

"• ' / 



V / ) OF cniCj/.iO, 

G. Tl/ilLKMAN BRls^^O COMPANl^, 
a corporatlnn, \ / 

Appelant./ ) 

198 I.A. 178 

DliXIV'ilTlSD m ■ OP I!' ION OF THK COU'^T, 

In an action for the purchase price of oaloon 
fixtures, on trial by the court, plaintiff had Jucietnent for 
|l,i>00, froRi which .lofendruit ap:.)«als, oaying tliat Ite agent 
who contracted for the purchase of the fixtures iiad no 
authority to bind it in that respect, 

.*l»«pt l^aintif r was leeaee of premiaeii^o. 3109 V>abash avenu^ 
and sm9> the owner of saloon and reotnurtint fixtures therein|^^ 
^ .UKrtJLi karch, 1912, repreaentatives of plaintiff hud a 

convcrti tion \fith alter G. llueller, who wao the manager of 


„ the Chicago branch of the defendroit company, whose main 

f office was in fisconain^ttiwt at ^W%iG time the salorm bUBlneso 


was not conducted in these premises because the saloon lie noe 
hud been revokedi.^tlM»t J&uring thio eonveraation it wrs afrreed 
between thoae reproaentativea of the respective breweries that 
the defendant would purchase from the plaintiff the fixturea 
and furniture contained in Uie preniu^iii and also the leuae, 
which wo Id be asoignorl to the defendant, but that the .*.l, f>00 
purchaae price woald not be paid until ?/r. f'ueller wao sure 
the liccnae would be reotored. The le.-ii5e waa dated January 
20, 1912, £ind ran to the plaintiff aa lesBco, and at this 

SIS - V«l> 

.ooAOino ?o 



^nosjtj ail iaiii y^nl\Ba ^aliitt^qa Snabao'toi. iioii<v moil ,00i;,X;{ 

OR barf fif'Tuixtt 0ri.i "^ de/sffoiirq ©rij "xo"* ijo^osi^noo oxiir 

,:;)t;: ^ *(* nl ii bfUcf o* x^Xioittua 

brri^ frXTr(^& ~\t^»»<^*^?- ;^«i*««^-(«i# 4^»ft9tsttv "frrf ^ " l o bii U 

puiieTfl rfar.d",!.V. GOXr: .o;i^::i>aiai9iq to oeaoeX e/**' "^li.tni.i^i :f-HL+. 

tf-fi'iia.i^t e»iw*xil ^m;'xvy,i:::ii bciB ti^oJuaH lo Tonwo srfd- iq^ hno 

A feuif IttcfttXaXq lo aavJt^i^^-nsBiJ iq«i ,SXOX .rfo-Xita ni^tiatii 

'to tasaaiaw ?ff* ajjw 9dm ^rttiXXfti^ .0 fwtXjj* rf;fiw mituarovcioo 

aaB/tiuutf fP)0X/5S arf* amii ->4*f* J-*-. jhniW ,i,fli,8nooHJtv. aX buw ooXllo 
dsn olX nooXj3D drii^ dai/iioecf c&aitOBtq ob&jtU itX boJoirbrros ion sav 

ilidi BOiiunotd avXJ^ocqaoi »ili "^o novlSnitnm»'H('A-i oeorf^f m>a>w.terf 

aoivixXl 9jrU Ill^nlaXq 9x{^ noil •a«ii9'Xtfq bXuuw ;fi]ifit>ii»l&Jb sxlt 

,9BooX 9ri* oaXii Jbna iri^ iti banla^noc Mtijilmul bnit 

OOfljXA oili itfiW ;rucf ^i r. ,' v-^/ onalcffiu 9d blow tioirivr 

9T1H3 BJBW ToXXsmi , IM Xitou b- ' bXuow 9airq &r.e^0Tuq 

alil* Jii hrw ,E>»8a9X sa "WtSnlalq 9dt oi mxi bni> ^^lQl .OSS 

time, "by apt words in ^yritinc, the leaue ?ira8 asBigned from 
plaintiff to defendant, tho defendjint signing "Q. Ifeilenian 
Brewing Corapany (Seal), by "alter G. Mueller.** The landlord 
consented to tJiis aanijinment. At the same time, by another 
writing signed by tlie respective parties in the mime manner, 
it was agreed that tho furniture in the oaloon should be sold 
by the plaintiff to the def-^ndant, the defendant ^tferening to 
pay therefor the sum of ai,50C as soon as a saloon license 
should igr:u<? frorr, the City of Chicago for the operation of 
a saloon on said premises. Later on this license who ioBued, 
and on June 13, 1912, th 2 P^iloon business was resumed. 

Defendant entered Into po session of the premises 
and e£=*tei furniture, und pnld rent under the lease from and 
including June, 1912, until the expiration of the lease on 
April 5C, 1913. It used the furniture in queatifjn during all 
of this time, and never of^ere'l to return tho soine or to re- 
assign the lease, /ftor the license Wfis isRued request w:«,q 
made of defendant to pty thfc .^l.fiOO, which wau refused by the 

V^ '^atevor isay be said concerning Kueller'n authority 
in the first instance, defendant must be held to have ratified 
this agreement entered, into hy Vuoller. Uefendfint's officers 
had knowledge of t-He agre'^ra^^.t, «nd whU-o they pro tea ted as to 
the price tViey continued to hold pofiseBslon of the fixtures and 
of the leased pramiaen and, no fnr an the record ohowa, never 
offered to return the furniture to the plaintiff, 'mis c-;nduct 
amount Bd to a ratific tinn of Mueller's agreement, and defendf^n 
is obligated to yay th»^ price noned. 'lliis is in accordance wH 
the decisions in many casea, amon.';: which are Connett v. City p; 
Chieap.o . 114 111. 233; C earing v. Butler , 69 111. 575; and 
Gr oilman v. I«?ont < ^omory ■.ard & CO., 181 111, App. 598, 
The judgment was right and is affirmed. 


moif hon3}i«e.fl aisv oMij©! odd ,:;j«j:ix'3:'r/ nl ubiow ^s/ v,u <:?iiii^ 
MoXbn*»X 9ii'i ".ncaXXoi/M .0 te^Xt^'^ ^tf ,(X«9fcj) vcncqutov ?jrti'*aia 

bXoo »rf blijr.dB aoolsn jsii nt ff'iyJJtirtKl «wU iwttir ba@*xsa e^iw *i 
»ans,iiX nooX. ■ .oe siiB 0'^<?,Xv. Jo aji/a isrLJ act»i©f£;t -^aq 

.fcsaw/Hoi cflw 8a©nJt«ucf n'nX%i c rfi ,f;X(:X ,fiX »nwL no ban 

no oasoX sxiJ 1© noi^inii^x?* "fl* Xi.+ m/ «;AXyX ,ynwt anXbwXoni 

XX« aniiub mi&y^.'Up ai fi's.uitfntr'y od* h&atj si. .<r.iOX ^Oc lltqA 

-an o;t 10 9MJ3M !'iii nitiS'O'i ni ^©^»'t"io Tt«V!&« bm* ,»mi;f airic^ lo 

B.UW .taoupfJi b»oael a/iw oangoiX 9r(^ 79i"i/. .aaaeX oriJ nainajj 

©ri^t xd hoai/l^i jijw xlox.'iw ^OOfl.X*': '-mU x-r^q oi intibaolob lo Qbum 

tiaabae : 

Xii'iOdiua 'z'iqxIuu'^^ 5jai«i©?noo tt.r,& ac" •ij:.- 'ic.Ti*jjRii?. 

beilXcS-JBi oviu"! o^ i)X»rf »o' -tswai ^firawbrralab ,oonjBi»j»X #rtll oriJ ai 

etsoltlo B*taabnQ'i&'i ,isiXX«wM \.h^ oarti h3ia4ciO Jns.j«e.oij^a iiiili 

0* afi b'jitiQ^oiq \,ori^ oXi/iw b«« ,tnc»sr.»*xj4« &tit to »sb»X»roit)< baxi. 

b«J8 afsi'xuSr.iJ. od.\ lo noiatttJHaoq bXot< oc? b«»L'at^nou x^^iJ soliq ©ffi^ 

lav&n gEworiti b-xocKj-s arfjr c;»; tt\'\ o« ,bn8 jioaXmenq b«aii;9X oil* to 

ioubnco otd!S .lliJniAXq ©rii ©.t 9'zif;rXnr*5«l nri* mu^Ki oi boia'ilc 

itafinotob bnn .^nantwoijus a'lftXX*!^ to nni:^ uili^JiT « o* bt^inuomn 

fJtvf 9J)a«biooni; ni ai, «i:aT .bf>rrt«r( ft^^^q or(;f \»v o* fc«;fAaiXcro < . 

: o yJ'XD ♦v J;tpnfl0C oiw rioiHw n^ow'-fi ^RObho Mnam oJl sxioJitiioob »xiJ 

b«B ;ava ,xxx Od , iox*uf T .v atiX^xo:: ;S?:r. .xxi i^xx . qkqoXco 
.8(?a .qqA ,XXI X»X ..PC) ai^ bxeV yLti^ mtihi no¥ .v naftiXXoaO 
.bscri'xx'llit EiX bna idj^Xl tisiw ^nofflj^but, ȣfX 



477 - ..1875 


\ Appellee, > 

vo, \ 

) /AiJiXAL m\OU KUNICli'AI GOliitT 


\ / 193 I.A. 180 


l-laintiff lLLiiU«-iUp-Hwr3E t, all!.^<fc4t ti^u. i in vt Jiuary, 
l&io, defenas^nt ] to pay tixtu '<ci- p«:r cant. Cwiiiir.ieaion 
if plaintiff would procure purciioaert* lor cexlaxii re:ul tsBtate 
belor.t^irji^ to defendant, at a j.rice of v55,Ci,/w; tiiitt nbout 
April 14, 1913, plaintiff did ao, but defftnc.ant refuaed to 
uDicie by hi a prcfidae, u'^porn triiii^ by tlje>court^l,'lain>lf f ^a* 
Jupftment for t^ iJiiaoV^t clftW^d, ^iVS'?&» i^t<Mt wi-i«h dGf-ernMnt 
ap^;enl;; . 

iii'.' evxaenee teuclAf to liUow tnat ir; April, 1913, 
cifri enuant oftned h o«<abJGfc»r tr''ot or liiiid^ nortu jf jrvcn avenue 
wnu east of Clivri: strcfit, wxjicn ««i^tt--tmr*i4mi'-ij8r-%« cevjignated 

aa « Llie ball park,'^ and Rnoiiier j-icce of lunu i;earby, waich 

u/-tl-xr . 

i»^tr4ri — tf V ! T- ff^masistf»T-in called thu ocJareiber avenue atrij*. The 

u&ii fihra. WAS uaftd a» au^ ^S » 4«W »ll parJc, witii fcjrund utand, 

ticket officea und aj.iurtisnRncea, under a i«ftse for a ttrjsi of 

cifcht yeara be^-inning April 1, l^cy, A portion of tiie wCi.rui- 

ber avpr.'ijc atri|- who axso anaer itnoe for a tcrr. of turee 

yc»rs beginning Lctobe-r 1, iiill, witxi privilege to tne Jiesa«« 

of reiiewai for an adailional period Qi' tlizeo yciira, in the 

Ifvttt'r part of 1912, or p<.'riu^:5ia in January, iJlii, plaintiff, 

a real estate brol-'r, naked deftjndnnt mint price was -ranted 

for t,hc bf^ll piiTk and defendant gave him a price of v^i**^'-'*^. 

\ ( 

aV6I.; - VV^ 

X mtiiAx, 

? I J ' ■"'■ -" r 

oJ DfiSi.'ljj'x dfajBi'maldi) iufi «ob bifc 

4*bn9lL italaiv nwVi ,dr*,i, «i^i?.a.jIo J,x,^i..-.i i4J uc: 

stir ,.<ii"xJa awn9T*» ■?...,- _ . . . ,.-x»S5jiHL 

t ; I Had 

%9Xiii lo inasi^ « icox 3*.ij;.i. loijfuj obX« o« . .; t»f« tad 

.0«.?a,«Jfr^ lo aoiiq » xdI; ■ >1»4, i;u*j ;ii«H ii^u diiJ -iol 

Aftrrwprd8» in April, 1915, plaintiff told d(;f rndant U.f*t he 
thought ho had a purchaser for the ball pnrk prov."'. Jed thv> 
iichrcibfr avenue strip oould also be purchased, nnd tvy-on in» 
quiring au to the pricfi of thot ^wna told that it coyld be 
bought for :'10,000, j.ntcr orj v4nintiff and clef cndnnt aet 
Henry C, Bartlinf; f*.nd ;.elmR Uur«i^t«^n, prcaj-t'ctivc r-uioi;i.3erffl by plaintiff, ^rt/tf a written option R^i:r«ei;.er3t was 
drawn up and $1,000 deoositftd to be held in escrow pending 
the exercise of the option. Thia option ^nve the propp<?ctiv« 
purrh;«sera the priv a1 t-f^f^ of purchasini; on or oefore CctobfX 

15, 1915, botli the bnll imrk and^ the Uchrelber avenue atrip 

flVv»<ii. Wn^'t..^*"'* ™ - — - ■ "">••< „ 

o,t ti pricp of ^bi^tUVO^ Tj wg j ^ '■ ■fy» #--« .JaJMMrh^3^«' y»o»A iB j .«JI""'i>t-uAt 

the option contract jsiumld be void if the "leiaees on thf 
abovp preiiiiaea nre not removed,* nnd thnt in this t;vent the 
escrow Bonoy i^^ioulO be-" returned to the proi^r. rotivft pur«- 
ahnv.**TB, After th(» of tlds np^rec-merjt ?Jttejr.pt3 
were CiSde In Uivfra says to cfxncel tho lease on the ball pr-rk, 
but without ^juoceaa. Jiiy June 25, 1913, all the partie-o ap- 
parently b«;ing of the opinion that th«re vras no prospect of 
cnnrel infT or forfeitinf thf- lenne, it waa apreed by thcKi that 
the option agreeiccnt Bhculd be csnoeled ana the .-".oney re- 
funded^ -nrr-^ ir--*-t~H'i tintn Iffny "iitt nt tbi> nffir.r jt^oS-^it^'^'^'^^- - 
eB#«~7-itlB ,% -'?rnTaZ-'i:^f^hTiY~yfniir'xytrr-vvtrton--»^ then 

QWd _ tjLftr* -canGC-l ed 4Uxd.-4^«^-e»-rnr3t ^'a^ 
1 ^ o .ji !.! { .- iTiri'reTTlTr.rm mrrS' . '" 

Defendant continued in hit* effortii to ;r.ecure the 
canoeHntlon of the ler-oe on the ball piiric, and in AUf;u.»t, 
aft-or— n.e>js;-e^r i w. fc I tr n is- ^i t n -t^te-^vf f4 ee*« ^f the bft8«flftt;i- ctt^ , 

terma /.ere agret^d ofNNrj v/uich involved b remittance tu tnt? 

club of ^5l,ta(! of rent in nonviuerHtion of ^^hicix the l<i'a3e 

wftB canceled by aiutual af^reeKuint, .-.<*w»u»^jjj|i.e |lfar1ng the fol- 

lovfing iuonth plaintiff wont "io defendant and swtid he had 

•rtl nc- onrinTaq <»<! aain bXuoo qJti/t »unvv» t«<fl9^ci1o2 

i^dcio.) BTto'i.Td 70 no ani«»ii3- w : . 
■:i:t"r; t*jj.n«»Tfl I'^diftiitD-.- ?>.1.? •! .■■■;■■ 

o4J no «9iis?«X'' •/U It blow ':> 

li bOA qif mrjrcb 
iTos noiiqo «;i; 


T* ^b»binil 

4<^ 9dt no 9«D»X 

-t •=» 'TWO 

barf Bd bimi bnA Jn«jbn»l»b oc ^now lllrniaXq illaoa anlwol 

heard tnat Uic lease iaid been canoeied, j.uA mf Bt whuiu^ in- 
foracd tuMi tni. 3 was true ilnintifr a&id tiiftt he would oee 
hla pnrtiea la, ain. Afterwards he reported to defrritiant that 

his partites wanted imSSSmma time to get catliiatsa on prvvirK. 
ne'yero, and other itaproveaents, as it was con tei; pin ted. to 

subdivide the boll j>&rk, ite:«*HNri:a»« J^efondantTtated 

that he would not aell the ^ichrciber avenue atrip at ail. 

Some weexa i«t«r .lamtiff, '.fith ijartl m^ I'^nd ounauten, 
called Ui-on «^ defeauant an,, f'tm told by hia. thfit he 
would not aell the ochreiber avci.uo atrip, and laat his 
price on the bell park \yus ^iiO.COO. 'Ihia tJie parties re- 
fused to iitty, wad no further negotiations between them \Ycre 
had.''', -- . 

^j Ifcintiff olnims ^1 per oer.i. cofa/aizioiors on 
|6iJ,(;ow, the price oritunally &Lvts>n hira by dcfenaant for 
all of the aaid real eatete. „._^^«.-.. - ----w 

1h conceded by pl&xntiff that he liae no 
claia baaed upon procuririe^ Uio opiion contrwct, and triia 
Kiust nccess.'jxily be ao, for the perfcrmnnce of thia con- 
tract waa conditioned upon the ter^Einatioa of Uie lease of 
Uic ball club, Thite condition f«,ilc.u, thua reuderirig nugatory 
fifty obligations under the conti'act, and by oonaent ol nil 
I>arti<ii5 it was caric^atfd. .;e are not iuiprfea^ea by uu- con- 
tention Uint tiiia caiictrilation aaa umnsly & i^retended cau- 
oeiiation to s.iaieuu the b&eebsil club into believing tnat 
the urgency for canceling: the leaee hnd pnaued, Tne option 
contract waa in fact and m law cafic«5ied and abrogated. 

Having told plaintiff in i9li:, or January, lylo, 
that he would aell tne buaeball park for ,,46,(^0, wo.a oe- 
fendant bound to that price in tiic fail of 1913v The 
property hnd coat him at least i;.l,u laorc by th«t titue 


.ilB Ijei qi'i:tu iiun9ta •t9<il9ttiot 9£iJ il9» ^oti tluovr »n ^fuji 
,a!»4ulinu<:i bn» n'ii^*'^*^ jiiim ^YtlitixAii ^piai 9^99'w omoa 

aiii ianj ij«« •qiiif£ ^un^vn ladjiftiaoi, aOJ iX»a toa biuo* 
-i^a ttaxixR;; •nJt iiiit? .ogO«t>d# ««« iicAcc XX«o 9a.i no vot^i^t 

. JhtJi«i» iAts-x blim ^tU 'to XX« 

aiitJ baa t^oztinott n6l:i%o »cU ^aitua(i%(i aoqu b^uHii mIaIo 

-aoo eixU ^o 9dnttfaTolct@q 9ti4 to'l tO« stf x-^^^^s^^^^^ isijea 

I0 ®a«;sX .' :. *t> ;.o(j>.!i i.j »itii^ aoqiu iboaoiiiJbnoo eaw lofirtJ 

X"xodr«8i/n ^/ suUiijaon «idT *tfwl0 llJicf eiitr 

LUi 10 ,K) :)'uiiu . , :»4*-jtfaoa aui ishnu eaoXJ-^^iXdo >tft« 

-aoo «:. >jA4.-a. ioa dii: £»v. ,jb«X*>an<4y »«w ijt aoiJ-xnq 

-nao ijy^ . , J .., JA itXais^ qjjw noiJi«XX»oaAu ' • ■ noiins^ \ 

ifsuj !\niv~ii--i ojnjt dttXo XX>au»«is<i t»iiJ o«'.' oiJoXXao j 

aoiJqo > ^ri,({ j>Aii »4tA»X »xU «)ai:l«OfUia -xol tuns^iu 9df 

.boj y^oij:\ hciM b9iuoiiuo vial ai bn» &9a1 at BMm S^mtiaaa 

-»b a«w ,o:v ),c!*'.,, tol ali4i<i XX«dfta4id 9iii Xj.^- . ...v-,, ... j....« 

3ilT .'SXQX ^o XX«1 litU ai ftoiiq ^Jixti o^ bnuud jrnii)l>n9l 

siuXi Jjs4j v^d ftaoa O^tUiXI #«««X «« «JLii iaoo bnil KitDqoiq: 

in the rent remitted aa conisiderntiori for canceling the 
lense. Viicre Kiay Lave been otupr re^acns xruy uefendKiat 
thou^Tit the. property ^vao ^vortn wore. iC kno.' of no rule 
thot vfould obligate an owner for an indefinite X)«:riod by 
hla verbal reply to ;uj inquiry aa tu the price of real 
tstnte. After the c3jnce2lRti on of the contract defendant 

was wholly free to nak any price r.e pleased for .hi a property, 
or to sell or not, as lie wi:iii©d. ic iiad the ri«-,nt to aak 
|50,0CC for t'ne bftll i>n.rk, and it ia not cljUiiied txint ;.lain- 
til"f over j>rocured a purcbr-ser ready, saiixnf.; and nulc to 
buy at tiiJit. price, Anotner cunaiaeration of linportatjoe ia 
the fact taet at no t-uae ii, it suxde to uppear that plain- 
tiff procured pujohaacrB willini^, and ready to buy the ball 
park and the ,^oiU"eib€r avenue strip '.fiti. a i.fcase theroon 
running to .'Jcyteaibor , 1917, r-ven upon plaintiif'a ti.cory 
that defendant was bound by his original price placed upon 
the precsises, plaintiff hro not productd puroiiasera ready to 
buy at that price under existing conditions, 

km holu that plaintiff iu not entitled to re- 
cover, and the judi-iugnt ia reversed and judi^/went of nil 
caj[;-if-t ia entered in thi:/. court. 

iafi0i\nt9b yiiw •noawsa isU^o n«»cf avail XA^ •trjii": .9»ii')ji 
• Iw't on io vonal ». .•lom riJiow umr 'itrnqorq »iii i.t^uoiU 
X^ boLi9q, 9ilanL»bnl an "xolt f»»two oa •^i)»iltfo fclwov ;faj(j 

in«ba»l9lj ^ojti^noo aril lo nolialLaonAa »ili -xsiTs .ci^j.+iio 

iiu« oJ 4^* .::»rfalw »xl a* ,Jon to £Ioa oJ to 

-nx«i, iiMii £>«mi8io lan «! *i j^oa ,*ri>q Xl«o' am lol 000,0t:, 

oj Qloa baa ^aiHim ^xbmox fajtiiatuq m AttiiooTq i»vo l*li> 

-ai^Xci Jani «Asqq« o3 9htix il ui sau^ on ia Jau:! Jaxil oxu 

Had 9iU tw«f o^ X**»t ban aallXiw »i»«iwlOiii.i ij^aAiooiq lli.i 

aa9^9tii ••mX a 411w ql-xJa 9ua»r» X9Mloiiio^ 9tii bM iri*»n 

noci« |)aonici »3itq Xnni^iio aid ^d l>fl«o*f «aw JuGhnnlob Smy 
oJ Yi>a9t 8a93.';.iori»<i buoubii'sq Sq.^ mui lli^niaX^i .KSttifflAiq »r;.; 
,«ftOi.iifcaoo ,' .{>.i,y woi^q ituis ta xu.. 

•»t OJ b9l3lia» Joa ai lliJ 

na lo in9mi^bul bam b9B%9Vft% «i Jmi^mmtti 9dt i>n $ , tsvoo 
• litfOd €hii aX &«ai9.^n« ti jnx.pp 
-.1. CTAK aS;.ff.V3H 

t)16 - 21914 


COiilAEY 0? aAK 1.WNC13CG, 

j i All/.M. moU ^Vlh'klOH CCUKT, 

) . 


\ / 198 I.A. 183 



In a etiit for co:iiiul&»JLons claixtied undor an 
agency dontrnct, triea oy ti-ie court, plaiiiUiff had jddgment 

toTy ^ld,06?',91, fj^M ^L*'^^ A'?^.?-'!}-^^^--^^-^''*'^^'' ~~ -- — 

The contract sued on, dated r'etoruary 1, 1906, 

r.i-QTi i.lo d.. ji i0iw;»«'!i>tiliiiiiiiiiii tiiiiil i ijx iii ti-nt pl».i7itiff should have the 
exclusive riKht in the stnte of Illinois toXlnourajice buajV) 
111 1,1 II JiT f-'mj.. .1 1 I I mmC T -I I rjr 1 1 r J . plate glata and eaployem*^ 
lability i^hia oofiipensatlon to be A-^> per cent, of pre^Uume 
on aiT^poiiciea iasued witi;in said territory, ond a further 
coaiiJiisoion of 1 per cent, upon the net profits; instructions 
in writing to thr plaintiff from the home office (in aan 
?r«iici3co) by tne dcfpnaant to bi^ conutrued to be part of 
the contract; contrrict tera.inRbl« on So dP.ya' wTitttn 
notice by either party,- f~^-^"^**~'-~-=-'-— ->-— - - "'— ■— .—- ^...^.^~«^ « 



A» aUggeated toy d^erldant'8 coumr«l. the cj^m 

, ■ -^ •' / --'''' I -''" I 

aay iop-dojawvr.ienife be conaiderea in thfee partb, Jlie f|r«t 

7 J^"/i ■ ■ \ j / / . . / ' t- 

/j^%it^UTi.'Qi9 d4ffeiencf Wetweim/40 per oent^jind 50 per ^ 
cent, orpremiums on «&^loyer»' liability i,««tttanoe.j It i/lAf9^, 
olatmed that trie orl^inRl compenBatlon of 40 per oent» was 
reduced t^y aj-reeaent to 3c p^r cent. Un April d^, 1907, de- 
fendant wrote plaintiff that it did not care for any ex-. 

.TaUOO SiOlHU'lUQ iiOflt JAX'I'CA 


♦I«IS - die 



J^n?m3i>ft|, bad lliinlBlq ,*tuoo j.ij x' i)»tti ,J:: 
. ,^AlA9,ii<ifi^inBba9Ti9b xloljtw ip.oti > 

:" -tit Of t.. 

*mittu^ M boR ,xroiiii»i bltm aldUm bfn'e 
•■^ i-fuq 9(f oi i)«UTj6aoo »rf ojr ^(lAfinn iMi. ,•.; 

.....,„ I--. 

XiilidMli •■loy. 

lo ttolijnifqmoQ Xnnl^Jto •tii amtUt bm 
-•i) ,Vw(rfX ,cii XinqA n « oi *n»ci»»-T 

-X© ^cne lol ^imo ioii .,14. -i j«a^ lllinialq mivrm iamtfi 

tended line of this kind of 'busineaa, that the business jould 
^ not stand a iiigiier coaxaiaaion rate tJian 3o per cent, and it 

^'^ would accept ouch insurnnce on that basia only, find "if the 
= buffiinesB cannot be written on this ba»ia as tjeneral agent 


couifiiiaaion kindly do not «rite it,"* i» o i H< > r e ctf— tte<r"-ttylnl^n 
i iMmtpuiti'fi^iA agreed to by plaintiff, as shown both by hla 
\ reply letter dated i.ay 6, 19(;7, rxnd hia oubisequent conduct 
/in deducting only 5u per cent, of premiuais in awaking re* 
aittances, /'"'IlLaJL.-4i»«--t?mrfer«e^^ 

toerj,JlJiSjJx^~4ilXi*9Viil\ fiat t A jUtWPtxsry-'^'ir'VSUe'; '-x-»'^fitAi^,Jjumx.1km^ . 

Thiere was »^"vo on tract beteree^, the parties frojQ Februax^,. 1906, 

der ^jdllch /they werjr actin(¥, the tercijj^^of Wich K^e&rta ia 

/the, wri tin^i subcwfquently si/jned by theai, 7he •iKning 
not necessar;^ to give this boiltract ▼it«lity. 

thls_jagr cement to accept 3i per cent, binaing 
in law? *re hold that it i»r"""~~"-(4J Even on the theory liiat 
a conoiderntion irricceoBary, the acceptance by defendant of 
liab^fty iniaurance after its notice to plaintiff that it 
vrbuld not accepi this kind except on a So pe-r cent, basis is 
suf ficieht"olirw±i*«ri|,tiOB, (i;) The agreement was executed 
by tiie parties, hence ia biocling, A parol a^ ree.vtent to 
modify goi JjcJ^^t^waea^^-atrtfirJ- seal, wnen executed ia valid. 

"C ^anow V, Criesheitaer. 2i:o 111. lo6, where the court said: 
"if the par^'t'Ml. have executed the contract ao modified, no 
Uiat nothing reaiaii^s to be done by either partV>vit is no 
lonr^eju-«W6'»«*rt:ef1?3r"and the contract as executed will riot be 
dlffttrrbTsd-.-" .,We hold that the court was in error in allow- 
ing -p^^jd^t^JT^TlJlfi is difference of 10 per cent, on liability 


The oeeond part oi' plaintiff's claim *'^%or 40 

a bOB ,Jn90 X9q oz aiii ninr noi««lflwoo xnd^lA m bamim .t. 
f>Ai 11" bau , ..] .o^ it,^i „o *onmuanl ilowc iq*ooa fiXuov^ - - 
in^^M i«««V .ld;f no nniiit^ sd iona«» ««eaia«d -^ ' 

tfowDnoo lfl*i/p»«di/<. .id ijoa ,Tu«X ,a x«iA b»i*D i.ii.i xlq,v; ^ 

.v;rir«Hr to»i^ nidi 9ri^ oi viUc.f>n^« i^ 
i;«oo« oi *«9«»»"xa«jiIflyLm 

ii i«xW 1^ttni»l<i o) soliOM »;ri „il« •onirxi.anrym4d«lI 
«i ei««d .,„«o «, o« * no *ci,w j^niot .^rf, ,,.«^, ,^„ ^^^^ 

oi insms«:4« Xox*q A .inli^a^rd' , x eortoii .t«iM«q .^ ^d 

:bXa« iti/oo s.lj ^iuilw ,aoi ^^_fi oiiji i-. ... 

on 01 ^i ,ii;ft«q ,ei«i, ^a .aob ad oi ^x.«., ^tdi^ ,^,^ 

XlXXidiilf no .i.,„o tng OX to sofru-r^mi. ei.f^ "^t > "rtoXq- 3«X 

r::v^Ac^ I 


pur cftnt,, coj:«i;ir,sion on liability insurance written by the 
fir;., of imrraa A. (iooabody in the years \91L> Ju»d lyil. O**- 
fendant claima tiiat in tiic letter part of 1910 it waa agreed 
toy it and plaintiff Uiat the touaineea in Iliinoio miB to be 
divided ao that the firca of iiurras &. Goodbody ahould bo the 
general a^ent for enployere' liability in^iurance instead of 
plaintiff, who was to continue aa Bf:ent in lint a of plate 
glass and burglary inaur.'mce only^ 

-miiMr l»--not -Trwr-frocr tli^^ieui^y;-^ T^^ 

at tlie concluaion that tliis Rgreejsent woa raadelttd carried 
^j^tttT— iioaie-^f-theng^ideHce influencing ua in the teatituony 
of the witneaaea Green, BurrJiB and ooouboay; the correspondence 
between plaintiff and defendant, with particu.lar reference to 
tile letter froio defendant aated Kove.-uber 14, l';il..., and fliiin^ 

^i in tiff and iiurraa & Goodbody intejtchantjed buaineaa, that 
ia, plaintiff brought all liability insurance buainesa co;dng 
to hiffi to Burraa '. Goodbody, who paid plaintiff nil the con- 
mission thereon, while this firm gave plaintiff its burglary 
and plate ^aaaa inaurance buaineaa and received the cocuiiia- 
aion. V«- .dte^^Tlolliohjtrtr.; j4? letter froi. defendant dated 
..ov^.b«er 14, 191.::, ^^^.^..^.^^-rmr^r*^^ 

trt tf-t-. it^^l^tttT^^i^. a tiireat to «evGr all relatione 
with plaintiff unleaa he obacrved strictly the at,reoi!:ent to 
divide txie buaineaa as had been airran^ied. and in plaintiff's 
reply of J^ove.:.ber 21 at he aeeikA^to resent any suggestion that 
he had not atriotly observed this a^jreenient; aefenciant ap- 
parently accepted uia statejiient of the fact and aid not at 
that time t^rtninate Kia pUitG glaaa una burglary inaurance 
agency; tjiia was aubacquently done, in January, 191^. 


»d* \(i ci9i;ilT» »oni»-xuuaJt \SXli<iaiX at» noi«aJt(tuaoo ,Jtn9o jm, 

-»a ,1X91 baa uXttX 8aaa^ •rfJ ril v 

^»»ia« amr ft olQl to traq «*irtX »aj nj. .rsic si^iKiu iiivji.aal 

9rf oi eaw eJtonifXI nl saaniaiitf srfi ;rcrij itiJni; t.: hn^i n ^rf 

•di trf i)Xvod4! \bQdbooD a ajsi-xwa lo mi^ •lU ... i,»blvlb 

lo f)*ol«nl aonatuenl x^HitfsiX ♦«»xoXq«ie rtol *«»»• fm*?*]!) 

b»4tvtmv tWS ittyma ajirv im>c»«is. ^ «pi aii-Xottoa. adi.J-ja 

a3a»i>aov,:u3irtoo erii ;xi»otftodo bn* hmiiuH .noa-xO aaaeon;r2w ori^ lo 

-niaXq bn« ,uxex ,*X Yatfawraii ba^«u Jfjai)aalat aoil «aliaX 9iiJ 
'^^^'^J*^ . iiU^AXi^jadttjTolJ JtavTiEil) ^X^aa a»lli^ 

*«iii ,e£'9;ui.i<c' i>j^.w.:o«».dfll x^orfbooo :& •MH'tuK bam lll^«i:ar^W~ " ' 
anlraoo aaaaXei/cr aonjiTwoal xilXirfall XXa id<juoirf l-JliaiaXq ,«i ^ 

-«ot> 9ili XXj» llUniiiXq DiMct od» .x^orf^ooO . aintud o* aid oi 1 

. u.X.jTud aii tllini«i«i ayaji HKil alill aXlila .ao^iarii nolaaiia *^ 
-dlffliao» axl* baviaaai i^aa aa«niKJud ounaiueini ••lal^ alaXq i>a« 

- niygr-yttf ' loyfwaMttf' a a i < ou ' b %t» r^- ^-^ —^ — '■.,■.,. 

aaoUm£»i XX« tavaa otf iaaiiU a .-;uaa«4 

oJ *neuia»iaja ad* xX^ol-xtfa i>evi9ttcfo ad tmsinu llUniaXq il;riw 

a»lli^«iaXq nX ba^ .Jba^oaria naatf Jbad aa aaaoXai/cj »iU abirib 

iaii^ noi^aoaaus x«« ^rtoeot o^V«''-J»e t»d rfaXS ^atfiaavtikf la xXqat 

1 aiil la *fM. b»Jqaoo« xXj«»*x^« : 

aona^uaax x^^XaTwrf baa #•/». ^anXaisJ aaUl ic.. 

.iiiex .xa^i/fiau nX .snott x^^aoupa»iiuH aaw aXili ;x9«9aA 


ciodifJKtiie contr?'Ct by '-hua dividing the ln3urano<f^''t>uaina8» 

B vjalid\, X^ Kiay be said that the conaiXei*^lon for the 


s thfi coptinu»ncc of tha^'genc^ of plaintiff 

byirglary ^inaur|M«'c</, Aa wo\ have Indicated, 
AaiHed ^e contraiit in i^pvcmber. 

ate f;la«8 oi 
the 4«f l^ndant hvould 

l9loi uhledB ^ia qferee»ej^<jfji8 in l?oro«, Purt:^er, tife legaX 
dons^i aeration !fippl^lca>Ie to t4e^<ir3t part of plaintiff's claia 
is a:^licable to >lUa j^art, iu*iely. 'biie evidence 'auowa taat 
this agrefimen^riwfts executed, akd )tiaving b^>«n executed by the 

partiee yd,l not be dieturbed, anoy v. arie 

er» aupra , 

we hoJTcT that it was error to aliorr plaintiff anythin^or 

a part of uiu clRimj i_ 

"^ i/r$^ 

Tne third part of plaintiff 'a claici ir« for cow- 

ffliaoione on certain ]>>: ^tw i;lii.<e an ^d-43 ur i glar y inourrmce writt^-n 
, by afjenciee jrn— » q^ Um ^u= ^tXl i nvi a aciouutin^y; to .p,BlS,47^'^^r--'^^ 
lA'^^^Jifendf^nt ' inyj^n xt it i a an t itl ft d to hu v e uf wdl tf» dk- ^>»t^aJUM»» 

..^tllJNB ^certain a:iOuiita viiaoia appear to be credits given to de- 
fendant by plaintiff In the oopy of account attached to hie 
declaration, ,n7ecannot/^firee with thi« 'cbinrtention. The copy 
of account is not part oA^the declaration. .^.1 a^ ouri Kiver 

dence'^a«( Wny ot^icr wri tini; This vme not don©. 

T<|l«*Kraph Cp. v. F/rst j^a iional Bank, 74 ill, ii3^.\ Therefo 

bec/mk part o1/ tiie i-eo >r^' it laust be introduced in evi» 

not eon|iitie;r^,lt. j \ / 

I \ Ilaint^iff is ^titX«Mi to 
ll^effi of $3l6l6.47/less an ak^p^ed ee 

ana ve c 

Jud^cnt lor this ^aiit 
set-off of #300, WAi^ 


d !leav< 

the /correcU- amount of the 3^d^ent at ^o,iilb,47. 

The J\j(dt,itenV i,4...rever»ed and jUjI*^^ entered 

for thVjBl^mUff aeiaiii»i %b«'d»^^^ Ih the aua of ;.:>,olb.47. 


kU aol 

olao od YAOi ifl Abllnv a. 



UUJeiXu 6*4*10. 

isifi eidjt 80 •low i|ui(^^i 

d ^nivfi£i hfn .b'^iuofiTis baw ;r^9n»«aa» niii^ 

H.'jU i ,, i. era. (;*■;,';) ■■ ;. i,.i vi !i •. -. , , ^w ^' a,,- ; j i..'t.t,i»i} ttflT 

• »i! oi navij) allbeto our oJ 'stf^qqa abij.\u £^^• :^-X!)u 

alii oJ Aario"*- '"• ^-.. --■■- •"• ■■■■.•■ -■■ • ■-> => 
-iva at bmuhoiiai ad iaxjci *i t : 

0.* t?*T« fO'V 


^ii«4 aim tojt ^n^otjibi/i; oi i^. 
,T*.aX£,£« lo «> 

iViW tol 

551 - 21949 

KAHY von mER BU-ILia, 

\ Appellant 

nmnY VON dkv brislib 



198 I^A.. 187 



On July 2, 1913, complainant filed her bill alleging 
that the defondant on Juno 22, lOlvi, had abandoned her, leaving 
her with'-^ut moan^ of support, ohe aaksd defendant he 
enjoinod from conveying, diijposing of or oncuzriboring his 
property, and th^it he pay solicitor 'n feea and a sura for her 
iTUilntemmce and support, By aubaequent aTncndiuont coxrtplainant 
further details tho conduct of defendant . To this defend: nt 
filed an anower denying raisconduct on hiij port, denying that 
they were living separate and ri tirt, and containing tminrndvor- 
eiona upon tlie conduct of hio wife, auheoquontly hearing w.-m 
had before the chancellor, who >-t}lng of tho opinion thr-^.t tho 
equities were with the defendant ordered that complainant* ■ 
bill of corapiaint and tJie amendraentB thereto be disrfiitJBod for 
wimt of equity. From tliiis decree conspiairjant has appoaled. 

The- atatuto on riepfiratP roaintenanc«i, in force July 1, 
1877, Kurd's 111. ..tat., Chiip. 68, provides that married women 
"who, without their fault, novu- live or hereafter may llv«, 
separate and apart from their husb«nda,'* rcay have remedy "for a 
reamonablft support and nmintenHnce, while they so live or have 
»o lived acparate and apart.** ?e are of the opinion that the 
complainojit failed to prove that she and hor husband wore 
living aeparute and ap<trt without her fiuilt. -o Khali not 
narrate tho detail, of tho fre ,ucnt and unhappy controveraiee 


.YT'.f or; /ytoc) 

»v Tfi/ia 

^i r 

gnljifjXIjft liicf 'leri fa»Xl'i itmttlnlqpoo ,6I€X ,S; xlwu «0 
SrrXvAoX .i9r( banobttstfit bA#( ,KXGX «r.S orti/L no ^OGbnoldl) tttti imtli 
od SeiBbciiittih fAi boj(8ja &d<^ ^tioqqgun to «(iiiom Suotiil: 
ajiif gnJiinttoj/ono vo 1:o snXeoqaib ,:^ni'\:»7noo twit httttli^la^ 

nsii lol .'!t?4* r. bnr. ajjot a^noiiniXoB y/iq »ri i u{:f Jbnn ,XiiP — 

tabnstob ultlt oT «J^nubn9l«fc Ito ioubnoo otit Bliuiob I'^^AStut 

nw ajtlTKSrf 'v;XJ'ft6irpoQcfi; . . ii- ; j i 'to *O0.;'noj> oa1# ikx^w aooXo 
-lilt ^,r.f(i noJ ni ) j.'f;' "to artJtsr orfw .rtoXXsoiuiilo -^jf^ yin'^etf b«xl 

ot l>eaBim8ib ftd o;fsrt«x{J ■jnsmbnomA ntM htm ^lUaXqasoa Ite XXitf 

• boXjBoqqa EUirf ;fii8nxfliqmoo •nno»b olifl m»t^ ,xtiup'3 ":o irww 

,X xXtit. floiol ni »«nnun»inJtam ^J^BTfltTSR no 9SuS»t» ©riT 

nertOT; ^-ifiam Jailer aobiroiq ,B«) .qailO ,.iji#<; .XXI ■'biuK , ViBX 

.Mcr ioil«0n»ri 10 oviX won ,;JX«jr1 iloiU ^worfjUw ,orf«r" 

a nol" Atbewai svitil xam "«aban<fcKXf "xitnti aroil itfiqn bm5 aiiiiisq^a 

«VArf 10 «»riX OB xotii nXlriw .•onuno^nl* • bn* i'ioqquB 9ldAnr,tin»'i 

9iii Satit ftoirilcKO oilS lo air 9" ".li^qA bno 9Smiaqoo bavXX 08 

•"SOW brmdcuci lod bim aria Jnf(;f svoiq oJ boXial ;tn«ni«Xqmo.'> 

ion Llstii*. ov ,;fXxotl larf ;^iior{;fiv iituqn hn« ftixiiaqab j^n-^viX 

Qolaiovo^^noo xqq^nu bna JnoMr^-xl art* ^^o .Xlaiab aiii a**-x^Bfl 


between tho parties, in -vhich naithor aide was free from 
fault, Ve arv! inclined to believe, however, tiiat if tliin 
unfortunate oouple had been left to thomselvea they woiild 
have lived yiapr)ily together. The conduct of a son of the 
complainant aeemo to have furnished conoiderablo ground for 
annoyance, whilR it is evident that tho children of def<;ndant 
have becHi potent inatrursentalitiOB in CKuainK irritutinn to 
the complainant nnd unhnppineas to the dcf *5fnctajat« 

'^atcvor may have been the cuuacj of the dir.oord, 
the evidence clo?irly shows that the coisplainMnt, an nhe heroelf 
haa stated, has declined to live vyith the dofcndiint unless he 
should either convey to her oorae of hio pnperty or Cf:ncc:l a 
certain leaae which he hns mado for an extended poriod to a aon- 
in^law, ^)ef cndfint had a lawfxil rigl-it to diapoBO of hia property 
as he saw fit, aubjoct, of ccurae, to the dower intereat of 
complainant, iJhe may Juatly fool agr,rieved by har huaband'a 
conveyance of hia property, but ttiio does not give her legal 
groundB for refusing to live with him; certainly while the husband 
, offers to provide a home and to live with lior, and she refuses 
vunl<f;3r. ho dinpoaen of his prnoerty ae ahe wiohea, she is not 
within th.: atntutory ooniitinns t^ntitling her to sepsirate 

^»uch ia said concerning the alleged desertion of his 
/ wife by the husband, but in the light of th<; testimony we cannot 

construe his temporary absencf; na amr-unting to a desertirai, 
v^Under the advice of a physician he left for a period of rest, 
^impelled thereto by the conduct of Lis i^ife. 

The decree of the chancellor waa right and is 


aids li ;t^irW ^aijvwwoxi ,»v»iX»cf o^ t)»niXonl »!« »f .iXiral 

bXuow -icoii^ BovXocwtfrii' oi i^l*! n»od bwrt oXQwno *»*flnu*'xo'»ntu 

»fj;r to noa n lo ^oubnoo »rfT ,i»ri**Bo;J YJCjEf'f:*^^ fcwviX »vji/i 

•xo\ bai.'on,,i 9l(SAtnt'iftnoQ bariainiul flv«d o.* r>ai»»B JiTsnlaXf^cioo 

inabnjiloi) 'io ito-iblldo ©riJ ^fflit* cTrtwbXTtt eJt SI sXirir; .aonuYonnii 

oi noiJij^Jti'ii wnioiiMa nX ool^XlB^nramutJeni ijtoioq ivoed" •vsxl 

• J^mahnplab sfLt oi aatnlqqorim; bmj IreanJt ifTKn- nrf^ 

^Xoaieri &rfn iin ,:^nB^i«Xq^!IOO exf* Jefti aworio xXiaoXo oonsblvs acii 

DfC rutrjXnu J^ntibnolob orf^ liiXw »vi:X o^ hen.tXoeb nntl ,b»4'n#8 tistf 

<!! Xi;oa,:^o 'io xiiocic'iq aid to ©bios tod oi ijsvnoo t;>ri.tJ:s bXuorfB 

-noa a oS bclivq babaoixo na lol ob«m baiI srxf rfoiilw oaeflX olal'xoo 

\.,J"j;9qoiq aii^. Io 9«oqaih o* .Trfjjl's Xw'^cX a tad ^rinbn»t»(i ,VjBl*f 

a^bci&dvud lod xdS bovdiiaa^ Xsol: x^^^^^t XifiWi oriJi ,^nfjni«Xqfflio3 " 
XugsX lad flviji ;to« aaob aiiU ituS ,\ir9ns-ici aid Io ©oasTCovnoo 

hasdeaai a/It aXirfw ^laia^txao jniji ri^iw sviX o^ s"iei('tf>i lol abnun-ia \ 

I t aria baa ttod d)im evil oi bvm emoit a •feXvoiq n^ e^elto 

ion ai oxla ,a9riai'«r orin ai* Y**r»ot^'iq «Xrf "^o aoooqtiXb ©d (leaXnu 

8*Biwj9B od^ 'Xf^d ■^\nl£:itim mnnkiibaot* \,t»ittifii0 i^iSi nldttw 

alri to noi.a'ioBnb boj^alXja »f*^ jininioonoo bisxe el riDcM 
Monaco 9w xnnini^aoj oif* t« ixlglX !>.f^ nJt :tjurf , baacfeuri ertt yd* f^tiw \ 
.noii^^iyaeb « oj ^nl^mronui an »r)nf)ecf« YiisToqinHi ntii af/rr^srfoo 
,Jooi to bolioq & lot ttflX ori aait>la\;riq a to ooXyb* i>rW rtabitU ^ 
.etXw «.c.i" to ^oubnoo »rii xd oigtah^t bwXXdqmX^ 
ai bmj id:i>ii rt^nw 'xoXXoofinKo f*jr{.t to sfnoflb *»r{T 



564 - iili*82 

ICIiARD DKVINE, a clnor, by 
aiiiie Lenihan, hi a next friendj 

\ Appellan 


198 I.A. 188 

ua, mjaimm justice KcauRKLY 


Riciiard cvine, plnintlff, oeven years aeven 
months old, sras struck by n street cur belonging tc defendant. 
He was ocTcrely injxired, Ke hroxxtfjat suit and had jud^jment 
for i;l-i,5oO froa= wLich aefondant appeala, 

in th«j fHll of liilki plaintiff attended the Jex- 
ton achool, ut the northeast corner of ell a und rcndeli 
streets in chioiigo. street car a run north and south on iell^ 
On iieitetuber iiSth auout 11:;50 ©•clocx in tht Uiorning plaintiff, 
navinf; bct^n aiaEalt»i;oed fro^i achool, started to croaa /ells atrecti 
vrhtsn he was struck by a aouthbound oar. We;kall not <$tate the 
facto more in detail, for in our opinion tne giving of an er- 
roncoua instruction to the jury ncce83it;»te8 nnotxier trial, 

By one of the counta of the declaration it v/as 
allcKed thnt tiiere was in force at the tiiae of the accident 
a certain ordinance of the city of Ciiicago which declared it 
to be unlpwful to run a street car -.vhile within «i5o feet of any 
scnool house in tne city at a apeed greoter than five milea 
an hour, bcrtween tne hours of 11 a. :!:, and 1:4b p. ^'» of any 
day during which school is in session in sucn achool house, 
and that the defendant, negligently and contrary to the ordi- 
nance, ran Its care on ;!/elIs street at a speed greater than 
fiTe miles an hour within the prescribed distance and time. 


S8(?i2» - ^ae 





n«v»o exii-/ .;3V9tt ."I'UJaintq «»nJ:Y«:: biiul©Jtn 
,. .uibf.'j'iw^ oJ yaJlanoXarf iJio ivoiii m x^ ^outi* urn* , .»v. ci^jnoti 

.8lA»<2q« JnHi)nal»i) xioJUiw ^laott Oo£«SI4 1C«1 
-x»L »itr b^bMiim ItlSatMlq, iil9l lo XjUil cat al 

»ti!»'f no .iJiioa brm itiTon aut ciito i93iii^ .o^^oiii:;) al sJas-zJa 

oo-xJe alXsv aaoia uj Ji>e4tJBja ,Xooxioiii .aaTl iN»««iXaMiXX) noatf hh^T"^ 

9dJ Biait ion XXacui av ,xau baaodixiuaa • \,ii ^uti* a«w 9ii mtttm 

"10 aa la ^O'^via aiiJ aoinxqo tuo ai yoI ,Xx^»b aX anom aJoul 

,I<jI-xl T»rtion« aaJf.JXaasooo ^wt ad^ o* aoi;)^^^^ -f«i r.u . , io-y 

asw IX noiJA'XiJXdal] ^dJ^ lo B;rnyoo 9iii 'iq ano \.t. 

tttobiooB 9xiJ lo »aiXi 9£li $M aoiol ai anv aisxi^ ituii bBn^llm 

i t>!»-sj»Xoab xtoXilw osAoXxiO lo '^^Xo 9<<i lo •oaaalbno nluitno « 

to Jaal Odii nXtiJXw aXXii*/ riflo iao^ia a nwj a/ Xi/"tar':X«w orf oS 

aaXXra avil a£iii lainaia i>aoqa a 4a y/io 9^4 aX aaxioh Xooaaa 

tna iQ .ffl «q e*:X bfi« .n ,» Xl lo eauon acti aaawlatf (iirotf cm 

tsexiod Xooxioa iiojua nX noXaaaa ai aX Xooxloa aoXit« j^nttub v.nb 

-inio »rU ol y;ti«Tlnoo bant YXJna»Xia»a «la«JbnBltab aiU iadi bna 

njadi taiaarrs baaqa » in Stt^tia aXXa% no at4o all oa-x ,a3nAit 

«e:aXJ biiia aona^aXb bscfXrcoaa-zq odi aldilv tuoti na aaXlm arXl 

hy weaiia ^qrhcreof the accldenT. occurred. It was sought to 
Intro iucc the ordlnrjncs in evidence, and wnilc th«re was 
irregularity in the s.fjnner of offering; it, auch irregulertty 
aliould not npnin occur. There wia evidence tendin^j to eup- 
port the ullegjition of a violation of t/ie ordinunce. 

At the requ^t of plaintiff the court f:ave to 
the Jury in»tructior^f^><o, 9, wiicn is 80Ke<*hs.t long but iuay 
be auaaaiarized a» tellinit; the jury uuxx. if they believed 
that between 11 a. ;a, and l:4u {>» w. the jlaintiff was 
struck ay tii© otrett car wrule oroaainti: /ella street within 
260 feet of the 3Chool houae, and tiiai the car ^vas then be* 
ing opcrsts-d at a apeed grtattr than five .i-iles per hour, 
the plaintiff exerciain/ due carf; for one of aia iir,e, etc., 
and that by rencon of thr violation of the ordinnncr the 
plaintiff ^a» injured, then thR defendant must be found 

Conter.tione urged arainat the appearance of 
the ordinrnce in the record, itc exi kJtcnce, ite vaJidity, or 
its applicability b'^aed on .".■ H3urci;.ey.t3 froia tjie aciiool 
house, do not ixapreaa ua aa having substantial merit, ]iowe»or, 

/ we are of the opinion that it waa error to instruct the Jury 
that a vioJ ration of tne ordinance as a is-atter of law ia ne^Ui- 
tience jitr ae. *e are aware tuat the deciaiona are not v.-holly 
har;noniou8 on tuia point, but iiiia court lo convinced that 
the better reaaoning and greater weight of authority aupport 
the view ti^at the violation of an ordinnnce ia prima facie 
eviienoe of ne<;jligence froiu which the Jury siay infer negli- 
gence, but auc. inference aay be rebutted by eviJence, 

It is not difficult to imc-j^ine many exigenciea, 
such R3 audden illneaa of ttie siotorr,ian, inexplicable defect 

in the machinery, or ita deranfeiaent through oolliaion, or 

-(X«a oi r\alha93 •onabirs bjbv 9<x»xIT .U/ooo altt^ ier 
.votittalbno »uj 1c noiinloiv s lo noiJ«a«II« 

e«w llx^ o:X bnji .« •« II n»«v 

•9ci a*<li 8«v YJso 3x1^ 4Adi baa ^esuoci Ioccol jiU lo i9»\ 0<BS 

-'.»•:. I. ."■■• yjlJ lo nol**' lo nOAA^-lt X<^- ilUjU f'i' •• 

loofios »rii (EOfl t 
■^•Xi/t »ri^ ioirtiattl jJ lytt' u«. 

-j!-i9n BX. W«i lo ll».^JiU3 « '- -:)i 

lO^w ^on •Ifi BOOiaiOr:^ 

tnAi baoni vxtoo m 
loqq^a \,ilnodtuti 

• XobI naiiq si ftt^n > 

,9oa9bJlv« y«r l>9^^utfs 
. ioion*six9 Yfuun "^ 

i J nil J nJiciii-> iixJ to ^trt «* 

•^ 1£SL «»«•» 
jq &iAt aa «Moltioi<a«n 

i9lnl rto* 
£9b aJjt to « 

slippcrineae of the rail, which wlt;ht cnuae the car to run fuat«r 
than five .liilea hour, but iaarafotly the exoeaa of sspeed of 
itaclf ^ihould not aa a laratcr of law coastitute negligence, with 
opportjiilty for explanation denied. The prinoiple ia the same 
vjhere tri.« excui!.Rtory circuiiifetrtnoes arc le»8 obviouw. ihe Jury 
•hould be per:iit.te<i in dcter.iiuinj^- nogligence to conaider all 
the circuiTiStanoea of the occurrence, Includintj the violation of 
tJic ordinance, Axaoni; the enseo aupporting this view are, 
Knupf le , MuiT . , V, Kxixcketpock c r ice C o . > b4 ,, Y. 4aa; Hani on 

uouth boatpn horac Hy . t.-o . , Ik-O i asu, 310; Connor v, hi ec trie 
T ract io ii -Jo. , 173 : a, 6v^; keek v, '; ennaylvania Co ., ib Ohio 
at. Cik!; QTSuid Trunk i^, £o, v, lyeo , 144 v, ti. 4<:8; ^'''r i e ^util - 
road ;:u . v. FitrrtMl t 147 Fed. i^L;; lieck v. I ortland a V. K, Co ^ 
Zd ore, y^; kollica v. iich . Cent. I^, Co,,, 170 lich. 96; Uli- 
nola Central K. Co, v, l-;icbcr , 202 111, 556; IllinolB Central 
R, Co, v, Ashline . 171 til. 315; CO.'rt!:..onvyera th .leclric. ■ o. •/. 
lioae . iil4 ill, b4b; united utatea Brewint; Co , v, ^ jtoltenberg . 

211 111, i3ui; Truo -• '"rue -:o » v. ;oQa , ^(d ill. 31o; iieidenrecch 

■" 3 

'<'• Bremner , ii6u 111. 439; Llliott on jiailroada, iind , d. , aec, 1. a5 

note 14:', 

■,;pon the r^oorct bftfore ua vte f<.re not disiosed to 
SLeirea with U\e contcntioti of counacl for u«feiidant an to the 
manifest ; repooderanoe of x-ne eviuence or aa to the contributory 
nefciii Slice of vlaintiff , 

There was ucriouR error in the rulin^a on tuc 
teathi'ony of p laiintiff • s <vitnt-»» i^ra. Brown, ^he ziad testified 
aa to the speed of the cnr Uaaed upon V7nat ahe had htard. The 
motion to atri e cut auch tf:uti;'.iony was overruled, vhis waa 
error . ■'' 

The criticism of plaintiff's in^jtruction^/^.o. 10 io 
not well talcen. it properly lit.iita tne losu of future earning ca- 
pacity tv uxe time after pl-^'intiff ohall have reached nia «jaJority, 
The reference to the declaration could not have been miaioading. 

Vox the rofiuona above inuicated tne jua.aent ia re- 
versed and the cause remanded. 


.-, 9tii •suao SAaim tSoldn ^liHt tua lo .c'^nii'> vir 

lo noiiBlolv «di j^t 


JtTLj QD I , . 

oxii. ^--. ..5, 

0^2 '± '1 „. _ 

.y )(»9i ;v.a ,«v CVX ,._. Ll 

A09ii ;v'.i»i. .i>a'H v»i , .V . ji; baoi 

'UtBSJLd. '^ •£2 «?^ Jjci-taftO I I. ■^^"^ 

.V . 9 ; pi:TCJoaX:; iU xn^^miio-^ixioi/ ;<;/£ ,XXI XVX , Pi^lXfC(!iA •» «g ^ •|[ 

aiwa itl aoia^t : ^^ ;<3|kd ,XXJ MSI . •»oH 

do:. . afco .v . ou-iT ;X6d .i£: IIS: 

flfiOX .OO- 

:«K .te ^4oXI£i ;«S* .1X1 odS . lanagaia .v 

, Pi aio 1 

aii oioljfti Utztoft'i 


.>.iJ no ii;^nilui ^)dJ uX tgtcio aifoliou - 

•>r(T .biA^ii b»d d:l8 ^Bfitw noqu b9«M<^ -*..^ -i .^ • ^ .....;.. ^..^- ^^~: u« 
8»-^w 3±ji' .bsXiJiiovo caw vno.'iiiaj^ rlous *wo s;iii#t o^< noliom 

->-t vl'f 

'•rrr ii .a«^J XX9W ^Ofi 


599 - ;31997 


Appellee, / ) APPEAL BROM 



CCWPMiy, a corporation, / 

tr*' '198I.A. 190 


msLivmsn the opikkm oy the cmmT. 

By thlB appeal defonciant aeeko to have reversed a 
judgBjfint against it of $2,881,82 upon a (guaranty contained in 
a contract entered into between it and the plaintiff whereby 
defendant undertoolc to collect certain accoimta for plaintiff. 
Caaea involving tho contracta (cadu by this defendant with its 
customers liavo been bofore the Appellate Court of this district 
so frequently that wo ahall not a^ain set forth the contract 
in detail; thoy are very much alike and the general scheme in 
all of them lo the eiuae, A partial list of th<;oe cases le, 
Hinrichs v. Consolidated Adj uatmtarit Co. , 145 Apt*. 0; Itlound C.i%x 
Diati l lln^ CO , v, Liame . 152 App, 155; otandard DiBtll llng Co. v, 
Dame . 157 App, 21S; Bars tow ;>tove Co , v. :3 a w e , 175 y\pp, 449; 
Prltg V, .iam e , 109 App, 287; Baltimore Trust C_q, v, ome , 190 
App, 30; anfJ %au8e & MannKan Lbr, £o* "^^ ii2S£» ^^-^ '^PP» •*^®2» 
In the present cane the dofendjmt contends that the 
accounts furnished by plaintiff to it for collection were not 
of tho kind ijind chfor.cter conteiDi)iat0d by the contr;ict. To 
this it is sufficient to reply that frora the evidence the trial 
court properly oould find thnt tlio accounts furnished were 
selected and listed by def endiint' u own agont, and tJuit the 
contract was ontered into with special reference to these 

V9ex;: . (?«a 

TATTOO jA«anniuM 




■'jLamiaou KOiT{:in. oiaaUiXfM ,m 


nl bonlaJnoo K^nartHi/jj a noqw C8,I88,S$ to tl tiat\le.-^ss itpjstf^ul 

. tlJ::^^l«Xq i^l 9iauooQ» nitsSi^o ^oalioo o* ilooitobau ituibm^t&b 

aSl diivt itwbnetvb alAi \<i ttbtua atonifnoo ori* BnlvXovxU a^njsO 

toliieib Bidi to i'xiioO s^bXXsc: 'A 9dt etolod" need ovaa •■xanroimio 

-' iino/foa Xa-Sftnea iuii btiM u^IIb rtouun xi9\ f>T:« ^axt^ ;Xla;fofa nl 
,j1 Qdaito !»a >ffi to *fiiX ItUSiHu A ,»ru o rU ai mw;!^ lo iXa 

7 'iiil a"^xxi.t8ia bTcgbm^c; ;aex .q^iA sax . owb«. ,v ,0. .^nix x jtiaxc 

;9^i^ .qqA avx , emjaa ,Y ,oO STO ^ a Tre;faiBg ;eXS ,qqA TclX . a aa p 

^®^ »»""^,-:, 'V •52. JntnT o noffiXrfl/ig jVBS; .qqA eox .aauti. .v f jri^nSl 

.SOa ,qqA X^X , oaia:. ,v .oO ".lii mtaitiraM £ aauni^ i»rm jOC .qqA 

arfi *«x(# nbna^noo irmbnatab «3rii atiiso liiaaeiq aril nl 

Sun orraiff noi*noiXoo to*?: Si oS l'\tSnlalq yd bflriolniift 8,*nfJ000fl 

oT .SCii^tSnoci BiU Xi! hBiaiiimBirmo •xalo.-ojirio bnu baiJL orU lo 

Xai-j.t axil aonsblva arf* moil SaiiS xXqo-x oS Inoxolllua ai Si airil 

aiaw borioirraul BSmsvoofi otU SnciS bail bXuoo xtfqotq Stuoo 

t)xtt ih;jxCi bna ^Saonu flv;o u*inKim&lBb x<^ beSell baa balooXaa 

aaaril 0* aonaiata'x Xalooqa dSlv eSni fcanainn baiw tooiSnoo 

accounts. Having selected the accountB upon which defondjoit 
undertook to gujirantee collection, it can not now bo heard to 
say that plaintiff is in default «b to the Jcind of accounts 
to be furniahed by it. 

A8 to other contentions made hy dcftmdnnt, wh; t has 
been aaid by Ur, Justice Dunoim in Bara tow Utore £o, v. 
ConBOlidated Adjustment Co. , 175 111. App. 449, is applicable 
in many raapocts. Ve adopt what ia thore aaid an expresBng 
our view of the correct construction of tho contract. 

Under the evidence anvi thf? law the judgment was 
correct and ia affirnj«d, 


0* bxaorf od won ^ora n«o ^1 .noUaaiXoo ©si^nwiitiB o* aloorfisbnw 

.11 Ycf tyvriairrmt ycf oi 
aad iatbr ^tnDhivjIish xd itbnm tinoiinoSnoo larfio oi «A 

•X«f/(oiIqfl.o el ,e^^ ,qqA ,1X1 (^TX , .o:) ^rnsin^atftfeA fcci^isfclXoisnoD 
7\n Ha3-i.qx9 uji bi«8 ©i»fU al Sntt*' iqoh» f\ ,a:?f>9qa€>i y;njim nl 
.^Oiii^fnoo fxW lo stdiSouti&noo Jo»iioo »ri.' lo woiv -luo 
Bjiw innmsJbut orf* w«X t^iii htw Bamblrfi &tiS viball 

,b&anit1a el . bna ioeziao 

601 - 2X999 


s. ccrj>orH.tion,\ W 

V3» \ 

C OK U OLI DA Ti': 3.) APJU-':. %*^T T 
CGau?;iNf, H corporation* 


193 I.A. 191 


in this cfxise plaintiff broujjht suit upon the 
guaranty of defendant contained in a contract similfxr to 
the con^r iotii invoiVed in other auita against this (XafemUmt, 
ao noted in cspinion in iio, 21997 this day filed. In thia 
caae, ho-vev«ir, Uio court atruck (uvfendant* a affidavit of 
dei'enKs from tiic fileu ontl. entered judgment by lofault for 

it ia contended that by the contract it io expreanly 
pro-vid«d that the terras of tho f-ufirajaty shall not apply to 
"tanicrupt ciaima, ' "outlawed QlHirrxO** and "^loBt debtor claimo," 
and that many of th« accounts furnished by plaintiff to 
defendant ver^i of tiiin ohiiracter. If we concede that the 
conv,Euct bears thia construction - and it is not free fror 
doubt - yet wo thinJc defonaant is prevented from now question- 
inti the ciiaractor of tlrie cXuims by that provir.ion of the contract 
wlioreby dijfendunt reaervea "the right to cancel tho contrRCt, 
refund Si^ld initial fee and surrender all claims listed here- 
unucr at any tirae within six nonthB frora •ttte»** To give this 
Kionning, wiich we are boijnd to do if poonible, it seems clear 
that it ia intended to fix a period of time within which 
defendant way inveutiRate {.(nd .-jri cur tain the nh;irHcter of the 
accounts uubmittcd; exid it rauat be held as a mntter of law, 

veeiv. - xoo 


•ffj- noqo d-iUB iria^jotcf '\1linlMiq hhao nidi rd 
Qisit nl .beUtl ^ah altii \Q91S. .on nX notniqo ni boioa «fi 

YXRaoiqxo aJL ii toaiinoo odi \di iatU WLa^ J«03 ni, a.> 

o* \l.:qa ion XX-arfa x^sw^^^S f"^^ '^'^ awcxai e.i^T ijjv i-r ■- * . ,^ x^j 

oi Ititnlnlq Y<f bsnintctnuJ. ainucrtOH ari^t 1'^ ^iwwv ;r«ii5 i»rt» 

eri* l«ri.t obsonoo »w II .lo^Ofiiiirio Biiii "Sr< eisw ;r«jii-!nctob 

•hot;! »0i1 *on oi ^1 bnn - rrojt^^ouij'enoo aiil* fiij«ecf ^oin^/noo 

-noX^aoup woa aicxl bscfnoroiq aX ;J^mifino^»h linXia f«w ;t<»Y. - *«fiiob 

io&iinoo ■^tit lo fjoXnsivonq jnri;? xti tsmlulo ttsii lo Vi»;ti>iJ'XHjIi> orii a«i 

.iOHiinoo orii^ Xsomto o* *rijiXi ori;^" cavises'i Jn<:bnei:5& ^cfuTtoiftr 

-aiBri foolaXX amXwXo iXjb nebneniim boM •»! XailXoX bXjio baulLai 

nidi 07X7) oT "•e^u: motl fniinocx xXs nXiltlw '^n^ii* xtw Sa lobau 

ia9lo 601300 ;^X ,»Xtfl(tBO(| ti Ob oi bm<ocf 9iu »w ifoX'w ^stUnsiom 

doliivi itX/ltXw emX^ to bnXieq m xlt o& bobno^nX bX ^X iadi 

ffdi lo i9iot\tMdo 9di niMiioo»t\ brut •tm^iia»vni \fissi i lusbad lobi 

,wr>»X to toitrua a Bi\ hXori arf Jeinn .tX htui ;boiiiaiduH miauooo* 

if after this period of time hau elapsed, in which it irill he 
presumed sueh an InTeatigation has beon made, and <\ofendta\t 
dOQB not elect to return the initial fee and the cX'»irc» and 
Cbiicel tlie contract, th«.t it in B..t.isf led the oluiran are of a 
kind upon which it can H»ko ite fjuiurunty sood, .'c think the 
general rule ie api^lioable liere, thf:t the Iht; wIIj not permit 
a party having once aioc ^ed, to c}iange auch election, g^la ,t^t T, 
Aetna Ins, Co., 15=? Ill, li;5; Vnn Yliatiingen "?, Lena. 171 111, 

?'« think, however, that defendant oh'^uld have been 
permitted to go to trial for tho re.::uan, as vre have decided 
^ JPg*-tg r. Conaolldate d Ad.luutro ent Co.. 189 \pp, '^87, that 
defendrjit waa entitled to a rcfusonehle time ftfter the lapue 
of three yuara witliin vt ich to collect the ojt'-nxnt guaranteed 
to bo coliiicted, laiA th..t th-re vi..c no breach of tli»? guoxanty 
until after tho lapacj of ouch reasonable time, ,b to whether 
or not a reiisonabie tiioe hsid clupsccl after the <»xpiration of 
the contract in q\ieDtion, -which \y.u5 on ^ciptegibor 9, 1913, wae 
a queetion of fact to be ascertained after cono.lirration of 

Plaintiff hjui aa3ignod aa cro9'*«error the action 
of the court in refusing tc 3trik<? defendant' h first riffldavlt 
of iefense from the filea on the ground that it \*Eia not filed 
in tiHie, Thia ia a matter pertaining to the practice in said 
court, and we are not of the c:::Lninn thr^.t a rcveraal of the 
er-ler permitting the affidavit to be fil-:d ia nec(:Br?a.ry to 
prevent a failure of Ju tice. 111. .tc.t,, Kurd, chap, 57, 
oec, 524, 

I'or the rea,iion indicated the Judgment ie reversed 
and the cause rtiaumded, 

Ranr:m3i:y mtd rkmawdtjd. 

£Kf LLitsr it rfolrfw at ^bvqjals ■■.■L,si 6Cil^ *to hci-xs^ nidi -toilA ti. 
in&btti^t9t bns ,e^iMl iiosd' and tv^Xiu^iiuttWHl OB lUiUB b^BUto^xq 
bna aarirXo 9dS bttt% ael IhISIrI mli cnu^iti ot *oaX« i©n •••^ 

Bin :inidi 3' .^oos x^tvitiWTn nSi ftUmi two ;)! ift)ian noqw biitaf 

,XXI XVX t ^flft J .V rt»ani :t --aj:iy nr.y ;6Xi ,IXI. .<r'.I ,«£2 'USi. «f^^< „ 


bri'iofih avBi'C ew a« ,ncHr.9i ortt lol ImIi^ cS og oi bditflfltisq 

-;»rf* jT^e?.- ,qq; (3 til ,.oD Jnoffl^3i/ht>A h aJafcXXoofiOO ,\ . ;ittt^ aX 

©tiqjal i?>ii;f istl/s ^fnJt* eXcf3noj;«ui a o* bsX^lino <tnv ianhn&lsh 

i>o»;JniiXBJijj .triur'fliu 9x0 ^osXXoo oS AoIav alciiiv txa^\ i>6nti^ 1p 

Y^flujiaws '.rf* lo daaaro en o.;«f anrrfJ i.ricT biu ,I>»Ja:)iioo yr/ «* 

ttofi^a/iw oj s, •e«iJ oXd'«no3x;9': rfoi/Q "io OBq«X orf* •xu- lij Xiimi 

J.0 nolSiiTlqxf* yrCt -ts^la JieeqxiXa l)«rf sn^Xi sXefanoKuO'i x» ;^orf tco 

asw ,CX?X ,(? tstTips^qau no ur.m cioliiw .rtcX^esup ni toat^aoo sriJ 

to nol^xiolXnnoo nsotfi b»nl»iir»otiK ad e* *ob1 lo tir^lSaBup a 

noi^tor, 'jrf* noiio-t^eoto us f)onaX»'t«-G luixi Itti.JniisX'^i 

b9lt1 &on a«w ;ti *.crfJ i>m/oia s*^^ «o eaXi'i s-rl* saail eKnff1:9t lo 

hl«a rti oDlionTcq tnii oi jinlixlsJicq laocfjBfli js si aXilT ,»mkS nl 

"rfi Jo X>!nrci>voi m tRriit nolal.o atiS lo *cn »i« aw bae ,*i»/oo 

^V-!. .q^uio ,;)iwK «,#3J.; ,XXI ,9ol*. ut ^o e^ii/Xial A iaavfliq 

/)9eT0V9i r.'i. ^n^zi^bul osit haitiolhttl aonaox otU iio^I 

.bobmiimii stntino ori# brm 


60 ii - 22000 

TKXA« COMJ-AKY, i^ con orstion. 


COJKPAKY, R cor; orti 

193 I.A. 192 

This CHoe ia in every respect aubotriritially 
like Uie one in miicn we have this tluy filed fin opinion, lio, 
'.il999, ftnri miMt wiftamYt? aftid in tiint opinion api licablc u' re- 
in ia re!S.f.f iriiiod. For txic reaaan indicnted in that opinion 
the Jud(ia«nt in tiiia cuae ia reversed and the cause reaijinded, 


^.Ali; I. M!^ .; 





,Y«A'iiiOO iiAX:r 


.o;i «aoialqo nji b9lt\ yaI) tiJuii oy«xi •« uo •ii;^ •iLlX 

no.. . • ;:•" . r :,.-:; m««1 •! ill 

.^'jiuaam^i o^uao 9:\i ban bnnfrnt el 9v m^bu^ •xic 

616 - 22016 

IK corroratlon, 



OTTO aCKARkKR, trading as the 

\Appellftnt, #) 

OF oacAGO, 

198 I.A. 193 


iliiintiff, ci Ijii^ber co^cpany of ? iaaiaaippi, 
brought ault J8;lleging an 4sre*c;ent by C\ to fuiOlBb, nxid by 

It, /«>. ti^i 

defendant, /«>. Chicago contractcjr, to taice^ acme SCi,OwC rteet 
of .luKibftr; tiijstU dtsfcfiiant refused to ptivfiiv^i '-An underta/ilng, 
to the ati;btiLg« oil plfiintlff. u^>on trijil by & Jury tt© iusuea 
wcr^ fotein^-v^or pi«intlff ?md aisaa^^£«8 aeacautu at |750 upon 
whi<jfe--;tV^I0!nTnt~Tra» entered, 

iTf" imliiiiii in timt i: 1"'1(ii'< hii'ii"ri ni t y I There were aevisrail 

letters between the parties l(»ading up to ti*e finnl order of 

Msroh Z7 , 1913, *uic?i I* aa follovva: 

"i^aroii *i7tri, 1913, 
C. L, (iray Luiaber Co., 
<■<■ Meridian, Mi»o> 

^' v;e Jicrevfith place nn or«or #itn you for 3t;0,t'00 i^t, 
Sx6 at <;*il,U; per }.:. ;',t,.B. Cars Onlcugo, to be l;i-14-16 
feet long, Tiiid its fojr proupectivo vtork. ana wrf iij not know 
tijc cxaot lengths in quanta, ties .ve will need, Titiia is to 
be neld aubjfct for cnii witJain :Jix laontiia, 

"CTTO OCHAJtiiSl't. 
'* Agreed 

u (iilguedj C, L. GKAY LUtlBKH CQ,, per 
^' C. L. G^iAY, 

**■ JKote: Any b) i; ht difforcnce in the tuuount of quantity 
used more or less to be adjuated nt the '-joove irice," 

" ,<e aee nofe.^iins--ltrdefirti-t«-.«bo«t.:;n'l'a ort5.«Jc.;» it 

1 «-s»4-e«»---«fc»-~t«- jwwxunt.^-.pxA^libicVifff ''[^^ o ter 

oi,^^; - >io 

,n miHm.i ya 


ty»«^- woJ ' Hi Jl Jwi» - ut mr i rtaw ^ 


won- . 
Oi .; 

, .0:.) 10 

.^ .u-^^ 

.t«llt ,n 

1 ., .. 1 ; 

nft av 

vT '> 


VIA :••• 



of uat«rials, vifhatevex' night be aoMiewhat indefinite in the 
dc?scr vrtion of tiie mo tenuis- to one not in the iuiviber buai- 
nesti., ai^pcara to tinyt a definite ckaracter froai the previous 
letters of the parties and the testimony of witnosdoa on- 
gaged in handling ImiToer, The meaning of trade terms used 
in IftterM or contracts tx^&y nlvmys be exrloin^fd by men ex- 
perienced in the "bueincaa. It was en agrecsitnt for practi- 
cally a dsfinite ant unt of Itucbsr, to be taicen ,7ithin uix 
months » in such quantities as defendant sight order, and tiiia 
coiaes wilhin thfe rule- iRid down in Finch v. Zenith Purnno a 
Co,, ^^'o ill, 5B6; linneaota Lhr . Co. v. v;.or1 i.'o., Ifn, 111, 
6ij; «nd jiatione l Vurnaoc ^. v, i. eye tone iif£, iiS..* HO 
ill. 4<i7. 

Thite is not a caa© of a contract to aupj-ly »ia- 
ply the needs of the purch^'^DGr; hence cases uitscuaaing tuat 
situation urtt not m point, rv 

-"-^ ^ ^' ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^^^"^ ggye r f znef jixie court-**- refu«^to ad- 
mit the ttvidonoe of Jcherjiier* a boojckoeper, Ll3» Crane, aa to 
a oonv«sruation betv/een bcharraer and Cray, The alleged con- 
veraation ie said to have ta};;cn place aome two laontha after 
Vac contract vas i;iade, Accordin.;: to .j-charsier, he only e.x- 
I^reesed douht ais to his ability to order lufiiber, «» he was 
BhfiEt of .-JO lie. I Even if ii&s Crane had been p^rffiitted to 

^corroborate him this would not ainount to any jsodif ioation 

or change in the contract or txirow any ligitt upon ita con- 


I'hare? ia no lunrit in the contftntion that the 

judge before wiotu the Cnse was tried was Uiuqunlified, 

Aflteric&n J-,rid|^ e Co; v. A..e na lark im|>rov«>-;.ent Aaan . , 246 

ill. 569; i/esely V, iribyl, App. C- art no, ^<J6M, opinion 

filfrd l<ovcjnber lt>, 191:>, not yet reported. 

The jud(f,«ient waa ri^;ht and iii affiivued. 

•leiitf t^dtaul 9iii ax inc. aao ot ninst^ina oni 'to aoilqlTOSftI) 

hOBU standi 9bmr 
xia nidilv; ... 

:("V:«wIii Y«ia 9io*Tiaoo to et9;rif»X nl 
'««r a ,ca'%niaufi 9iii ni b9'janititq 

> /Li ban ^i9b'io ttij^i-n inabns^ob aa a&Xilinaup lioua nk ^eiiinom 
SiBJ^SijUit 4^-fcng^ •▼ xloni'? ni. cmob bisl oXatx 9Ai nJtdilw a'jinoo 

. N" 1^ . • 
a oJ Jo£i;rnoo n lo otiuo a Jon «i hIAI 

-noo b*»: .xai'O btm t9a/tAii9ii ;. ..iMinnvrtoo a 

JnoJA ow;f 9tB06 s9nX({ nsiAi sYfgl o>t biJMi: ci uoliunrnr 

-X9 y,Ano «ri ,ieana£ioC oi :^nlb-roo- 

.Toi^jtoitibon yrui e^ Jmiooui ioi^ 
-noo nil noqji J-rfgiX ^C"^ woixv 

.tuuojs b««8o'xq 

■J.IW .1!-,.. r'O.i0Lr».!:i'.K 

nolnlqo ,K;80i>; .cR 

.btionXlla £i 

irioo 9iii ni 03B«.-iL: 

. oXdouijiai 

I'.titi Bttm 9ftt.o oiii animf molftd •abi/L 

A .X^cfi'Xl .t ^X^a^V :(2tie .Xil 
J&ovoil b«X11 

4dii - iil890 

ijAHY i;cCAU;>LAJit, 



COUKT ij¥ COOK C(jUNty, 

19SI.A. 200 


In an iiction lor personal injurif^s j IfsintiTf 
h«id jud<;jaent for 4-5860 a^ainat defendant, on the ytTdict af 
» Jury, ana defendant iroaccutee thia oppfiRl tirieref roAt. 

vVUile thirty-three errors arc a88ignr,tt uj on 
the record rtnd sunny of thea are argued by defendant, in the 
conclu«iion to vtiilch we iiiave come it will be neoettaary for us 
to advert to but one pka»e of the ease; we ehaXl therefore 
reat our decl»ion and judgment upon the faot as ere find 1 1. * 
that pi nintii'f ^».& not, at tiie txiue and plaoe of the accident, 
in the excrciije of due oare for her own safety, but was, on 
the contrary, guilty of n«tgliKence wiiich waa the proximate 
cciuac of the accident and the resulting injuries to her. 

Defendant operated at the time of the accident 
a line of eXectrically propelled street ears on Uouth i:alated 
street, Chicago, the tracks upon which the cars were run being 
both north and oouth of Thirty-sixth street ^vhere it intersects 
iSouth i,al3ted street, ilaintiff at the tioie of t/ie accident 
intended to become a passenger upon a oar of defendant running 
oouth from Thirty-sixth street, and with that purpooe in n.ind 
3tooc, as she testified, about one foot west of the curb on Uie 
aoutiiwcst corner of isitluted and Ihirty-sixtxi streets, ilain- 
tiff clHioia tnat £the was struck while ahe was standing on the 
walk by tiie awciying, uv/ervxnfi or rocitin^ of a auuth-bound oar. 

J J10U9 HO tnuoo 

00s ./\,.i eei 

o<iiiis:'* - iief 


,YHA«C10D rA¥'/IT**! TTID OOiADl.lU 

Tattoo SUIT '<fO K0> 

u itocuoii toxTsia .mi 

to /oXl>i*Y 9i^jr no ,;rnAit>n«'tol> i«al«:^ 0M9$ YOl lii»«a5tft bsul 
.iU07t«t»iU X«o '^dJt/oijKcn; ( lft«J^n»l*Jk bam «xt&(t « 

»ii^ oA ,/nBlia9lob y^i L ^u ;« qis otdiiJ to \, i)'ioo;) ; nuJ 

au 'xol ^uisaoooa tm .moo »v«d 9iv lialiiw oi ii«i- 

•-zolo'xoiU ilMUim ow s»««o oiU lo B^nAn onu Jxid oi ii«vt>A oi 

il ow •« ioAl •tii noqu ^aoasl>iit i>aA aoi.«iioi»l> liio Ji«7 

, j.i-7r J. joa nxiJ lo •mxi ^iiJ tB «4on isAw llld'aialq SatU 

inolLiAooift Ofi^ to smJt^ oiii tm fet>>iAi9qo injiibm^ti^ 
l>eieXAH riii/oii no siao iooala fc^IIaqoiri x^Jf«»J^'»>»^>'^^ ' i« "♦^Ti.i j» 

>,ni'-.f r.irt s^t?)?. ou-j mIJ ,{aid»7 noqi/ OTtos-sJ' oUJ ,o?j|i»9iiiLi (iootia 

iixia-tC'^TiiiT to «Uiio« ba« ctfTOfi liiod 
^noMooA adJ to aosiJ ohi ijB 1\linlm£i ,i9miJtu iMiiaXi; 

aninnii^ in^JOnotab to %ao a noqv loanaaeaq » aotoo^tf oi t>«i*ut».;a^ 
i)nJtn: nl oeoqiv/^i ^AxiJ ililir ban ,^a9i;ta liixi^'XtxiAt moTt itliioa 

i.J no €f'XK0 aiiJ lo Jaav ioot oao iuodM ^baitxiasi axia a.a «0ool8 
>ru/a i .a^aat^a 4ixi««x^i^T Ana ^#«XaiI lo looiea iaov^uea 
e.nj ao ^f^aibami* «mr aila alJtilw ilotrxia •«» axia iaai aadaXa tti^ 

,a«o l)m/od-iU«oe a to aaijiooi lo gniytawa .giilxjiwa adi x<i ^X«w 

At the ticae of the accident defendant was rehabilitating and 
r(>oonBtructln^3 Ita tracks on .^outii i!al:$t(»d street, Tixls made 
it necesdnry for defendant to construct a teti^porary track on 
wtilcii to operate ita oars during the period of r{>con;2tructioQ, 
Ksiiich It did. 

The Bouth-Oound temporary trnoi;* on wuici* the 
car wnloh struoic plaintiff vas running, was, aooording to the 
greater weight of ti;e evidence on the subjeot* oonutructGd 
about as follows: ties were l»id on the stone pavement about 
eie.nteen inches apart, with tn^ir ends ten inches outside the 
rail, ahd the rails were laid upon and spiked to each tie. 
There was bfillast between tht> tifis atiple for a te?T4yorary 
track, Hfirdwood braces running froa the west rail to the 
^est curbstone wore located one at each trolley pole and one 
or two in the upoces beti^een 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 tills tetiiporary track was about three>quarters of an inch 
higher titian the east rail, wxiicn resulted frou the placing of 
planks under the west <?nd of tixe ties, iiuring this recon- 
struction laen were detailed to watch the temporary track for 
UiG purpose of keeping it surfaced, lined and gauged nnd solid 
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 frorc the curbstone. The temporary track being 
placed upon the street, raioed tJie rails perceptibly highar 
than the surface of tne roadbed; w.^ile in perafujent construc- 
tion the rails are generally on a level «lth the surface of 
the street. To overooac this condition and to enable pasaen- 
gers to alight from and board the oars readily and without in- 
eonvenienocv a temporary walk was laid down at the street in- 
terrseotions which ran frosi the west rail to th «est curbstone 

boM in J -.M ridAdtrt «iRW iBMba9lab insbloojt aiii lo i»sl;t axil ik 
ehfi.: )-xJa baie («H fi^tic.. ao s^loniji «il ;iini.toi«'xl«noo«'x 

.Wis n lioiilM 

uU 0/ ^ibTOooM ,««w .aoinm/^ saw "iliiiaialq stotrc^s dalftw ibo 

Aoiautii;a6o ^SottlduB 9iLt no •ofl«Llv» tiU lo tii^^iftm 'L9ia9-x^ 

*uc<S» tti9iy.9faq •noio mtU no iftliiX otov colT :awoXXol «« ^uocfa 

iii BbiaSuo 99iionl a»i ehno iIaxIj^ sitlvf ^trnqm sftdoai n9«^n:<)lo 

,sii :iOJRf» oJ b«f}(lq8 brsA noqu JbiaX otow aXXAi Siii &rui .XXa^ 

X%»'s<im9i a no'i oXq^a 99 li ntii a99wS9<f S9»llad ajnr oaoxfT 

9ri;r 01 Ix«t !■«¥ 9tit mo^ sninniri •ooMicf toowMnH ^^Itmri 

Aflo bna oloq t^XXon^ iio«» S» ono bo^aooX o-xdv 9ttoiedi%iu i99m 

9A4 aniiiBa .oeiXoq >c»XXoni od4 aoari^fyd aoonqa »;i* at owi to 

XoXXottJ »8axiT ,iia<i» iottl ^ixie l)no v.^lil ti99n$^(i aoojsitf 

XiJinc 4^«»w (»i;iT ,»aoimiSxut> 9dt xm9n doo'xjoi »xi^ ni ft-xoe aoXoq 

jlonl HA lo 9t»Stiiup-'99'iiU $uoa» 91S* xojatt t'XA'xe<|moJ uLU lo 

"t JtadXi/ttai fioXiiw ,Xjt.«i iBs« 9di aaxii icaxi^Xxi 

-.,.,.,.- ,..*i4rt; ,«»lrf 9111 lo t>n?> ie»w -jiU X9bnu 9)inaln 

XQl litiaii \inroqifi9S 9tUf d9iti» ci ty>ttimi9t ••s»«r cioa aoii9uii9 

btloB ban b9^u»^ ba» bonXX ,b9t>Ji1tu& il ^ttiiafnil lo oao^rsi^q 9tU 

»xi %Xi»lJiQ biuom il ^anl\ bam 

\',>iv 'jJj m tiv.- Xiij-r j'aow 9iit .^noXtf ijotiiis;^ ^jeu* as atiio 

anlflcf atoiirtl Xi^a-xociasai ariT .snoiacT'xuo 9di moxl #otl iwol 10 

«9d.i4iu x'r'i^*T^«^'T'"T ofiftrt sid;^ boaXai: ,^aoi:ia itdj noqti l>oe«Xq[ 

-f>ui;iuno ; T :&eerbHO-x oxli lo ooAliiiia 9di crntit 

t-> ^D^ "Vn... 9ri4^ aiXw iov^X a no yXXAHonog 9tM mllnt 9dit a9U 

-.jsaawq oXumitt o,J iirrc noliibnoo eXxU aiaoOiaro oT .iooiJa »itt 

-Hi iuodii^ bnHx^i-i>^9i bihq sAS fci«orf bam «oil iiiaiXjR o^ 0103 

-ni jTooi^a o«li ;fa nwoh 61«X oja* jIXjiw XTt'ioqfMoi o ^onninov^noo 

ficioitifituo 3B9tt -nii oi ilMt Jaow inU aotl atn OblOw tnoiiooais^ 

at the point where the accident tu plaintiff occurred, it wa« 
alfio proven tiiat the ovcrhanf. of the cars running on defendarit** 
track was fro/a aii to <i4 mcucB on escii side. The wfiUerjoe does 
not Buatain tJae contention of plaintiff tiiat either tirie walk 
or til* track at th« point where Uie luioident occurred waa in a 
defective condition, 

ilaintiff , a woman ©f wituro yeara, a nurae in 
tixe office of a doctor at the aoutiicaal corner of Thirty-sixth 
and }ialated streets, according to her own teat.iii*ony left the 
place of her eiaployaient at about b:45 in the evening on the 
day of the accident, 3unday, October 29, 1911, and crossed 
Haltjted street to the southtieat corner of that atreet and 
Thirty-aixth street, ijitli the purpoae in mind of taking a 
south-bound car of defendant, iihe atood, as uhe teatifiee, 
on this comer about a foot w«?»t of the curb and waa ao i»tand- 
ing when defendant *u oar cacie alon(<; and swayed and atruck her, 
inflict infi aerioua and painf.l injuriea, ilaintiff had lived 
at '66i>l iiouth iialated atreet for eleven y^ara iirior to the ac- 
ciuent and during: that tiiae iuid been in the habit of riding 
on defenuant'a norta-bouna cars on >mek day a had on .ita aouth- 
bcund cara on ^.undaya, it uMBt ti.ercfore be aoatiaatsd that ahe 
was fairly 'veil informed as to the operation of the eara, the 
condition of the roadway and the tracks of defendant at tnia 
point, Hnd of the further fact that the south-bound cars had 
been running on a temporary traoK for a ojonth prior to the Jun- 
day ah»' waa hurt. 

If plaintiff atood, as ahe teatiJiea uhe aid, one 
foot weat of the curbstone, we think It clear from the diatano* 
between the west curbwtone and the temporary track, that it waa 
irapoaaible, with due reeS^rd to tiie law of phyaica, for the car 
to away, swerve or rock to auch an extent froj) ita centre of 
elreumferenoa ac to strike plaintiff and atill remain upon 

,ob noa^bLy 9fi(T .9i*i« doa9 ao ttOiloni l>S ul SlH au»Yl AJHr xorxj 

nl f>«'XM{l « .aiAftX •Yii^MK lo . >liiiti«i 

a.ixle-'ii'xlri.T lo inrtioo J«5a»iliwo£i .-Hi;.! j»^ loisol) « io oaiiio atu 

arf^ ^IsX xflo«f,J^«9^ fwo aod oi anAbioao* .a^doivte boittiXaH ton* 

odi no snJtn^va 0£(J ni fil^id iitoJA 1« ^nssncoXcjmi iMti !• »4NtXq 

toil l*«7i« i«ili lo nomoo /aov^i/oo tiU o# ^••«^» iMi#tti»H 

« 3013^1 lo Dain ni oeoqtjtrq «xl^ JJIk .Joot^a iiSxitt-xit Uit 

t»»i1littai 9au BA ,|>ooitt 9tiL ,icittbt\9l9b lo tMO ihoi/otf-U^Moa 

-i^tic.tb 00 «jecv ;)n« tfiuo 9dS lo ioov 4ool « iuotiu t»m.99 %ldi no 

,t9il Tiowsim 1 bfui saoX« ojmio 'x«ft o'tiMhnolob aorf* ftflx 

i>«viX bnd WUuj-^ik .noiii/tni Xvl/il«q l>ii« auoimtt ani^oiXlnl 

-UA od^ o;r iclrq, «i«tsx n»YoX9 iti»l Joo'i^s bttinljaS. A&uoL XOftC i« 

^nXi:>xi: lo iiiiaii 9di ai nooof Ztiul »itui :>Bdi joiiyb brus ^notilo 

>uJj.ioa «Ji no i)njs «\!,0b :ii9SM no mijbo Dnij;;itf<0^a«ij 8*itt«Dn«loib ao 

•cia ^«(ll jboau/t8« 9tf nolt'coiiJ' t9tM II .a^«£»ajju uo axao bauotf 

•ilj ,8i«o «>£(i lo ttoiimfqo 9dS oi •« i)«molitl U»v xi^^'l ««•' 

«^xU Sa SnKba9l9b lo a:;(OA'X^ od^ bna x^bsox ^nU lo fioliibnoo 

bmti aoao An«od-rl;fi/tja ixiJ J vit ;toj»l t9iiiiut »ii3 lo bins .inloq 

"nut 9di oi %9li<i Aino r>««i x*«%ftqrBi«^ * "« Mtlamiv jwod 

drio .isXi) odd aoi'Ii^rAoi otia %m «ibeo4« lli^al-^ 

• on^Jnli) oifi aotl tisoXa *i jlnlrii ow .•ao^edrtu.^ i... c« ja • jool 

Bism il iatLd ,3la«'Xi xtaioqami »jii i>nii -^noJ Jxu^ it.i)w '»f(.f i, 3., j j 

t*o till -xol .ttoittyilq lo wal *»iiJ oS bin 

"tc il ^no^rxo CM £U>ii< nowB ♦x^** ©•* 

noqu niassati IIUb bt%a WUalBJm ftJainJN oi nm •onoiolmrsiio 

the track. It la aoaewhat of a strain upon our credulity to 
believe, notwithatowding the verdiot of tint Jury, that the ac- 
cident to plaintiff iinppenftd aa she m^uld hsve us believt it 
h»ppeBed. There id no escape frosG the conclui^ion, as an ulti- 
aftte fact, that ilaintiff wau not standing one foot west of 
the curbstone, hut lauat have been ca»t of it, and thcrf»fore 
stood so near t£iC car tnat it struck h^r in pnading, if her 
account as to the si^ot ^iiert ahe *aa stanaing is true and the 
car actually sstruck her, aa »he testifies , tiisn the car iso to 
ao aiust nave left tiie track - wr-lcxi neitner party clnj.c»8 it 
did. ohe waa undoubtedly, ao the proof otroric;ly tends to 
•atabliah, struck by the front dnahboard of the car and not 
by the body of the oar after the for« part of it had paaued 

To stand so cloa« to a SiOVing car as to be atnsck 
by it i& nis^;iigeno6, Bcidler v, iaranohaw , iJi^o ill, 4ii5, 

In this condition of the evidence it is Uie auty 
of thfc reviewing court to revcrac tne judi^atnt, ^ uiegmund v, 
il^ltrucicbein, 140 Hi, App, 454 j and wuere, as here, it is patent 
that plaintiff cannot auaintain th« action, txiis court should 
rcveroe ■fiilh a finding of fact. horg v. c, i^^ I. ^■. I, Ry, C;' », 

162 ill. 34B. 

The injuries auff^sred by plaintiff resulted froia 
her own negligence, vhicjt; was the proxioiate cauue of the aceidcnt, 
iiuch being the fact, Uie law iniiibits a recovery, even though de- 
fendant wao guilty of noglit;ence wj^icij in bows' svay may ha,ve con- 
tributed to brin^ about the accident, which could not have hap- 
pened but for plaintiff's nogaii'ence. G. j>, <!i. ^ 4.. U^ , ?ip COf v, 
i.»T,y . 160 ill, 385; -ii, C. a. H, iif, Co . v, hlderman, lb? ibid 455; 
Bcidler v, ira^ahaw, iiUC; ibid 4i;5, 

if or the foregoing rvaaona the juut^jatnt of tne *u- 
■>«fioi» ;!nui>t iA rftvflraed with a finding' of fact. 

O* X,illub9*i9 1UQ «0q« tlitttisi i> - . . -... 

ii 9T»J;X»d ai/ ovaxl blitorw dtls e«i b^nnqqitii ItJtinJiJiXq ot in^bie 

"kHu nm n» ,nolBci.Caaoo 9di xvtl 9qaoa«» on ml nt^iiT: .i>«a»qq&u 

lo iaaw Joot »ao saZbuji^B Joa uam 1'i . 1 oiAu 

•'Xol«'X0iii btw8 ,J1 lo *e»9 n«*<i »v«il ^.. ,- , --i>uti atii 

t9/i II .3(Ti«SAq ai inti HomS^. ti Snai t»9 •dt ia»a o« b9oH 

9nU baa ^uti «l ^iatm^'n x-.> ioqit t»uJ »J «a ^kiuvoimi 

ol 00 i«o 9tU atdi ,««ili7««j aoa •« ««sii JMMrxIfi xXJDud^m» 1(ao 

;rj: malalo x^nuiq lOiUlsti noiitw • siftsiti aoJ JlaX »r<ui iaim ob 

qS Bbn9t xi'^notSu looiq 9di •« ,y;{b«ltftfoLm) as* aiiii ^b^ 

Jon Laa tao 9iii to btaoddBAb i^ooTl viU ttf iiouiia tdMlltiniw 

oaoa^q b»ti il to itnq aiol dili na^Vs itSD adl lo x^otf oxU Y(^ 

:J[t}ar'xiB ad ci en "xao a«iv«*« •» o^ osoia on tjiifi.i& oi 

,<iU*^ .XXI OoS , y«fi&K«itL .V ii»Xi;>X9c£ .aooa^iXaan tti il Y<i 
^Jub oix.r aX J^x aoaa^iTa «it> lo aoX;rXLnoa aldi al 

.V iatiJjJC4aXu j ,*n#at}bift a^li aa^avai OiJ #11/00 »nXwaXT»i ariJ lo 

JTi ,8"X»<1 »a .aioxiw Jbrus ^i^«* . >^X , aXatf ^aait#e 

iiXjJUwu Ivfoo alfU »aoXioa 9At «i llXiniiiXq #«iti 

• :? «Y>t . i i> «I »>'! «o .V aioa .-f a £1,1 Xw aa-xavoT 

.3^ .XXX Hdt 

euoit feaJXuaoT llX^nXaXq ^rf baiolliia aalttftnJt mtii 

Jtt9bloo9 arti lo aau«8 a^ntnlxoiq ©li^ aaw aoltto .aao^sKs^n imvo Mil 

••b liauofU nara ^xi9ro09't m alXdliicX waX »iW .iTyal ad^ 3flJ».!f rioufi 

-noo 9rad >t«ffl VJw »«o« aX rioXnw aoa»:riXX8s>n lo v.Mii,. aum innbaet 

-qjjii aviiil ion bluQO iloXrlw,inai>Xoo« afti #«C5 »i *#l«dlii 

.V ^o;j .,[ .a .^ A .u .0 .aonaaiXBan a*nx#aX«X<| «•! #i»d banaq 

>f faXdX rax . naaaabXa .v . o;> .« .H .U .0 .W ;««« .XXX OdX .najl 

.tf4i> biiii ouK . wnitertiiT!^ ,▼ ^oXl'Xaii 
... ^ 9aJ anoaAoa ^nXoiHaiol »ili to'^ 

492 - '--'1B9G >'I.TOI1IG OF S'ACT. 

The court finds, ao matter of fact, that the 
plaintiff waa not «t tao time of the aooiaont »et forth in her 
doclariition in the ex«rol»e of due oare for her own safety, 
but ^au, on trm contrary, guilty of negligence which waa th« 
proximo te cauue of the accident anu the injuries reBu.lling 
tJr;erefrom, and that defendant was not guilty of the ne^^ii- 
gence chnrgiJd a<;ain3t it in plaintiff 'a declnration. 

vi««i,, . se» 



/,KTON J. GEHMAK for the u»e 
of C. J, MCGAHTY, 

\ Appellee, 



CO. and CHAm*Ea % LUCKOtf, 



Aii-KAL KHOil iUNlC'li-Al, 

1931. A. 202 


bond defendants are principnl and ouxety and the penalty id 
$1,5UG, The iBcrltB of tne replevin suit in ahicu the oond 
in suit was given were tried in the repleym action, the 
title to the goods replevined founa to be in plaintiff imd 
a writ of retorno habendo awarded* _, 

^/fkis action >ma tried by the court, who J>»And 
the /i S8uj?& fo]/ plain t>f^f afnd enj^^^ed judiyaepft' a^,^ip'at d«|- / 
fehdahta for -^r jp^'nalty/of/the bond ^i^^'debt &n4/'^&&'6 damages, 
an^__jdef eiidiittt»'»-«ippe Al , 

The evidence of plaintiff consisted of the record 
and Juaf:t!aent in tne replevin ault, including tiie affidavit in 
faith of wnich the writ wae ioaaed, evidence of ti5i.e reasonable 
value of legal aervicea necessarily rendered to plaintiff in 
thf? defense of tne replevin suit and the court coats paid by 
plaintiff. The value of the goods replevined was sworn in 
the affidavit for replevin to bo #750, and this amount , to- 
gether with ^l^^ attorney's fees and ^8 cotJts diaburaed by 
plaintiff in the re, levin auit, made up the daiaages atsseeaod 
by tiie trial Juai?;©. ^jyj»--«jM*«aWH!mtr»crf'"'tHeM 
4Bu-d-La9;mte, Lefendajito re8t&*t"heir defense on the conten- 


tions tlmt, because the property replevined had not been 
paid for, plaintiff was only entitled to recover attorney's. 

.OOAOIHO no T>IU '3 

fii;«is - 

linA .00 

»iii ttioiioA nivoi|9i ari^ ni finS atsw novl;^ saw iii;a ni 

■bnjr\ ttlJaxniq ni atf oJ bnwol &»niT9lq»i eboosi i»£iJ oi nlsli 

.aahimwa oiinotii\ti pnioJai to ilaw jr 

-j9D J^«ni:«an ^n'AJi\\but, brtn^as brtM t'Tb^.^rjiBlq yo'i aHuBi2i\9iii 

nl iirniiitta •irtJ jiflibuloai ,*ij.(£; ;»i ■fn&ac.^tul bim 

ai lliini»Xq OCT betobndi xllnanaeoaa aaoiVYVs Ian*! to nuLnr 

-0.* ,tauo!aM aim bn» ,0d?| td oi Aiirft Xq»i; t Pi livjftbitl/t 
ttjreo» a<i, bn» e«9l «'Y,9«"toi*« dikl^ ji-liw if 
tfli) ».!:» qu 9i»xun ^iiu& nir^X ;»•« eiU «1 lliinii._: 

naJnoo 9ri4 no •artslah •ii'»riiMJa«<i e^ij«i>n»l»cr ,9imtAXb-ji4, 



nsftcf ion b/wl ii«aiV9Xiioa \.iX9(iotq •Hi •auAotd ,l«rii anoii 
• *X9n'toSiA "X«voo«T «i l>*XJXino x-C«« "^w tliinlAlq ^-xol blJiq 

feea and costs and nominal dftmagea for the taKin^ of the 
property under the reiievin writ;, furtuer. that the 
Laundry Company offered to return the property. During 
the trial defendanta. by Ifave, filed a plea of set off 
but before the conclusion oi the trial withdrew it. 

The owner ahip of the goods involved in the re- 
plevin ouit was settled in that proceeding. Aa between the 
^parties that question was res adjudicata nnd could not a^rain 
C^e raised on the trial of the suit upon the bond. lUrma v. 
liuir. 152 111, App. 505. ?he pleadings involred neither the 
ownership of the rerlevined goods nor any indebtedness on 
their or any other account. vhilc defendants contend that a 
settlement was negotiated with the attorney of flaintiff, all 
thev proved xras merely an abortive attempt to m$ike a settle- 
ment. It was the duty of plaintiff in the replevin auit to 
return th^^ Boods rejlevined in accordance with the Judrjment 
/ in that auit, and it was not incumbent upon plaintiff to sue 
out a writ of retorno habendo as, a condition precedent to 
his right to bring an action upon the rej levin bond, j eck 
/▼. Wilson. 22 111, 205. An off^r to return the goods un- 
/ accompanied by a tenaer ia not a perforiaance of the oonai- 
tion of thR rerl^vin bond, a cosipliance 7/ith or antiafaction 
of the JudfTcent in the replevin suit. 

The proofs of plaintiff conforo; to the procedure 
laid down in KelJjiM ▼• Boyden . 126 111. 378, fiichardaon v. 
GU]iert, 135 111. App. 363, and other caaea. ?here is no 
reversible error in thia record. 

^If^i^t-i^^ i^as filed an additional abstract of 
the record and askn that the expense of aame be tajxed as 
costs a{:ain»t defendanta. w^e do not tuinJc thia request 
^ should be granted. The abstract filed was sufficient for this 
review and the additional abstract aerved no uaeful purpose. 

'^ni ccoiqt ©rU n-swJoi oi btti^llo xiamiiaoO y,ril)au«.i 

,Ji Vii'iUiJ A-i.- lalti 9tiS 10 aotnutonoo ^dt •Koletf Jucf 
~,ii -iiJvi nl barXovnl efooos 9^^ to qirlaionwo flii? 

nx«?4n ion bXi/oo bnii a.^aoXJbA/Li)fl gi ai ajw; noiin9up Jod^ eoi^naq-* 
.V jft(« -xx<j .briod orti noqii c^iJU8 ©rt-t lo .r«iii .■orfi ao bociBi otf ., 
«xli toilii«>n fisvlornl aanibsoXq silT .606 .qqA ,XX1 SdX « 't iuM 
no ji89nb«»Jii9bnx x"J8 ion «t>oojj banivoliai: tixfi lo qlilaisawo 
« Ja^ii J[)a9dnoo aicifubnolsb JiXiriW .;rnuoooii ncsxlio ^nis io ^isril 
IXa ,l:liinl«Xq "lo x««to**« »^^^ d;tlw lj©Jfli.toa»n «i«w ianaaiiisa 
-sJiJae js sXoffi oi iqanstiB 9rtiXQd» na vii^isa ««w bovo-xq Y.»xli 
oi *liJt! nlY«Iii8i ofi* nl lllioXnCq lo Yli/*> »iii «flw iX .icrom 
ir(9itt;abijrt, siiJ sii iv donjRbtooo^t ni: JbenivsXqdi a^ooi) 9di n-xuisi 
9US oi 'tlXinltilq (toqu iaoiitasioai iOii ssw ii ba& ^Stu'Si i«iU ni 
o;f Jn3l:;oo9aq noli ibnoo jsms ai?natfaxi onioJ»i lo Jlitvi is iuo 
>Lo»;X ,baoa nlTsXqsTt •flJ noqw noiJfOjfs ao aoiio oi iriaXi «i£t 
"itij «i>ooa i»rfi m:w;t9i oi twllo nA .floi; .III SS .noaXXv .▼- 
-li:.(ioo 3ii;t lo »on«mToli»q a Jon ei itbnni « y;d l>tJi£a'.>jisoooa 
noi;fOJ»loiJ«e io tiiiw oonuilqtaoo iH ,bnod aivwliief «rfi to noiJ 
• iii/e nJtmXq'e'X 9£ii ai itK^m^but tuit lo 
oijiboooiq »ii* oJ i«iolrioo lliinXjiXq lo Bloonq •fi'r 

.V ."' ■ . cxx dSX « naJj-^og .▼ ^^otl»K in nvot> .'>x.*u 

o 1 a-,KiJi> iM''i .C.Od; .qaA ,Iii CJSX « #^»«fXXO 

.-.•;..)'; 1. .LiJ ai TO'lt* 9X(/l«i:»T»t 
lo Jo.s-x;)^ed» iBnoiilhbB cm boXil ami llXinlAX I 

na bBTiaS ltd oaiaa lo p' .i Stuii astaa ba» btooai axU 

ie-swp'A'x aiflJ iniiiJ cTui^ o;- -^ .e;^nfli>«aleJb l«alii;3« eJaoo 

etiii io1 JmsioiHiJh j)\vv J) iil: iomiaoH eiir ,b»Jn«iR ad bXi/oxis 


Defendants should not be penaliacd for the dlBcretion of 
their attorney* in putting into the abstract no mere than 
was necessary for our rcTiew of the errors assigned and 

The Judgment of the iunicipal court is af- 



353 - 2i9rJl 

\ >vp: seller. 



STATS BM:< o>- |i.rwTi.::Kaa..o^ 

()■? COCK, criT.»»Try. 

' 193I.A. 205 

m,* ju. TICK H(iLiX'tf imiJ^rmrxi th:^ '^piiiir^? o? rvx cnmT, 

i^lair.tiff "brougjit thio .-.ction erKo.inst defc»nc.Uint 
to r«e«>trcr th« amount of a certificate of O^pooit., witJ-i 
Intcf/reat, xatiU'Vx by tiie dofenctr nt "bank to nolunbiu Cwauaity 
Cenpany, of whioh oertii'ieata plaijntiff ciaiBied to be tlia 
iioidsji* iH«d owrjor by cmdoi'csowent. Tiie dofensos ple»td«id by 
d«ft!»^^mt .=?nd ita fiffidavit of rotjritoriouo dof<mJio v»«irc on 
raotioti of plaintiff Btrick«n from th'i filoB and the cimrt 
proe««d©d, aa In CAi»ea of default, to fji.i»o»n d.injy i^oe- »md 
<*»tt?r Judgrj'.ent, ifrcia the judgmflnt for $6C,9C »o entered 
d«t)f «iidj\nt prcs«cut«H this ar.poal. 

The 9TTorii atjj.ign«d her<=i r^.VF- tlio u^ine ao thoao 
»«©if];ned in Trcj'--dw'?\l ^ v, ^^tjvt^ F^qrik of /.'jct Lebanoi i. IndJBna 
oa»« aenertil Ku:^l>ei' ^31950, opinion thla dny handtjd down, as 
in the Treadwell caae supra . v-!9 ho7td that- tho errors are well 
att9lgn«d, mid for thd raaaone ytated in that opinion tlio judg- 
ment of Uie County Ourt id reveraod and tnrj oauun raraHndod for 
a trial undor th« i33U«3 joined b«for« tho -^^-.rikinjj of defend- 
ant* ei d<jf«n6«s from tho fiXos* 

iGQin - tae 




no o-xfjw «um>l'.)i) Huoitoiintun "io ^XT«J>iTi:fi ii^i; mm lutifoww "lfit> 

^•jiioo oilit JbcOB oeXll Bd$ aotl n^AoX-xtft VLiiaiaiu. lo ttoiSom 

btm aoa «iKh Baeorjc oJ- ^3ltmtob 'io u^Kito ai e« (l)^^)^^^^!^ 

iXov/ ©"sf* atoms mii) tatiS bXo-rf ©v/ . R Jdtn •bao XX»wbii«<«*r odi ni 
•abwt e»ri^ iJOinJtqo Jjf.rft nl b^tnSu anoauvt idt •xo'5; bna ,i»<i«n9la«fi 

-I-nol'-i- lo linlJfirt.-^'- oitt o-xo^^ftrf bc^nXot eswesl arf^ "Xftbav .Minj ■- 

.ooXil otii oiO'il c»«a»ls>l» «*^na 

5fi4 - -"assa 


) / 

oorpornli-in, \ 

^V./ 193I.A.206 

m. JV TICK HOLDrr D^ILrVliaSD Tir: OPI'UON OV THiS coimT, 

Iji tiiio fj.'uae a jucigm'.'nt '^au roncl<?r«d upon the 
aasesiment of df*iBng»« "by th« coa't, au in caBOB of <iefault, 
in tUtJ 8U» of ,1213.16, in favor of plaintiff imd atminHt 
def^ri'lRnt, and dfifendont .•\pp«9ulo, 

Tlie cauac of ivction ci)untod upon li* a certificnte 
of deposit in th«2 sum of $19^, with inter«et, iswuftd by the 
dcfendimt bunk to the Coluntbift CaBualty Cowp'^my, title to 
*Jiich plikintiff clGirct'. by enfiorseittrnt, 

lef fine.' Jit iilcfitted, Rmoiig other dofenBea, the stntutea 
of the :tfit« of Iiinisma govcmini; ncKOtiable inutruxnents of 
the mi-turir of the forogoin^ c«rtifioute, h\.:\ alao filitd un 
nffidavit of meritorious ciefenn*? undor euid stntuteis ^md the 
intcrnrotfition Uieroof by the co'jrtc of In'lirina. Theae dofonoos 
«vf>re MllniinGted by the or-.urt on m'stion of plaintiff, ^md such 
action of the ciirt is ca^jignc) for error, ^p. hmre hold in 
•rr<3.vdw<iill T, Centr a l T^t uij c of 'v iSRtt MJl'-SilE* ■'''tisral >m«bftr ^il9f>0, 
in iui opinion thio d«iy hnnded dnwn, that Kuch error in imll 
cT^asigned, and for tlio rer^wonB in Uiat opinion Btcitod the ,iudf?«» 
nient of tii<j County Court is r-'^tiT-tictA imd thn cuuno reisHndcd for 
n trial iindor th« ic-ues joined bvrforn thft L>tri'kinf^ of th" 
iufonnao of dfjf on hmt from th'5 files, 

HiSVIfiHa^t) AND R!?SANDiy), 

W Trr '0 YTKI.'V') 

•YTMiTi^o won 


tXmoo wiT ICO Koin<«) Kin* am- 

Sfl«?xr - ^«a 


Sf3t%iAT\ti btt.'. lliJ-nl«Xq 'to inv«'> ttl ,aX.£XlH^ lo mua »ii.t ci 

Bcfiioi'tiJisiJii .; . i. .ii^nuoo ttoiioti. 'io o«y*i3 orfT 

©rfi \ci btivBBi ,tavi«>iai Aitm ^il^H^ "Jto mue url) ni ileoqtjfa to 
oi tiliii ,v,n^ <!'*»<'■> Y^-CuMWi^D AicfnuXoO •<tt oi Xoad imibn»l'j'j 

lo e^naratft^iiffl aXcfijiiojifsn ."iuiirx^voa janoiboE le »#Ai:^ urLf lo 
a« fai>Xl'^ obX« ^;H« ,«;t)jol*r2.t'x»a ranXoj)uloT; s»/W lo ':»"xuiiin r»ri.^ 

•oQnolQi} eo?>riT .JsrtRjtbrtl lo a^ti^f-^o ftttt ^tf Ift^^wU flf»i;*^M^»Tqiorfn.t 
rloua brw^ ^'\'\iinlMlq lo rtoiicm no itono erf.» ^jtf /*erfj9«i.rtiltt »tc'».v 

^OHQli: ificf&'UV. XjaisnsO «nojru^tf»>j;, ii**>l iS. ^ .f^ j^i .^ i*^r!2iL •'•' .f--Xi:'-w^^->g>ir 
XX»w ftJt Tonte rioi^s ;f,«ilt ^rwrnb h»/)rt»ai/i Y«i> oXrfj imkcsttic rui nl 

"1 hohm.iinn'r onur.o of'.t hmi bofttoTfii ai S'Xkio'j vjnur>'j ttlii lo i-nam 

, / ,. ' i,j ai07.1 ^nHt«i»l»b lo aocfwlo^' 

61U - 220i^ 






,^ ) / COOK COUKTYc 


A:^ el I ant. 

198 I.A. 214 


ThlM cnae ia before tiie court for the second 
time. The Jua^mwrit of the triAl court in favor of plaintiff 
on & forzuer trlAl v&a reversed tor error in the adsaisition in 
eviacnce of a .vrltten aoouiaent aK^^-^ni^t tiie objection of Ug* 
fcndant. The decision on that ajpeai xa reported m lb'6 

ill, Api^. ^18, to wiiich decision we refer for a statement of 
Uis ciateriAl facts involved vritxiout here repeatint; thcja. 

The record now before ua is free froai tho error 
for wiich we reversed the fo naer judijacnt. The fact tuat de- 
fetslant breached hia contrnct of sale with plaintiff, oil the 
evl ience on aubjrct oonaidered, ia suatained. 

The reaittining faci. in controversy is ao to the 
value, at the tl&e defendant defaulted on hl» contract, of the 
reul estate contracted to be aoid by defendant wO plaintiff, 
#hile the evidence on tiiia question ia in charp conflict, an 
exaaiinution of it convinces ua tnat tne Jury iiii£;ht -srell find 
froii juoh evidence tJiaL tae plaintiff liad suffered,e to 
tne iiicoLint of tncir verdict and uu^t the real eatale involved 
in tiie contract was reasonably ^ortii,at tikc titsic defendant re> 
fused to carry out hi at contract .^itti plaintiff, that oiuch :^ore 
tuan tne contract price, *e cannot find froii the evidence tiiat 
tiie verdict of the jury la contriir, to Ita vjeight. 

The dotion of defenuant to instruct a verdict 
in hie favor ^ms yroptrly denied, as the qucationa raised by 


tJ^WwO "1 

\ \ 

-si) lo flolioof'o Alii l«niJ»3|« inttflifOOb dd > 9an»t}ir« 

cdi tt I«<»({qA l4uU no aolBixmb 

lo ia«u»J«iJ« «i ;iwi idlvi •« aoiaioei) ifoiitv oi ^^l^ anI^A AiA' 

o'X'Xs $^J isotl •9'xt «i ttj;i stolotf won i^iooot odT 
-oi> Jaiii ^oAl •dt ,ia»tKAbui ri#«nol i$ri.^ boaioroY ov iloj 
9ri* II» ,llidni;c uim lo ^r- id A9xiOM»i<f i«»ibn«l 

,b»al£ii-^kiii b.i tb^tmbkuii^dii ijjlduB Bkm no ooiRroiilre 
jaJ qJ Qtt ai ^<in<9VoiJnoo nX ioa'i j^lntHMfi oxif 

• lliiRlJSlq oi^ ln«je)ii»lol> X^ ^Xoe otf oi li»^o«itn»0 oiJiJuo XiBoi 
rinoo qir ^ no otut 

oi ej^swb feotal't" ! < ^IlinXuX^l i»i:iJ^ J*»i;f •*.,*-• !i^«» .taw* aoiV 
i)ovXovai 8i«Jo» ■*■*? bfif JoibYoV jauoaiP «.i.... 

•91 toAbantmb »eu .ymouamx'mmi to«i^noa nAi ( i 

Jaoo alii #tfo 

. +'■ .. .. ., ^taticti). ■'■^ "•-' -^'V'l. -f-.v '- 

Y«> b»»lai anoiiuoup > y.Xt«<j:«<xi;.- amt tOTitt slit r 

the proof a wexc not of law for tiie court, but of i'vot for tii© 
detertr.ination of tlie jury. /iietnor Use contrf^ot imd Ibeen pro- 
cured l>y the miarej. reuentaHons of plaintiff, vms anotiier one 
of thfi questions wiiicJa tiie jury, by thiir verdiet. decided ad- 
V«rsely to def *:ndant» » contention, a:4 aiaw tne cinxiu of pltiin- 
tiff t«Ht he Jufxd cutde a ';<3nd«r of pr.-rforaiance anu fttood ready 
to carry out the terxas of thfe contrr«at on hi 3 part. 

The contentiori of defendant r«?£;ar;Jing a repreaen- 
t^ition by plaintiff that no broker nad brought Ma attention to 
thft property nad consequently defendant was not liable for a 
broker's cocrai^sion upon the sale, #e tnink uaiiapojrtant in view 
of the fpct that plrtinliff at all tiraea stood reRdy to inueianify 
defcridruit ngftinat ixny clnim for coiajniasioJi. 

^e fail to find in the instructions ol" the court 
to the jury any infiraity calling for ft reverial of the judg- 
Bttnt, .Neither do we find that the conduct of courjoel for 
plaintiff at tut trial i* aubJHOt to criwiciaa .vaicu would 
warrant a reversal, e L.-ink the ruixn^s of the court on tne 
aiatters objtcted to was A sufficient curative. yurtueruore, 
counsel for defendant fail to i»oint out in their orxef the 
particular con uct of coun<iel about ^nici. tiicy coisplain, ijut 
refer the court for nuar^ particuUira to the r©coi*d, A court of 
review will nr-ver go to the record to search for evifience not 
tpecifically pointed out or arf^ued, for the purpose of revera- 
ing tho JudiyKpnt of the trial court. 

Two Juri'-a, as well «3 two trial Juaeea, have 
concluded thnt plaintiff's claiw is moritorioua, and witiiout 
uubiitnjitial and prejudiciul error in procedure aijpearing in the 
record we would not b« warranted in diaturbing the judftment 
froMi which t.'iis o.pp«»l i-a rroaecuted, 

ie «re sati»fied thnt there io no error in the re- 

cord i^rcjudioial to t;h<? rivjitu of defeauant, una the judj^cnt of 
the Clrc&it court Ip t,hex«rcro affirmed. AJf^lKiti-J). 

9itJ To'l Jo'iT: "io iwd ^3'iUQo ifiUf tat wMi to Son sma* »looiq ftdJ 

X^- aon*iatola«<i to •x»bfli ,.'Mi 9 A tMtUt Ylit 

tattdiqti A an iju,ft»l©fc lo ao^,rn»jritoo oil' 

a 'Kol oXdflii Ion ani> it-'i ilah x^^'^^^PVOQOO jbft« xiiaqoitx *^ 

^linfli»i ai 01 xi>«»'x booSu a»si&li XX* *A lliinliiX(( i4i4ii #«Al: mC^ lo 
.rroi8»iauaoo lol uiitXa tn« ^actlaBit IfiAAnslai;^ 
,i iuijv *ij,, lu *.j .ij;>uij«nx 9fl[i nl bffil cl XX«1 ♦IS' 

-3ii)iit ȣli lo imi&VBX a tol sniiXBO x^larxXlnl xstn x^", 

t'o-i faciiwoo to iowunoo «if# l«xU lulll Mr <^ iarf*l». 

i'XA' ifXolJl'io orf *oattf«« •i Xmi^S ^tii im llLraX«ii 

»a.r no Sxiti^j aaj lo anxiut 9Ai iLaii.i ov, .Xjm««t*1 jl jfiumjiir 

^9iQ^iatiitu% .trlifituo ,tn»iotll«o a aav ci b»io»trfo i^a^iaa 

?3r!i l^incf ti0tii al it uo in ton oS IJrl ici»bu9t»b tot (5 .,OwO 

ti ^-rwoo A ,i>:roo»t 9dt 9i •%»liJ0U'tM«i t^inm •<i^ i;«l»l 

^on do«9.>iv3 aol tloTi»»« oi toioo© ; o^ xeTevn XXlw wislvsi: 

-B-sovfj-x lo »«oq3s? ' " ■:* -f^t. ^b9u:^rH i.« Wi^u jbulnloq xXlMoil 

»vtt(i ,tt43i}i/l. Xajtv^ 0V# «« XX»w /: 

jrwo*aiw ba» ,euoixoitif iltlnXuXq iad* A»toi/Xon ,0 

A siiitaqq^ ••iMli»»oiri: »^i iwi'ij UiXoihulotq btw iMXiimttiiiua 

., ,,t ni f-i.M, i, rti ib«;raHt-x«ffr (»d *on ftXwovr •« £nco(»»-x 

.bsluoaaotq «i tn^q::-. ijl, ) lolilw aiotl 

iM<a x»»il«Xj 

,ij Hit ±- 


22 - 20528 


Defendant in E]|ror, 

AUGUST w, mill:^, 

Plaintiff ift "Jrror. 



193 I. A. 215 


Thia'l^ction was commenced in the Municipal Court of 
Chicago on January 26, 1914, ty Oscar Trybon, plaintiff, to 
recover for wages, overtime, and dielDurseinents for car fare 
and telephone expenses » [plaintiff was hired by defendant 

about i^ril 4, 1913, to solicit consents for granite paving. 


. ,,|[e ceased 'working for defendant on November 23, 1913, The 
"^ cause wao tried before the court without a jury resulting in 
a finding in fayor of plaintiff for the sum of |)359«50« The 
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 allCMsr his claim for $581,38 for overtime. 
J4i4gmeiit was entered on the finding. 

It is here contende'd by counsel for defendant that 
the judgment should be r-"V versed and the c.-'.use remanded (1) 
because the amount allowed by the tRial court for balamce 
of wages due was excessive and against the vreight of the 
evidence; (2) because tlu; court s^iould not have allowed plain- 
tiff any sura for car fare and telephone expeXses; and (3) 
because the court committed error in allowing p^kaintiff, over 
the objection of defendant, to read from an accounV or 
memorandum book, which plaintiff kept, containing items of 
amounts of wnges received by him from time to time and of the 
number of hours of extra work performed by him on certain days 



sseos - ss 


612 .A.IeGl 

h ,T!OSYHT ?'A080 


THijno SHT TO MOii/Hio MHT oaHsrvijsia Yajcrifio soitcUX oMiaieEKq .m 

od' ,'i:'iti;Jnl£:Iq .riocfYiT iBoaO -^cd" ,M5X ,9? x^cwn^t no osBOXilO 

0X8*1 ISO :rol aJ-namaaiwcfalf) fcnc ,emiJ"ieTO .eeasw lol istoooi 

^/TBbnsltaJb ycT b&ttd aj.w lliinisll i ,aoansqx» snoriqeX^d^ Jbas 

.gnivsq s^lxijsis lOl a^noanoo iloiloa oi ,£XeX ,^ XJ:i<r^ "Juoda 

9ifT ,SieX «SJ> lacfmovoK no iru:ibn3l::,t> lo'i snx^Eiow o'-: 

©rfT »0a,efl5$. lo mus 9ii^ lo'i llxJ-nifiXq 'io loyeTt rti sniJbnil £ 

^suJb asgsw Io oohbIbcT ioa mifiXo B''ili.-tjptlflXq bowoIXis ^tuco 

jSoeneqxs snoiiqoXs;^ bns QiBt i&o io1 ijixbIo Bxrl bnij ,0^,oeSt 

.oraid-iavo lol: 8S,X8a$! lO'i fnxwXo exff woIXjs «on bib cttrcf .OX.ecV; 

.snxbnxT: ori^ no bo'xo^ns s.;7f J-«€MHsl>«i 

d-.srtJ- JnBbnslsi) 'xot Xsanuoo ycf ..bsijntHi-noo aisri si ;tl 

(X) fcefcrn-moi 98tf"0 9ri;J- biyj 1)9 a if. v^ i scT tLuotis insm^bul arli 
oonjBXflcf lol J-fuoo XjBX.fd- uricf bswoIXs tnx.r.tBM- orfl seusoecT 

-nXBlq bswolli-; svbxI tfon bluo'a J-iuco of<:t sairBoecf (S) jeonsbivs 

(5) bna ; 39a risqxe 9rco/iC9X9i^ brus sis'! tro lot au/B \:nj3 111* 

19VO ^J.'iii^.z^q aniwoIXa nx loi-xg bgJcfimmoo Jijjoo 9ri;t aaufioscT 

lo^niroooa na raci'i bsoi cl ,*n.Kbrf9*ibb Io noiioeldo od) 

Io BJJked'X ?5nxnXi3;)-noo ^itqB^ IILiatBlq rioirfw .icod" nttrbrD5To:TT9m 

9dS Io bns amxct oJ- smii inoiT: mlri -^cf b9VX9ri9i a9snw Io minvoioB 

Bxeb nifiJ-iso no ralii ijcf b9fln:o1i9q 3(iow Bitxo Io aixrorf Io -xgrfaiun 

-7\ ^P^=^ 
\ f \ S ep 

and of the disbursements made by Him, and when made, for 

yp^ I ::=:=*In hip amended statement of claim plaintiff claimed 

that he was entitled to receive as wae«« |80 for the month of 
April, $G5 for each of the months of May, June, July, August, 

\J or a total of #655.40; that he received from defendant from 

time to time during the months of April to I3eptei.ber, inclusive, 
as wages, the total sum of .f315, and that he also received from 
defendant on January 12, 1914, the sun, of .$50, leaving a balance 
due him of ,)290.40 for wages as distinguished from rnoneys due 
him for overtime and disbursements. The defendant, in his second 
amended affidavit of merits, admitted that plaintiff had earned 
as 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 
forjmges of $124.40. J-^ilejti^--evidence is conflicting as 
toythe payments made from ^irae to time by defendant to plaintiff 
on/ac,06ur|t of n^ges/jwe can not say, after a careful review of 
tl|^' recoi-d, that the amount allowed by the court as the balance 
'^^.^.i'^.^-^"^^^^ ^°'' ^^^^^ is-against the weight of the evidence, 

(■^■On the question as to the allowance of plaintiff ts 
claim for ^^69.10 for disbursements durin,: the period ofnMe 
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 expenses. Vhile 
plaintiff testified that during the month of April, 1913, 
'^>' defend.oj^t gave him $2 for car fare and telephone expense, he 
I also testified that he had no further conversation with defendant 
1 relative to such expanses and that at no time during his 
V employment did he render any bill to defendant for such expenses. 
^^S^l-U find in the red01.d,«r evidence of .«.^«.p.«e3 p,,,i3. 


nol ,ebism noriw Jbati ,ciirf \cr a^nbHtsBiudBlb erii to bns 

b&mlBlo IliinlaLq. m.ts>io 'io inssneiBia bahnsms aid nl> - [ 

T:o ild-nofli sxfi^ lol 084' ««Bsw a-tt svleosi ocf b9Xii;tn9 ajow srf ;t.«rf;t 

^ctau^i;A t'cli/b ,©«ijX t'^csM to BxiJ-nofiT arid- "io done io1 53^ jXiiqA 

,ns'in!9voF "io d;^aom 'od& lol Oi^,?d| oob locfo^oO fcnn lecfms^fqa a 

cioil: j^fjiibnolsi) moil £>©vis ot sri ii.di ;0*.sas4 lo lad-o^ b io 

,9vi8jjIoni: ,isd'ni9d-qe<'i oi liaqA Io edinom edi ^^nltub smiS oi emli 

moil 1)9 vis 01 obXb ©ri isdi bna ,5X£$: Io mua Ijscfo;^ 9r{;t ,s3:5ijw bb 

Qonj^Lsd s snlTi?,9l ,06$ "io riu8 aricf ,:Mei ,SX Y'^^^J^^JB^ "O taabneldb 

sufi a^csrtor:!; ctoil bedstis^aii-tib an G9gr-w to"?: Oi^.OQSti. Io aid out 

nousE eiri al ^inBbne'i9b sriT ,adTi9iH9B'iud'8iJb boB ©raid-isvo lol mirf 

i>eniB9 bnxl I'iiJ-nisXq isdi Jbs^.+ lcibij .a^liarc to SiVBhllts b&baems 

i smii 'y^oit fedt bemlnlc iud ,Oi»,aaaf to mue Lei'o;^ blze assjsw ajB 

ItiJ^nieXq bir>q foijrf ori ,AX9X ^Sl y.iBunisL s«i^ij-C'''"-£ ^r^ oJ^ qv oiai^ 

l'5:i;tnJ:/=(Xq ©uf) eonaXficf s ^JCno gnivaeX ,XCe^ Io muu Xac^Oo sriJ- 

8fi sftiJoiX'lnco si »on9fciv9-«di. sXJkrf^n .Oi>.I^S:Xt "io B^^^s^^r lol 

"i'ilJnjtfiXq oJ- d-msJbnslofc -^cf ©ml* ot 9tali kont sbsta ataQacs[,Bq erii 0.+ 

to wa-tYQ-s XuT:9ijeo c is.+ tjB «v«a ton nso 9w' , «»Sjof«r to cfitud^osVo 

sjonaXad' srici- ais J-iuoo *rf* xtf"^*'^0'i'-t*s inuome sri* *jQrfi- (Jb-ioosi i^^ct- 


, erfd- to drCsxs^' 9di SGntH^»-'Bi sa^Bw lol itiinifiXq eub 

a ' ttiJ-nx.fjXq to ©on^woXXs sri^ o* es noiJ-gstrp 9ri:f nO f-"" 

eM-'to Jbox-isq grW- :-;nxitib s*n9fn«aiijcffixb -lol OX.fS^ lot miaXo 

a'd-n/^brretab ,s-38n9qx9 snorfqsXsd- bn^j sii^t ino lot ^asimcoXqaie 

-oeT^-T Ttna sbsni bmli on d-.r, 9!-{ iadi d-o?5'>ts 6ri.t oi b.<^w ©onebxva 

eXlrT/ ,e9ansqxn rioua lot lairL oeiifcfmxsi o* ttiiniflXq riiiw insm 

,ixex tXxiqA to riJ-«0ffl Slid" gni^iub cf^rij bax'tiJ-aoi ttxdni«lq 

9x1 ^aonsqxg gnorfaeXsJ hna eiBt leo lot S^ mirf sveg dn-.bnstgb 

n.abnet9b ff*iw no i J-naisv.ioo i6rf:fijjt on bad ed ip>di bgxtx^Bod obXg 

BXrf a'liix/b dfflid on iB ot-.rid- bns osan'.qxa rfoue oi svicfjsXai 

a98noqx9 rioua lot daabnstsb oi XXicf '^na isbnsi ?ri bib dn9m\:cXqin9 

ssiffroic BOf»iqx!» ns to gonabivs v;ftj5 baooen 9)1+ ni bnlt oS Xxet e''^ 


an the part of f?ef' ni^.r iit to reircburBe plaintiff for dio- 
butsenonte for c^r frro and telephone, and oh<:re is not 
sufficient eviderce frora i;! ich such a promise m&y be 
lHplieA« In our opinion ths court way not vrarrantod in 
includin«:\ln the finding and judgn-ent the guit. of ;|G9,10 
for car farf)\^nd telephone ^x^anBea, 

As tVthfi cour>^ allow in, ^ plaintiff to read from 
an ac>:ount or manKyrundiara took ;cept by him, we do not tliink 
that» in viev? of piaxntiff 'o evidence, finy prejudicial error 
was cominittcd In this retard, { Diamopd Glue C p, y, 
ji'ietzvchow&ki f 227 111. 3:5a^ 547; jgchardaon '"ueli ng Co. v, 
ii^aaiQlill, '^^35 111. :519, 323. )\ 

OxT conclusion ia thoi^the finding and judgment 
are/exbeasive to the extent of ;i^69\lO, If within teai days 
dofondant in error files a rejuittltu r^j-" "the sum of v'^eO.lO 
the judgment of the Municipal Court will 'be affirmed for the 
Bum of t290,Ar.; otherwice the judgment will "b^ rcversec and 
the CRuee renuaided, 



ton ai QivdS baa .anoiltialo* bna oxol iho ioT: aJnofdaB^sJcf 
nl b'ji ivvitav; .ton ?!sw rf"i;.roo ■Adi noirf-tgo lyo nl .boilqpal 

moil b&^i oj "ili^nifllq ;;niwoIIx\ *tiipo erf;f,ij^ kA 
sinxifi- ^fon ob o^ ,mirt y<J iqai aioocf mubai^T^mefir to imjo:>o^ na 

.Y .£3. euXD Jb . notnjbi;: ) .biiijj^i BjLri;^ nh.,boStimmoo aaw 
• ^ »o.' :.^.rij J.3U? noiib%kMioit' ;Vfr5 y<if.£ .III 'TSS ^i^a^ odov^iQlT 

A .cs<^ ^ei;; .xxi as? ,2^^0x5-^ 

^^noKSii'tft. Jbrtij aniJbni't sdS JnAii ax nol^irXoncci irO 

)di tol bQflT'xil'tfi o^' XXiw ^fiucO XisqioimiV orlJ' To ^fnamgfcut art^f 
hna baaiov-*! »<f iXiw ctftscns^wt, .idi ©aiwiorld'o ;0f>..0GS8 to 'nwa 

284 « 20612 





On Appeal of CHAINS E, AF^iSLD^ ) 

198 I.A. 233 


This is the separate appeal of Charles ;, Affeld 
from the decree -©^—^he-tixrperi or Court of Cook County, entered 
MarclT 13, 1^14. ''or 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 Oornmisuioners 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. 




fi n Q A 

sXf>0£ -» i^es 

YTIA'flfpO IbillKin MHT 

,CIJ£f"H:^ ♦£ aa^JJIO 10 XjB&qqA nO 

iF'^oo aHT TO iniMiqo a:HT aajinviiKiG ykjciho a-oiToUi oHicicarH^ .hm 

ni noini:<[o eiii nl JbeJ-Bcta Qxiofcf^ai. orL+ lo'- »t^lQL ^i,L itutsil 

briB boBTovoi ai esiOr.h bxae ,bsli'i \;fib exiii ,^VciOS ,oW ae^o 

XXxd-QOOio od^ aaiciBXb oj- arioiJ^csTXb xi^Tiw Jbabnamo'i 98iJi";o arfJ' 

rnc v^Jiupo 'io drtsw 10 'i Ji'Xii'i ivXoojriij; lo QienoieeimmoO oxiT lo 

,;^m>^x/ilXqi^oo .YObqnioj xsnsiH axlT lo aov«'i nx 09709/:; a laJrss oJ- 

.bobnama sij XXXd e;tx "io i©Yj>irtq 9Ji^ riJ'xw aonabioooB ni 

.SMOXToatfiia htiw ai'iaMMSoi awA (moi&Y'SSi 

73 - 21042 

CEARLJ33 C. 0'NJ;lLL, 

Defendant in Error 


OSCAR METZ, -• / ) 

Haixitiff in Error^. ) 



198 I.A. 234 


o f Ohio ag^ agai 

nat def% 

in tii o- Munici p al C o m «t 

ndant to recover *j»e balpnce due. 



on the sale to defendant of one second hand 
steam boiler and four second hand steam radiators at the 
agreed price of ^100, of which .i;,lO had been ^paid by de- 
fendant. I^n his affidavit of merits defendant set up aic-a 
defense that plaintiff expressly warranted tnat the gooda 
4 were "sound and fit for the purpose of using the same in 
^defendant's building," that defendant relied upon the war- 
ranty and paid plaintiff $10 as part of tiie purchase price, 
and inBwt after ttwe delivery and installation s^—^tor^wgSKBd* 
in defendant's building they were found to be unsound and 
unfit for said purpose and of no value to defendant, • gh e 
^3cSS««" was tried before ti*« court vi*1»'h©ut a jury resulting 
iH-a-'Tl'^jgpfis^-an d j u dgm en t f •©is ■if«©«^gajL-»S't-".!'^'ef enaanpe'i 

^ We h axfe-.:e36afliined the evidence and are of the 
op>n'£oa -thlcvthe finding and jx^fjaient were fully v/arranted. 
While €iie evidenc>^as corlflicting, we cannot say that de- 
f,end,arL^ showed by a prepTonderance of the evidence that 
pla|,rt'tiff ma(ie 'any express xafi'BJCity as to soundness and 
i^i^ness of the goods, upon which defertd«i|?t relied, and that 
the^^ods v/ere of no value to defendant. Ana under the 
facts disclosed there can be no implied warranty. (Ram- 

.UDAOinO 10 




,JJiaH'0 .0 iiSLIHAIIO 

( .'•stoi'ia ni Itlidluli 

.Tmroo aHT 10 MOitti'io aHT WHKViJim 


jbrisxl bnooBS arto ^o Jniiiinslsi) 0^ alma acLi no ,oe^(j-aJw | 
erLi iB aioiGlbrt ai&sia JbriBri bnoose luot hna tsiiod saasie 
-9b \,d £)XBq a99Cf bBd 01$ xloliiw lo ,001$ lo soiiq bssiaJB 
«-><•« qjj ^ae iasbne'iab eSit^ax to iirablfiB alri a|^ ,d'n«Jbn9t 
eboo^ ariJ isiij b3;tn«3'n:Bw ylaasiqxo "ITtiJ-niHlq &sdi sacislab ^ 
as. ^mse sdi arrlEij "io eaoqiuq 9d& 'iol HI bnc bnuoe" stow - ^ 
-lew 9di noqu i>9xl9i J'nBfcns'isb i&dt ",;^niblxijd a • AfifiJbnalgi) 
,3citq s-.-rfoiuq arf^ "io ^ftnq 8« 01$ "ilUnielq bXBq baiJ y^"JB1 ' 
o rrox^f5XI.«.tefix ba».s v.-isvllao 9«4 idSln imat bast 
jony bniJOBnxf gd o;^ bnijoTt a-xav v^oaj- ^nxfilxi/d e* innbii3Ti3b nx 
eri*~ .crxijsbnalejb oS sjjIbv on Io Liiii s&or.^iijq Jbxjaa lot ^txlnxj 
SjfliWIijasi YTwt « *woxix^iw ;t*tjjoo 9&i S'xolscf Jb^l^i e«w ««««or~~~~ 

if»«»Dn»"3t9l) *aaJj3gB Oftf lot Jadmybx/t, bnjs- 3aJLi4.;aJ:1: »-«Ji 

9iii Io SIB bxiB 90xi9bxv9 9x1* bsnxia«x9 avBcl »*^ 

.bsJnsiisw Yllifl r)TC9Vr dn9xn;<5lji;t bas ^aibai'i 9iit^:6xit noJtnxqo 

-9b JbxU v^Ba c^oan-Bo 9w .anxJ-oxIlnoo eflw.,9onebxV9 aii:^ 9lxxfW 

Jxsxii 9on9bxv9 eriJ- Io eorfatebffo&sjiq .e \d bgwoda tnBbnnt 

basi aaenbnxioe o* aa At^o«rtiJBv/ aagiqxg ijnB sbnin JliSttlBlq 

iadi bna tboilgi Sc^js^bftotsb dolsivf aoqu .aoooa eri* "io eagn^tll 

9xiJ- i9bnir'bnA .J-asbn9l9b od" auXav on Io attav,' aboba. sdi 

-maH) .Y^tafiii.ttw boxiqxnx on sc/ n.8o •laxi* bseoloaib aiojel 

ming V. Caldwell , 43 111. App. 175, 179; Martin & C£. v. 
Roehm , 92 111, App. 87.) And we do not tnink that the 
court erred in his rulings on evidence. The Jud^jnent is 


•^ -2^ ± 2M2BMi '^^^^ »'^-^-t .qiA .Xil £;^ , U9^hlji'j ,v ^nlm 

oni i»ii^ 2ialx-iJ *on ob aw JbaA (.Va .qq.A .ill Si9 . mfiso fl 

8i j-n 9 ill .::•:.. r. .-jriT .r^rnobiv© no asnxlir-x exn nx i)«ii9 ^twoo 

173 - 21150 


Defendant in iirror, 

a corporation, / 

Plaintiff in Erro^'. 




198 I.A. 2 40 




Ii|^~SJ3i3 case plaintiff r»=ciftimw«»f4i^3^'^^ 
. jaijms-4u»~iiiift-4Mt-«« awtoaoMle salesriian employed by def^md- 
ant on tiiree sepatatc sales of automobiles./ One of tJae sales 
was to a man named Erncke on which sale plaintiff claimed, and 
defendant admitted, a balance of ^50 due plaintiif. Anotner 
sale was to a ii^an named iilair on wnich sale plaintiff claimed 
a comiuission of i?127,50. The third sale was to a man named 
Tydings on vrfiich aale plaintiff claimed that defendant agreed 
to pay him "$100 if defendant should be able to enforce the 
sale, or 050 if the deal did not go through." The defend- 
ant aefiied owing plaintiff anytuing on the iilair 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 
of the unskillful driving of the same by a prospective cus- 
tomer, during a '*det;onstration" of the car, permitted by 
plaintiff. The case was tried before a jury wno 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 Jiirncke sale, ^110 on the Blair sale and 
^50 on the Tydings sale, and disallowed, in toto , defendant's 
claim of set-off. llaintiff was tne only witness on his own 



oeiia - ovi 


,YP!A5:J[00 aJiaO'AOTJA MOTOIIiaiAl 
/noid'jBioqnoo a 

.THUoo SHT 10 Komiio siHT asLflavusa 

asljse Qdi 1o aa. lo s^Ihs ^Saia-x&B 99iiii no J'ite 

*ii.-i.^> .ijamxKlo lliiniBlq sIbb rloiriw no Siioma Jbsauin nam. b oi eijw 

i9.sJonA .lii.itnx.alq awJ:) Odiji; to soiiBlBcf i^ ,£»9 JJ"Jtaii>.p. i-nfli)ri9'i9b 

i)9aiiBlo 1'ix;JniBlq elBt Xioiiiv no 'XXBld i)9umn n.«u! « o;t esw alBB 

i)9ffi.c;fi nB.!i B o^ eaw slse £)axii;l 9.iiT .OC.VSI$ lo nox^Biiiuaco a 

.baaT^s ^naJbuglgb i&iii b^sui&lo fiiinialq slav Aolciv no aaniiJYT 

sxlcf soao'inQ o;t 9laB 9cf bijjoria ^naLnslai) Ix .OOI^" mixi yaq o;t 

'bastab ad'i ".li-^uoid^ os J'on bib Isst 9di^ 'ti 32$ to .aXisa 

asnxi^YT in* ixela aiiu no snL.J•^iaB llxJnicsIq ;ynxwo i)9X.i9b rfn/i 

to sengqxg sii;^ lot ^&,l&l^ to llo-./Qa « iieaiiBlo bns aalfle 

gsujG09tf bg^BiiisJb nascf bBd uolxlw lao nx.8J^"i90 s no aaxBqsi anx:;iSm 

-aijo 9viJ-09qeoiq » ^cf gouse add- lo sniviiia lullllxeiijj 9xij lo 

Y.a b3i3 iiinoq^ ."XBa artj- lo "noiJ'i?id'snoai9b" « gniijjo ,T9iuoi^ 

a bQCiTuiai ouw \:iiji, iJ g'xolgcf boii^ am, gsjso onT . 'ilxcfnxislq 

;foxt*i9V dolnvi noqu ,OlSv lo auje 9iiJ nx ilxJnxisIq lol ioibtsr 

l9aajjoy UJ od .bgaaiaa e«w iiiabci9t9b sdi J-enx^ae Jneaiabi/t 

Jb9woXIfl Joxjbigv ixoa^ i-a anxvx'i'XJS nx \isjI adi iadi s9t:^ 

biui sliit: i.tB.Ce guj no OII>^j; ,3.Cj38 oaonia 9il.t no Od^ llx;>nxi5lq 

s^i.-i&baatQt «o£o£ nx ,b9woJLflaxb on^i .alae Banxbx;T 9xli no Od^ 

nwo ain no aegnJ-xw Y^no oito eaw llx^tnxel I .llo-^ga "io mxBlo 

behalf in oxaking his case in chief. The principal witness 
for defendant waa William PI. Farrington, president of de- 
fendant. The testimony of these two witnesses v/as very 
conflicting on material points. cte-~deem it unneaessary, 
_h.ttJw«ver> to discuss their testimony in d«tfiuA, A book- 
keeper of defendant and an employe of defenaant in its re- 
pair department also testified for defendant, ilaintiff and 
two other witnesses in his behalf gave testimony in rebuttal. 

Counsel for defendant contend that the verdict 
of the jury in allowing plaintiff any commissions on the 
Blair and Tydings sales is against the -eight of the evi- 
dence. The repeated argument seems to be tnat plaintiff did 
not have a preponderance of the evidence because nis testi- 
mony was overcome by the testimony of one witness for the 
defendant on many material points. .7e cannot agree witu the 
contention or the argument. ne cannot say after careful 
consideration that the verdict is manifestly against the 
weight of the evidence. Jt is not tiie law tnat if the num- 
ber of witnesses on each side of an issue is equal tne evi- 
dence is therefore evenly balanced and that he wno has the 
affir/ijiative of the issue must fail. ( Henderson v. Blakesley , 
186 111. App. 356.) And the mere fact tnat liore witnesses 
testified on one side than on the otner does not, of itself, 
determine the weigut of the evidence. ( Goodman v. ieinberKer , 
185 111. App. 167; Krasa v. Bobbins , 186 ill. App. 19fa; 
Bishop V. Busse , 69 111. 403.) 

And we cannot say that the verdict ol 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 coiamitted 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 tue court erred in refusing to cuarge the jury as 

aesn^iw Isqioaiiq, sdi: .Isiao nx ©aao elxi anijlam ni ILfiiiscf 
-9i) 1o ^nabiaaiq ,no;taniiiB'5 . li ioJiilli^i «JBW d-nabiialai) lol 

,Y,i&£aao9»n*f '#x m©»J^a^ .aJ'nioq iBits^Bsi no gaiioillcioo 
-ioocf A ,JbLai»b hx xiTfO^ali-esd" lisn^ eauo&ih oJ' ,«i»v»w«xl_ 

Jan^ rijtd-axBli .i^iHbne'^Bb lol b-^lliiLei cel« Jn^AJ-Te-jaij liaq 
.IjB;)^;tiJcf9a nx -vcrioajxd-asi avje^ tlRiiadi a in ni aaaedn^fiw ituric^o owcf 

sxtJ- no anoiEaxfluiioo yna llxd-niBlq jj^i^'O-t-'-'-s "i Yiwt s^fi^ "^o 

-iv9 9nj lo ^xlalaw edd- ianxfii^s ai aelsa a-gi^lbxH bns li^lE 

bib "iliinxBlq iciii atf oi anidse iasniij}\iB hscf^sgai sjclT .aonaJ-j 

-iJaoi' aid aausoscf 90«9ljxv3 9ri.f lo eonBisbaoqarq a 9V«d .ton 

9iiJ- lol easfiJivv 3no lo YfloiniJ-sacT ^di x^ smooiavo asw ynooi 

9di riJxv7 39ijje J-onnBo 9V .eJ-nxoq XBiiBiem YnBiii no ^nabnglaJb 

Ix/l9iB0 is^lls \;Be :fonnBO 3\v . J'ngraxf^iifl gri^t 'lo noxJnsJnoo 

sxiJ- ;tenxBa.8 Yl^aglinsin ei :^oxi)T:9v aii;^ iBdi nox^Bisfoxanoo 

-Hu/n 9iiJ Ix JsiiJ wbI 9iid- Jon &x i <. .9on9biv9 odS lo J-ii^xsw 

-ivs arid- Isx/pg ax gxiaax na lo sDxe fio«9 no essegnjxvv io iscf 

gnd- asxl oiiw an d-jBdd bnjs iscinjalisci \la9yfi 9iol9*x'»a;t ex songb 

.vgiegjifiia .V noei9im9il ) .Ixsl iaum 9xjefcx 9uJ lo ayxdiJ-naillB 

aaeaandxw gious dsdJ- JobI giym giid" JbnA (.Oee .qqA .III dSI 

(il^adx lo ,^oi; aeox) larijo 9rl.t no nani 9J:)Xc. ono no bgxlxdas* 

; ;i9 3i9cfni9V. .v£)ooa ) ,9on9£.xv9 arid lo d.'3X9w 9aJ -jnlcngdgij 

;8eX .qqA .III 381 , Bnxdrfo3 .v BaJBOTl ;VdI .qqA .ill aai 

(,S0^ .1X1 69 . eeexra .v qorlaig 

XtLil ^di 10 J-oxbtav grid isxld ^as donnao 9w cnA 

.jbgdnBiiJBwnxf bbw llo-*se lo raislo a • dnBf)ii9l9i) snxwoilBaxh ni 

Ibio BXii Hi ;tix;oo add- j.niid- bngdnoo ohIb IsenuoO 

.JaBLnglQj od" IJk;xoxi)iJi:,9iq 1011:9 i>9Jdinimoo x.iisl 9dt oi ggiBdo 

9rid iscii noxnxqo arid lo 91h bn& 93iJ5iio grid bgnxaijaxg ayari qW 

don oi> 9v/ bnA .ijgd^oincfbnx yldosiioo ban ylixsl sisw xtul 

an xiul 9iid saiBxto oi gnxajjlgi ni bans d-iijoo grid isdi ±nidi 

requested by defendant, or that the court coauiitted any pre- 
judicial error in his rulings on evidence. 

binding no reversible error in the record the 
judgment of the Municipal Court will te affirmed. 


.9on9^iT9 no aanili/^ eiri nx 10119 iBioijbuL 
9n.l biooHi. oiU ni 10119 9ldi«i9V9i on gnibni^i 

.ijs/niillft 9cf IIxw J^iiioO laqxoiaiJii adi lo d-nsm^JbuL 

2 - 19492 


r Defendant irf' .''rror, 

a corporati,on, and W aT|[ K:^:H3TING, 
\ Plaintiff in ?.rror. 

/ ¥y.f 




t)8l.A. 247 



^jyrB-H»8:s-fflr'ac^ on "brought to yafover $750, 

alleged to be raonjey hacjl and roceivedr' by dof endfints without 




coAaideration/ The ▼ardict for '^641,67 was not only in 


cbneistent with any legitimate theory of the ovidencjt \i^X 
^gainat the weight tl|ereof on the queei^on of joint liability, 
^^)id neceeeitatigig a reversal of the judgment. 

It appeared that Kerating executed a written lease 
of certain premiaea to Puawaakia to be used for saloon 


dated Jan, 30, 1911, 

for a period 

from Feb. 20, 1911 to April 30, 1916, at a rental of .^00 
per month. Attached thereto evidently as a part tliereof 
was a separate paper by which the leasee covenanted with 
tJie lesLior to ur.e in and about said premisses only such 
draught beer as the lessor micht designate, the price to be 
^*i5 per barrel. On 7eb. 8, 1911, Kerating (who was manager 
of said Brewing Co.) on the company's writing paper contain- 
ing its letter her I, Tirrote Puswaskis, and referring to the 
lepse "between US'* denignated 8«id Oonipnny's "beer as the 
beer to be used on the premises, ThereHk«--HM>4Jiin^-"te---*ii«.t 
Lat.tar..-Qr the lease that is ambiguottsr as to 4h« contrAe4ual 
relatiMi? of - the parti*a or the naiiure of their, ^oa^fer act, 
,y or thatf ^niatif ies-'^any other eonstrnction than that Ker»1ring 








TWJ'^O .lA^niTlITM 


.00/iOIKO "8:0 

.YTf.qyroD CKIW5iH?T TjI^J^o QAHU 

-ai xJ-"o ^^'^ sjs^ V^,X^^^.' ,101 Soibtitr hiit '^noiiatobienoo 

.inom^bul 9dS lo Xjsuisvsi A_^|tJfci.sJxau9osii Imj^ 

aoolsB lot Jb«sjj Bcf oi aiJteawajr'l oi' assim-TrsT nia.t7--o 
ftox*lrjq & tot ajW'Atft* iX?I ^■'''c; .imZ b»i»b cw--" 
OOIS: 1o Lai not B ist ,dlQl ,06 llio-h oS XXv?I ,'-fi .ofa'i moil 

diiyi bfiiruio&voo ssaasX 9rii ifoiifw \fi •x»qr,q oiaiRO^BS b u 
rfoua Y.Xno easJtm'jTq bi/^o tuorf« bns ni enu o* lOficjeX ?- 

aojjBmsc? Ui^iw ox{w) 5ai^e*x />! ^IIPX ,8 .cTol nO .Xe-it^rf laq ^' 
-nijQ^noo "xaq^q 'untilTw e\ciiiqtnno f>di no (,oO -^jnirrftTK blaa "lo 
«ri;t oi anxiiutai hria ,8J:>[ea«ajj<I »,tciw .i.oeii -r?J,toX «iJt jif'J 

arid' aa tsad" a'^nnqmoD bi'^-a boijpnj^iRab •'Rir rr-»sw:tad'* eo« 

JjijuiJ^ hA— ^wJt<i^ fl - H ii ■ i Bfn ' .aosiflid'xq edi^ i^cf o4^ isod 

XaiiioATiJ noD &rIJ 'oi/sitfow Hi iari* ©aaoX *tW. -la a»;tisJ[ 

,.tOj6»;Jiaoai» liejcij lo o-iwiran «drf^ .ri.o ■SAic^vnq eiU.lo sticx^sX^ 


On March 1, 1911, he again wrote Puswaskis e 
letter, in wt.ich he rofer»4to oaid proviuion fixing the price 

i N 

of the heer and to a verbal understanding that it might vary 
with the revenue tux, and nsked for confirmation of such 
underotandlng. \" rh t l o t t o r - he »ign igg~^tikjBamtgBr~gf-Wie 

ty. Taken yxth'%/ pr^^vioue letter its purport is _y 




plain^i^^amely, that hiving •atercffced hia perapftal right 
(/ Cf n^tracteoXp^ to ieoignate vAiase beer shmild b« -uaed, and 
havijiu]; desij 

mantiger, he therebyNs^ught in his capacity as such manager 
t0 hiive ^^'1)^inding contr?ujt "between the company as seller 
a|id Pia(Bwa8kis hs purcha«or d«^ th« toeor. fio meation nrisos 

Wcro aB to -^e jprice therefor. 


Theji^' f ac tB ape material only a» they affect the 
qieation^whether there was a Joint liabVU.ty on the pfirt of 
djfenda>vt»_f ar,4500 paid by i^UHwaskiB to Xehcsting in addition 
t) the rerjtt'iittid under the lease, and for ,i250\paid the 
B refl^^fng Company for a saloon lioonae for a period ^ItnJ^ri or 
tyv^»flM)tiA* occupation of the premiBea, N. 

"" -"- ^ arrant-cement for the leaoe was Bade on Ja&e 23, 

1911. A memorandum of it, signed by Kereting and given to 
Puswaakia, is to the effect that the latter won to pay the 
former a bonua of ^500 for said leane, and that he then 
) Q '' made a part payment of '>ir>0 thereon, and would pay the 

balance in two installments, -/hich were Bubsequently paid 
to Kereting. Th«*^-ts no annTrgtrity.iitH:*t«-H»«»©rtm*m,-:^^ 
"jjhat the oaid sum .vaa to be paid aa a "bonus," as stated 
therein, was corroborated by Korsting and another witness' 

account of the verbal convereations at Die time said receipt 
or memorandum was given. Against »tt«h interpretation i« '"** 


V _....i 

. ^ •■ ■■' ■ ■ — \ 

/ X I 

lo'^onerfcf aoj.-!','; .^iKi ol Hf» o 


^o ^XBq erfi no xiiX/cfjttiX ^nlot b ewv eiajtU rtaiUsifwNjoi^aeiip 

,i. ; •naX. no ^baia eaw 9bm9X orii xol ^riajBo^ifwrE^a nA 
o^ ncM-ia brio anlioi&Ji x^ i>arisifi %it Ito flii/I>twxo«dfl: . .iiwX 

ffodj art *-~il;t bna .•aaaX blaa aol 005$ lo Butmcf k lorfno'i 

9ri* y./5q JbXuow t>n« .noaisrii 0SX4 lo ^rtomxjao iTiiSq « ©fcan: 

bi«q xXinawpsQrfua oiew x(oid»» ,8^noffllX«iani ow^ ni aoruBXad 

fm« -,«nriNt/i'ioiWi^-fM<^-iiL x**tn5ttnnB on •!-♦'»♦«*? .aniiaisX o;f 

'cce^.+ iw isriioftJB htiB snl^a<x»:X x^ beJBiodoiroo -J jw .niarraiU 

^qlsooi blflc amli oxO ia «noi*B«i&rnoo Xflrf-xoY arf^ 1o ^mjooaa 

»^i noi^faJ^oiqm Jnl rfSW ^anlasA .navis a*'' nu/b^miomam lo 


Puswaskis' evidence thrtt the money w? 3 to pay for "'bonds,' 
WaF TJtj evidence corroborative of his understanjillng, 
is contrary to tlie instrument in vTritin^^vWfiich-h© 
tjooi: liS e^i^iyeaaing tho arrangement. The ra^ififest weigh| 
o|f the evidencfes^s that the money whs paid to Kersting in 
ajccorde-nce with a p^sonal contract' in wt.ich the B'rewerj^ 
i^Rd no direct interest, sand he^ce against the theory of \ 
oint lifibility on which tjB?^. J udgrnen t rests. This alone, 
enders noceBsary a rev^^rsai of the judgment, which I 

includes said sum or/a part thereof, | 

It is ytftneceasary therefore ta consider the i 
evidence pert^ning to the license money. But the record 
: ndicates, ^4hat even though it were recoverable, there ,^b 
10 joint/liability therefor, as it appears to have "b.eeri 
i&idJto and for fwtttf^^^^Conpany, and that Keretlng is hoi 
rifetri-e" tK€ir«£4i|L#/ 


f^fctimsi liisbau atd to evi*«nocroinoo ©onsfcivs on aew sri^T 

Hjiowft'ia ert* riol.fw cti i.osiiaoo Zuaoaijaq & Aii-^ sortsh-ioooB 
^0 \to&di Qdi iBtila'^a sowjI brta ,J'a3t--)^ni i^os-iiu on bap. 

."l09i9rii *isq «\ao inua bina 89f>0/.onjt 
©lit laJbJtanoM 0* aiote'xsrlJ' x^c^bb^^^^^^ al ^I 


42 - 20807 

use of virgilio Cimino, 

Defendant in rirror, 

AL15S3 ANDHO M.'^XON .") ^A 

Plaintiffs inyirror. 

0.F ClilCAGO. 

193 I.A. 2 49 


This was a garnishment proceeding bi.sed 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 comrission due from the Velones to 

The case was tried before the court without a 
Jury, The judgment ajid finding v/ere in favor of Navigato 
for |250, and it is contended that they were contrary to 
law and the evidence. 

The transcript of the < vidence is certified to 
as a atateinent of the facta, n^hether it be regarded as 
the former or the latter it sufficiently indicates that a 
com:iiiBsion of $250 was due and unpaid from the lAelones to 
Uavigato. Apparently no evidence was offered to the 
contrary. Defendants did not deny that they had agreed 
to pay such a comT.iBsion or claim that they had paid it, 
but merely introduced a so-called receipt signed by 
Navigato, which reads "Received a comniseion of .^250 to be 
paid ** etc. It ie apparent from euch paper and the 
explanation of it by Alessandro Ifelone himself, the only 
witness for defendants, that it wji.b offered to show the 
amount and not the payirient of the comrriission agreed upon. 

V080G - S^ 

( V '-tot ,OT/,nlVAI(f .A Ai..*c.^xn 

{ \. ,o«imJ:o ollJtsilV to sasj 

OT HOHfllS ( I ,1011,. ni ini\bnQ'ti>C 

( \ 

.OO.'OTifO '?0 ( / 

,»9at; orfJ- .onimiO oi ocfsslvsli moil 00?.$ lo naanboJcfsbiu 

0* BsnoXo'.' arid- raoi'i sul) noi«ei moo »^a;f3> Iboi blaqm/ 

i) d-jj-orij-Jtw i"tDoo ejii yiolscf bBitS e.iw Sfjso ©rfl' 
o^jsaxvjBL* lo iov.8*J nri ©new jjnifnil bnr. ^rtomsfcirt, eiiT ♦Y'l'^t 
0/ \iRti noo 913W ^i9il;t J-isri^ babriBSaoo ai ii bna ^0^S4 trol 

• •onst^irs siid- bns wjsX 
oi hoi'ii.i'iao si ©onablv > arW 'to iqliOGitati »rlT 
Bfl b9hrtn3sr£ ocf J- J: i&il;t Q.t;' .sd-orit eri^t to ittnixiBiaia a ea 

oj c9noX)M 9xli iHO'il bifiqnu bno 9Mb aaw oesl lo noinaiiumoo 

orit oi ben^fio ajsw ©onabJtve on \;X*n«9i.oqqA .o^aaivsK 

bsoigB bsri x^^^ Sadi xasb Jon biJb e;tnabnyl<NC .y;ic«iJ"noo 

,;fi biaq bjBri ^erfi itarid' oiXbXo 10 noXaalnunoo a lioua x^q oi 

\;d bansia J-qleoot bsIlBO-oa b booiibo'stii'ii ^Xyi-^ni .twrf 

2-1 ££ '^c'SI "io nolaai-moo a bovieosH* abfldi Hoiilw .oias-tvefl 

erii bne uoqisq xfoua moil insiBqqjB ai d"! ,ot» * bl&q 

\lao erfd .IXsHMiri snoXoM o*rbnBt.a9XA \<J it lo noiisnaXqx* 

©rid wcria od beisTrlo saw J-l d-^rfd .BJm^.bnHlob lol oaandlw 

. nogif b^Birsa nolBairunoo &iii "io d-nsar^jsq Brit don bna tnuonia. 


The roal question presented here is the right 
of action in Navigato, The commission v7as contracted to 
be paid to Navigato and his partner. The latter assigned 
his interest therein to the former. It is claimed that 
the partner was a naoesBjiry 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. 


0* bsSoBiinoo a/sw nolaeinnnoo »ilT .oJ^fiaiv^H ni aoiios 1o 

lo 81 nokio'jB lo v^aseeaq arfd^ siolacf b^i9ba9t anoieioob 
.ftffiisn awo alrt ni nooisrii tua o;^ ;tr{aii 

161 - 21138 

ii!, BifiBHLY, 

j Defendants in ^rror, 



Plaintiff in icrror. 



93 I.A. 252 



)r were en5)loyed hy one Tiny ^ 

Johnson to prosecute a claim againr.t plarintiff in «y*^r. v / 

One of them acting for hie firm did considerable work to 

effect a settlement of the claim before bringinj^ suit 

therefor* A auit was finally commenced in which his said 

firm and another firm (the attorneys for pl»4Bttff->W C 'T*^ 

&»^|^ appeared as attorneys of record. FOBt if not all t'^ 

the work connected with the litigation thereafter was 

conducted by ttie latter firm resulting in « judgment 

against rii«=ss»#i^-^»--e*-f^/ for ^*2650, 

After commencement of the suit and prior to 

the rendition of the judgment, d^Ci»4*m-t«" in error served 

^notice in due form m jaftafcn t J^F^- irt—ery^r of their claim 

to an attorney's lien under the statute for the services 

they had performed euid were to perform in the matter and 

filed an intervening petition in said causo to enforce. said 

lien. On the hearing thereof -9i^t?rt±i^--in "errnr was 

ordered adjud/^ed and directed to pay dtd^^^ndTinte in --^rror 


There waa aiip^ evidence that the services 

>r were worth that sum. Tire 

that the contract between 


rendered by d) 

il€ll?. - ItsL 


{ ,y»IHS£2Ih ,i. 

THU''0 JA-ilOURrM 



,.00 JiOACyXKOM s% 'iWf M>\-iT>r»U/\ 

.lOTi;: ill 'ili^nl«X\ 

ivT sr-i -f-iT' T . ■'^'n'r r%v. vT.Tf; ri ;:.Mf'. ,';fi '•,r)l.T;.L'T. ,jtm 

oi 5[iow eXovRi-inhiartoo bib raii^ airf not gnii^OB m»rf;t lo •nO 
JxuR :ini;)fli'icf oiolacf niinXo prLt lo *nsxR5»X;t:f€)a « JToslte 

blMB aid xloxiiw Hi bftonemmoo xXXaxxil i.av Slue ^lolaiadi 

^i-lllJaJtaX*? lol ax9«ao;tcfr. oti^) mtlt iQtiiean baa milTc 

., XXb ^Ofi ti Jao>l .b'jood'x lo B^enic^t^r, 8^ beieeqtjfl -^EMtta 
BJBW leiltBt^ii^^rii noi^.Bai,tiX 9ii;J' liiiw botfoannoo iiov oxtt 

;J-nsmsbi;t » ni snid^XuBeT: flirtit io*;^bX erit "v:d" baloubnoo 

,0eas^ not ^^-s-**- flJ^- %^«fc«*««*(f *snic3Jt 


bovjsa noi"s«^- I _ .. .. . , tft'^-g^birj, efiJ- ':to netftbn'yf srfJ 

fflX,aXo Tciorfi lo io«!y«» - ft.: i-^i r* miol ©i/b al 9olion ^ 

B9o.tvioB sr{.+ TOl 9i^uita.t3 9r{^ lebnJLr noiX e^\,QnioiiR nB oS 

bna i^&ihm fidi al mto'iioq o^ 'jioy; ban beci-xotisq b/jr( yerCcT 

bi«e 3 010 In© oi • noiii;t9q ^ninsr-rsi'ni ma ht>il't 

«;-,w 1'.'- f looisii^ aniii'Sii of{;t nO .K»iX 

tOTi fe ^q 0* brs^obilb bri.-i b3j»bu|;,h« bai«?bTO 


asoivxes ^)xi;t .t&r{;j- aone biro n lifiwi «>^« oiddT 
•itT .fliMu ^flxf^ diiov 9J9W no*l*«»«.««few«i#PtR*'"' '* ' "'"^ ►-.,,. 


^^*^^«i«»**~-i»--«»«r and aaid Johnson cnliod for an entire 
service, including prosecution of the .uit. rx.d that they 
abandoned the contract ana thereby loet all right to 
compensation. Thia *2QS^ over the fact that /the other 
legal firm wa. called in to aid defendants in 'error about 
the time the euit waa com-nenced and conducted the trial 
without assistance from dMi^if^gte^KPTO- . 
J«^thi^k^^ch f.aet ^efea-ted-iaie-right^ cf defendants 
--rror to conqpensation for such serrlceB us they had rendered 
in ^he matter or e^nstituted proof of abandonment- of their 
ee«^«ct. Apparently the other firm was expected to conduct 
the trial, A4^ rate it ^ not appear th.t c^^^^a^ 
i«-^rroT did not perform all the services their client 
expected of them. 


A8|the aerviceB they rendered were on accouaf^ of 
^ch Claim 4d cause of ..^tion they wero such ns clearlir 
come within the purview of the statute giving a lien there- 

a-iltny riB loJ. b9XXP0 noajtrloL bins brm 

-Torino 9ri^\:rr,ri* *oal ori;t -xsvo iS^& "irlT .noilBcnoq^no 

*aoda ioni9 ni BtnBbr.oleb bl^z oi ctl b^liuo a^w mill U^oL 

lattt odi bai-^ubaoo bfM Lt.:— . -ca axjvf Hub 9di atni* eri^ 

cfoijbnoo o;^ bsfo^qxB bbw mixt :t^ri*o ertT YXi««T«qqA .;^Oi»nJ. 

crnailo •li'^.H.t asoivisa vdi LLb miolwq *o« Life totT© «i 

.meri* lo l)9*09qxa 

yXoxjoIo a/3 rfoua ortsw y^di nox*o.» lo eeuao b^ mi«Xo xtox>p 




P af owda a it " in Krrjit, 





ysmoR TO 


93 I.A. 254 


Th 4 * t-wa a' ^< tn- 

;^ i4^.v.^^ p^'--^ ■ ;^.cv.,t ^.iiuu-w^ 

y4Gtion of^rorcibie deTainer. The 

Court directed a verdict for plaintiff and gave judgment 
for posaesBion of the premises, f^--^-^^^^- '^'t'^" ^'''"•^ ""H^^ 

The leaae under which defendant held the 


premises was in writin;^ 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 Ttoverrber 11, a suit for 
forcible detainer wao begun in the Municipal Court of 
Chicago, and on account of ftiilure to pay the December 
rent on demand there for''Dece!Tiber 14, tJie 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-auit in the former. ;)efendu4rit asked for 
dismissal of the latter suit because the former was pending 
when the suit at bar was begun, ifhe motion was properly 
denied ( wrjp^t v. Keifer , 151 111. Ap>, 298). 

At the trial the grounds of defense were (l) that 
defendant had not been given complete possescion of the 
premises leased, he claiming that a m'm of the bnyement 
had been withheld from him and contained goods of the 
plaintiff which plaintiff on request had failed to remove; 

OT Kom. ( 

^viscs - vex 

( \ ,STIVfiOH aOOAT, 

' HHT 10 MOIHiqO/JfHT a?:H?viJ»a eaHHAff aOXTfcUL *»[ 

9x1^ bXerf inahnslei) rfoiirtw 78i>nu ee«»X axlT 


a«vr :tno'j: oriT .Xjsse isbnu fcn» anl^iiw nl bbw •••ims'sq 

9cni^ moil Msq n^arf b.--.d bna 9oaavb,e ni ^Iri^tnom Bldexeq 

B\jiib 9vil s , rioT:9Ti9il;f bmiaieb no rfcfnom i>-.xfi lol i^nsi eri^ 

lol ^iJLf« « ,XI iSiifrtftTOU no bnjB ,fcsvrr&a \:Xijb aaw ©oi^on 

lo ;)"iuoO Xi^t^ioiKuM otii nl ni/sscf sow leniaJ^^b eXcflonol 

locftnsosCI ori* x*t[ o^ oiulxijl 1o inucoos no i>mi ,03«oi:iiO 

,iacr :tB ^ii/a edt |*X idrfmem oC "^olejasri^ bniiffleh no inoi 

loslh ,hlQL ,r)I -jerfmssoQ nu^acf haw ,9ol^on "xariJiwI i^jjorf^fiw 

•nijiXq noi:f ;fs iiua oiiJ- ni ^fneotj^hut siolwd bn« "io aoi;tuiltani 

ao'i bsaToA i-iisbnelscr .^Siiriol hdi ai iiue-non a iooi t^Ii 

Snihnoq aww lamol »xf;f ^tnrao^d tiua iBiiaL &di "lo XBoaimaJtb 

yXiaqonq Ciiw nnJt^om sriT .fu/gs^cf a«w -Xi^d ^s ilua s/fi noriw 

.(eeS .q"qA ,XXI X6X . lalley, .v j;rfa.i^'fr ) beinob 

iiitii (I) Slav/ sanalot "io aijnuo-rg erii Xflii^ ©ri;^ ;1A 

oiii lo noiaaaaaoq e^elqraoo m)vla n?9tf J^o:t it>jB/l inabnelob 

cfnsatsufit'' ^jtH lo sr^^rn b .tcriJ- v.nlmi/ilo s:( .bosssX •vsimaiq 

sxil lo oboog bonladnoo bna nJtrl jnoil bXoxlrictlw nssrf burl 

;9Vomo'i T)i bBilBl ^i^^^ ^faeupai no lilcfnlaXq rioiriw lli^nlaXq 


and (2) that when h« paid the Ootobor rent pinintiff nw^da 

» verbal «greoiB«at tlmt h« could «ta^ una pay no wore r«nt 

until plaintiff guvo hiw poB8«&tti<»t of the baawnent^ Btti 

^^^?-^*-^H"^""»«^«*^ «>i*~4as^^*4aieBion thut before the «ult 

»t bar wtt« b«<jun. plaintiff put a lock on the ba««iseiit .aid 

left th« ic©y with him, wnich h« refused to take becuuB« 

plttintlff had net r«m>vttd naid aoodn therefrow. f lii-^i«w 

wiSi d eliJfery of ^^^^ 

©Ttl(i^ic« th«t dof«nd.;nt rwfuaod to permit the reswovj 

gobdo tWefrom by pl&ititiff *» a^jont isent«r« 

th^. tho\ferise of mnt of |joa,*0»elon ma^th-ut foundation* 

AS to th« oth«?r defenae, not onl/ whs th« agytt^uent, 
tfmado, "witlioui^fciny oonoidor^ ti^m to jK»pport It - a moi b 
JSi^jaactaia,'* {iI^i^rpugh^T,_C&bl^ 140 Xll, 209} bul 
•i^o ions HB th« con tricot contalnod^ith.^. l«aoe und^r «e« l 
r<j«ain«d executory, th^s^l«i«tif/fa,id the right to repudiate 
the pjiTol agroomont tm<l cW« t^j full m unt of rent 
cyotrftctod for." {^now v* \de»h*iXmi^r ^ 23C id. 10«), 

j A* there w.ti no ^i^mice that ^ftrr«mt«d a findAtg 
©i' th« laaue^ of f,ict fo/tho dVend«nt tJ»« ^«.rdict vv*i» i roperly 
dkrectod ualeaa thereto ..rrnr \\i,^, m find none in |th« 
mXUi^^u of tlie ooury4nd no ini* ruck^^is eure CMRjplalned If, 
th« contention th^€ the !«««« »«« t«rAlm.t»d by bringinglthe 
potion thftt w ft.4i5»iaiaa«d and th«t the jW^ »ult would nol 
pt until t^Ji^v R notice to q^it urid-.r thik statute, 1« rL 
j;en»ble, ,J the t«rnja of the laaee oxnreualV wwlve notii 
Nd dop^d, end h«nae non« vmu necu»8^v,ry, (Wm £l £^.1 v, 
(Jlach^fe, 131 jix. 468). V I 

I / Tho overruling of Uie orul motion f^r w^^ trl^l 
at Ahe close of the eaise with ut allowing ndditloaul 
Ipr Ite pre»«ntutim. deprived <^^^nAtm% jaj^^t^^ 
■«ibuiMi--e^-dlht<?T«444)iH «-..-- "—- ■■■' " 


9bim 'i'Miattilq ia»i ^ndoioO 9iii biuq »£C noriw Sikdt (S) brut 

^lu» OtiJ — -.-.: --__ -^- ..- — - ..! nirt 

ft^w#i boos JbJ^A* bovoflutK #on tmct ItiioUi 

'^4 - --• - - - ' ;■ - 


•^«|tbun,o«x OS td^ir Qsii tn ti\iilLU altUa/tttU ,\TeitfDftXft b*nXaaf>i 

(» u ,S'i osr .V wont?) ♦•.no'! halo^^'^ .^ 

:l)nll j9 Jbtt^ mJiTriv. on arv BtniH «A 

YlTtdqoKfa BiA* iolbtov mii tnahtiByKtb Bd$ \ti^ Somf 1© ••unui o 

ffcUl tU '^non bnit o .WAlAm ttttt ;»i«ir b9i09tl 

«lt bfffllaXqpioo avi) tint)M'9»'s.'«iil oa i> dU to vj^rUXin. 
erf*f.grrl8«iitf ^^ ' ' - -^ anw »«a»X '' ^- " '" 

i / 

»|>lloii orkifw yxairoiqxo oiuioX mH lo (Hn»# oril ly« ,oXir«4wi 

• V ♦jU £2. 22SS$L} .XTWiiiBsitoofl 8UW e>«oo »o«o/< baa ^bk^9b bnn 

.f8&* »XXX Xf.X ^oYthliiuni 

c4x^it jma "sot aolSom Uito -i.t lo Bnilintoro o*iT 

^^'.tij^/Ittiiel#iM)ii 2inl*roi lo oiii lo oooXo e. 

boYlaqob «iioli>i^in»«onq oil v^t 




AUGUiJTA ALBl-;i!iCliT, e*. al,, 

Plaint if ffl in j;rror 

JOSilPH PING ■]{,, 

Def emiiuits in 

98 I.A. 257 


CmcUIT OOlJitT, 


-^j>,««h.p Act,^S53K£^:^is'^;teb:i^^'''^ii;*^' 

^er aeet lo n 9 -»f -the 

verdict and judgment vz«re for defendants, w h o ar» 4f^<>»dants 
in^-^fbrnere.^ Plain^tiffs in error rely wholly on alleged 

■■'' uj iX.jT|p;<>'.ii. u^'^^'jU-j'' " '" ' ■ ■• 

The record^coritaint^n*>^deno« nor a certificate 

of the trial judge as to what''ii'"teSdtd to prove, nor any- 
thing by which vm ^- m n dot e rm iae the applicability of the 
mstructiono coiTipIaIneffbT^_.-m«^(H^*»«»t. Ape r^abs tract 

J^^rd, we would not be justified in reviewing unless we Can 
liay ^>i^at the inatructions were vicious under any and all/ 
JircumstmTOaea. ,Ve do not think we can so Bay. even thou|h 
riany of the cri-ti.claina against the instructions have meiit. 
lor instance, they w^«? apparently too numerous and werfe 
iuraulative in char^.cter, and perhaps subject to condemn'ation 
fWr prolixity and roiterat^Wr^a^id other respects. But with- 
ott knowledge of the quantity or quaU|y of evidence rislied 
oil to sustain the caUse of action, we can xot say thaf the 
ertore coraplain«a of were reversible. For au^t, the tecord 
8h|)w8 to the contrary the court may have been juntifi^d in 
directing a verdict for defendants. In such a casf^A- 
would be immaterial what the instructions were. 


SOS is: - J^SS 


,TJnioo Tiuoflio ( 

y' — ■ 

Binoi'ilSiBTi s ion ©onsb loooi ©rfT 



'. LLr bna ^on i^ljnu Q-'Joxoiv ri-iow BiToi^ou^J fsnJt sxl^ J-j 
xfauoiit novo ,Yj8a oe nao sir }Lnltyi ton ob «V/ .e^hJiienu/onii 

4i»w bn« ei/oit;miin oo* \X*n3ixjqq« 9«w \[,»il* ,»Dru9:tBnl io^ 

uoiiBjfflobnco oi #c.9t,cf«a equriioq Jb«« ,'rtt*OJF;'U8rio at ttyiiBiimis'b 

»ritlm iuK .aio&qaoi torf^o ftruB ', noJ:*fl*xe*iBT bnjis ^X^lXoiq 'xo 

beiXa(i ©nnabiv?. lo xi^iX^up to xititiavp siii to oabaXwoixrf ^*o 

oxi* y^itt -^Cjbs cfoji ouo sw ,noi^OG to sawiip srW ni«;tciue o;^ iio 

rtl b^i7t*ou\, no9(S ov«ri xam iiuoo &tit xtattaao miS ot awqxle 

li •a«o B riown nl ,Q^n>»bnelob lol ioltiev « aoi^osilb 

.a-xsw anoxJ-owTcieni •ri^ *flriw X«J:i»iB{wml •cf bluon 

But jwe have exaaiined thoye complaijsr^ of, and 
find no ju3tincfction in a reversal on the ground that they 
materially deviate from a[ correct stMei?ient.^-©f^^a^ra^ /] 
laW. or were Manifestly pr^udicial (^ Wy theory or f acti 

I ivuwv, .-4^n« instruction tells the jury that in weighing 

the evidence of plaintiffs they may taJfe into consideration 
their interest, lout as there is nothing in the record to show 
any defend.nt testified the instruction was not necesnarily 
discriminating or erroneous. Another is complained of because 
it used the word "create** instead of the statutory n;ord 
"cause;** another, because it contained the alternative phrase 
"or did not for any other reason cause habitual intoxication"; 
another, because of a similar phrase anU mere eurplusage; 
another, because it a J led unneceBoarily to the statutory words 
-in whole or in part", the words, '•tlie immediate and proximate 
cause or sustaining cause of such intoxication-; and others, 
because they ^ere argumentative, or did not clearly and 

concisely state the law, 

*^ would subserve no useful purpose to incorporate 
in this opifaion for' the purpose of criticism and more exact 
afialysis those nuiparous and rather lengthy instructions. It 
ijS enough to add that we can not say that any of them is so 
ajpparently, vicious (md erroneous that the j^^^ment wild be 
rjeversed i^egardless of any state of the record. It will 
ti^efore be affii*med. 

-•JJ — 

.^^' , . _ _ '■ -• -■ 

worfB o>1 bioo3i 9iii ni p,niiiion at ointii as ivi ^Jtsioinl TLiari;t 
XXiii^jaaooen Jon Bjtiw noJ::^oin.\f enl oriJ fcailiiu^J in-fenelsfc xne 

iiio<r xiQiu:^BtQ yriJ "io JotieJ-oni "eJ-Bsio" baow arfj boat; 
«aairiq ayiianiiiiLr, stdi boiiLafnoo Ji seufiodcf ,irirLforts '';e8i) 
;"nnii^:olxoJ ni IjBu;ticfarf aawjso noar,©i -xariJo •^na 10 !t ion bib ic • 

sbiovv Ynoc^ud-i;.J-u arid" oi" v.XlrttieasDannu bs>i Ijb rfi 9eu«o*d ,iexl*ona 

»i-amixoiq bna etsiibnrnmi 5^fii♦' ,obiow *>/{;)■ ^"itaq ni lo aloxfw ni" 

,o-t9ffio bn« {"noiJ-fioixoJni: iloiia Tto eaujuo v,niniMj^ajWR 10 seuso 

bns \iX'-:ftXo ;ton bib "xo ,»vici w;>-«©ici;;:jia *<a?;v:- ■^arfcT asuBOsd" 

,w«X 9fU sJ-ftla vXsaionoo 
e^faiocnoonl o* eaoqiwq Xuloaiu on »v'x»«tfu« bXtiov il 

*».BX& oiom bno meioicfirto lo ©aoqiuq •xi^^uol noiqiqo aiii^f i|i 

tl ^smitouiiaal \jrii8"PX isriifli btia atioTpflu/n aaftfli .aiB^^Xar^ 

oa ai mnjii to xna &bAS XBa ton nao ew ^BXlif bb« ti rigtinn* aji 

ad bXupw Jnamjiiu-t arfj^ Jiiriif auoenoina brw awoioiT xLitt9inqqfs 

XXiw *I .biootn orfcf lo ©^aJa yiflir lo sa»Xbti»8»«r b9at»Ta|T: 

.bBtti'-it'iJB »er •lolo't^AS 




Umv.XY H. U?iV\S3irxi;i'i and 
ADOLPH I', m'miZKQ, -.E 
KhaJRY S. STRi»^3m§IM & GO, 

ilef andante in iOrr^ 

vs. i 

JOHN c. mmTTDrGap, 

Plaintiff in \^ror. 




193 I.A. 258 


I \ "^Uefendnnts in error and plaintiff in error were 

j|lainti'ff^ and clefendfint respectively in a ssuit tried by 

^e cnurt wiiboyt a jury in w lich plaintiffs, as licensed 

i|eal estate brokers j'^elaimed a commission of ^!;14:).75 for 

^umiBhin>: a \yould-he purcha*^,, with whom defend.vnt entered 

into a written contract to sell a certain lot and recovered 
jiudgment therefor. 

The r:;cord presents no material queotion for 

review othc^r thixn whether the Jud^mont and finding of the 

court accord with the evidence, and no material quostioft of 

fact in dispute excf^pt whether d-^fendnnt agreed to pay 

plain ti?f s"a" cToJiinii a SiiSi , 

Against defendant's denial of an agreement to 

pay a commission is tlio teotiraony of plaintiff ;;traBsheim 

and hir. clerk or agent, who began the negotiationB , and the 

recognition in said written contract of the vendor 's obligation 

to pay his broker a commissi on. 5 Oi*'-^at-=imint the wedagitt of 

the evia^ta i^~tw-irt:Ui^p^XQi^ijSi£Sk^ 

mate3a*^-%Vt#«ye ^ Ac . ■ M w t^f e f on d ,-m t fixed liis price ct p750 
and Ggreed to pay a c omini s u i on of 2jr per cent, thereon 
(i?93,75)^ tlM«*-]pLain tiffs drew the contract and in it 



c^f^xs: « aa 


2 2 .A.I c«I 

( , iTTm.F ,0 mo 

\d f)9iii lli/a « ni AtXovl;ro9q8eT irmfcrislah bar. Bnictniuln 
b©anGr>xI Rp ,al"ii;fnJt«X<i rfoi V ni xi"t « *Si»«^i^ ^•^" 
•xo't av.^Mv lo nolaaimme- , ' ''.^s^^cn Xj..'-. 

Jjoiocrne .1«.-.^^o^sb mori-^ i«iw ^-r^J^i'Dii;'.; ^^^.--^x^ - .. ,-nirfatrfyA^- 

lol no.utrj0Up XjDi:ne»;Jx;ra on £'. -oo.i oriT 

Jo noli&nup l&tXBiam on faiw .eonoblvs orf* AiiTtbtoooB iiucv 

< t *n©mB»i?)fi nj3 lo Xsinab e'^ne-.bno'iyi) ;f8ni«?}>- 
fflxeiiaaBT*-. ItxiitXBXq 1o xaosai: i noleainwoo b x.f^q 

rroiJsiji-Cc^oa'-xobnoY .JiiJ 'to iosnictoo n^cf^iw blKO rri noi;fia3008i 

..TOt^ftifi^'t''***^* ^^ e-otwintrr-tjrTB 

oeve^. ia Doxtq Bill bexi'i ;rnBbno'\9f^«^wi*-*4^^*t>rti»MVf» lax Tu- 
nc era rfi .J^ no n 19Q ^ Ito nolQBimmoo « \rci oi bsanao f- 
;ti ni bnB *ox«Jnoo aiii watb a'ili;fniivft-**rt» Vv(^'^«^^' 

designated tiio purcnaee price as |38C0 with a mutual under- 

©t^mcJinp; batv.-acn pl^iintiffa and dofenlsnt thnt the exoeea of 

,.jO w n to »it} *va plaintiff a though/purchaser supper od that 

^.2600 vc.0 ti-i« uoi;«ai purcha«e price;^ 4kii»*-Thc contract 
provided for fe deposit of 32CC with plaintiffs ^n earnest 
money to he retain-d by dnfenrv-uit .:p liquiiated du^i.agsa in 
o^.fte t}ie f,ulcd to perforn,. and if retained wa« 
to bo r*|v, iiocl Tir^.t, to Vm payment of any expensea inrurrad 
for the vendor by hin ardent ir, anid mtter. and ^e^ond to the 
psyirent of Yonunr'b broi-er of a co.'-ritcsion of '^IV6.7V> for 
servits-a in ^rocurin ; t.hi» contrr.ct, renrjering the oy--rplua 
to th- T<.nrJorj'H-«wi,ndi*k*-t Jec.wuae of thr> failure of -' fend&nt 
to furnloh an ahsiract In accordance-; rvith tho terr.8 cf the 
contract the pur-h-^er dau^nded of Nna recoired from plaintiffs 
tiift rttaJM of oii.i jurnaat mooQj , 

30 f«r aa the ree©rd shovirB the oarn«'yt laonoy wue 
pry^^rly r-tum«<; oad.^ ^ vicv/ it plBintiffs' apparent 
d^Jeptif^ of the puroftajsjir ^oea not affect the que«ti<^ of 
dclfft?ld^^l^«s liability. / 


it is plain th^it uider «uch A otata- of facts 


Mntxrfs v,.^ry entitl.fd to 4he ^5^50 oAly in oaae the ccintri^ct 

/ f / 1 

/ 1 / I 

flfmsuinmateci and ti^ entii|e contract purchase price jof 

0/ wa6 pead, or in cose the .^2orJwR6 rotainfid au 

liTb^drUed damagea. The aztfnt of/d<^f endant»B agreeinerit -.-aa 
tha|i upon ^e happening of eitl^er/of such eventu plain tiffc 
ai^^t deduct ou^; of the rr.onc-ir $5 J for thr^.aeelveu in addition 
to |ht>ir/coiiiT':iabion of ^93.7^. Lb nuith:=r ..vont hap^nini;. 
lek-^ndWf B liability wrx? libitil to hi;. c, to |«.y 
a ^bBa.r:^osien of 2^ per cent on i::750. : 

A» judij/T'^nt shoal4 i^ve been entered for tirije 

aaig-Ont of aaid cormuisaion, iix. $93,75, the judgment below 

*Q9niviO BJH5 clliJniAxq lii ty/ -jOi^t "io rfiisoqul' « aol l>>s>lu vr. t .j 

rtalr.ns'i ;H lo s/iuXi*;*! .-.rfi to saiH'Osa i.«»rtl«r**ii»..:.;.|*-cof;n4r erii 03 

»xf^ lo flMn9i' Oil* jl*iv.' o!^n«friooo« nl i^o«i)B<fi:. «p ricii-irriii o^ 

utlliniaXy biotI bBTtaost bar. \o IthrvmitU a»*»tft>n«5 *srii ^Tocufloo 

,X©noai *Ken~ ■ ' • ■— ■.->'•■ 

lo nplJ^Voi^P *^^ ^foVllft ictt awo/> TQD'titfp'Xijq 9I(^^ lo cr>l^qpiPi»b 

jt>.-ja*nbo tirfJ »Bi»o ni vino Ofl§ urW o* l^r^Iiiiffft* »t»Tj •I'U^nJ^^iiIq 
In oox'iq 9Qj8rir»'iii/q tomitxoTt okltae miS toxin b«**«BBUfefloo n^w 

alllj-nljalq DJtiav© lioira lo larfilfj lo 8jnin*)qqBri '♦/it noqc •• ■■' 
noiixfba nl 8»vl98ui«*>ji* lot Wt!.^ -^onota sjlT to ij/o ;>avb**b 
,;;nlrft' :qi«i *nov» Tti>iWltJn ^i/a .cjv.c©!;. lo OOidui.mjoo, iti<!»rci lo* 

.oav:;^ an *n»o - rfoi«e>M«M u 

fi-l.T no': h»ioim neod 9VsUi hlvotia , a/- } 

woXsrf ini>i«8J5i/t ori* .flV.C^t .aiv .nolealmttioo 1>1jh« lo *m)ok« 

^rili be. r(.^>t-rBed and Judgment will bo entered here for 
thi'.t mtiount, et^ch party paying his own coeto. 

295 - ;a27a 

\ ) Ai't'Vlfi. FROM 






/' 198 I^''^- 260 

Thie .appeal ia from a judgment f or ij90C rendered 
for the Dlain tiff, ^tain^r, against the raiiroiid company 
on a claim for damages to plaintiff* s automobile resulting 
from a coliioion with defendant's trfin at a public crossing 
in tlte 3tate of Indiana. The contention made is that tt.s 
finding and judgment are agninet the weight of the evidenco. 

Plaintiff charged negligence generally in operating 
the train, and specifically (1) in disr(>>garding hia signal 
of danger and (2) in maintainint^ a crosaing of inadequate 
Tiidth. The Court made a special finding a«ainat him on the 
last ground, and there waa no evidence of neglect except 
such aa tended to eatabliah tho specific charge of disre- 
garding plaintiff's oi(:^nal, and the finding of f^uilty must 
have rested thereon. The queation pre;5ented for review, \ 
therefore, is the oufficiency of the evidence to support 
the conclusion tnat the train could have been stooped in 
time to prevent tlio collioion after notice of danger given 
by plaintiff 'a warning. 

The main facta in dispute bo-^ring on this question 
are the distance of the train from tho crosning when the 
notice or v^Lirnin;.; wau given --ind the time wVien the train 
engineer applied the brakes. Defendant's train was a ao- 
calied fast train, runnin-; eaut on ita octh track at a rate 


ersij - ayi 

or • TO 

uom AiH'i'iA 



,YT«tf03 XOOO \ . 




ft9«xc*bn9'x OoeC: ''tot ^mmshal h moi't at la»<3<j*! «Jrfr 

jjniiXi/esi eIitforao;fu« «»lliini«Xq o* e»»e«..-b lot mijsin o jjo 

r^nlraaoio oiX(fijq a J« nl;.i;h a 'tfrnsbnalnb ri^lw noleiiloo « mo^v 

ai& iijii^ at sbarn noliminoo oriT ,«m^ibnl lo o*alc ©jlt nX 

TjniiBnoqo nl >cXIi^ionoa »oaosiXa©n bosTiirio ItliniiiXH 

Xansla airf 3nii)i«;s(i>ielb nl (X) YXXijoi7io9qu bxi« .nx/j-a ertr 

eli5«p9bxini lo sniaaoio •; Mniniij^nlaai ai (S) bn« •xesnob to 

Qrii no rairf Juniaj^a nnifcnil Xeinoqa « obam i^nworj sdT ,ri*fciw 

Jqyoxo ^o9X89« lo ©onebivs on «av atoriJ bntt .bnuo'xa ^««X 

-^leifo lo ©gifirfj) olliogqa i^tii rfaiXcfalQ* o* b«brT».t '..a, doue 

ieuia Y*I1«« lo anibnil etii btm .Xanaia a'-ili^rniaXq nnXbia^ 

,xj9tvjr 101 ba,tnan&-iq noite9up 9riT ,noo'i9Jl;t baiotti 9T«ri 

i-toqqua o^ BO nebiv* axW to i£on9ioill/Lfc orij ax .siol-^isrli 

rrl beqcoin no9cf srurf bXuoo niAT* 9it^ itsus xtoieuXonoo 9rf;t 

asviji i^anab lo ©oxrfon lo^rtii noiwliXoo oiii ineyi>iq, oi 9tili 

,i\nln-uif a'lliJniaXq \(S 
■ 'i...A:,.:,> -.i-u. no Jinn r.o 'V.tu.reii, ni c^oul ni«m 911? 

erfcr nartv, H'liriBn-xo tiriJ moil nltitS rjr(J lo soiwialb 9rt.* sia 

nx>iii Of{j n9/{w 6mU srf^ bnn i^avi^ ajBw ^nlnxav 10 soXion s'cfn«bn9l9G . eaalMirf wfW bgiXqqii i:^9nijjno 

©f speedy estirnated at between 50 and 6C miles per hour. 
It was afttsr dfirk in June, Plaintiff h-d creaaed the tracks 
from the north and run hie autoraoljile a little off the 
crossing to the west, into o ditch on the south aide of 
defendant* B right of wsy. l^eing une-hle to raova tht> car and 
noticing; thet it» rear end extended over the soutli rail of 
the aouth track, he detached the "teril ll^?;ht" of tho car, 
which gave a dim I'ed light, ran westward on aaid track for 
the distance in dispute and waved the light to thu Hpi-r cach- 
ing train. The engineer auulied the emergency "brake, stopping 
the train consisting of four rullncan ctirs and a oombination 
car, with its rear at a point eotinuited at from fio to 250 
feet or more from the crossing. He could stop it in a 
distance of ab 'ut 1000 feet* 

About 400 feet y/etJt of th':' cro8:int^ wan a semtiphore, 
showing a white light, the oi.-^nal for a clear, unobntcucted 
course, and puraurmt to the comp;my'n rules tJie engineer and 
fireman called the aigjia.! ••white'* to one another when they 
saw it. About 800 or 900 feet Treat of the crossing was 
tlie "whittling pot't" where tho whiutie v?aH given for the 
croaeing. Both the engineer and firoman testified tliat thoy 
did not see plaintiff until just before he stepped from in 
front of the train, which he said woe when it was about 30 
feet away; that they were then about 500 or 6CC feet from 
the crosainfT, plaintiff eatiraated the dictance at 1200 
feet, and one of his witnesses judged it wau "in tho neife-hbor- 
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,' 

There distances are not actually raeaoured but 
merely estimated, it ia n wel j kjiown fact that individual 


mU 110 vliiiL a ^Llc^omoiuB nisi nui hnn rli-zaa ori^ «onl 

■>o 'jbta xiiLoa stiS no xfo^ib o oinl ,3^89w "rf^ o* ^nJtasoio 

baa i.,C! tJxW c?voci oi oXdjano ariJt©H .X'iw "io i'l'Ai'i rt'^fwbnftl'b 

lo Xixit rf^woa 9dS levo iiebnftlx* bn* toiQic hSI &»iii i^niokion 

lot iLomii blae rto b-Sijw^eew nfiH ^tti^kl i>oi wi.': « j vaa ^foiiiw 
-rJojaoi'itfia ;jii^ cJ IrlyiX adS hftv^att hnn ttSuqalb ni doimiaiih aiit 

noi^finirfmor) « bm? 8i«o tumiLit'i tuo't to jj-'J-t^e^eno^ nl«ii arfJ" 

OflK o^ oa moil ia bBifmitatt ;tnloq Jt *a n«»i «;H riilw ,i«o 

s ai &i qo^a hXuoo oH .anJteaoao ^rii motI onoai to ia«1 

.d-got OOOX iu' cf,B lo aanmiaib 

baiow^jf.'ffortu ,'3.«?5*X3 a TO'i Xiift^iiu 'JiW ,i^r{j,xX «»ixriw .8 sniworia 

ba« I9»nian?) ortJ aoXin R'xiwqmoo arii ot ^tnnuaitrq bna ,»9iuoo 

\9tii ftnriw 'ii?fUon.'i <»no oi "iiJl^w" Xuniji^ ?jrf.t b©IXi*o n«moiil 

B/5W j»nlr.Boio s/l;f to J-asn iodt OOft to 08 Suod\ ,$i vao 

Qdi 'lol n&vls hjbw sXiaiiiw f^rtJ" ©"Xaiiw ";faoq jamlX^ulilw* oilt 

YorfJ- ifidi hriillifiiij imtnnii\ httM ^9i»nljj«t;.- siiS dioV, ,8«Xa80i3 

ni rnoTt boLiqoJa »rf aiotarf i>:iit. Xii^nu ItiiniioXg »•>& ion bib 

OS tuodii ar.v ii n&dfi u.ow biatt »ri rfoirlw .fliA'a »riJ to inout 

montt c^Qdt 00?i io OOS ;ruodB n»iW giaw \Btii inxlS ixmrntu i9»1 

OO'JX is ©orcfl;faib 9rii bo;J;MaJ:^2tJ> ttX*«lj!]!X<J .^nlsao'xo •OS 

-locrr'aiort oft;^ ni" ;i:»7 .tx bPH^:;;^, noaBsn.tir alri to ono fcnfl ,#»»t 

i9fW-o »rii b«a ♦'.oXim <{ to taitaup « no *09t OOOi to boori 

bib* oil *ftr{i btiiiiiabti iud ♦'sXlm « to i(iiiaur b iuodH* im 

no oi id:^in in 90!XRiaib etii onbi'l, bX -oo xhcxfxntn worf ©as ion 

'.tnloq o^aiuooA 
iu(S banuafioiH xLLBUion ioa sia aoonftJuib o»»riv. 
Imjtlvibixi istii fotil tmonA ..Xow n si li ,bo.tBiaii»» Y'^*"**"™ 1 


opinlone grer.tly differ, deperidinf^ on 'flJitj-Lher the judgimont 
of the inlividu-l ia ^tood or bad, ;ind without he is Bhown 
to 'be specially qualified from either nicety of juogment 
or special experience, there is no »?ay in the abaence of 
ooroparison *ith son© phyaioal objects or xuiown data by wiiich 
the superiority of the judgment of oni; wiitneisa of avorage 

^ intelligence over that of imother can be detrtrmineu. In 
the CO 13 F)t bnr there *aa no way of doteinmining the precise 
position of plaintiff when he waved his Irjjrrp, It waa a 
pure gu38fl ;»t hfst. The very ;'orrp of the testimony so 
indicates, and the very circuir..; lances under which the were forrcod rondered tJiom more or leso uncertain. 
Plaintiff wea netur&lly conourned with impending conisequenceB 
wore than neaeuremantB at the tiir.e. He wuij under uome 
excitement and runninf':, as he said, one fifth as faut an 
the trcin smd r«n weat of tiie semaphore, but did not deny 
he war, e»8t of thn whintlinp poL«t nor deny that the distance 
of the latt*-?r from the crossing was as testified to by the 
engineer, Thpt poist and the semaphore were the only two 
physical ohjf>otB with •which compariBon was made, hut their 
distance frorc ths crosi'ing >•»«.& also eatimated. Plaintiff 
Raid the Bernaphore, as he paced the distance, vfofj under 500 
feet froHi the crosoing, and tti'it he considered that he was 
more than that diatanee west of It; the fireman said it was 
about 4Cf^ feet. The engineer testified to the diBti:?no« of 
the whiBtlinn: post, find Rnid it wns about BOO or 900 feet 
A^est, and thnt it waa paHiaed before the train reached 
plaintiff. Plaintiff's witneoaes hi-.d to judge of the dis- 
tpnce by lonkini'; from the crossing which they had just 
reached before the accident. Owing to the? darknepn they 
could not see plaintiff, but saw only hie light, as one of 

,. then) test^ified. An estimate of distance formed under such 


tn^muiiiJl edt t^iU^jnw no j^nibnaq®!^ ^'^n'ilXb xlis^^n^ Hnoinieio 

fwroi-ie «i Sri #MOri#lw biw. ,bBcf 'to toov, si Xsi/Jblvihril «ftJ- lo 

;^n9mabi/t "^0 Y.^3oi« lariiia aionl b^illiaup xXX«2o»q« ;o o* 

lo uon-sccfs orfi ni y.-w" on «i ©loitJ ,&3nsl79(?s:9 I«lo»c« 10 

rioiriw \tf i»Jai) rworni t;g sJaotcfc" li\olur^tiq omoB riilw notii^qmoo 

ni ,b<>njt«nc»i9b od nno lari^ona to ir.di iravo aonssiXX^ini 

ssloBiq odi anxniimo^oJb 'io v;t<w on a/iW meriJ 11c/ *« oero oriJ 

B K:,w ^I ,qTisX Bill bovAW 8il ndifv T'Jl.JnteXq to noiSlBoq 

on ^aomliu!ht oiH lo mao* x-xav silT ,i»ftd" ia eaeii^ yTW«3 

oxU fioiriw labntr a*janAJaai/!>iin x**®""" *^>^ ^"*! ,B9*«olfcn| 

,nl«^'it»am/ aoeX 10 ^Tom a&dS botubn^-i boaiiol siow soiAmtiee 

saonaifpaanoo snibnsq^ai rfJ-lw banioonoa YXXaiwJ-an s/jw lliinlaX4. 

©sroa lobnu Oijw aH ,ftraii orii ;t« a^nsmsiuaayxn tiMiii aioai 

rsii ^tJs'J OS rf;jm ono ^hlaa &ti aa .snXfim/i ban icw^ia^itoxo 

Xnab ;fon Mb Jwd ,ft"toriQara9e ^iW to ^Bew n«Tt bnm niaiS 9x1+ 

sonfj^aib ifdi ^adi 'inffh ion *> oq nniX-tBlriv; >*r{.i "io .ta!?9 ii,-:^ sri 

ericr x^' o<^ bailXtao^ aa «bw jinl-ieoio sri^ mo^'^ n-liiiX "^rt^ I0 

owi^ v;jtno i}iii »i»w »iOiSq*(K9ii •j/W bne .ita&q i^T ,io«ftijino 

•xie/(^ cfju<£ .absm aow noalifiqiyoo rfoifir ri^iw a^to'*^^© XcoieY.r:q 

lli;fflxaX«i .b'*;fi=ifflxJ89 oaX» a/w anl««oi9 »iU MOil •onciaJtb 

005 isbnju aav ^ootmSeilb fidi bvi9«q erf sa .sTorfqjBWwa srCl biaa 

a*jw 9X1 ^Hff^ batablonoo srf i( rf* bnn ,B«Jtf««oiJ) srfi aiatJ *»•! 

8«sr +j: bi/;o ^KflK^^Xl fi»ri^ j*l lo *a»w »on«*Bih *./l.t ti^i-Ci oio« 

lo eiotiHSatb edi o;f b^Jtli^us* lasnlana orfT .*o»t JO* ^Lforf* 

;tjjs>t )0Q %o 008 ;^«ocfa anw ^Jt htuB bna ^Jenq j^nl X.» Xrtw edi 

budon^i nisiit &dS aiotad b&aanq esw ii S^\di bn» ,cte»w 

-Bib »j1J lo '^sbut, o* b>ari aoouen;Hw o' lliJnxiiX*! .lll^niaXq 

iBUl bj%d X9di rfoidw snl aaoio ndi moiJ iniafooX x^* •nn»* 

\9df UH9aiLxnb yrf^ o;f snlvO .inebloou art? oioldcf b»rfo«9i 

to ono as ^Jfrlj^lX aif{ x-t«o ^^JQ ^"^ ,'tllJnl«Xq ©oa *on bXuoo 

rlot/8 T.'bm; bejoiuol ooftnJ-eib to oSamiiem nA .balliiQai msiii 

eircnunatances with no fixed objects at definite diBtaricoa 
with which to maKo comp;.,riBon doea not afford a Bound basis 
upon which to base a verdict or finding when the burden of 
fixing the distance rasta upon the party rolying upon auch 
estimate and v'hen it ia contradicted by e lually credible 
evidence given by peroons shown to be more firoiliar with 
the locati':*! und .hose daily occup; tlon requiree thom to 
exercise knowlodj^e of distances. 

It app<=!ared that the train could be utoppcd in a 
distance of about inoo feet, find we do not think that there 
was a prcponsloraiice of evidence that it run more than thnt 
diatance after d-jfendanfa snrvantB had notice of the 
danger, nr that the brakoa were not put on aa soon as they 
received such notice. yhen we conuider that It was dwrk, 
that the speed of the train was nearly a roile a minute, that 
the railroad signal Jirua set for a clear way, that plaintiff's 
lamp gave but a dim light, which ralccht well pass unobserved 
aa def on'iant* v5 svjrvtints in the exercise of duty were watching 
the important block and crossing signals und( r the engines 
strong headlight, and that the dietances in question are more 
estiinates, a alif^ht varintiTn from wtiich would change the 
entire ground for the chMrge of negligence (provided the \ 

brakes were promptly applied) we regard the finding and Judg- 
ment contrary to the weight of the evidence, 

,'hilG olaintiffo witnenonB teotified to circumotances 
tondinf; to show that the brakes did riot appt^ar to he set until 
the tirtje of the coliifiion, v^e thinK the poriitive and circum- 
atantial and corroborative evidence to the contrary is 
entitled to greater veight. 

The record shows thot dofendant*» counHOl said 
he wanted to introdvice in evidence an opinion of the 
Indiana isupreme Court and was given leave so to dc, but 

aoorwitatb 9iint'\jh iis BiO!»tffo f>' ;it on riiiw s90xi«;*aRttn)iiy 
lo na'oiud orW narrw sniftnil 'co Joibisv x^ »e,f»rf •! iCol; 

rtiiw ijBlXJtmJtT: oiom »rf o* aworia Rrtoai»r; ^rf nwiris »0naJjJtV9 

fi ni b')(Tqoi« ocf bXfJon nJti^nJ' srt^ i«rW baixsoqfii*! ^I 

et'jrfi irrf^ :ls\liiS Son eb «w i>fu ,*«©'t OOOI 4i/c«fjn 1o oonis^uj:!) 

iiitU njiidS oiom no's ii ijAdi •onaMvs* "to souaiobaoqoiq » uaw 

»ritf ^0 soiion bfirl ainfivn^^a a 'J'rm!:)ns»T:sib ifiJ-lx-. 8f»niid"alb 

X»rf^ R3 noo8 f!j!5 ito cf«q .ton ^i^v a«:>f*n:tif 5*ii^ i-Bjn'»t ta .loatusb 

^ifti^^h ajRw ^i tmii isbittnoo t»w neil* .ooiJcn iiou9 tpfieo©*! 

s''l1iSnijRlc[ Jeri* ,vj3W n«oXo r. lol ;f©a ajfw X«ngia bao'tlisi sdi 
fosTToedcrfu saaq XXow iiiijiip iioiii-»t ^irtyiXZ tkik « imf fvs^ qmuL 

■^nidoSm' oiovr \itst) to ottioi9K& orfi itl aytu',Yti>a B^tOAtno^^L aa 
Bonisna &r(^ s.^knu aX«n3JtB jjniBBOio biir. iaolcf itmi'toqml fsdi 

arid' d^Airfo bXi/ov dalr{» eno'xl nr-iiatruir ijt;,lXA « ,tt»^«m2#89 
»ri* bobtvoiq) oonoaJtXxs'v'n Ir :>'gT; «rfi •sot bnuot^ »ii.tn8 

R'^onfljsinuo'xin oJ^ b^ilitnot Q«n»;enJ^Xw a 'I'ii ?nx«Xo oXirP; 

iJ^ruj ^98 9(1 Oct Tnoqqa i^oii Mb B93Lai(1 adi i&A) woii* oS ::)iiibnoi 
-TCMoiio biijj svKti ioq siil jfnXri^ 9w ,flOiai;iXo» 8rii !• *mlS »di 

,td^-Uo^ ts&aniji, oi b9LSltn(y 
bkna lOHnuoo H*inBbnx>1&b i-t\di anoxia bioo&i oriT 

«f(* to nolniqo no oonabivs nl aouboi^ni oJ bairuiw sri 
ii/ff ,0b oJ oa o\a»l ntsrt^ nuv bna *iuoy sme-xqtia ArwlbnX 

it doeo not aff Irni.tivcly appewr that defendimt availed 
itsself of the lenve given find actually introduced the 
opinion. But if it had been introduced we do not think 
its oraisGion frorc the r(;cord preuentEj a ouae for indulging 
the prcGuroption that tho omitted evideiice would support the 
Judgment, It would really have preucnted a queution of Ikw 
rather th&n ono of fact, 

Tlie judgncnt will be reversed with a finding 
of fact, 



^nidt ion of) ow i>£>oyl>oiinl n»9if buri it tl *«(?? .noirtlqo 
silf iiociqun bluow aonahiv© b9«*Hmo orf;f iaiii nox::qsniai)'xq Bdi 

295 - L'1278 


.Ve find that tho appellant, Pennaylvania coaspany, 
WE8 not fiuilty of the negligence charged in the declaration, 
and did not manage nor operate its locomotive engine and 
cars negligently and did not neffligently disregard the 
oignalo of plaintiff jig alleged in the declaration. 

evGi:; - qp/. 

inoLtflijiIojo arfJ al bor^,iiido «onoaJtXa©ff 9ff- 'to xcfXlU;^ ion saw 

b«a sniga-j ©vicfomoooX a^X oia-xsgo loii ajji^jnam Son bib baa 

Biii bxa'^^iBib \lin9^ii->i&n Son bXb brua x;X;>na3lXs»n eiao 

,«oi*«X3X09b &xfj nX bagsXXja «« HXirtX/iXq lo uXiinaiy 

6ol - ^0959 

lAppellees, ) 




193 I. A. 279 


Tnia is "in appeal of liobert T. Brydon, indi- 
▼idually, from the decree of the Circuit Court of uook 
County, entered August lii, 1914. 

;<'or the reasons atated in the opinion in ceae 
^(0, ii0938, this diity filed, the decree is reversed, and the 
cauae reirxanded with directions to disMiaa, (a; the uili , nnd 
amended and Bufple/nental bill of complaint of Lydia i- . :je- 
frc£B, and (b) tiie respective cross bill* of coaipiaint of 
John F, Devine, as adiViiniatrator of the estate of France* 
£. hill, deceaisea, ancs of John y. , Kitciien, aa adakiniatrator 
of the estate of L,ary Bradley iitchen, deceased, ssppelleea, 
for v/B.nt of equity. 




^■:-, .A.ieer 

.M<?I t&l iau^uA bBiaiae ,y^"uU'^ 

bntt « iiid 9x1^ («) «c«Jt(iTeiij c;t aaaiiomib tUiw iiBbamtasx saujso 

-9(1: .ii. iiibx»^ Id iMXJiiq^uD lo Hid inia9a»lq<iuB bna Jivbatraus 

lo inxjBlaffiOd 19 •1X14 ttaoi^ 9ri^a;»c{ik»'x mii (d) i}nji ,«'3atl 

««99XX9q<iA ,b»a899»jb ,a?>iioiiji X9ltttXiL XIaJ, 1o jjJjsJs* 9Xi.t lo 

74 • 20306. 

Appei !*.!»«, 

HH, Fi«iix>xsa mmj 

198 I.A. 280 


1?* *n ?«i-»*s/a fyaj& lie- Jud^i«»f.t for #2,eteO•00.' 
J8(,n4 00 8t» «!ip»t9rft4 % iii'^ k,u«l«ij>«iil Go art ^f c;|tio*.i^je /in n 

I ,. y... _. ^, ,. ,. ,^ [/ 1/ 

W* .?• Httlliua & C&m»A^, or w^uoh w. F. liallim 
1b pr'^eldtMitt in a Florida ooippomtivti engttg<!K$ Ir. th« 

l»u«i»t?Be o.r \juil<ll«g, coMtractijig, «Ana in th« smin of 

FloaPida laanu* Coiau time prior W vTniiuajpy IS, iCJlS, oaa*' 
B. J* MBiil«r«^ pri^'alv;t?nt of the 01a»©ifled Ad v:-0;;4>ariy, 
an ativ«rtlsiiMg, «ori,»orati>jn'? Hn princApRl offiot* in 

r3.eiria4* i;^wp--4i»«_-iJU**®-&«--4»# soliolt^bui udvertiisiiMr, for iiis 
«o»#i!irty. In tJs« rtogotiatlone b<9tw««a x,infi&is twi man it 
«f»iB rftpir^s«nte<i tii/^it thss vHaBvifiuRd M ^ojapasiy i«,« finanoi* 
iall.v rf}i<«,:.>cs«iBiMo|>''''tl»Rt if jwrtstittad t© aonduot «!-« siuvsrtifo- 
in^ «jvu,piaign for trte liallam .^Joimjawy, Uie r^tssult wvuiu prove 
of g;r<tat raXue to tte buoins^Bs, in thOB« UiucuaaionB it 
ttwearnd Umt the Ma.l3i«wa Corspsny vould net "ba able to j^ay 
in oa»h tUe aMCuwit of xmney required to ©onduct thi» eaaa* 
'l^gtt if «jr,vt)'rocl into, ana tufrpian of j>;ivirH^ aote* for p^".ft 
©f thi«. ruori«y «.-;.» ciieOttfc»e'Sii, ana i» tu« e&uri.© tK<rfr.of it 


tiliiO:^ -I „t ": 

08S .A.I 6GI 

^'.■) I>J^■.;ovlI?5:. ik'l 


9dY.^00 •rf# I! 

iiaofi at 

mm ntkik^ kHOwa tha aia»8ifled A& Cosijiaity would imdf*rt«ik« / ^ 
to nftc^-otiattt th«8«! not«« throuich one Ben^iimin F. Pa^*', of 

far UiiB udyeitiaXrii^ omaptkign Wtt« submit t«?d to the ilallstra 

Oo«aj?«^ny >3y th« Gla»«tfi«ci Ad 'otip^ny, ia <a lett«r bi«tst«r 
{late^t^ Jsnuitiy 10, 1912 acidrf'8i^« ; to ?• /^. HalXwa k 
a©B#ai^, LakslAiid, Florida, sl^neti by tli« Claofiified 
Ad "cir.jptany, j?«r B« J. 3u8»iere« 9r«"«l<i«nt« ?h« H«,iX»ia 
GoKtpany slgniflnwl, ito accnptanse th. r©to by wtaiinfj on 
sjiid l«tti«r that t)vti proi,oeition ooati-^ln-Jil th'iTjfin ^«i8 
fully a«^ irr«focttbly acc«,pt«Hi, This l®tt«r ?ma Bubittittea 
i» $n9r»<iin by 5iu»«ioro to Ui« Hallsua ',:k>aii»ar^y , sum all th© 
aign&tures afftacaii to i:.aS.u impe?r anci the in<iore«::<i«tnt« th«*rf?on 
«•«•• iOiRde at J-JsUfielaad, Florida en Jtunmiry X9 , 1912. i-iald 
pro;ji)«itien proyided tSwit n so no i deration of th» HalliUR 
Josj^any plaoing vith th*i aiaosii ijtd Ad Octs^jany an adYortioo 
ing appropriation of $12,eeo.OC, th«i :lo»Kifi»^d Ad rowpany 
agreed to furnleb in a thorc\»^:h ba»ln»Belilc« eompet#nt 
iWBWiuer, fi«iitln-rt-- ady-j.tisin^ in the b©st available and 
saoot valuablft madluaju. Vh« ClaaBifli^d Ad -o, ■wuw to 
eatftbltah and iaaintain a «6ll equipjcd corrwspondono* 
offi«e in Chioi*s<> ^o adyaaca the int>-roct» of the Hallaa 
Coiapany in connoctioa wit;j tha advertiains caapaign, and 
to ^Isoft in charge' th«r«?of a ooapfftont coryeapcndont «s 
aaaa^ter, the «X5>«»«« of which via. ^l,oc>C#c>c wa« to b© 
paid by U-ie !?4ill<Aai ^'lojapany. Xh« Slaoisified Ad r;oay?any 
was furth».-:i- to preparo the lit':T®.turo required for 
th» uuooessfui prooeoution of the ndvariisiny oacipaign 
and to au'^erriea the publication of all oueh lltaratura, 
the appropnaiion tJiercfor (:|8,COC.C0) alac to bo paid 
by the Hallant '3©japany, Th© Inesifii^d Ad "^owpany 

-r.^^^> is^^sX sn ttl ,vt«<(^aa'^ bA iK>niB««iO 9(ii ^rf 

•.;5fl.tCft«f /' »r :nt - ^iian'ii>b« Sj£v7I ,01 X'^'iswjal _ . . .. ..^. 

na^« .altJtKolV ,lMaMLCfi3(»J ,^ffMp«#o 

' ?3f?,Si| Tto iioi«ali[<3<n«Q« sal 

'.m ; ^>Uiinm» i8f»tf qrij ni »riiaii iSTba iintaBn ,t»m;v 
«v .T:.>i' .or- UA bfflXiaSMl^ %^' ,»k;^- : - • 

•lot Jb«%jli/j>ftrt ow*« yt „^^ 

" ■ ■' '^'^'■''** 8«i«llt»v. J i/O0«o«q itfl«««.«}«tf« 8,i;r 

.'^•i.wi^ii»#ll <foi/a lU JO n<>Ji«;>*i^«<j «rii •ein»qM oi teiA 

.i I Ml '*f1 a^ 

1-: v.«f 

further ivgr-^ed W laubadt proofs of (^saxh pi«c« cf lit<:'«ria* 
ture for final uppx-oval. Xhw oompansatloa tc hv rf?c*yiv«a 
1»y the :ifi»nXrX*^ii Ad ':eat>&ay for lt» e«rvio«s in oott^uct- 
ing. thli. «Miv«rti»ia4.!; campalga, to l"iv «■ coJSJKicoica of 3i 
g*ll 0'^n% ,oT Ui-iJ grofls reo^ iptu s-v^uultliJii fron the &<iv«rti«- 
in cfi .Daiga, either dir«otly or i«dlr*>otXy« 

In » 6iiei>er«t« Xeit«-r of tii© f.^tt-* 4At«, the Cl.R««i« 
fied Ad Company suttjcaattteil t.^ifi.t th* ?ls.lta»a Ccmpsiny roiusi^ 
rceeiv« aau ilo ^liiv.OOCCC i#oriii of 1»U0ia«a» us u re^eult 
of UiQ adT«trUaivi» «p^roi>3p4*iioa of iX3,C-Cie.v.-C^ it felae 
guara»t<;.e<i Ui suj»«rv4a« tae Jtittraiure »Apeiidit»r« oi' 
18^000. t<J tmo. tiK? ■::uiO!*4jo office «Xi>«mdituy« of li.CvC.OO* 
This i:uap»nt«^» proiri<il«d Ihai if tiio ;staiai& Gciuivany should 
fail to receiv* $lde,CXX-»OC ttcrth of bu©iac»« •arithia 
one ^«jwr fro« t;i»« d»t« of trnterlng into th- aur«5et\ttat 
uforpfcaid, Uie ^•lA»8ifl«4 M 'V^aipaiiy w5;'Micl rwfun^ ?8 
Mil £SiaS^« ®'' ^^^'^' total onttri^« for cftia K.«rvice, 

In aoccrti&nee will th* «^rt;«fia*3?iitii entered, into 
OB thio <iAt»» the ^ialla;-ii ■:oa»pftJiy Jjavw to the Cl»»«ifl«ii 
Ad 0O2^Any in full paya<*nt of sicne/s a«ed«a in th* miiu^isn» 
inoXuaiiig the ««s>«raoitur©B» |-6,C-00,0C in G^^rtirioirt<?fc of 
d«poeit, aswl $9»C!00^©0 in tii« torn ©f no tee. '3;-h«f riai-* 
sttCMi ©a was c-n« &i" thyts© «ot«e and was for the tiUia of 
$2,0CC,OC', payaVle on Cotolaer X9, 1912, Thio not«, ao 
well tts fth^^r r*ot<5fc. V3i» A»ted JiSwfiuai^ i©»X912, |it*yabi« 
to "i/. I*. Sfellaa « OQim&txy, at tho First Sctiori^l M.nk of 
La^«l«uid» Fiortda, witxs int^-rest from, imturity at th« 
rato of IC 2Si: itiiEk»£^ Ma\2S* '^^>' ^**''^ «=li:35i<*d "by 
¥» V, HallswB * Ci-^tapan^ per H, F. Ilallwft, an'i inaorsed 

by W, y. Hallam & tlo^any and by 7/, 3?. Hallara individually. 

iC to ooioaJtamoo a ?»rf o^ .r^ -:ttilt»Vl>» 3 id* '%fil 

.u<wr v^joiQmaJ^ autlit^ #- *«^ffflX«ursi viiMeM</o J:>A b#lt 

•OO.DOO«X| to a-ui^lbnoqXft 4&i1l» •^ael»;C »rU tots C^«00d«S$ 

n^ljMiiaiiO mtU tti b^Ukmm' *\-^ ...■:m\j^ Hut al ^Hi-.y..: 

■1© «ir« mU lol astr ^....: ,... ,v.- w.A-.. . .- »...-. ^-... wa l>s»ii« 

/^'•lii^vH .JSiei.oiys^uMW^x, 6«^«a> »i» xi»a 

iHisiotiaX t>?t« ,««XXit?» /^ »r «»<{ ^A^oC' * «ft«»iX«H .t •¥ 
.XXXa«lJlTXi)«i ofiXXa:. - - •/ i>nn -^gxoM^ «^l^t^ •« •'^ ^C** 

Thin ttftt* mme into the ;.»««s9*ft«io!; of ^.^ T. 
auiwU&aii aUovAt :e;)tw*k»<i;y 2C or SI. 19X2. It 'iv» du« 
October 19, 5,912 ♦ r..«fcr'^ its f^iH.turitjr it •*»» t«.k©n ov^r 


th*>r«ror on Uie Wck» of tl^e c<>.'gp*tr^. It \^>j/&.ai!t at 

:ri«tuj*16y *mi'. th. r«up<5n »ult ws.b lEtstitutwd Rijixinst the 
H«ai»;-> ^op^j^ftfijr ami Mi, Hsaiaa p«rsormlly. V^ tho .f>l»ia^ 
tiff ?fo;i!iJiJ.»jy, iJ5 wJitdi t>v? <»<l^aent was »ntei-ffl<:i rroia 
whioA this ti^^^util iwM u«f*sn ,jr»t'»?c;ut«<l« 

flMliit*it«ea«ct of ci&ia ehc-'«i^ tli^^t i-t wiik « 
Bult bated «|»ott a proialttwsry mti?* D#f*M$^watR, in t.h«lr 

afflc&vit cf ia<«rlt«„ .nlleg«4.l p 

^t^X£^^^ '&t th® Gu«Jdl&e}» Mvertltflne 
Cc-s>4>aRy h,nrnc..t ^ou-i'Vit **.««;: vt©er n^ t nc.»f ot-r. tJ£« 
not* h«i'« eueu on^ 

^ -^%iSQtiXi^, ^nat th« plaintiff ftt tht^ tia^ of 

U«^»««w^^ had CTOttoft i i f MM fi i nt tbmt the cv^«. 

cidM-etic» f'>f ii^^^U 3t'tc h.c fsilcd Bxc: .r.t 
were gcod ana nuffioient d«f«no#» to aaid not«i M 
betYrt'*'^ t):e Cla8$:irtf;«l Ad >u.;p««y ^^^- J^V'''ii'^^« 
K. PiMg* on th<j on« »i«ie, aa*. t4w»« deferrtUaiita on 

^i^fei^ Tfevat U tr: ti t^- t^.^ ir«lt^r,J^4 
©uroh«8« of urn n©t« to*r«-«w8ti^Mi^ thfl .unuAaon 

had «utth i^^od«« of th« fttote «ujti oirouoatanoftB 

J? cinuidftf^tloa^a to t«li>t tlift entire tranaaotion 
-elth frauJi Hr,-. to :^^*XSi th« yu.reh&siJ'ii, oi uaiu :?>• 
!trua"t ¥j/ Uifl Ouroilaoh A JI i i.M ' ti i »*«t; Cot.pany an act 
la bs.a fs.itiij ^ 

^^ourtJaT V^t a* *^''''^ ^'•^^*'^ "^ ^^^^ pretended 
A*w«*8*sir -.0i6;<aay, no p^y^^eet m« fa«':i<? tu r«ojj; 
\W^^. b'r forts Rnv .K^ra^ai ms '^'''^**, J^^Ili;* t; '^ 

.i»Tt4*rirK' -capany am" Ix^ e.^: i^'^re an- «^-^m,g had 
t»«aoitt« aware c^f «-? drfenst olaiia«d ^3^.^*^ Z:^;- 

, foi>v1*i* noi« >»ad fail .-4. .«***«-^»^X-a«t t>.:at th« 
^/r*C:^--«ot« had t>e«i*a BBCttr«d frora tswa^ -^ .finuiintc Dy 
fr»udul<^nt practice* , ^^nu h. a knowletige of euoh 
othftr faots an*; oircnuaBt»na«» ac to iiiak© the pur* 
ch«M of tiiA r»te ^-thyth Ai»flii!ittt My;r » * <i i^ » K 
HMMW affiount to an act of ^>»d faith." 


» SAW ^.t i«itf ftft«,-9il« ml^io to ^a«is»#j»^i^«ir^ 

j^a^i i*i»it9 *Aoa •i«o 

no tiJiuAun9't9b WIIIT SMlft .Ml* 900 

'rij . act i-m«v«»i .«•«<* rf 'r. 

.J£.A. iUi vt**^^^/ 4,»n i* i i ^)i i iwiA Ofifixim. 

lie r ; 


.'. *«.V^ ^iU-iJual*^ 




the noto «,»« testlKciOwiy that it iwau uaip»i4, r^r'stf^il. Thai 
OYiai^ucc? en bisilmlS of d«f«>ndunt8 aiW>y aJrto-«eu i^mmtt 
|^^M)«fe.i««^l4iHa«tn a 'br'mah. of the «»irem3.«tJ8 «nt«»i-ed into 
by th«» OXaoBififid Ad ''^oajpafiiy itt <sonifidoration of •sfiiloh 
tho not« in queutiona among oth»>rs, v^ito «x<route4 Jiind 
deXivsTfici; timt th«i® hsat been st brcactii of faith in the 
negotiation of tho«« no tee on tii« part of the Olassifiedt 
M Goais>«jrQr «m4 t) tis^ title of the »«ld -ajterif i«tS Ad 
jJojs^msxy to »4a,itS iii«tntiR:i«»nt wa© d®f»otiy«^ 

cst#^ S., oh« 98, m40 on the plaintiff to pp^e that". 

t or kdW h«l«i#r froa whota it d©riT«s4i itro/i^itie wa» i. 
4oi«i«u- ia 4il# ocurwe, Vndf^r aeo, b2 of ,-th" afor*t'i<»nttfrn#(4 
riot» a holUftr >« du« ©ourfii<» i& r®QUi^4 to pro'v* that/ 1^ 
i^utruaant 8u«d iKjffei.B ooiaj>.l«t® aird r^iiular on itci f*lo#,y 
^^ ttimt it bP0a«« thft IridSUler th-:|:*^ef bc?f©r?* saaturity, ***»*«-*■ 
I -^ithout notli.x* tkr5;t it\^&,^^r&riou»l-^ di»hon©r««l, iij «u 
-slaB th«i ftxct, that it t?>Ok Bald note in (.jooii faith lOr / 
"falut^ tmd thttt at t>^.«* tirae o- "^^cK ii«eotiation it >4<^ i%9 
i«>ti«« of ttn>' in.Ptsri:iity or 4^fe«t iVsth« titl« of t|a« 
|»®r»on nego tilting it. mwth^:^^- at .not v)Hintiff wtip « 
^itier itt>rfu«t oourft* or had deyiVKJ'd its titl«Nfroa 
hol{ie|^4a du» Hours*, waa an ir' ue of f»ict uMer^,. 

^^■'-«.>,,,,,^^.^,,^,^.,45jj^^ ^vislii'n^'je on b«;^,half of tin? 


tytwidflfd to ivho'iv that pljftintiff, of vfUiaiii 

S, ?, OunUlitOh wiia X'*3i''*^<si<'''nt, «?«•» a corporation d' Ing 
a general a<iv®rti»ing buwiU'^aB in th« city of ;vhio»,t:fO} 
that thfe j;,I)tii, OotapaTjy, of w>ii ;';h- tk« tt ttid i'»ge was 


faoltla«aiO ««£# to itaq 9d3 no B«;»on a ■ ' «a 

fcA fe»l:^ii««Xr fci*« •rfl to aiili *rl4 j ^ . .^>A 

q[ OKI ttl;rniftl<i Mli no »aw ,09 tJlo ••» 

t-tiiw ^I.^i^^,a*jt b9'fiX9b 31 ajon» jaail t^ttlo^ 

b-2i!0 ''jfr.- . .'^lotc • ■{>. "io Scl .Oflio laiiu'. 

0l l«l»iOl 

tot 6! 

a«»ont ail irto %»luh9t iO^fi »:^«iXqMuo «inryi!iv &»ua inrnmrrtw^ 
'An ^xtttitSam «i(it«tf to^^''Jri;dr %»bf^ nAS ttaaoftd il tmt^ 

' ?i j..jf* »#(?.i»t «wii 

<»i^ t© oXtjU etU/Kl ♦ofttob no ^ilwnWui v»«« '« t»»ljrort 

tt aA«r ttlliti^ndCQ i Oct to iwiljrtuiw .^ri 3^Ji^ijroi»«ic( aa&i'^-i 

,ji ts&i^/httlf v^fk ^ft%9b barf to •Bii.©*) ttijb -• • : -'. 

X^^^tiimu toAt t« •W'^al tttt CMw .••tj.^ofc ■^t .-.: 

9Hi to timf • 
rfolitw to ,"»tl*nirtX' 



fri«nd« for ^s^nj ysara; t).iat ilTii:** ata*l 'ii'«a?i«(ft indebted 
to Quitdlueh •pevBormXly to the «:s:t<mt ©f $i4*G00. Cu or 
$1«>(|0C'0»0C; that pi^-ri f;f tlftle lB»i®l>t«da0»!«i 'safeS^Hwag 
<lu» on <sr abcwt [3«isJii«'9^»r 2t; thniit »i>.i-i«- ^ia»« in August 
Kr, Oim<U«5.«lt <i.ep».rt«<i f«r «. trigii to lieuth Amwrica to be 
e<jne indfflait«Xy, i.inct Witrueted his pcrscmil affair© io 
J. S",»«$crj, vicff g>r»^s.ldctit ef t.'h<!» islaintiff aonpsmy^ 
udth po'-A'cy 10 feltf'-ndi fee; all i:;iE bu»t^«0iK uii^riKii ui© 

for tijflt fii.t»unt 'i3atu.ri,jnyi; in f;«^ptea«b«r, -i-t-^tartJi'Sjr a,-pm 

jg)ij!tariirtrrt~-fi r<.> ii.'i i % i i « i ! ii> yt gi « i n i; aB ■»k iite4 ji.hoii.% i?t«|>tt6tiJ'o«^r 2t' * X9l2t 

Feiiji? onllad upoii '>1att«»:>n ana inforivj*>(l laita tlxat fe« wais 

mmbiiK- tvi ',m^' Ouadlacjti in iAasii, 'itat fce«o»r«:'d the note 

su#«i ispeu la jwnyi^isat tw^" p&rt of the in<iebt»'::CineBa} 

-tr?.t th*^ tica» tilt a c-ff«fr KiJAa« he «atJjibit€'a a 

atatosnant ?iB tc th-i' finmnstRl o:©ndition of thp ■■allaia 

Coai>iiiiiy.|M*!«'t' p8!gt^'"»,3Hs# iJ5l^^ tett«»on t)tmt it the 

n©t«i *i)»B t^«t paid h« w<jul*i p&«jf" it htitit©!!^ '»%l»»t"Th4* 

W©tt w-'i3S fiGO'-'itteji bi? ,.'■■.» ttesQSfi 01% jje^ialf of -umilach 

ama «reiilt ■g;iv«Ji for the- yjpdoeedsi, via*, .llSfaS^rC, whloJ* 

r6-5iT#tt»iit«4 th*? f'AC© af th«' nwt® l#fl« six ji2X £«!!• ttis«f>unt 

for th.? tis!i« it Btiii Syui to rua^^tturfc S.nortly to«fore it 

ia*tur«4 it "ifaM trtmsfflrr'-ui Ijy aatteeon on ■b«?ataf of Candlaeh, 

to tiio plaintiff o.'»pany, anti OuiMllfcOh was r.i'r•?^« credit 

on the bookii of th«" coaipa*^> therefor* 

Osi T»«&»slf of %lv& plm^inUCf, hotn <;umi»oih and 
MuttBSOR twffliifi«>tt %liii.t tU©y kji«w soothing of «vny tran»» 
i!i,cti'^w« \i«tw©«.:'n. th*;: M"f«!?-lC.4.i.ttt® hfc'j.-«'i£i anu tii«? vil&Bei ri««i 

Afifn m^ilia»k n»9ni&uti •Xcfa'xfiJbiuROD i..ti( had » 

j^u^i.:. iij. i&:.j.j Ji-taii tatU JOS ^»v 

•rf 07 •oi'iwaA <«t/<kJ o* ^itJ^ « to*: „ ,, . .„ ..„. .i,. 

o^r t-xiAlU X«aaii*iot3 11I4I b:>7Q<rtixi« bum ,xX*ilii;li*^l 900:1 

«iif unffTirl'T iTBiilllTf" 9>iii lUi Hi kamiSn cjr xyifctt AStt 

la^'.mt^ffid^bal •ill I0 rfiaq -/^ 5R*wt 

,rt to-iv 3 i.f\i -■>:'» »ii ■»U.<»fci SA'.- ■> -. .,.. ; ij-H>«»t4 

< foMi a<»ii«iijiftM b^m^lmX mfitt'''^'^^ ^'ni^^vittqpiotj 

jfonlljixjuv') lo 'tJjutatf no roc 

—ttHiS xpsTi to tiu^irtion wscol 'cari^^ ^Atli* i>v4'^A«^«»^ itoaai^wJr: 


Ad '-ml Io-kc; -fctmrjaijipiiaiiSiiwtatng of any oon- 
tm'A-'t^STtsmeaaatiki, Umt they had no kndwl«d£;o of Uie fail- 


ur« en the pwrt of Ui« clussified >i,ci. i:;oiBpfeKy to perfona 
tiie cdnditiontt in Uie a^r9«tn«nt csnt<$r9d :lr»to with t^he 
def ©naismts in conaider&tioii of wiilcii t.h*?»e notes ixad h&mn 
ex<?«utfa. upon croaa-«xiu<ii nation of ^hcac two ivitniN^Jsea 
ana on uireot «xaiiinatiou t tiiatMi ' tii ' itj -r-.^^L-ifcir- wuT '^ ^JlU gtyaA- 
C4aujti*r--*xrt7~!^-^;7"i5retP'^^ aofend&nta tsiMie»ikVore4 to proiro 
thoii- i^6f«n46 as i!i«& fortk in tii«ir affido^irit of si«rits. 

vjL_«4Wp*f-«i-' -tj^sMtis-jkrrjxtlon^ ©f--t;irt-'T»«eTd- -4i4»«iO'#««- Wk* f<f*er-trj£t 

_5of «fiufcint»'^fc«i WivkCCl al/iotit eiitirel;/ for v-fi':^^Jir dt^jfeiiac on 
tiie <i:'TAd©»o« tt^i0«iufi breaoa of fttith on tL0 pj»jrt of t^ie / 
Clctiseilf ied Ad Coji&i^nay aiid :{ fi.i.;:e, arsil tiif- elaiia tiiat i;iais:i» 
tiff h.»d not i.rovdw by a prepoKiden&noe of tu«( evia«nctf 
the f»<st that it warn ita«lf m holder in due course or 
<i«rivtni ltd ttule tbrowtvli « iioia«r in ciu& couro© wivo 
vo&s not iii.'saelf a party to any fraud or duress or ii- 
leg«»iity af footing Uxe inotruaient, 

no t^Na^D t«nd timt iUe i)a»jtriiia«?al tjaa net aon^^^^^. or 
t£ at it wasNi^flitiftx o» its f««fe» ■a-r t^fi^v^t^ia iioJ. ou4» 
lvt.0 i.>Ojja«*aioa o!N4ii<? plMiutif f >j*#^e it -^^a au», oa 
aLrovni.i.y ur^« liiai,. piU4ji 
vC'O^ived tk« ROt« 

,t rftCKived^ 

nstriiprfht* or tiiat tiier* was no J.efec- am cnei ti'trJvff 

@iri th« .ptiTt of plaintiff^ thnt . ag« tms in4ei»tsd 
in li sun oonsldorably' larger Uxmx tiiw ^r^ount of tiie xiots 
in question; tr*a^ at the tlsae it laKts turjied ovr.r to : und- 

>w*'-r •-?'■ •-'«« Sufiti 

4^ ao xl- ■'M9'%4 an 

«4(Wi*M>i»it<i»MMiift«tt -t.r-Tinnrrf ti r ^iJ-'t.-'rtl . 

J -;:; ^^. iwitmiXiuu.1 

4Al •A'ut Yi:«nc:tJ 


#«IH| •i 

W #1 •«<« •!<# ti) 

aaah p&r^ of thia ftcooajit was dum mnd mip®.Mi 
newc du» fycpj page tf? Guiidi«h.r 

of iR.ny iRfl 

J- rtp>€«t, Sim wi' 
y ii^ the nfntk^j^r &ny d<;Bfrj3t 

■te *» 

4» tJu^UltiiP Qf tr* pW«Mi*«..4a«'ijotiat;in£:. it, /They «.rgu« 
tjiat the no"^ m-R not itsfo^ed by ragoi^feit tfc>'r« was 

Kjeiaoraufiura or reoorU/fihotflng «ui^' 4x-talt ^ivfin P«tg« 
1»i Oumi^icii Kfii a r^«|i^t o: thlR tr«iV«f«r of fh« note 

K» nM/uaUl/^ch wer» ijUr4!)imt« fri^ms,:© imd that, Uh: 
of w>ioh rstg^sy^u pr uiuewt iuwf eatt«m,iXTe 
fueiaf&G d!?aliag» w^ii th«) pXaintirf, Bat -^ rj^ax-d th|«i« 

[t, a acmcLfeeion as fto ■•♦•h^v^yfi' or not .jls^tiff wum 
iiolU«y^l» ma vj(.vuy»« or^.id, «i»yiir«a ISh Siyilt* f?oia ». 

-- Y---~... 

'en'.' cults particul)l3^Xy ap,,)lied theanai'^is to th* 
eont«p*Ton Uuit pliiintifi"' J^^ ■JTail'-d to elicnr t:>»< it jfiu4 

cftja the tjote for t&I**!', Ttotoiitjiise thfi'rt? fe&sfo© cviu«?;ic0 
©T'misjr o»«^it'_)a:l-rej3 an«^4Jft«^;«^va« no exprrnsa ft^JN^I^fJ-'Jit to 
«}iow thitj^f ifsas t«.k«rn as Hecurity\for a isrG*3a:2:iatiiig ii«*bt{ 
ttet^^Ct btst, the «vif;i.'mo*' Ja«r|hly ahcwcc: toat .jl^tntiff 
tock thia n?*«» ac tJolX«t«r«d. oeourity mwi tl«*t/'8uoh fa«,t 
would <rtfet oon«tituti» plalaHrf «. pur«3*)a»ex foi^ value; Wxsxt 
f*«t rath.;n- Khoweu tha?! plfitinUff wau «a«r«ay im ft««n-t of 


»Hi^-:i»tm ibiMq/au im» 9ul> smt imuo^w^ •liU t9 txMtl tlxn 

•iiw w i -. 

a li»«#n«taiiB •B'*'^ 



i\ ••«tiioa •Mia nl\fl»l9k 

ioi.* ..v,«. v,**!! JbcuB x-*i'5W»»c Xirx#»^/4lIoc sjb "•' * sCooi 

• 9 • 

^mse. to aoli^n U»« m^.. una ap,ly th. prooa.4« o.. th. 
pr«.m«ti^ .*r naant.. m urging thi« c<mt*i,tioa. 

Pl^e.<. ^.r«at r*.Uaao« 0., u... r.l« of law announced in 
_ ..^«^^ Jh.. ,0^^ u^.i,ao««. Th« «vlaen.. ..ow« th,.t wh.n th««« 
««t«'. i..r. ,:iv.« -^^ u.. ..ail^ Company to th. ai^B«in«d 
Ad Co..*«.n^.. it w.«fi ii»t*nu«u zn^t u.*.. «houI<i b<, n«gotiat«d. 
the ^T^anr^u, J.«v«irrr. to b«. aevoted to ^eotiring fundr for' 
^^rrsfim on t.^^ «utwti8i„e o^paign In question. Mor^^oyer. 
/ «!* eviu^^c. «Ho-*-o that d«f«„cunt8 knew that the a^«*iat/_ 

Ad :<m2?a^ ^oulu negoUat. th^«e .lot^n throua^ Pago. By ""^ 

taeir aot ti.^ «^^^ it po««ible for P«,j« to oca^e i« ^os- ^,. 

««^«-U.n Of xno..* ^oi^» an, „«gotiat« «m»..-_ '#J»ile th*;, m^ 

^C5at..u tm^ the i>r««^«tt6 th^-reof would b« appUed to t^''^'""- 
PUM-C.. li;tfen(i<.<i. y^v th.r. ...B m> ^viu ■:•«.*. tlkiat plaintiff 
te«^^ t)* . yurp^^e itor wtach tii^ «ot^a w.-r.. ,;ive« or tlu.t it 
imd Jc.,ov.i«dsa o.- tii« i,r«aoh or faith or th« faUurc of th« 
cc^au.rationSbr «aia .m,t.«. at Uie ti«« l>a^« owtiat.^cl 
th^ oa« in Qu^otiun. Uauer ^uoh ruct« ami«B, 
ti^e 0..rumt.i^j, fi>r t,,« .ti.r*n4a«t». tlmt in thi. «bB<inc» of 
aa «:cpr.:^sci aei'«m.H.nt that t^« nota wa« ta>:en ait seourity 
f©i- a c.-bt, or a «i«.«oriMMiim fflho'^i.^^ that ^jredit «raa giv«a 
I'au^ for w.* ^.^uiat, plaintiff fail«4 to prc>v« th^t it took 
til* note for value ami ^Itv.out notion, u ..itiiout .>,orit. 
*hii« p.rji«-amp» Bu.ih contmition amy Imv* ^««.n ©uftoesofully 
UTs^i umi«r ti.a ^«m iork d..oi«ionQ, yn our own court* 
hmi, i^ppiii^ « <iiff«r«itt principle of Uw. Thir wa« fir«t 
Iftlu <iova in ^aaaiJMi; J^ ^c^'^M^. se ni, 49c. ^.^r^. m^er 
factij uiuah BifiiUar to t>io«# in th^ ohuo R.t l?ay, th^^ .:«urt 
held, p. 4C»: 

^RoUaeSaov «i«il jysianu/ ai t^tsmbu - 4,.,,.w,«ixc««ic(| 

ia«>rti jtfti^w iA4i^ nvtuiu ^puitbtw^ iutt •Mtoi«JLi>»X» sh[oY w*ll iammf 

i imQ 19 ttt>riu •'X«»w •a*on mU itoiuw teo^ d/scr^. o ;«>! 

Xtkxuomm BM n«3Ui# smt •ion »di tmtit imnm^9%^^ tta«t«xii «■ 
a9vl:% caw ill}f>ito *«*i^ iii. ' .< -!» ,##»:;■ jj 'i©l 

stoocT .ti •?»;(* •vein, O* b»li . - . ^ . . j>.^ii. *vU 1«t ft2»^ 

xXXiitaaBoajjo iMinf •ratf xam nQlJ^n«liioo rit>Aia ifAii'i»« «Xl<nr 
tiii.too tfwo iiro ^^x ««rroXiiXo »Jb aivoY wuH sti^ -s^isotf J^w^iAf 

:«9^ .q ,bXfti{ 

a o> 

a<jkriOwl«.»UK«Mi politr/ e?f giving utftbilit/ to 
»»/(;© tlablra«Tt to hold thnt th<* iadore«» 
of BU<3>; pap«3f. feoforc Hii ".iiitvri ty , tarring it 
as p&yrr.«nt ©r ©sourity for a prwexit^tins <i»5l>t, 

in tii« oru iaary oourse- of tr«jeJ«, %nii ahnll hold 
it fr«« troiv. iHtent 4®fe«ie«B on th« ptirt of tli<? 

Thiv! r.;!© o.f law was reeSfirim^ and ed>xerf^tl to 
*» M3£ Ijt. IfitloaeJ^ ijtanlc^ 91 lU • 20, and ^^jLlai^n y^ Jackr^oi^ 

^^^e yimrto |a;j^> 239 Ul. 2»C. 

Thrt Jury ay th«ir f^ruiot w«t«r«J.n«"i t!.« tasuo 

as to wh«th«^r plaintiff was a heifi«r in daB ooarsB yr 

ipf oeived saici aote frosi a iiold«3p in Uue eoura«, in favoi' 

of tli« pl?*iiitiff » a«u **e o'^mnot, aftftr a aajf'fil'wl y ♦-:¥!«» 

of tls® ®viti'tno«!^ amy that auoii v«r<ilot it" «lf?ar^y '.ind 

aaalf^futly m^aiRist th» traigbt of th« <»«« 

»ef<'j4dantB Jtlso ao\\falMiB t-Vj-t thf? o^urt t-rrad 
in ita rullmua oa the adjaisftiluility oi' &Ylu*.!iia€. efffflv«tU 
on behalf oi th« <ief<jnaant8« it iv. true, th« couxli, 
when 'i4j:'. aurwJl&ali aa<.i Mr» aattegon W'srtt oalltsd, «i& «it««5fcs«« 
under ««ctipn 53, «upra . uia saistaia tasMti^ objeutioxis t© 
iQuasti^ ns a«ketl them by oounB*!- for c;ef*?nu.n!»te» Ts^jlmi^illy, 
tlifijr.c rulings vP'Vfi ■sorreot '^jecaUB® at that ti^# Uc?X>ii<:iante 
iukd no'c ti^own fullurt' or oonBirtrration fi>r tii » ijwta or "brtmoh 
of 'faith In itiv nsgotlation. uatf^r wh®«. U«r<*ndantu iiui !»<• 
t3r©duo«a t-uff iiiitynt prccf to csasst ai>Oft th« plaintiff t>Ji?? 
burden of fshosfiiog tiiat it v£!,» a holder in du© course, 
defendant© ♦ oounBOl h?t(i the opportunity of agaia «ioin£ into 
ilila ioatier" on croao-«xaniinatisa of Ut» Gundlaah arid ". r* 
ttattoaon, both of ' w*t«» Grilled, tio t^itnwisBUii V-y j.laJntiff, 

-0 1- 


/12:Lii2-'jl al> ili£:is.i2ii *«« *0* •■'^Jf>^ ^' a. .. aI ^^^ «^ 

-iCri'i;'! ni ,»f-'i .■..(..' vn^;' r.i -i-^v,. io/l » wotiI •i^oa Jbi^a bAyl^o^^t 

'•^r^i.:, ;■■: ■-.". .i-)lluu ut'^ i3v?!r>J .rah: ,7« iucti? tio v i , cu .• t'Xii n»/lw 


x-o show t'«4i it w«i fc holder i'; au« &auT&tZ Xt TtHMiiwtA 

for ;,< i',-ri<- :,.;it« to avail t>5«ae9lv*'» of tiiXB op.^ortunity. 

i/wai.aciinte alee cotaplainwd tlt?it tho oourt 
6ld not correctly lastrxiot %un jury a» to thr l»w a^plieabl* 
to th«» facta o.nd oireuautttne^a ia evia^^na©* Th« cimrg* to 
tli» jujy wa« an oral oxm. if it cont^ned anything erron»ou» 
or obj«ctionttblo or Oisittod anytnine enB^mtial. it wac Ui« 
duty of ooun9«l fftr ti\e ttef endimto to brin^j t;iO aatt«r 
tc in* attention of XUg court. But ti '" rvQOVd i» barren 
«.f any clij«aticn cr eu^rtiestioa with r«fc*r"na« to the 
inBtiuotionn given, aati £i«f«iiaant» oanmt uov ct>japlain 
or i^ny error in fnc. e<turt»« inetruetionB tc tho ^u:y. 

ij0ffjv;;:.ntft f itiaXly ooiaplaia of th« cloniiig 
yiMmrko ef counuei foi plaintiff* rJi®y r«f»r to two 
p»rti<sular ittstimcca; In the eao Ui^ court ^utstiiiiied 
ob4«otitit thereto :un\ in tlupther th^ oairt r,tat«Hi that 
oouas«X hud tii*^ rlti>it to giv.-? his T^reion ©f ti.^ evia»nc«* 
Whil« *e agr-**? tJ^a tii« xtfaarke in both instanc** w«r« 
iaproper ami uMwftrrantRd, y«t we cannot vi«w Ui(m« rtmaxko 
*uj b«ing »o pr«ju<aoiiul a» to JiaYft innueao««l tiic jury 
in arriving at tin^ir verdict . 

Vinain^ w rcvprsiiMe error, th<^ juatj-^iGnt of 
tho :.unioi»al :«urt of :bio»iiO will ^^ affina^a. 

sfn:-/a.'t*»'l«i;i iq^ 

•i/CHUio-xw ani/f*ACnij &«titfi#noo ii ^ ,^,. .,,, 

ma - 2it4i 

ApjjeXXant/) .APi^SAL WRiM 

com coimrsr. 

. ..--^X Z-- a 98 LA. 2 as 

' "7'" Oa July 11^ vm a writ of r«pi©vl» mis sservKKl oa 

1>«r 4, 1914, ui>on mition of -«##«»*«« »nd riOii«« ys#r«or, ill® 

court diwiasieati t^^e etult anU ordered a r'aturn of tiio projierty 

The recortJ, b<?fOiMr jtox/'csottyt , ,ij|il ' i '*i^»"**<^ /ft>:>rtifi»<it 
i '^ 

for replttvln^^th* wit of repleyiai'^tlje replovin toorKif ^tim 

appearftinoe of &>».«* i1,frf«'i(»d«int4^t>'»e iKiOti'-'U to diemiisB th» aau»«f. 
&ad ti:i« ©rtier of 4iB«RiRffl«lt AliaiOu<i;h tJ^Mt <wiiB« wa* pentiing 
for a»r« timn a y^ar at th<': tiit.*^? It was di«!.at©®«<l, no dwolant- 
tifi.» Wftfl ov*?3r filed, Th«? reyeord t»-4ri!«* ««.««-* atw^M^r aont^^ln*^ 

BO bill of «fxo«ivtioa«, at«not5rai>hio r«jM)rt or «tcit®isaKt of 
fttctfti ftrTmTTtT^feh»r^^""t»---Tiei^ ^ 


T Wfcu»44-©«-t>f ■»PS3cel3t«»>''f-<>*- t4i«.,,ja.»i»«.&»»«<-«>i3i.t. of sUvtutcxy .4aa» 



• >!• 

t wJ i'.niHA 

X*018 • ai'd 

<s>tis t'lm-i'^ii^ anittm bait » 9i£m i n n .lo aoltoct ad<iii «#XQX «» iwif 


^(lijfBO 9f£jr ^aimfikh 9i aol^am m/Ut.j^n»i 


aniijttftq- ftunr «at;im «>Jii if^ott^XA dismal ■vjH- ■t<' .■..••so wdi i>a« 
»AK3X0Db Oft ,i3f)«iaici«ii> o«»«r ;^Jt mulS oiii Sm %0»x A i:i.mi:t lytmn tot 



255 m £X£12» 


ft«fondnnt liii^Sri'or, 


S I.A. 294 

b jietJiinor Aot, 

5,^ Qhup* 57, whioh provi<l«« thai ©uioh 

alion t!«ay b® br©k4ght-v«;«rti©is X»nd.» or t^niata^mta ''lav© bo«^ 
jjonv^^^ci by fen^-- ii,ra«tcr iti i»ofte«tti)il0ii ♦ * » an.d tlio ijra^tojp 
in poe)i«si^ion » ♦ ♦ rfjfuBes or'H«>4il«^at» to »ux-vmvi»v po^««»» 
ftioa thereof after d^'^mrwiln writijiK/by th-' p&T&cn f^nti^l^d 
kl»«r«'te, or uia «^««t,^* O^on the trl«>i'^\«low» th« Jury Under 
'ln«tructJLon» frcua tiiw oourt, fouad th« cl«r«{i«4tt«tss guiltyl 
of unlawfully wi-iriiholiiing po«fi!«v;ii;l©ii of the prtsii^B*© I 

WeBcribR<l ii^-' plaintiff •» osomplaiut an4 tJui'. ihcf rii^ijit tl>~ '; 
tli© j>o««,ir«ftion ©f jiaid pr©sii»«» wj* in the plaintiff. \tJpon 
y»l» ..i^«rciiot thft 'aourt ©nterod t.h»> Judgtii^-nt to rpv<?r8« wi^i-oi'ii 



«ik^'■'J?k?®iot^'">«St4^f^^A» -4it-tlTfri^ %m- v^ita^n-e-f-thir oowtt ♦ 

Wa ^^ 

thai dftfendant0 w-rr^ in s>efta«0»ioti of th« promittos in 

lion ttt yi?> ti.;.i« Of t>i«t ddttond fey pofl»©Boion and Uio brisag- 

ine; of th<? action; tiist t.*ie_4»»ta- JoSan ::>oliult» .wsi* on Uw 



OT mmm. 


it^orf «vari «lti«ia«jin# - ' '-" * —Erf «d \;«w roiloi 

imnq, bitm !• oolMlMaoq •ilf 

^uk*fo rMii-b^^v^rtivrb 


.»•-<.;; f-i.^ 8oaiBioi<{ i^iit lo 0oio«»8ao4-j ai ?>t w i»lnitl>nolol> 4ac{^ ft^ 


/ prof»©;'t^ «t %ht!> tis*« of the ©x«oution of th© deesd oca* 
Y«^i»g «ttm«?. Th re Hi::» f^itmi katrtniiicts^ in enrici nee a 
quitoXaia d«e<i froia John achiilts fund 'Jjoxy Bchiiltai, Jiie 
irif« (dlefcnojiatB) to Uif» ];lttiiitiff, end tU«.' dto.mnd Tor 
p«««e»6-AoH Bftrr^vti l»y itUntiff upcn th«^ def tnUantt* . 

On i-«?'imXf of tltc derKmitmte there w»8 wt cff^r 
to ehow that at tu*.' tiim titia quitolftia «i«c<i wa,» givon 
U; tiiR .:,a&intlff, tl»»'< 4Jlrrf4f»<i*i.nte ^Qr^ thraia t«»«!ii with 
a p«rt5GiiaX injus';- ijults thnt tnif; ijcnvej^iini-^ «ao jitade 
at th« BUsjgeation of plaintiff, who suid he- oeuld settle 
th« aawe for Xittl« asoneyj that )i« wauid h©X<l tin^ pi-oparty 
as ftaeurity for iE«0n«y» adtAnoad in oettlemont an«i not 
pl««9 th« ci«<?(l of rotjord; that the proj^arty wae to ha 
daeda4 Wok whan the pariwoal iajury tut had l3«3en dia- 
l^aed of aind the plaintiff reijabur^ad for«s me.d#, 
if ai:^'5 that ta« dead ii»as given witv. tho ttnaerstiJnaing timt 
it should not in ai^ ^"way diKturl» th<* poaaesBion cf d«f«nd« 
anta; timt riothluti wii& ever paid by Li* that ■»h«n de- 
fendants) demtwded th*^ d*cd back, s>laintiff di»Qtor|t»d Joisn 
Sehulta froia hiu e»ai>loy ana etarted »n a*3ti<jn in foroibla 
detainer. After thia offor wns i.side ©ouneeX for defoji- 
dants ot&tedl *I offer to show hj tha witneee tSiat ia 
fact the title t« th« property in question ia involved 
In thia euit, afld aak to \mre tho oourt |»»e upon that 
Iftcue.* thi& offer waa r^^Jeated and €SKcei?titin t«.k®a 
th>^:>jf®t©» Tiiere wa« ale© aa offer to Bhov tiiat in * foj^»er 
»ctian ©f foroiWe entry and detainer jilalntiff had teatt- 
fled that John Hohulta w»» to ro^iain in ]?oaaeteion a» * 
tenant of the iilainti'f, whi si^ offer waa tiluo refused. 
In laakifjg thia off'?r, d«f"»nd&nt8 contended thut t)i»: r«la» 
tionehip of laridiord and t«?n«nt did not exiat* 

•bii... -.. "--- •• - ' — 

••b ar-. ■ 

^«ifi aoqu «a«« ttifoo t^os ot«< ,.^1im aiifi al 

am^»i noJtisi«OK9 i)cui J^tootrt ««» (iff *»*w8«A 

-i;?f,-OJ :v,; -,. , .. ,,^_,, <^.{[;^Q(| OitfiOlOl lO ItiUXJ'iJA 

i nianttic oJ ajgir a^ijiittoU nji»l, ^jirfi too« 
..)K.' - X o»t« «inr nan* jfclilir , t^t it#iiUJ:<a( •!« !• 


in cvi.-itn«'.5 * decre'S eBtarni in th-s Ciro'uU Court of Oook 
County in the Oisio^ of Marjr HchultK, or.'S of th® dfij f "jn i'^AtJ* 
herein, s.g&inat plaintiff ftnd Jcfrm Echultse, tbe ot^i(5r d«- 
fondaat, to ast %«i;l<£! th*3 -lg«4 (^i.le>). W!i.s the <i(^.sd £>ff«r®d 
Irs *vi<l«n«« Is the c?j»ffi at bay) e lv«n by nor hi^be-jri tm*i 
her^^-fslf to the plaiatiff; ho ale-o ofT^^roi in «v idAne* 
th« bill of complsdnsmt r-n-iy^yi (T,^nQkl«») «n»5s?^r th^r^to. 

f«iaii*Ar.ts ^iHT^A to prcvo 9t» s&titt^r'S' of ''V5feri«« Ln th« SiO- 
tlm 9tt ^&f» O^jftotion '^!is iaa-1© on b«Ji9,Xf of Jcjm S<ih'j.ltB, 
on thf, groMsvi th%t h« was not a ptrty %^ the &ot4'>i. It 

».pp©a?«>d, >i^>m-ir^,t, that >i^ ■nteadol *i<a & isitn>:iB^ for the 

li&t th^N^ourt arred in Alrectinig a v<!?riiot f^ar thi^l«^i]^- 
iff, TheyX^t cont^fid thftt tb« court orred^ exol\ 
£ th« «▼ i*l«norsfif f«t94 on b«hslC olT d<sif*>G,dfent^ for th/ 
^s«cn that said eT«iwiO« would >)iaT© aboifo th?tt the dtfd 
u»«ai vjhioh plislutiff b!i#^ni» titl« y«A kv f-^ot a &ort,g&i^e 
ank th&t it «3,«» int<>nd*4 sJ^^Ssl? ?vjK»©o\irity for the ptky 
fiutii of & d«6t to ?)« laC'Jtfrsd Jli?K?«*'s '•■?5 <>f &«s.i.i?5a ^dffi^coa 
fo* d«f«nilanty# and that e^'b * d*«\ln Jaw ind in «iuity 
regardsd &« a morH^$ and th«5t up^^^uch » eenvsyanoo 
Torcibiis ci@tftin»r -«BttoB o?umot b« ffisintVintl by ii^e 

®^'-® ^^'^^ !• y^"<sd^yi«a. , 6«- III. X9X» >md Aurrv^r X, ^i^yoe , 
iOiJ 111. A^>. -06, 5s^^lon ««r« «M«w brox^ht uncie?r -tn*, "&»3« 
»«»ti»Ry^f th« roralbU rntry 1^ D6t?*,in«»tr Act fiws th«> o^s^* 

tUia*. In 


In th« forsiOi" csa.51 cited it »sia adJ.:itt«d <m 
h* pl*lntift th«t t^v« d9®d *rw» ttejc«n m«3T«3y 


.' ;ni#aS«.t<j t>.ii ot tit 

• \f'yji'^ # Jon sjew »rf ifidf tm/ota »HI £*o 
3 trndt nk ti-i. 


ii^vf i\lb9xi» iyvoo »ift t*ilr tsit>tm9 #«iR^r^ai<T rill 

■ i 

■4nl«» ACT toAStfO aol#«k t<intt#«X) sXc^lo^ol iB 

.-.r.... ,^^..». rttJitrfw ,eO« .'>3PU .... 

a® 8«!curit^ fox- ^n in4'^btrvi«<*»«, mvl tlmX piaiiitiiT 
had arreted tp viitQcnvsy tin© prouarty Uj?«n Teipa;^^m^nt of 
thf? lo^jij. In th« Oftsc of ^ttrnor Xa. i:i££S£» MSXft* 
it ai;?p*>roped frov<a Uie «viti!«ncfj that tbo pro.»erty had been 
00 WY «>'«<! to j J La in tiff »«>r«>ly as »T.«<5urity r«?r a .lonn« 
auu i'urth'- n!wr«» that t.h<?' dft'rtt iiotiy&;^iii^ tii« pru.«rty 
««« tt«>t fro'iH a ft,rAntcr in jj-casijocioit, th*>r»'^i'or«, tli»*6« 
a&«^es5. arc not at ImI. »i»F'-iio«&^i*» ^ ^^^^ faoto in tha ««»« 
at baj,', r»r«s'OT«r» oounsQl adaitt -a ti*«t tliiii ofl'^r 
©f «?viiiJeno^ wa« for whc: ;>urj»«ii« of puttinu lot i»g.u^ the 
tltl* of p'ictAutiff , ntnad fui'ih^r^ tii^t ia eurs ^.«tion of 
forcible t^Tttry and a talner tii« title of Uxe plaintiff 
i» not trl'-ilul^* Bj' tlieT*« adialaeic-nies d<tf«ma«nt« pr-a^stio* 
ally «oiic«di2 th?'- O0rreota«»« of thfl- ^ud^jja^Tit for Ui«* 

fh«a Imw ««d<>r whioh tJ!*i» «iotlon w«« lirought* 
is «il«iB, ttmt if .>l«intifir ati«w9 ho ha« « d«0d fr«.m th« 
grantor in j^osti^Bssion *nd >v%8 jf^rii!!^ n. ^esa^ks^A for pcB©«icsion, 
followed liy a r«^fu»«l «fid <soiiti«u«-»ee in r«>«?f^<=*^-'^C'l*» tii^ 
acti<,>a will lie. JlaS-SJCt Xa. ilaJ^JI* ^*?^' ^--•» '^^^ *" 
euah action th« <iu«8titJn &f tltl« fe->tw«(?*n jaaintiff and 
d??fe!!idimt or ainyonn »3.«« eftoaet !»•? tri^d, «»d the right 
to j»o 'mission in Vw plKiritift 4» not de-^«?nacnt wpon 
hitt title* but. u|>03!i th« "xi«t«trjoe ct ^lijrtioulfir fttota 
s!p«aolfi«d i» elau»« 6, meoticri 2 of our 3»oreible l^Jntry 
I: L>etiila«r Act , % ^:,im . P9?t^y^ 2a. M^t* MMBXSii MM.tMJM Xa. 
j^i^ytBcf .x. 153 111* Affp* Ses,« fasti* did ©-Hijc-ar in th® 
caB« 6t Imr, ▼!»•; » quitel&ise dftfd i<» tlm i;4«.intlff from 
Ihfs igrantor, aad a oontlnunnoe in 5?t»ii«esi«&« ^y Uk^ grantor 
fki'Uit fA written detiand for i3io»ss«B»ivft, '/ho erid'jnnw offered 

9u<^iU ,tt^i9a^990ii at t9$n&%^ « iro'zI inn lusw 

<»>t : .1.' ni 9i»M'l wi$ Qi vl^aoil^n^Ug sa ioa axm «ft<Mi» 

mitU t»di iifiilaim X9aitu90 ^ivfoni;*!! •imT #« 

lo noifois (M til i.'ifiS ,-xi- -. -. ..- ^fiiii:^:tK •'£) fti^^;! 
'^ii;^ talt #o»iti^i aiffiR^09-T !:>aonos ^ia 

nl .K)R .;a OVX .Ji&.X|ifi jjr ux^jjjj, .»»*Jt Xllw «oJt^o« 
o sialic Oi» tm» ,btiii^ fiiT ^o«iuK> ikRlfl '''MUtewt^b 

■ ^ •JXiUUL t^c^ VttttiAisG A 

■ " '" .sc»« ,H^ .1X1 eai tiJaiit^ 

«0-. Inot :RiMl9ilU9 M J •IXT t^UMf 4H MAO 

©n VehAXf of the defendant© Vft« not oomp«?terit, b«cau»i» 
ther^'by it waa 8CUij)'t to j^ut in ianu« th« tit.Ic> of the 
l>lftlntiff aiau act the facta px-oren by tbe plaintiff. 
«li*ie cl«f€n4f>.nte furih*-';- t^ntf^n^ that Xim oourt «rr#<l in 
•dsatting the dead i?i «yidAiice,y«!t in ^i^jgrt^ Xs. -^al;M» JMIft* 
the «ourt expr«s««ily tield th«kt the introduoiton of «, «^<*«d 
wa» nee<s»aiijry ia oosineotion with the faot of poBoeeoxon, 
to tthow that th»r9 vae a grantor wlvo conveii'»d .y.nd o. 
gmuoteo to vliom the atnYeyanar- w(&e imae. 

i>«f«nd£i^nte farUior ocu;plain Umt %hif co ^rt io* 
pjroj»<prXy a^aitt«U in cvici««iae th<' bill iwMi iiinKw<?r and t.Ho 
d« or«ie la the oasn af ii«ry Sohults a^'^einnt Uiie i^Iaintif f , 
here tot ore 3rf'f«rr»*d, to. Ther'3 wa« «o objeotion, taad^.' to 
tiil« «vid<:'no<? oa behalf of txi-? dofunUant, iriajry iiOitultji, 
«iad when it ic ooafiid»r«d tiiat t ;** oth»»r dcf«»n<iant, John 
0ftVjiul.ta» on wivo»fT 'bf9\~j%Xf th<? ob^Jeotton wao nmde, was a 
vitnoe* in t>i0 ahnn©«ry proceeding on bfthalf cf tlxe coia» 
plAinant, tii« court did not «>3rr in iht?* ««dalt;&lcn ©f t)5i« 
«vid<?»i';m« At bcjut, tiilo eridenoe wft* only outsulativ©, u^nd 
Inaistttuo^ «» thci aourfe in U\i& ■-•:&»© inatru^3ted th« .lury 
to find for ih« pi&lntifr, its adsiitssion flftn3aot Ij« oomildwif^^d 
haneful to tim d< fcndtinta. 

IwifonduntB fimaiy contend thiat tii« court orred in 
rejooting the offffr or «vid©no«t cts bth&lf of tixc ccffenU.i.nto 
tliiiit plaintiff had t^'frtifittd In & pjpmrlou* triel In foroibie 
•ntry and d©tain«r that d<5fendRjst» 2ohn r.chw:Xt»» t?ss r. t«nant« 
In I^Taina x* ^ivana. 163 Hi. &j?p» 303, the jojrt ii<aa that 
whore a t<mant ia an tiOtion for pooeeeeion. by thf? landlord 
a«««rt« an ad^ara* right and d«ni«a the r^lfttiouship of 
landlord and tenant, h» is «atopp#d frP'-ii Hft«'>vmxTd» nl&iiam 

,^<f ««T<yxq tioat oiii Jon Ima Vilininlq 

joofa A 10 noJtto«6oi.riil aril iiwiit toi»il X^ *<W 

jff. „<>'..,»«« i0 ^ox!,! a»iCi rfliw «v.iln©m:e© u- ,.. ••■ B«r 

,0i iia»-i ; " '■. . j-i -^ : 'ix 

,._ tjjaxlftj . iV» 9Xtii 

(tdot; ,tfiA^ iii i><»nc9jbia<ioo at ii n«»ji« lwr« 

i)ni! ,erii.',iIwi'.wo ., ilslJ «#«»«f lA •*<i.<i-'i>lvii 

i9t>lanoo mi Jonnxoi- noiataiiat^ii ttSl ,\'itSalMl^ 9tii 19^ tmll oi 

• c;ffljoiMi«l«»b 9d$ 9t lutenjui 

);^nA^bn0to£i 9di lo ttjui9<!ji no »onotilv« to a9t.l« »xii BnLii£v«Lo«x 

CcficioT nl Inlti •uo^lvs'xq a At bomi«*>l bail ttiJniflX»i Ijuil 

uidl a rstr ,stX)t/ii!vO mfaC «;^n/i;bn»l»b Jiuii xmalMi^b ban ^iV^Rd 

#«f(^ J>ii»{C tXLUtf f*tii ,JSOS .qoA .liX Cdl .«n«yg jjt ttwyM nZ 

{isitotttii^t orfl ddtcf*!) uoi a.iaiv 9WfWbm nm •1Y»««« 


irt/f thfet aa«i) r^iationeMp exists, »iiA th* ««»urfc tiifsxefcre 
j;^rcp®rly r<ii»4cat©d ti&AtJUatiiii;^ t>^- wiiici! it whb ttOUsj-uit, te »liow 


won. 94 Ja:^oa aj» il ifai^w v.rf V.Ctf*li«oi b9*o»t*i Xii»«9«q 



nmm a, mms. 

APFJ3AX. mm 

198 I.A. 298 

fro.; aa ordtsr eniered in th« £ia>«rior Court 4^ teok r\ 

Cbuntj- c-a J* 

sz^t) to the CockVioanty J»il un^il h«f »h«ai li&v« coapli^d 

vfiih un ordm- of Wd cour,t :! 

alJfeaoay, aawaunti _, , , ^ 

I^SakSO, ohurg«» olj tii« laeURter in Ichaaoery iji de tenoning 
ih«r or »:tot th4^ uefenittnt wa»( guilty of Qcntesipf , or 
l/h« 1)« r«X«a»<H^ by due prooeB© of law, not to «jccef*d 
^riod of six iiWintUB. 

Xa, 19X5 ,i oo^lttinis de'f^iM^atit (&^«|IX' 
fey J»il un4>l >!«» »Wx i&v« coapl; 
cour,t for Wm» |»ayi,i«Mt fcf t®apo^: 
^45 g and twe advi.itiC'ftfl »«» of 


tti D*! ofjnbBir tX, X9X4 a rule wrb enterod upon 


''^^ dS'«!»naant^ to s^noio ORUffC i^ attsiohsiitnn stiioald not iatfu© 
for iiin fallur* to pay temporary aXijaony during tiie pr©* 
eediag five weaira. i)of<indAnt fiX»d n eworn an»wf.'r wherein 
*'^ he etatftd timt h« Imd x»o mii^ ^%%h H^ich to p«y tlie ali- 
Mony to the aeiji|»lain»«t it!^i^0Sti^«f^^ »nd «s«t forth in detftil 
hl0 inoositt, ex|>«ndituree una lial:.liiti»«j aX»© that h« wi&« 
t«.Ken Bick Mi ^veiBl»«r 21, end sinoe I>«e«i8b«i' 2 had bewa 
oonfliifisd to iii» b»«, aad thai for a grent part of the tia« 
h« wi» ttnd«r the care of a i^hyslolaa, id* wiXxient b«ing 
«lo<?r of th« £ito£iadh» Attach«d th^^ret© »a« an affidavit 
of uie phy»iaian under date or Ij«c#iab«r 21^ stating that 
•inee Deoeiaber 2 dofend«nt haul b««r; under hi« a<4,r«j th*i he 




OOUS • 6XtS 

Xi)91j((JA i(A dX «Xtf? A.^^!^ '?)(>: 

JX9X ,6X 

it BO \i. 

09 Laiiauoam tX^.-- 
> ^aAlin*1tttt} j»ii^ ion to ■^nioaw 

Si-. : 

(142 o^ tivkstK dti^ ^nmn Mr ikiuC od #«iU 

toT; *«»a • - , '^"'^ ^ ^ - • 
oaX« ]«' 

»li.'. ,iiiiXoX«xr<<j tt y.o 9%ao 9Ht x^iuus mtm md 

*J5V «M^othU i>»iloji#M ^ ' 'to ICOXll 

;"^ tXn t9iJw90«fe^\ 10 «ir4at» . ; alii lo 



/' w©^ »uff4sring fn>u wlonr of the iift««i««kh md vme m&\ilm 

to work. 

Onr^momf "t^s^y JJ4i 'fh« imt'tnjr irnw rmtiiWi^^ %» 
m jsmiitwr in oJ»ao«iy to «4ot«mim> wMther dt^frmdRiit wafi Itt 
oont^sapt of <3o.^Tt for fft.i-lurt te p^- 1*11 or «ny iwart ©f 
j Uw alii'isoay due nndm' the erd«gr of th« wurt tii©rrtofor« 
I «aUr«sU, t}!>st -mBter to ra»ik« hia ro|M3rt witJitn 48 hour*. €a 

Jimuary 14 tJi« im»i«r fii«d J»i» r«*gort, ^Hmtmin h& fmae 
\ c«rt«i.s» findiiigi!! from whAc^ *t« aoia«lu<4®<i that d(^f&nd>-:n% 
/ ma iis o©nt«»ij^t ©f court, i*n4 rr^ooEJjseiwifiNa that a«fonda«i 
b«» oomK4tt®d ^mtil i»« «m%ll prog^erly ooia»7ly witli th« ndiii 
in r©Xatloa th«^r«t6. Beia r«su»ort tjontalm^ii th« te«tla«»Bar 

Jimuttrjr^i'^ swster ffluT«8sitfeed a »u,^pl«i«nt«a r<»i>ort mier^'ia 
it mjs tti»t«4 tSmt tJi« obJ*cti©aa iriX«<i to »sii«i report hjf 
a«f«nu^t w«J3r^ duly arfiu««l and ©verrulwil. ami wh«r«8ia )i« 
fariiier o®rtifio6 tliat » »t»aBgrtt»to«3f ««»« n«o«««»rily 

«M|jIoye^ to trimeorib* th« t©8itira©ny; that a oopy of <r.u»h 
t®»ti3iMa«y o«rti:fieii ijy th« m«t®r and i^tt«'"Jh«d to liiss 
report wi&a m4« toy 'tJi© el4«'nogra5>her$ that tt^ r«fa«osimble 
tm for J»uot? »t0t«>fjr&pUio s«ir?i<ses w«yB |X3»&0, a04 t)mt 
«aiu s«a»tf>r»© f-^t th^r^^ia wa* |2S,00» mkim » *»*«'<'^ ^-^^^ 
|3a*S>0. It m«a «rdfrn»d that detKri;itt»t*« «1»i»«tl©a» 
filea tXi«r-^:^to lEtRMiJ as excpptlOKB, m iTwittiry iS U»e court 
ap;in>v«Mi tii« E«i«t«r»« rei»crt «ma foujad timt deferwitmt «fifcfi 
abX« to p«y tJ»e »Xi»(t»ny aui? und^r th« ord«r tJi«'rfl-tofpr« 
i^nt©r»4, .mu that def«ttda»t vUfuliy r«fu»oa to w «ai<l 
ttliiiaoay; tuat th«!r« rejmiKMfd 4u« rniU unpaid to tn« ooa- 
plainant tli.» fmsa of ^5. CO as aliKiOWy ©n Ife® ow^r th«r«* 
tofor® entered by th® eourtj allewed. a^d a8»^r©v«d tii« 

»XJ«iuf tun ima tUamotv oiU \o i^olu utnt ^l'in">ttm mm 

,:3ilO'ii OS 

ill HAW i^n jiirt'j i(i»f» xmliBttM duianaiob ot ^»oiijuio ajt -jisjia^ts £ 

«:> •«twori ffJK nr',t?- l-i.'xio'K ail. .jo'toin* 

nbtrn «rf at >^t aiil k»lXt voiiMt vitt *X xa«/nAT* 

■^XiTiJiiaawyen tuxm -s ^* 

- - ■<i»r.z% fii'v -. .■..-...^ -.,-•. .- . . .^.. ,^^^ 

1o Xsie* 4 anX^4n , ,^ , 

«ttOi#oottfo •«#a«femv aioj^t nmm $1 .oa.Ciii 

*TU;oc. ai« 8X vwwn*^ «0 t«li«i«Q»&jcfl «a bumf oi«yt»<li fcoXlt 

i". «- ^oaiiXji ojcti Y«i| oi •X«(j« 
IiXa« >4«j Of t»o«i. [In- tit«iia<»lob i3uU uua «ft«t«»tn«. 

««it«r«s ohan{« of #38.60 and ftrd«re<3 that dpfenUimt 

*!»• oojaaltt««i tc th« Oountir Jail of tiiit; County, until 
C ,-. ^« ^^^^^i ii^*^« coai)14e<i with said or«l«r of tUi» Court, 

^ Hr and «i.^i ii^yjj p^^^ ^j ^^ j^^ ^^^^ ^^ S-ortyflve (|48*C0) 
^K^ ^ii»i^»» »» Hliiacay <lu«, tuid the «4ditionia ftun of Thirty- 
^ •tifht ima 8OA00 {|3«,&C) Dollar., ae ^.«t«r'. almrg«». 

«y imtU r«ieR«s<i by due i»3roo«Bii, not to <Mte©od the period 
of six month* Jxcw«iror,« 

mu mmuiim justioh pah delivered the opinion 

of tJi!^ court. /- 

i)«f«n<lrtnt oontende tJtai under tho eyi<i<?nco tftkcn 
by the mafcei' and und^r th« affidavit filo^ % th« def(M*» 
4aat« the w>v.iriv^a« not warranted in fin^iai; tiint th<^ de. 
fondant ««« wbl© io p^y th« ai icio ny dCuo under th« ord»r 
theretofore «ntere<i} and further, tiaat ovon th»\j^h defan. 
d«nt ims in conteaapt filir hie failure to coiaply th«rewitJi, 
tJjo 00 xt w»» without imtherity to inolude in iiaia order 
Iho itoa of #3a.fie aiasttr'^ cJiarges, 


Th«ro i» no 4tt«sti^ thnt dofoatKmt wao in do* 
f«at with r«»p«ot to the iwsymant of aXiawny^ Wliothor or 
not dofoadant was aIiIc to p«y »uWt tattmt^^ prnemit^-d a 
oloar iBfiuo of U&U Thin ioouo ti^e court r«f«rrea to th« 
saa«tor, whose repcrt »how« th*t ho Wo attended by couneol 
for both partiofl and thsit toetiiaony wak hmurd on belmlf of 
^>6tii partioo an«i timt an affidavit of d^ondaat hi»6«lf, 
accoapuni^d by eaddbito, was j>r«««nt©d to\ the rmator. While 
the maater oxpr^oood aoae doubt a» to hio tleM to mccivo 
affldaVito uad»r the ord<sr of roforsnoo, h«, hotf«v*fr, ro- 
•olved that doubt in favor of the dof«ndant# The sia«t»r»« 
roport found that tho anount of alitaony due wlb ^45, (C, and 

(00«6H) (»vn««c^%o% 1<» ;^mio«a i^jb caj»q ovitii UmiA ; 

-^•xiidT to (au« iMtaiilbtm aiii tarn t^nb ^mdlM •« •li'X»li 

"i^-- «rr i\'-;-.-u;: ^ftjf ,ttonOT.'»1?:'t "io ■■?of..-ro .>,■„ . '^i<f 

ih«3it Uefeodf^nt w»« at>le to p«y ««©<»• It aSt.!!* »«t forth 
oar tain oumr findxngu, from »Xl of waida tim miBtsr 
ooaaluaed Vtmt dnf^mi^nt wjms in aontsfaajp-t Of court » and 
r'j'Ct-'iiSPiewiiRd that he ^«? ootmi tisia until he elMJuia pwpt^r* 
ly ooBipIy with, th«? rule Aji relation th*reto# This jreport 
wauB «.iippr«?«a oy t.h« oOui't» janti tn« oaXy quetttiou ia 
wheftlxf=?r ©r not tji« fiiaBt^sr wae warraRted in arriviag at 
Jil» fi»Mli3ag* «md oonolupiona* Ualess.^ we ar« of tht* opiaion 
that saAa sTinUin^jo ana ooaol-a»ion8 of th© mR»t«r, oouourred 
In and l>y t^xe c«i«4ao«IXor, laxe clr^arly anti i:mnif«»tly ajsaimslt 
Uw wttlght of tia<? evidfmce, thoy lauat fe« mfTirmed* This 
«« %r« uitabl«! to flM^v 

©•fondant «.1»5«> eoaipXainB ttot thf^ aourt «rr«id in 
iuclutitiijg ia tl*© jAj^unt tiu*? from ttiii dpfr.auant, Uh« .-.Aister'a 
eiiarg©», .i« AneiBt© tJiat ''the? aourt ba« mo authority tc 
enforoe tij« p»ym«nt ef ao«t» »iKur<ILed in a ohi^jscery isuit in 
Kttif Other Hittmtttr than by ©xeoutica, «mci tlmt pay»«nt of 
»uch oo»t» oannot be «aaforo«ti "by puaishiaent a» for «i eon- 
ttf^iipt of court." In t^iia o«®o« howevor, Uit? 2m8t«p«a o*iar» 
gea «r«re not the ©rUimiry c&Ete la to. <3iiu4ttoi&yy Ruit* th«y 
wtre i»ourr<J«t by rcm.B m of d«f»nda«t»B fuilurt: to coiaply 
with ft pr«'fi«u« or4<?'r of tlMi oourt, liafMah l«f6 to the eon- 
t«ra|it proo««al«fi;»» hii«««lf wa» r«ttj^on«ibI« for thm 
oofitOt ima Our oourto hade's nlm^* boon ophold 1» %«»oBoing 
the coKte of & «ent«?apt p.roo«e<li«« ffl4jftitt«t the d^-;f<*ndant if 
fouad guilty, th© payEwnt of wUioh wwi a eonaition proeedent 
to a dioeJmrgo frota any ordor of ooaajalttaent (^ntey«d beotiuso 
Of the ooritc«q?t. ^oo:a« T> ii^itdr^l^o^ , 141 IIU StiSj .^M 2*. 
|;£Cj2^, 23C. 1X1, 174, 

Firading no rev«!fr«ibl« error, tSrio ord'-r of th« 
Suporior Court i)f :o<.k OoiAjaty will be uiTirined. 

sif-io't t»« QnL» J.. . - V - ;ju"i>Xft>1tf»b imii 

tfs^si^i »at ifbiiCv iro it* mvtt ^9^X1^11 utiilo nJU^ioo 

i^qs-s al/fT . ' " '«•» aJt 9 tin nsUr dtlv xi^rtoo xJ^ 

til a U ,rta <,^ lit 00 «£tl X**^ b^ronqqu mtm 

i'-^ *i.iJ V . •;»ju»nf «« ««• ^uiicjua •id ion n« "MuWwifw 

^tiAfttnoo (XeJaaui >i«jr 'in mta^^Uiilaaoo bam •;iiaii»nit i^iJMi iiui^ 

tiiii'C ,b 

oi yt^lr^dsufs on asai trum> tait* ttuif niBintt^ iwni 

Al liu« x'xiDcamto a ni iMlrunra ii;r«oo to iawit^ii ».«; airxalta* 

to ^acMEtva^ i-^'" 'i.'t^dxo X*' 'i^sot' tamtxim xttdio XM 

i{T .^ii/a x"***©!**"^ » oi 01 BOO Yxjusila^v 

:> oJ f>:c«Xliil ti*tasibn<»t»b Jo rri afl***! .^tJ -»>-i^«tiMA i»i.;>w 
^ 3ii^ o* ftoX doJWv «^VfOO OilU to i^btQ nwoiT^q « ciiiw 

i JbXoilqc a«>«cr oxmrX* OYiui o^tAiOO Y..0 tMu ««tfa9o 

ti ^nalMxotaJb oiU iMX«^ ^Ib^noorq #qKo;rnoo « to o^aoo oxU 

noJE^llKioo A unr rfoiifw to ^a»fi>caq oni «x^XXiia iJAiiot 

kj'^tolno Sawi^ ■ -^ > > > "> ^<^?« aqntt »ati»rfo»lt» « o;J 

»x aaiiiii {fl»<> •fxi x*' _>£^ .i^p^'j^noo »/!* to 

.*VX .XXI 0«8 ,iifi2»S 

•iC» to tf^bxo mis .vo'X'KO oXcfXat^Ton oa ^ibal'i 

,bmnrtlYtM otf XXiw x^ctuoO ditiO to MuoO Toli^q^a 

5T5 - ^o<-'n. 

v». ■? ) / OlJ.':-ifJ 

""^y' 198 I, A. 306 

im. .TiKrmf- -'OOmtn ea#ilT©w»^ the opinion of thf. emirt* 

feli© ■•■■Irewit 'lourt otstalmnS tey tii© «rTv«lle»» berelnaftor 
iHsf err®!;! tc b© r»lc.5rtlff » a,f?Rirfi?t the at>T«llantf h^^rslr- 
aft©r r«Jferr«« t© ar d@r®tMlftBt, for /7S00, for d^smm^ 
v^BXtltin^. frcw rlalRtlff *trj fall frc^ on© of Aef#ndafit»© 
J^jght eilev»t©rp.i ^t3e, It was 3lals*<1» tc ftorl ♦ •♦«»tg^ 
OR tli« pftrt of th« A«f0n4Ant> -irht? sws- 

clds^nt impjHivm^^rMijf l&, Itll, 'tsruiile tlx plairitlff ««fto 
trwakin^ a lcNfc<i cf «wpty bojwa ir th© e»isnlci? ««.%p«irt- 
P!©r5t ef tJje d©f ©nda-ttt » R mcJdng htouso. '"h« plaintiff, 
» Litln«jLnl«j» had, at tho ilr« cf the aoolflent, hmn 
if! tMis country aTb«^t a yeiwr* s-d Jmd bc«Ts ©wplo?®-;^ in 
d»fcwfUn5t*R oarviini!; d0p*rtst«)nt **:■* a soK-ctJ Inbor^r, trwolr- 
l?ig htmr^ t^oaw® for about elx or i»ovi&n astwttliti'. ' her« l«'^-' 
a dioi^wto in ttoe ovit!»«ni>« AH to wliethor tbo r:5aintlff 

^ex©l>♦ fll« owr* t«»-ti»or^ ^•--. '■i«-if^*~»l«i«t*' tlwtt h^ mivtr ha4, 
and tM» Sa 5*^—..%.----^.-....-.. <^ g^^,,^^^ a,«gr©« by the f??^t " ^ 
tlK? T?^"rk -of t, • ■•■-1 bojrec -s-as 'lonf? br w«n> 

os!pty bo«t'.fe r?er<? trHelr©'l b'- b^sre, **x«e«rt f<>r a porio-fl c 
a sscnth cr two, whor eot? i« thi* wor't, tr bot^ 

oxtont at l©a»t. ■■=© i:s- +uvtK<tr ccrrc-beratc<1 t-^ K-^yw e^'- 
t®nt b'. tb© toaiitjsofjr or ■aorc-naant'u ^itnoois "lohtor^ 
who tOBtlfi-vf t-hjRt *»^ !*»'• r-'-T^-r ts«H»w rlairrtlff trt.w5!;lf g 

ScJ-]»«^,"i^.^Wt» <"«if |?r© ■•.:■■ »r.t f th9 tl»0 1»- 



U.ff.V« wit >^'^&^ ■■' -"sc irr«tlf*<>ei iJmt'it® 1*ru«e«h-} viB(p'<y 

2.t t:.' ..i^...-ii*»<3 t-Jmfe *'«3!*>«>jf»f^<wrifi -414 'ihc is^ tbinr* 

jilaat the «m«»t4'*B- *??€«r. Kw^TtytretA ^14,tHr-feit!?-® vinfl. <c»f 

j?0l*. aairt trtjoittea *-.a ear© L-lrH «r l«ne«e, 41<!.n*i ymj (h- 

' ^Al9 reM wore t!i«rf t* ^?^ ^lob th«i vltneec anewerdd -* / 

^»*lly lo-^tTtxlly r©f»rR to i^?» trw*? ,4«g: nf .full ' 

«M\;&v«^«-S» /tefon4arrt*s iriti»»»!»« Pulf^t and ^'ft8E!«r t««- 
tlflsd th. I thev »?«setlBB^p »«v r^lalntiff trtJci^ti^- ©rpty 
bcxeo, wlthmit «tttiln,fr ^^ lowuj felly saM »ow«tl»Mr» 
tirioG >. w»»lr, fnjrteer, & '•«y er»|5aK«"ii in trMcVl-- - eiRTjty 
b6««8, ssaW, "Oh, «• tri»k«!l (etEfitr bote©) ab^^iii ttf^ rr 
tlirft« tljace a w»€;]c# Mid tl»«» th® ©tli«?i» tl»t w» trwelt<wS 
rail bc3t«B.** irlat^o^cM, the 0l«y»ti>r e>t)«r«tor» ««i4 
tfeat plalTitiff -me tn^lrlrsig e^isw!tltB«»K full , s«^etlr^©« 
WEpty ^iTOO. CulllvRjn, tfe© f\se!8t»nt for<?wftn, &^H th'*t 
plaintiff h«wS I>ti«)t5 worttlw^ in hl« '1^'^pakFtiE? «t s'^tJ^srt "-hr':*-? 
te flv« »ooife«? tbat h» ©utr hl» trxickl'^g ©w^ty borao 

ai weel:; that b<j:-ss • l^j';^??, feut thi-? w«r«j »Sw>rt 

of boye fcr a ect- , - »«Mji titt^ ^<» ewuply trvi«?T«r 

trwklng full box«0 to trmk ewptf ht^nm, Maintiff -mi ■ 
at tJis tires ef the r„«el<5»wt, SO y^sirs ol<S, welfJt«rt firow 
176 to 1^"' |»o%a3a!&, ar^<5 -wats ^ f««t "^ ItJOheo In h*^1i*t. 
Ct» the flay of = lotl, while 

T>litiRtiff vao tiwoklrp , , ,., ,.u,l, h-!^ -mt': 

opdWMd U^ isiit a«wr hiu tt^mk ard t^ t»feo cme ef th» 
tvttftkii tiaesd fear erpty bo«f*i. !w trwdSra wr^^d fev full 
beis»8 were crtiwiry h*na twi«l«» w^th t»n ishocle irs fror^t 
»«! Iv»idl sy wlt^: a baeV at the «n^ ^ -- '* - * 'X:r- 
tw«^ tr two ard #mp.«f»ftlf f^t h1|^« >r 

>,'S r^ 

baftks ?r«r<? Mtwtftv four ard owo-hssrlf f©«t 


ttii-ev© th# ere<ttnu ••.,..■ ,.. „. .. top of t!i,e 'oc^ of %ht 
tru«l:e frefr five f^sM^>t en© itTOh te five- fe^t e^v^^n 

ao dlr«^©tft4^ and arrfts'^wtl^ had pat W7>on it wisitt h« ©«hr- 

eia«T^-4 a lotxd, a fr?pt«B«R brr thti rjaiM of Fl^nk rulHvan 
Raid, "Car; you only pi't ee ssany b©sciis ©v> yeisw truetev* 
h»R risllivaafi, a«e<»r^lng tc |,-»Xalistlff *« t<^etlR?©nf ? f^t 
ht^M of t!^© lMSKir«-^p er*! vttt tho- on Iwifrthi?! sto «iti^ epftutt- 
9l«'^ nifiill tfeey ^^x*' R» blg^ »» th© toR «f tl5€ fltw®r0 / 
€>t hin hmA iAiok Mc; iwrm ^a» i»tyftt«hftd owfc ful'. helfM.' ■ 
Th«!» rttillva«j trl<? liiTrr to t*1?« Jt ffor ©f*» r^^'T. to 
»n^,^tl«5r, and he tool: the trw©^" fros^ tJi© •"-Ifttfce-r: te the 
«l?^nr»tcr* Hillivar. fJ.mic.4 that he |^ut th® hox^;^ eirs the 
trwcfet or fi'ald ftnythlng of thf' klr^df, '^li^ rilaltstlff tto- 
tirie<5 «il8t- that the IjoK'^e w©ro piled oiit or the ^Andt^ a 
of t.h^ truel: wntlX th«y caro« isrlthln five luches" «f the 
eii&& ©f ^e hassle n« Plaintiff thsn tinnw^l hie baeir t«> 
the truia:» tf)cic ferld of the bandl' ts, hauleil !t on &m 
et th0 ctlerators t tfo«j cannin?r dspartfisfimtt a'-'^ t-h<^Ti 
turm*4 i^rmmiSj facing lats losid* 'h«» -1 -ifator tts-slf -eras 
a T^latfepsR ©Xe'sratcr* flvs? feet elg^t in«h»^ tidd©, aridl 
ecT©n fftf^t. five !n«hce long* «md rae open At V^t!^ ctsde? 
t)w tn»& im*? fiv« f©rt four av-dl ctie-half l«oli©e lonr:? 
»(»ne®<iuentl5'« wiiien & trwel?. 'irac - -aeiMS Its th^ 0"a.«t ©eritcr 
of t|-iffl f levator thftr© w»i.i24 "bo "^ imT0l.»T' «^f £ml>«tantle'lly 
-a f€H"Hb bf)tw»«« ©ao'J'i •tufli an* tltm e<!g« r>f th© «?l'?fvat<5r . 
' hwr'-' tms a cl»ar«.irs8© b©tim«n tlJ® «l«Tr5.tor and th' flo©i? 
fjf tlirffle-ctt»rter«t af an 3. ml), "hs ■?.'l.'«'V»t«>r itcs^lf ^as 
CTy»rat4.-4 by a, smr »tci.tlonr>»l In a little 0hanty on th® 
f Iftn floer at t!:e top of th(» clsratcM? dimft. The t««- 

ti^mtf ef the flrvdrstiff Im t!fe?;t h® wmz ^oip tfe«f #l©vektor 
mM ®«s »ooti ae It r«.r--oiii-^^i tia* <g«!i©oal flcNMPt ^}«*^®l<s{3, hl» 
tnse?*- at>ctar«. t.«rii-€ aroniisd, and t.h« >'il«Yator wemt rl#>t 
wp# I?©f«!»idant o©ntffinA» that plaintiff** t«»tlTO©ity 'mt^ 
te tfeo 0ff©et th;;t ?-sf? ■mit<?(a for t>'<s .?lufvftt..fflp t« !^tai»t 
s.ft®2* !s& get &'bcuMi but thl» i» w:t i^ermi mit 157 the 
reeord* "'h* atwtraot "to^e «|Wo*,« tfe© pl-lrtiff &e »ay- 
l«j5, *I farwf'XS 'jroinvS faotisg tJ*» \>ex^& T7si>itiiiig fcr tH« 
^jlcvatssr to et&rty a?i<8 th© eX»ta.ter 'smnt right tfp.** 
Iille tMa eo?T»otiy al5s?*r««t.« th« ciiuffirw given t« csne 
«Itt!a>Pttc*n^ e. earoful c!mT^natl««, of t,h« re^erd sfeCTSi thmt 
rlaintlff n©r?©«.t»'1.l.5' »t?ite<! that. Ji« ^oeui a® I19 ttlTB^ 
*i»oi!m.d 'faoinB tb© bcaes, tJse s?:l©vaior "'"©ist «p rl|*it 
atm;^- tll5;«*'5sis@, %h^:- fitatowewt that b^f©**© tfe® ^l««?vai©ir 
siartc*^ tip, **! wa» «m. liWf: t'^sfKCW.gSb to m^ %feat tSst tfia«^ 
vms? ftl.1 rlfjht, awS: I iwm«''3 as^trnd: 'fa«lr.g tfm tii««©«j»'* 
©tew® th&t till* i»®f»r» t^ ih'« t%m§ that b# -^'.'fti »rranfdl.ii'' 
th« tru«l£ with r«for<*noe to th» r»4ir c»f t3s« T4af;.f««ri»» 'fa- 

loauS* Jt do«« not e«(ijtrj;*-,dlet t^i« r^^jpaatis^ etatemorjt 
tl^at an »€HS« &a- h» t«m<;'«3l s-rowwa f.-iUing th« leadij! t>*® 

©levatcr ^ffni right up* 'b^^ro Ir a ac'rsflict If? tfc« 
9vla.€i»« fte t« *h«tlw*r plftiBtiff g»T» tl»« <?leirater 
&P«r«fct<sr ^r/ stjpal tc etart* '"'.: ha' t\!im t)-© lb©ll f«r 
the ©Icv&ter? airj<l h« t«stiflei6 tliat i»!i«r '■© twmea s^rowsvi 
facing t3a« lea*, the •-Xevator -^flnt rtght up irHh^at ^m 
tii^tml fT'nm hi® ar!i3 iMi no clj^rml '*«.© nae^ssaary. h&* 
o»«pe tM c^>ei»8&ter ^in®w tisat ©ssfi'ty 'b«w^:r w^fst t- tfm 
IM-M floew* TiMl® tM operator t®«ttfl#^ tfeat he <Si<l 
tee^ iti^t^ flfiBpty 1^#x«»» w©nt t- thfe tliirfl flc-nr^ h« tt^H'' 
tlfle® that plallitlff mv© M.ibs a »l|;?'al to »ta,rt. 

ttm toffltlrsooy o« both 8ld*« ©hews tJmt the baelts 

frcK the liottosE cf the tmolc* ©<- thit liwteod of feeing 

©lit t'-- .;.i' ■'5f the plstfcsrrsf not more thar., fotir 

tfettn tls&tjF ftAOordllr^ t- |*l&ir.tiff *i6» "'toe e'Toet of thlp 
slant TaiK, of e©ure«» t--^ p^sdta©® thf; elei&rmiRa© b«tireer! 
ihf^ etsdl* «f tha tru«>. sr^ft the tfiftts^s of iS^^ «X#v«iiorf 
In ctt»r 'wrds* to rodii*©® tfc^ i^rglii of eiKfctty, ■•-"4 al»o 
i^^ oiiiasd th« tep of itfe« l«a4. t«' ftxtemd 'b^yoiirt t!';« ©de^Bf 
cf \lm c levator Flatf«»m» cMT'Sr^ w32©n ifcg; Trheeln awS t^« 
bottom tt th«s tru€?k t'djrlit "be entirely ^xpmx th^ -'latftsna 
In ." -etiltlca tc (»l«!ir. 

Iil^» %\m 0l8vator -as passlnf; frast the aeoeTid 
t' t}i€ tfelrd fle^r, t!*e top. «sf tUs Xoa4 ctpw©!' agssiilTJSt a 
1>e»": ©r joist afe^cfe oasie flfesfe ^th ftitr^ «'isj!r"<>Hfe«»^ th« 
tfcir<! flccor. "a^ tb« 3ca4 not pr^-^ted t'^'^ sr-oro ."-itt^nt 
ii&oi*o than thr»o*f>uari;©r© cf gai li^h be-ycirbf th"? edtii;© ef 
th© elevator, It n«t«l«! hs,v© |ma&"S><5 ir. cafc?tyr iwlMjn It 
aipudfe tb» v#Qj5n, the bfloct© ??»r» tt|j09lt«a off a^l«ot' 
T^Ia-intlff J eawaing M;" t--" fall frm^ the itl«»v?'.ter te the 
botiOK?- of t!» <';"haft> 5^ diata:f«ai® of a,l>otit t<5^ f«»«t* 

rialntlff'*» ■!?»cla,s?at.iS«« e<&»^l8t©<3[ ^f fawr <?rlF4n 
iRl isn43 five i&d<Sllt«aB»l *©y«»tfi?# TJs© ©oviart itt«»'> r«ot«rf! t.h® 
Jury t<? find fcr th« «l«f©wla«t tsn all (sxe«ipt tb© fl'E^t 
©rljt^iiml* arsdl tfc« fly««t aiwl ir.«Fi©e«ia afSdiferat'^ eettwtc , 

^:^efen am first ocmi#^g tKtt tbore -^ni^ «© 
•viateftfie to i"!afitAln tJ.>© charge of iwjgllp^nii* lafcil© Ir tli 
first eoont cf U^o orl,^lnal -geolaratlew* ^hlr? aotifrt 
oburgod. In ff«t3«tawo® « a fall«r* t" o<3n«tns«it «all« or 
other prote«Svlor tr ^no lecture aroer?" '' ^s© »^e\nsl<NS 

l»y the clevfttor. ••"■ai^ -.^ ray, ae a >- " Xawi, that 

t)»r« T?a» no aviflowce ftjlrl t«ii^lng t< cuwtaiT! this 


olmrrot or® ■?'© an ®l«v&tcr» ■■^p&n »t l>cth «Hfia», es'-M 
by boye an*l f isrs- -^ ^©rtt aetirsg a« o€i»wm l;-:-!Mj«»K»r® In tl»- 
vatiRg fror cpfs floor tr >mr-th<r trwelte ■^i«h i9!i>f»ir) •^laord 
thereow tr-M c very niirpf;t? ^-^ • ' -- •«-'• — '♦'■ ■'-■-^s Bl,8..wtlrij^ 
out at ars ««©!«• fror' th:; Istsi f?f the rlj^t- 

fcrss, 'iTtd pile?! e^r ht^,'-t» tMB InstAt^^ itt X©';iit» tlittt 
th« tr$i»^(9r cmjliSsKSt »®« wef tfe tc^* Its tfeifi? ©ot«i««o- 
tlon th© ?■>. ■ t,p 

cff 0r tmy .. - ■..- :- .,.. , .:.■ -.:..„„ ■; ,:...,. -sn-;,?^? 

l^avo til© qUMiQti^ of tSa? pp«.«tl«i!tMlity o-" tjrc»t^tlR|r th© 
©l^vatcr t the .twr?'- It Tm» not r»«c{»i3eajry, ■r.?'*! wa ■iWJbt 
wt»tJx--r it wnyuld hare bs©'^ prpfwsF 1« thfs «*•«? at l»t%irt» 

how «!lcivat<^r» ?^ij^t *r c^^v -^ hav- bc.r; 0»>»li".ce<ll. ^11 the 

yin 9m epinXenp th© pj*<?l>®P VT'^riv»^ ©f the ,1tiry tr »ay 
■•?--''^ .' 'r, if! ^i©!? of t.h'5at» f^'.cttf. :'rr? olrieiasfftsTMj^e » t;^.o 
raii»rt;i to proirli?.* the slovatar ^ith 'rftlls cp etbcr Tfro- 
' tectlen or ©f.«li>«t2r« ^'OnatttutftA mw^l^lrdBe© ©n the, pari 
/ of tM <l©f ©ndor* # mnfi an tiff Irastlve etn9lM»t&n i» ♦hat 
\r«|p5Lra oeuld not fe^e ?; 4d to i^. in eunv ^mj? aawifiiiistly ©or ■ 
tri!\r3r to tla© ^««lgj;t '"^f th© ©vldoisee. ';or».<w>r> ©<3m«©©1. 
for def©oSant fti>p&?-«-rtly «nt««n4 tb/ t th.e question ef 
ordinary •are In th© «att©r rvf ©^wtruetl^n <'f this Hrd 
^ d6p«n$!0 txpen -^hat 1» u»wal. •••rl<*vuB, of eeurR*!, 

that isj^at Ifi -;«t«iill-'r don© ©iiniiot b»j tJ'<© etaTiAs.-'d by -t^ieh 
tb© «:m©©ti©rj of is®rl1 '-gt*©* 1© t«? ^i© ^«t©r^'lii*>a» Tt i©« 
M* ©©tpsof e«i»eH^v«blr thftt ©toRt t» ^--evmlly «-?5©ne Ir arjy 

giv«« f»a')i'ti»ttliir m.y ho dm«i « wtrit In la^ a?s0»irTtB 
i€ ft ficgltrent dlfi3!»©|5W<!. ef the etnttity of ©thcpjs: «'■ , 
if tm rule ce«it«iidr4 for w«r« frllcsfwed, «^ aetlon oou? 
^r&r !>• }i«a for ocr«^i&iet, no R«.iter hc-^^ T^alp-^tji^ wof?;ilrsnt, 
if It. were usual r-fn^rjiily. TT'::'0^bs! frs tfe^^ ?»rotaiot.lo(B 
of life fiRd lim1» iMu© bc-©T> »ad« Urj:©!? "by Alar©s8srdli?»g 
tlie <pj«t?t..i©n of what r-ir^iit have W<j« CMStoBjyryf sud oors-- 
piderln-r i^b©th<r» imtlor all tlie olreijr.«tim9«e ef th« case* 
fiangiar to llfo taO. li-':-l> 'm© foreeoeaMe t • a ipnrsoR of 
OT'fllnftiy !»2i«So«t<io rtw^ «e»ttioil» tr pnsBlns on iMo i-^eimt 
i^- 25lMiSSt Sk* ^^racdai^, ?0C 111, 43f'» ©tjp ru|sir«?^r« Cwjrt 
isaid » (at |sa,g« 4?J^.! t 

tc c ,1 

in the 

f At tMa iwtnt it Kt?i- be yal'J t'^i'it 5.f *. -■ "^ 

/■ orl<lOTjftO inefficient if R«ft..fil« t1*a)i feotion laid i: ,.:.•.-; 

/ &m of th® tlire*,' oin3«it««r th© refumtl t^^ givo p«?-r««npt©ry 

l?W8iTt»«tlo«ff 'yfih ref©T(2«o» *?:■ th* ©tfepr twfi, even if 

\ «n*enooi»s^ «<i>ul4 wot in law "fes tJ'.fi ffroar^-! ©f a w»T«r8s.l . 

/■■>^^^. ~. ^*..- ■■-•"»j|£T Carroll » f?o^ tr; . *iRt £c©tt v. 

'■efcsri^irt mx^ ooatimft© th-^t th* ecoond a«4ltloTal 
©owt fcj^uld tafc^r- frcffs thf« ^tjorr, ''ftret, b^^aause 

''"'■7'; Jir no «fit!®j^e teryiiRi? In th*f rr^^'Ot^Bt 

■^;:-r£'0 i .. ;„ .at %h& ©levator operator ^-ui ns^liPent* 
anJ seeondf r;jwj-:.u8« Irt any »T«»nt tb4i ©larratcnr pp'»r9itci» 

Is two*f©14r flr»t, it !« awfflcl&ifl ^f f.h«r«* irois «vl- 

ilff •?.«<! the ®l«vator e^^rator wor® f^nc«p fe-ej^nnie, sr^S 
thi^t R?* s»!?e©v«Mr? eetild h§ ba?! en ao«©ymt of th* ne.^jlirje-met 
-'f arr, fnf th« latter* Ib lyl***- of %fm ppuiti'^^ a<^ t»®r- 
■•:^p «ry oharsoter of t*le in»tr«r.tlet9 it wrp ef ho ! - 
':-■'?: .nc- '•■■'; th*;- ««iaf% fftll-^^ tc^ 1^%^^ & f©i*imX ^netnw 
tlo^- t' :l:r^- M^ ?J<»f(&»)lai?t fi©t guilty tr: a «*ft^--h-trHe-« 

.(■•^f'S'nd-^ist alK-- fisont«n«1» tl»t tfeere wn» ne ^-vl- 

cut isatters ■:' nti fei^. tliat tl3s© »2.alBtlff ^m© a 

tlse lc«,!^lrif plRtfisrm ^■yiJ'MseiBt t t^^^p faeSrlni? ih©tt,e©. Into 
thii^ "isjjf^tr*^; ^«\JiR©* ar^ .Gi! urn el-vatOT" >>3i' jn-'&r?» <>•'■ a ^^n^•- 
ttmol?. char.ffc® tJmt tt w^'^e tfe,« <iluty «f t?i© tefcn^ant to 
■■itT«5ch pli^iTitiff with ft «'«fts5cr!a"bl.y saf© plmee tr w««riE;? 
'■■ at th« a&-f©Tifl.ftttt *5l<5 is«?t r«!mr' !tR '^Mty* Mit order ©^! 

?%5 oorr4yB^<*<ll tbft plftl stiff t'' T«t an m^'aaually laifr® 
rsu-r- r^r ef borc-s er th» tnimSct that he ^Ad as or''l«»r0^t 
thr^t Ji«i 'r:is tmaljlf: t^ 0e« oiwr tht tep ftf tIi«Bv? that ho 

&a oi«^«fi^>4 0»?5 «c«scawa«^ to oeiSv«y tfee troe^ ^y m ■ tm» c 
:jaia «l«.vmt«p t© th« Brsiser flooi* ©f said "^aeltini; ^«ii«et 
tbfiit irt o'fe©<Sief»e tf^ «u«n: e«BErand tlho plalyitiff did then 
nM t>Mr« ««siirey the tr«©lt f»»«r?fl thd ie^j^lng pXatfe-rr irlth 
-all duo 0«r« •.tM^ «a^?tlo*5 frr M&' f«m safety t thsst b-- j^c-u^ow 
cf tJ3« b.#l?^ c»f tb49 baatee, ?v- tsya* tnml>3e a«>«i3rat«rlv tc 
eb»«ry0 the- r>©sitloii of th-? trascl.;, %r^ thereby th« |»lft»o 
•«rh©re pladtitlff ^mr r«e«l,r«"!! t»^ estafKf, w??!lla boltug "^ov-tvd 

d©f eii«lantt » bwt wet fee Iht plMntlff » :«> thlr?Sc thwrei^ ■«&« 

inr t^- ffilioTif that ths n»8i?©r of "bsacef? f>^lc4 em tht %rv»T!?: tm»t 
as tt> tih^ ptsi-intlff r\t 1 aet.» iimirwlt *!• ' ^ ^r*^ eo 

Mgjs that he co«li? ne-.t ^e- f-T"-'*" t>'^^-- a-:-'-; trftet 

l-eofftiteti fjf th© tmm^.j. ■;.: av th© ctisectlcr; of 

vStettlcwr thos«f faatej., ir ith «dl t)h© other fitetw 

In «Yljlen«e» r«nrSer^Hl tb« i^UoCi tmijftfo, arid '^-iwthar tlwat 

'^1 r.^ict c<mt©n<5 that ?»lt?4r!:tlf" 

m»9mm^ the :■:.- -. .■-,,jr isSiioh r^sialte^^ tr, tMe a«- 

oliienti nu 9, «»tt«r ®f l&ir# In fisMs^fm z- £ii^^» aeo'per 
^ 0©«* 'Kl m •^'^«, €mr : tJprfjc^ ^^©tirt Ime said tKat» 
"".l^ ate- 

Kaater for da«mges 4k oas© csf pt«r«!<»s,.l 

I'eten'Sarrt'e ©ounecl point out t>^.e Itinin^th of 

tls?!© plfclntlff ha.d h09r\ esr loysft 1?'^ tMe tror^' ardJ tbo fJr»- 

crtsenoy wttli wld«h he fcad weed the fil^rator, awl e^noludo 
tj»t tli« ^&ng»VB» If. afty» «tsa t£ifc epC'Clfle hasar^ ^loh 
&is!ius<^d "aferc &e open ?3*?<5 the 

rhycloe ' tm^ t}s®T»f©rc- r" ■ ■ r-^ 

rii^> and o«nm>t vtt9m«r» 

"hf ItLV ia tMt . '»felle 0J*dlr«Hly, f^-' «rviir«tc-, 
• •■-t'.tion of KdMitfaKT t?'# serfujttt has ««b\b9»<3 th© <^aR)T«r 
v;i...!,c,. be ':;)n»ottnt«r0f ^r hae hmv. milt? of o©«trlb«tery 
m'.gJit5»i»«» 1» o»^ «^^ fa©t» y«t, &e Ik ether oaeeF-, the 
(ptetttien nrlil te©«e'r«s ©na fsf jLa<^ i4i®B ^t cme oonolijfilon 
o«j l*e draim fro)?; %he «Tl«Sffln«« by (ill y^aK-onRtslt rirwls. 


by all poaponabXo usin^B Ic that tlic »p clflo haraiv! 

whioh Cft«e©?!! the a©ol'^.f?r»t triC ori«m anA AT'PW^^at'; ' h« 

aoeldont obvloualy har^pcntMl bcc u©« th«» tap pt th© 1«>jo 

extenflc^ b«yrTM! the edpn of th« T>l[atfcrK« _ii,t^ ••• able 

^. - :-:ay» fLfi a ?«tt»i» c»f law, that th*B has*^ -waa <5|>en 

u'<l a'^r- •'■?>t tr t! ::• '^Ittlrrtlff? rh» fttot that tho $\3vy 

ri-pt *^ v^a';©r t< h-v/- fminr?, b^ itn v«Fdtot„ th^t tho 

duRC^er ttar IrtMwn. cr l>y the e7«r«l6e ^if re!icor»*>lo oar 

'<?oi.ld have b«>«r. Jmcwn. to the 40f (indarit » iloms not noiMic- 

earlly oos?t««l the ©©nclusio?^ th-tt It jrtjw* al«c. h ve 

!»■■'€?? icROvn t0 the y^alntlff* '"M j^videne*; r^^irc thn.t 

th© tt«ff:ndi,nt vm» -^ cerfs^r^itlon <?nragf©d ir thm |m«lrtnfj 

husint^ffe* hRvlnsg the rlR»t 1« «|ueeti'^w a^-^ c^^»r ^lant 

1 cmmeetiots thex^wlth, aRd ir: th«lr operatien eflemloy ■ 

foroco«i ©ii|»&rlr!t0n<letJtB»*arohlt&ot6» and -aa rcocoan^d 

ef th«ir ^tt-nrlodg© *r,d thwsvf^^ th^'-t frt^cwled?^* »ai«t have 

I*"*!* full', wmre of tn© ccsMstmotlrr: -^nd typemtlo?^ f^f 

Its i^laut and fatsilitle© ana th?' '^att??ar, if any, In- 

•Idcmt thcr«tc. rialtjtlff, ©r the* oth«r band, wa^ a 

fot<«len«r» u?iifa3?ili«Mr» w$th th« "'ngliah l^finrytaa «?«•., fl»«f*a'-Vf! 

at tlK> bottorr cff t>^ I'^diwtrlal »ofi,le rtc a o<»sron loborr** 

rh« ©vMeiwo »hcwjs tfcit hlr ro^leajr wj^rlfe imci that ct 

trywMni? full bo««s, 1*^ eiwrmeotlcn wlt^ wMoh there ^mr 

cbrlcwaly no cueh da«!r«r a« that fren which the «fcoclrt*nt 

aroas, »inae atwi^, truclr Ifiadc ^©rc only pil^l t « 

helf^t of fjNw ttro i< t^rc an<? <nac*half fftat- hero 1« 

n' oirldoma iR th« roaord tJtet tha iplRlntiff gt^^, before 

thl0 «teai(?«nt» trucked a lead se htg^ that h« ooU'd net 

••« cY«r tJsa t<yp erf it, and w|H»n th« r?tj©Ptior of wh^thrrj 

or not the plaintiff aver tniclred a l««d fif «fi3r>ty boxes i 

at all, tho*« lo a dc:;eldaKi oonfllot in th» tactitronf* 

In this? etat- cf the rexieH v» Wft urtable tr tay that 

th« m^itilfept ^«f«il}!rht of th« evliflono# »iic»'*» elttifttr thnt 
the barard caue»lnR the uael^fMiit Trn??, rr eV.'Ouiyj hevp. be<!>r 
lm«im t tbe t^ialntlff . 

J>©feiiidant also «e«t.«adB th«-,t thi? ov«ir*h«lwi»ijj 
-roirht ttf t3Ti« «iTid«no© chetw that plaintiff .f 9 .f^llty 
of oentribotorj' w»|;ll f-rnee . '■ rct.^ ^ oaroful revl<?(ir of 
all the cvldenB* In the ^tsken* -^ aro ^^matjl^;. to my th?at , 
■nlAjfstlff ^Ud fjct ox©r?*l»© all th« ear*? '^■it;h Mc nlr- . 
ootsfit&nooia at ftTvi h©foro th«i £&eol?l«»t 8.1Xe'^«<5» Thlw 

■■;jf!i»tlonf I5fe© th© ou&^tloi? irt ai&»a!»©'*t rla'S-* i!?ae iMajiRetd 
«^--OR by a JtEpy TT«p$rly aiv! n*lljr ln»tnjwt<^« nt t« fthti 
■:-4 th« 'mtloTJ f«3r R, t^tw tHal was eefwl*!«vre!S! 
■ -i.ilcil by t?'e press IrFln^ ,?ttd^e» I« vio"W '^f tb«: f* 

.„c .- «» ar© «»iiblcv t« dlinrtjpjpd th© vciraiet atjd th« 
aictiim ©f tJas tHftl court imX'Sye tfo oftn »ay t'urt th© 
v©rdl©t 1(8 ©entmry to th® wiysiftet i»«ijc*J^t esf th® ©vtd««««' 

■■^- iix. APt*« »i^f £t, ijoui«8 HSi^.::""" 

_^_\,. ^. _._>©2.* ^■^•'^ M" '^^^ (?hloajff:o £ ,iljj..,;_ ,^^ 

Cot^ y. .ct^cn . Id. IlRf rXiM^k y, I"4MPT1b > Id* St??? rttyrlcr 
!• Ii£i5£2» !£• ^J-^' ?-^'>lIlitr J* Pfttt^r t 106 Id* 4p?5« 

'■■' -!1S of ■ "rorfrYtXlg v ' ' tu\^rt » *5^ id* "■lS«>»an-'* thloi 
uM-v»-3 ■,;-. o&r6'fi3l r»vi®-.^ '"■f the wh<>X© rooisrrt, w® aro untthl« 
t-- do. 

Tn vli?^ «>f .e«r ©onfeXMelorse Ir regard t-r t>.e r«i.nt« 
raicod l*? th» defendarst, Jt l« not ne«««ear3r t*^ oonal^ar 
th« «5r©0ii mrF€»D ar-alfps©?! fey ipXalmtlff . Iho twd.s-aifrt will 


SOU - ?1181 


*.ofoi>2ant In '" 

)i, . or cHiCAOf!, 

193 I.A. 324 

ili lileliTti^'^'S tJ^'S opirl^m of the court . 

'"h« tteeio In tMfi ©afl© are fW'hetafA tally 
tbfi Bft«N» a* In ??©• Sltyi.» F ycp ldg of t-h« rtRt^ t>f TXUlneJ c 

fhell "" r.m , rerfeotlon i' ^ rornmnf * and ie .fovr?mi»^ fey 
th« deololcn In tlvit ©•«©' 







e*x« «ft^ 

243 - idl224. 



193 I,A. 325 

J[K« JUSTICt? ©•aoarNOH daiv«?r«Hi th# opinioja ©f tht oourt. 

' •"""^ - / 

tl ii M in m-i 4otlon to rroovwr daHig«« allWod 

'^o hav0 b>«n sustaineU by the Rpi>6>Il«ie {hftreiivafts^ 
aall«u tu*> plai^itlfr) a» a re»ult of t;«e runnirxg owRy 
oi k teoa owa»d hy iM^a.pp«llant ilk«r9iiiaft«r called 

I t|i« <l«»f €»»a«jrti) , «h«!!r«by |^jC4^ntiff *» horo« and wnfon 

«fr» dama£;o4* ThQ <}&ui»« imis «>ut^4tted to tU« oourt 
without fe jury* H«*i th4:r«! w»e a fi.ndi% en^* Juaij|ient 
fpTtiii' plaintiff for $94.i0» The tsiatn «r« th«^»«:' 

"7^ 0^]?luitititf* 9 hor8« »»» latciiftU^'teli «ii||<>tt^^ - 

ina on tii« north side of Wt^dimon Btrf^«t In the viixugo 
of For«»t I'&rk. ftacin^ vest* ?]rjt« team &»u wti^on belotag* 

j^t^K L^ iag to tlio dt^fonuaot, in ohujge of n driTer« *»» dcjliver* 

v" V V tn^ br<^«d la said Tillage* smd it being about noon the 
driver droT* th(t tean into a shed, vni^sh wite in n yard 
iMiBiediately adjoining liadieon sttc(*t* The ahed was about 

140 or 50 feet ineiua of the yard. ?he yard was enclosed 
vith a fence, thre beinff two entrortoea to the eaase. 
The driver took the bridles off the horsen and hung them 
oa the hataes. fed -An team, imi tUttj wf^nt int a rt'ctau- 
rant, wiiieii was ;>ituated neajt th(f yard, to eat tile dinner. 
(JV^ About five aiimit^iC' thwrBaf'ter, hv looked out and thf tew4 



SS8 .i\,i eer 



»MtMiIX'>v( .. 

b«^*iX« Bdjpuuifr ^vMni •» aoUoi f-rft-tri-rirt. 

i^ »««/ 


tf>20i^ci^, «^M, MA>t w, .ror .to AftiUti ^Ml 0« l# 0» 

-dj tfiiJ ^itttw J MO i»»]C«:'' 


tho tea« t.ot out en J^dlson etrc^t and tumoU ftRet, itmning 
awt^. rh.v ran into ..i^inUfr'n hor«« «»d wu^^cn. i'lnintiff. 
iujrsti wa« injuria anu part^ of th. w«,,on .imrt« broken. Cn ao- 
^ count vt the. injuries the plaintiff v«e u„Hbl« to aft^nmrU. 

..^ v/itneo.. ^^ -.t. ..ji A»H tB U on b«h«l f of th*> plaintiff to b« from 

ncO to ei25. ^hil« n i^itnee.^ %^^t:^,, ^ on of the 

I dofenriunt thut tho aor«e »»» not worti. tc excr.^d ^5o, Th«ro 

1 im» alec «viclirn:c «• t«> i»th*r it«as of teaag* incurriK*. 

j \^^^ H»t«-iii^^rmtajst »mjt«nKJ» that «i^r« lu a fata Titri* 

s«(q« b«Wn a»c .lai«iiff«8 8tnte..ent of ..lalm and th<. 
pr^of, in tlm%.Ui& uiittmient of «!«!» avervn^ tJ.ut. the 
a«ieaua«t»e t«m W J^«n w vr^ i«j.^ « Unattended, uniatoh«d 
«n^ un6^<i«d« in MHdii&n. «tr,.»n, whil« th.. evla< n.« ei,ow«<i 
th«t tlie t#a&i ,,0.3 left u«aH^nd«4 anci unhitched in the y^rd 
Mdjoininfi ?l^diKon otr^st. This action in on« of tho fourth 
cl^fea, whr.r*.T ti.e plaintiff »8 alaim n©«d not b« «©t up with 
«»;«uich particularity *B ic required in i^t d.>clBrntion. 
Ife« contention is wttiiout mexit. 

the cj^f4»nd£nt next Qont-.nd« that thor« *»« no 
•Yi^«nc« of m^lXEtno9 on Ui« part of t)i« dftf«nUttiJt, tlie 
»r6<«6cnt y4\tiii tiiat the only nvid^ of ar^ pofieihle 
a«Liiii;e^'.*e w.'.ft tho fact of the t««»»B running ««iiy -m»tt©«d- 
«d by/ih« drivnr una witi. tu^ bridl«« fa0tr>n«d tc th« 

hm^. Yiiis Wight cause Bcm presunption of netjlig<jnoe, 
bu^ c«rtainly doou not ••tablioh a oa»« of n«eUeonce ^SUL MS, 
jm^r^r An c'.Ue.i^tAon wJi.?rih« only grounU of negli^jeno*, la 
that of leaving' thf te«» »tandinfi unatt^.nd»d in Hnd up«n a 

vy(.c.rt«in .tan© bomuil i>a« ^©©'xitt noolfeaii no if.- ->.->•■. ru..«!,i -..? 
» oO .aftaionif tt^'Xcuiit noa«v luii to miiaq, bam b»*tulai 9mi asioji 

Mft to ljU/l«if no fc'TTHM , i$ ot Onr 

iCt^XA/ol; *>Ai iQ ono al noi«9# niknl •#»«ikl« aoaitMiil gninio(Jba 
'.tiw qii +*)« orf ;?Oft l»»n fiiijaXo M^Wtt ' 'Uw ,«a*X£> 

on ai»w oioifi ;fat(^ ttbntitnoa ;rxaii SaAbn^\<^^ •«{? 

«i{t a#<Mil»i«t«»& 9iU to tiaq «£{# fto aonas^JtljiaK la aonat^lya 

<U(fiaQO<! >crta to aoftobiva x<'^<^ *^^ '^'^^ 3iin^<Mr in^oufanui 

olindi^Aau" vnrA i^rtianiJ? a*isut(ti t^tlt to #dAl »At ntw 

,eotT»a'^^B<'" to ooliqcujni»iq anioa nt^uat $ti^im tiiOT . 
SM "^^^y 9anoa^Ia»a to 9«»o a tinllttaif ion «aoi> xXniait^aa \tttS 


Vliil* SCMM oae<;8 bold thut ne^Xig^'nct' ma^' not 

b« inferred f jrota ti.«? m«ye fact of a runaway { aolle r ir y X.'^ 9, ^ «, 

Buprft . ) . Ui' re ar« a grt^at amjy Oftoce to tK« cfyntrary. 

£«G KoHoX^ X&. ^yO-*»a j^ ]^ Lural;er Co , f (K.J.L.) 71 Atl. X2C, 

aaci oih'r capec aited in jiote, .;3 I.»K,A«, 171. Vet the fact 

©f tin*? runaway, taken in aonnwtition with th« oth'-r olrcuKi- 

citunccit fittendiiig the (iasitt, t«>n<Jled tc eat^blieih ne£;lig^nc«« 

ev«« in tii«> absence of diroot evldeno^/aitxjie^Ui^iisia*, la 

tiicr ouo« at iKRr we are of the c.inioo tiiat ther*? wne euffi-w 

eient <»via' no*» of neglig«ii««? on tho part cf tho drivpr of 

defendant' c t«a£a to ouatsin the finding and Ju(ilepm«nt« 

th« uefandant furthor contumlD ta«t Xlw co^jrt 
«rr«U in rofwiBiii^i; to atiiait evld nne off*»reU by th<5 a^fendant 
aa to tite gentle «iicji«»itic<a, cto» of the tea-fu. in tivia 
ooatentiou we oannot oonttur. I^aintiff waa tiot cluiiaing 
that Uifi horaae w«re otiier t)m.t\ g«!ntla» but based bla 
of recovery on tu« ne£;lifc;onc;e of th« defendant An tlie control 
and a*aniHj«»«>Ht of tho teaa. 

Finding no subBtftntial error in Uxn r«<;Ord, the 
judgBient of the Slunlelpal Court of Chioatjo will be affinaed. 


3 m ,;rj;« -v u'>;:ji X;:kv»ft Suii3 biod ••tJio •«©• •llifW 

ti i ;^^ a/^»*no» iKini*iijl ^«ol»fle?«b »rfT 

j»{,)it aicf baajBrf turf .oXlnft^ fixij(J 'xianJiij ot^w woa-ioii f^iM imii 
t<yttnoo OiU til iti»i>n9l ^ ^nii lo 5>c;no-3iXa«n Oi>J uo "^^vooft-x to 

OIL* ,»«n 9<U itt TtOTM X«Xliiii4iitfw« «« j^aiml? 

,aiiltt« ©rf XXiw osM»oMS "io *W«0 XiiqJtoiliwIt «*« *l« ia>^tan^vl 


i;!99 - 21282.. 


r:iaiNAL K/viiuiCAJ) coifPA.'biy, / ) 




'WS'I.A. 3 27 

MR, JUSTIQK O'CJOKNOR .-i^"). iv^-r^d the oyinxor. of the couirt. 


I ?3ii» iu en appeal frow a judgment rendey«ff Iby ih<» 

iJ^nioipal :ourt in favor of tJke pl&intirf (appellee) and 


against the defendant (apyollant) for J{^16(>9,46. 

During the ruonDi of August, 1911, the plnintiff 
railroad cowpany hauled for the defendant over itf? rBil- 
read 156 ccirlonde of briak from Blue Island, vUlinoifl to 
Ciiicov.O, for which it ohrirged $9 per car load, ^?^« 
defendant having fail«d to pay 3Jxe freight charges, this 

It Xa not disputed that the rate charged was 
r"aBorial.le and in cjonplianoe '"fith tho schedules filled 
^y^-v \ with tiw Interstat'? Coraraeroe OonraiBBion and the jRailroad 

Y'*''>'" anii VJarehouae 'jonesaisBion of Illinois, ami was less tlxrn 
th*^ f^jaxfura rfvtf" r.s fixed by the foid Hallroad ond Ware- 
house Coajnieeion, Wite==r4T-<jj,i_^L — ■ — — r* — ^-ir*- that thp 
plaintiff during the month of August, 1911, hauled brick 
from Chi cage Heights, Illinoie, to Ohica^o, a distance 
of 3C milos, for ^5,50 per carload, ovfr the name traok 
as that on which it hauled the hri'^k fcr the d<?if fondant 
from Blue Island to !hicjfti-o, a dietanoe of but 13 miles. 

■ SSKXii • <?©R 

m aio^uLii 

'-'* «^^''^-'' -.^/XH .'nort'J *5l^if To •baoX'uro d<;X fcnOT 



^nltd b9Xu«;f ,xi<ji .Jaxru^A lo rf^nom nrf.* mltub ^-ilfninlq 

.tiT.iijnMlob «>-L1- -i ■ 
,a»XiiB ex i«.^ lo «t.n«.. , ;„1 .^jt^j ^^^ 


fer which plaintiff charged tii*» d<^fendant $9 per car lend; 
that tJilB was unjuet dieoriKtination and contrary to law, 
anu that tne defendant should not be required to ijay mere 
thajii t]mt cimrtjed by t>io railroad coiapany for haulinu from 
CJhlcagO Heights ?j- ;^5,5C per carload, and that thRiefore 
plaintiff's elaira for ;:^1447,34 ie excerrive in thr n\xm 
Of ^78. 

» \ more ' / 

I iihow«Xthnt it had been oharged/for hauling a cnrlo^ from 

l:^ue Island to ^Jhicai.o than was charged other paj?4.i' e for 

pauling the fiiatae kind of a carload frora vhioa^ Heif^hts 

to Chicajjo, OTeV the nane track, it had eBtsTbllBhed a 

priraa facie case oX unjust discriminatioij;, the argmient 

heinf: that, thir. evidea^^^ showed a violjpction by the plain- 

/"tiff of eectionR 2 and S'\pf an Act to Prevent Kxtortion 

and Unjust DiBcriiaination. " ^I^urd'a fleviscd statutes . (1911), 

p. 1835, ond Gcction 25 of tiia hailroad and Warehour.e Com- 

aiesionerB Act, Hurd* ^, Heviced statutes . (1011), p. 1854, 

Said sec. 2 proTides that if any railroad shall make any 

unjuet diBcrirainatioili in its rat^e foi^ freight or passenger 

trmnspcrtation, it ohalVb^ dee««d guilty of violating said 

(^aot. Eaid Geo, 3 provides that if finy railroad shall 

oharge for transportation of pasnengers or freight a 

greater toll or compensation for any dlstaive* than is 

Qiiarged for a greater distance for a like quantity of 

freight oyer, the same line, in th»» sarae direction, dir<^ctly, 

or by means of any rebate, drawback, or other shift or 

evasion, suOi act "shall be deemed and taken, at,;ain8t such 

W railroad corporation, as prima facie evid^n :^" of th' unjust 

disoriKinations prohibited by the provisions of this aot." 

Said_s«c« 26 declared It to b« unlawful for wny eotmow'-^''^ 

n'£ot?»tr>ri# ifisiS bixjR ,I>jRoliiso 'leq 0(5. 2^ "^ 8iilat«H «,>«olrfD 
ai»jft -♦'-• '- ^ «^r ' --^xfl (5.1 l>S.V^M4t lal aiaXo a^llitnijjXq 

-TXTt ib«oX'X0t) e snliuAn iol\bn^'tniio ro^tf Ixwt ^i ;faf{* fidworii ' 
rtol a 'tiJ^aq if»n^o bssiArfo atsw andS o^^iaoijfD e# bi^Xal 9ulH. 

B I>»lt9j;Xc^»jfa» bjarf JJt «>£oa'st «»cii»?! ^ri* .ifeTO ,0^110 IrlD o* 

^rns.Tmaxn. erfcf .'tTol^jMiimiioslb Jautrtu -to •«<o »J:oiit iOfitl'a^ 

•«ij8X<; f>(i^ \;of aoti)aloir a b»wo;fa •r'n9/>lv» aX/W JjcjIj 'iniwrf 

rtolJioixff J'nf>v»i<l yt toA om tej. it bAji 8 aaoito^a "Jo tll;f 

,(XXt?X) , H9iu^ai:: i»oaXYg>5 j^ b * ^tu|I .itoiJianifliiiogKI ;fa«itnli Ln« 

'.noO 9iiuonnt»\i irna huot I It^H ,9 di I0 tlK naiioaci bna ,ae;8I «q 

-.^d8X .q ,(XX6X) « y» j'ju^^a^j. ; ..^ feg alvyjl a'&xu^t ,^0A at9ttola;iJ^ 

Xfta 0-iimi XXitrfa bMotltnt vj^n "ti J/iiU asfaiYOiq S .o»e t>X«a 

i<?3rt99»flq to *rfai»icl not 99Sni nil ni ftolcf JwiffiX^o life iQu\jnu 

iilsB sflliaXolT to x*Xlus J^»raa->b atf \XX«da #i .aoX/aiaoqaitaii 

fi ;t(i?)i»t1: 10 Q«5;^9a8x>iq 'to noUniioq^naiJ lol vyiatio 

Bi nniii »»Ci»ie.U» '<;rfft -xol notiaunftqaaa lO XXol ^si^nnis 

'lo "^Si&nHup «» ^ 9o«i3i^;!i;i) 'i9jj.-!'«73 « -col bwaxarlo 

, ^X^oo^ib. «noX4^09-xlb 9ouia 9tii nl ,»nxX •nuw axli* laTO iti^ilatl 

to *lliia tftsUo to ,alo«(fWjnX> ««*«d'*"X xna !to %tm»ta s^d 10 

tj-. i^ftxn /I .r/fl-nj bitA i>»m«ab 9rf XXofio" io« iioua ,aoXaanra 

ivo gXo.g stnltcf. B« ,ifoi^Aio<itoo bHAntiXat \j 
".^n« aXif^r to anoXaXroiq Ar(^ \;(/ b^fXcfidovq anoi^AniA^voaXi) 
no/awoo xn^ Yol lulvaXatf •(f oi, ^1 jNrtaX9«i> flS .aaa JbjUft 


in Vi** »fc4:regat« for a «hortf'r than for a lonn«r diu- 
teneo oxnr th« Ram«» line, or to char{j« any grenter 

/ ! 

C0MipenBatii>ii a» a throu^/,h route than the at-gregate of | 
the interaiedliat^^ rates; and declared timi ««lcl **otioi 
;»houi.d not be oon«ii»M«d as authoriaing tl*'^ carrier toj 
/ jcharige or reoftiv* ac grwet corapeneatlon for »i shorter! as for 
\ |a longer dlptanoc. Said eeHion providRd, Jieiyevpr, tWt 
Upon o.pplif3oti<.ri of the carrier t^i''- oonr?»ir.v.ion ni;:>t,'jin 

hpeciB.1 oaoeB, afi-er xnvcsti^ja;feicn, ><ernit thv" carriei 

1 1 

^o a'twrge i<»! f Tor longer than for ei]iorier dihtfincTSB akid 

j^resoribe t>ie extent to^'ichioh th<; carrier r!>M)y.;d be re» 

jLieved from the prolil'bitica a^ainet an equal oK greater 

jcharfje for a shorter than a longer diatanoe, 

I w^^ \ 

I Thn plaintiff's position to that Dm i^ates efli^rged 

UJefen^nt a*« rfasonable, and that the r^^ason for tho 
Wf t jr« na«jg r3T^ jhi|^^ of freighl 

i-e- ti^#t?ttn 1893 the railroad coispany entered into a written 
oontjact witli a land aooooiation of Chicago Heighte thereby 
the aeoociation conveyed land to th<? railroad company for 
rl£;ht of way and for othrr purpoBee, in oonsidorsttion of 
which the road Cf-mpany agreed Uir^.t its frei^iJit ctmrf^'^H 
for hauling oarlopd lots fron Chic 4jo HfcigJitB co Ohica<-.;o 
sjiouLd, for period of 99 yearo, he US. 50 per carload^ ^ 
^*(«;t^^ 191C, Tr»h»>n It attoiapted to raiue the freijjht sihargee 
from vhianfo Ilelghta to Chioaf-:©, it was enjoined by the 
Circuit Court of ttv United Utates for tJie Worthom Dietrict 
of iliinoifj, -Inrtern iJivision, fro-: doin^; so, a«d- til&t "tirw 
injunction ie ntill in full force and effect, the court hold- 
ing Wmst said contract to be valid nna binding, I iwTtwr 

-aJtb tOTytoI xi tot n«if* tviionn m -x*'* •^«9i»'XS»B **>*- "^ 
T[«;rxi»as \;n« •anterio o* lo ,i»«il oousa 'ni* i«»y» ©oust 

01 i^lTsflO -^'It :snljiJtno.-{*i;a ■« Jb©inr;f«rtoo &d ion bfuoffo 
;foxji ,rt9T»irOi{ ,b9Mvoiq aoi;tdoa iJiiiB .ooflwa^^Jb %'*7m'^^ ^ . 

bai» B'»t>na^r\lb :t»#toxla tot nijrfJ "X»3«ox to; t '.»! sjiiaiir* o^ 
t9iA»^S to lAitp9 nn Manias* nokiltShlQiq. erW rtortt b»v»ii 

' ftfii tot aoust'iT »Ai iAtii bita ,»Id«no«s^n'»44 Inubntlf^b 
:'i{ai»vl to f.ftl ft.'«srt •«# T^ mtxK^^v^atto^^-^tnr^nt wenv: 
cwj^d^ilir i^ :• it® x^Jiqmoo i>BO^Xi«i ori^ 8©8X «lr»«<W <1 

•xo'f y;::ni.moo bnoiXijini ^Ai oi bnaX b«v.ov«o» a )X*jfiloo<3«a «ftt 

lo inoii^rioblanoo nl .aaaoqiuq •t'»j(io -rol «>rj« ijjiwr to ;^ri:iJn 

a-^^aTarfo Jxfaiorct tiii iaiQ b99t%» ^mqiMofy b«ofXljn md* ffoixfw 

Oji-jolrfO 0* s^tlsitiH 03«oirfD moat aJoX baoX's^o a^-^^^'A^ t'O'* 

^^oXino "Xftq Ofl,di> 9rf ,8ts«x ®^ *>«» boi-x^q « lot ,bii/orta 

ansTCAric .t/Ij^io-xt sn'i snLfit oj be^qmo^r^A .ti n''L<* ,OXCX i\^iJ»i*4 

orfi \:cf b^.ni oto» a^w ^1 ,oa«(>itit) o* alffalall O'^nrjl/lC; Ronrt 

ioliioxa ifx^ilcftoH ad^ lot 9fiiMiii boiXnli ®f(i to *^woC iivo-riO 

vxtr TBJt3~{m« «oa an^Ob mott ,aoi«iTia nt»*aj*K ^aioftllXl tQ 

•AIoil ituot^ oriJ ,io<»tl«i bnA ooTcot Xlut nl XX^tt ai aoitottuini 

^nrtTTtt \ ,^ibnisi i)n« bJfcXar e<f o^ ipAtinoo bl»a .taacM snl 


oJT ftil th» faot» In this tJ^ie**, '.« are of th-J oplnl-m ihit 
defsntlant h*« net •«t;tbliKrh'».l th-. df-fsijc". of unju!<tt il«<3ri«l- 
natloa, and ai« th« r4t« oharij«f'l th« defarKlemt »»»« ICij-illy 
e9tiitllBh«4 anl rea*»or.*tlt, th« aatl^n of tho ar>uTt lo In- 
struotlng th« jury to fini for this plaintiff wf»« -jorreot. 

Tb« d«f*n I'jnt sXao oont-'niK tTiti>t tht «3ourt •rrod 
In allowing th« pl&io'tff lot*r««t f>n th-^ amount of lt« 
olaiR} that lnt«r«!t la o=tv<?r isXlo*»^:l« In th« *lva^na« of an 
agre«««ftt, txodpt ift i;fOvl(i«.i by otstute. Tbl» ia undoubteinUy 
a oorreot •t»tei««ni of th« 1»*. Th*s at itut«, sio. Z, ohap. 
''i, Huri' g Hgvlaei 8t»tut99« provld«», inter aXlt* . that lii- 
ter«at aay t>e alXo*«<i •on »on«y v?ithhftX4 by «a unr«sitaonacX« 
and ▼'jxatioaB (i«Xay of <;*ayR'»it.* In t,b«j oa«« at o*.r, »XX oX 
lh«s ft'slj^M wa« b«uX9<i during the Knntfa of Augunt, X9X1, aA<l 
plaintiff' « oXftln wa« tb«n Jud <md p>iyftbX9. Suit <««i« net 
brougbt until Aug»ttt 39, X9X7. On the trUX on the ^uaetloa 
of thd aXXo«&n?j« of lat«r««t, tb« record is «.« foHowa: 

•WR, BAPTOS: I <sXoe« «y obbss anl wiXX ask th« court 
to luatruot th« jury to fln4 a v^rdlot for th« plali^tlff for 
the aum of *X6e9.48, b«iag *X447.34 prlRO\j)*X tn d *333.X3 

"THE ff^njl^Tt le th«r« »ny 11 «pute a* to th« amount? 

"HP. flPtrOfTMAUlf: I prft««u»« th« o<'>mput';tUn l« rl^ht 
\;ut I object to the Inet ruction to th« jury and T oouXd Xlk« 
to te h«ari on th*t, on the X«it»X i;rop©»itlon, b«for« the 
court ir.8trttOt« tb« jury. 

"WR. BAFTOH: Tou >3«m b« hfl.^r'i en th« motion for « 
n«w tri&X. 

■THE COURT: Th« jury wlXX ba ini»truot«<i to br ng in 
a ▼«rdlct U fator of the piaUtlff An<i agalnat th« 4«f«ndant 
tor *(X669.46." 

Froit thl» It <jXe«rXy apj-«ar» that no objaotlon «»• 

-at at Siucit) »i(> to nt^Ui>» •dJ (•Xc^«no««»T l^na Jbtifail 
.*o«i"Tor »-^ > f^-?«r<j »({1 tQt tall 9t x^ui »rf^ y^ - 
ttft-r^ ^'iv-'r ' »l^«»HfciOS otX» $Mfca«t*t trfT 

Hi! to voneBgjt riii ni «Xi;f««oXX« :i»v»0 «l ^«)*l»lAt fatf^ 4«lsX-. 

. .©^rt t^tutiH fref? .*«/ »£(^ to i«©ffl»;?e^i ^otsTioo « 
-«^ *«iiJ .fiXij it'lgj. .••l>ivoiq >f?/v;^^^ l>»^^y»!? «JJfe2if2 »*'■ 

lo XX« ,iA«f iM <mij60 e»di aX *«/a*isiX'B': to x*^<*<i «i.oJ^£xeT bAt 

roA ^XX&X ^itiuguk to fflcroff !»d/ ^aitut b9iu»d *b« ^4itX»i:l »fiJ 

toa B^^ tlud .•l<^M\Kq ba»' ttuh tndt ««« aii«Xo «'ttl;rnt££^ 

;»»oilo irr»-f 3ri^ »^««*T»^rti to »ea«voXX« •df to 

'^uoo tdi i«A iiiar l>a« ••ISO \m •aeXv I :lfOTRA9 .ffll* 

' ' ' ', 5; TOt tflht9r » fcalt 0* X'^wt '^"^^ iOi/T.teiu oj 

T*flfUom« •(!.* oJ »(^ »fU',nlt x*» *i»fl.* ©I :?fftr»S IKT* 
c^'ff tluoo I fciifi x'!t»t 0^^ 0* floHoifiiafrl tdit c»* lo»tio I Su 

f:tfi »10t»Cf ,n-..fJi»o o-i . r*;,,»X »fl(j flO »iflrfJ BO t"l«»rf *4 OJ 

• ticcrt *A$ atovtltni }ix/oc 
« rtot flol^ow 8»rf»* no l>*i»»rf •(/ it>o i^oT iKOMAfl .WW* 

ai in 10 OfT i>o^otfii»ait wd ILL*' xi-^i, v^i ;T?fDf^'0 31!T* 
aai)ft»t*fc »rf;» ^•niiss^A t)A« ttUniAlq ^di to lov^t oi #oiJit*v «t 

•.a^.csaxf lot 
rToi:ro»Ctfo oir J-«i(l •tjoqq« x^'^^o^'O 'J^ •'^^ *«''^ 


t© Ih'-t *llowi»n5e of lni^r«et. The au"". *?*, I on «*• not 
preiient«l to t.b« tr'. &1 court, «nd It hac lorvtj b«nin ««tab- 
ll«hed that « party o?innot r4l»e w qu««tlon cf thle nature 
for th« flr»t tl?!J« i« a oourt of revl(^>tif. 

Tlr.dlwg no s\i0»t7:ti*l error In '.h«' raoori, the 
ju^^mfent of the Wunlalpal Court «f C>ilia'r.,;0 will bo 8-fflr«jo<i, 

©liff/n ■;-> n^^Usiftap b 9uit,i toantto x*TAq « tudi - ., , 

23X <• 21677, 

Plaintiff in '^/ror» 



D*|;*^naj^^u5>M in Krror 

.•EHiiOi; TO 

193 I.A. 342 

Mh, JUSTICK O*00^cn U'lATBrea tii© i^ylnion of ti^i oourt. 

i ' 

The writ of ®ri*or in this ca»<^ i»«6k» to r»vt«w 
an order enteroil )^y the Circuit Court of .'ook ro.inty 
quaeuiag & writ oJi^j hc^beae coramt and diepiossitvg tha peti- 
tion »t x>laintlff in error*© ooot ami roUanding the infant 
child 0f pltvintiff 'In error to thp cueto^y of the dPifondantB 
in error. The partlfr will, for o«>nveiU.oiaoo» ha difttiQUAted 
»» r??lator eart reai)on<l«yit»« t^o faat« ar« thooe:} Th« 

"X"^ infant ahlld involy.*<i in thi?^ oontrovftray itS^thn daughtor 

ixoC urd^' child of tis-r; relator, ami the grftna<laUi:.iiter of th« 
rciapondejnts?, Thw r<klntor^ « naan about 38 y^ttre of «g«t 


44.r*»6i<lod i 

re«i£«i«f\ln tv yHIo^;© of li«f^rte, iiinn«ootaj*^^Hi«~tiBi» 

jpraQtiofilly all 


life, Vn February 


25, 1911, he w.%8 inarried to the. d«.Uilit«r of the r^ispcndfnto 
at Kenonim, ll^oonein, Rcfc >ond«^«t«* dauj'liter ami %h» relator 
w«r© cMUBlne ^t tl»* first dogreo, and prior to 9aid M&rriauo 
»h« liT««d with her psurents in Ohiot&eo* Hh«» visited t>te 
relator and othnr r^latirea in *Unn»aot« «nd thr're 
bfl^cHiai i»aems(id to i.mrry ttie relator. Afterwards th<? 
rt'lator tmsa» to )hiQ»H>'0 to ^<^ uiarrir<d, but. found that 
th© law of thia i»t£.te prohibited i!«irri«tjec bf>t^y«en coueina 


HOtjax. . 

[ .rrrrta 

« nxlt i 



J do ill 



? , 



of th.i? first £l»gjr<?«» Theicuj)<3«» iio, togeUi'^r with tirto 
rei>j)on4<?ntB, ».wi »^i<X dauc::ht«'^r, ji>roc«t«f<led to tViteoonaln 
wii«y<» th« t'liftrriag© o»?r«aJoriy tm© p«rfona«d, Thej*- all 
iraxa©cliat«ly returnoa to Chiotii^, unU within u day tlu^riN* 
«d*ter, tiuf riJlator and niu *.lf© went to th«tr hoaa* in 
i,Una«BOta., whwrf Ih&y oontinu«d to live together ae hu»« 
band ftn»i wife until April IC, 1014, viien she died. 
Vivian AWrotliy Bohutt« the ohild in queetion, mie th* 
only cliild bern to r«Xo.tor and hit-. wfif# anii w&o about two 
ys?»ro old vthan hnt ctothcr diodl* Oho w»fo not verj* fctrong 
pl»y»io«lly# tisiti about thr<;c weeks after hor 'vOther'e 
ti[«!«th watt tak«« to tU« hoisi®. of th'"': r' eiin^na'^rttB in Ctiica^o, 
wh<--^ ftiM^-«%*l;i l%rQ4r AlK>.:t lJeot?mlj«r XI, 1014, r«'lat«r 
wa« notified l>y ijublieation timt rtopouti'! nt» toU filed 
ft> i^etitioo in the County Court of Cook County for th« 
adoption of sftid child. D«e<wab»r 2^, 1014, relraor 
vioitod th^ r^^spond^mtB ana th*' ob lid, ana on th«i* L'SUi 
of th« Etonth d«msinciou timt the re«po»d«ntB deliver to his 
hXH futild, whiali tht^y r«fuo«d to do* Thereupon tho peti- 
tion in tnlB (SiAiUit wae filou. 

Tb« r< »i>Qna ntc ccnt*tniiKthAt tint custody of th« 
olvild was turned over to thea by ajgrofr.-ir-nt "bc that they coul- 
raii^e Uftr tc mildenhood, tht' father, l\ow©ver, tc have th« 
ri^;ht tc vloit eaid ohild at r^aaonabl* times;** that tiil* 
wao cione ut the dylntj rcqueot of tJi» oliild'a laoVher; timX 
»iift J fi t to iiine} well tttiten care of and hai/ a good uome in 
ChloaftfO, ami that it 1b to tise boet intpreijtB of Bold ohild 
that Rhe »t«y with reBpon<J<*nt«. 

• I>«i& Off« awiiitr ,Wei ^Oi linqA liinu ellw urtij i>r. .^f 
Snort^a Xii>r iosf ««w ode •jteib 1 j^X© «ie;i 

,i^Jta\ibUiiqa&% iUtJ^ %imim #«i 


»i8 )s^l«i as a^jRiBst t>i« world vLnlcae he km* forf«lt4 
lilt riii^, or txki weXfarw of th*? ohllU dtMwindiii t>Wit h^ 

$37 111, 229, ThftNgont rolling elfiaont ic t>(f welfare of 
ihe oliiXd, aa;i tlile IcN^t to b« deterBinod Rol'ly frojsi 
jth» finanoinl et^ndin^ ofN^i* parti»»t<. In Somagk Xt/ 

Maurghall^ AUPJt»* tilt; court 01 

P» 5ii3: 

re^Etird t|ie 

Hgbta of the imtent tin eui»«rior^ thoB« of any ©th«^ 

- X i 

]>eroon, when t)mt imrent le a fit p^^on U> have th« \ 
Out.tody of childrftB ami is 80 clrcviiB«t.>.>k<;5^&d thnt he cab 
TOfxdfi th« n«so«»©arl»» of lif« «inct adminlt^r to th« I 
«quir«ia©ntii of auoh a charg*. The evr** fact t)53fc4 »om«\ 

pthor i^^vBon jaay hav« £.ior« »tj©n«y or pi^opcrt^r in ajv 

ita_-rarrimir-ttist -feiH>4mla 

eTla.;nce t, iMa p ^ to sihow tiuit «w? rf=«poadent» Mlji^ able 

to lur»i«ih tii<^ ohild with a iaor« aomfortiil>le horn* than 

iAm rrlator^ Wt < .<? h ave n o qtnrtJt~fyo»>-4>H»--»yiArt«?» -that 

tha-^ifrlytgy Tc "a "f it" aRa- p ro jj c r TygT8ot»~am^-«uf f ioii»iiitAy 

^ttl4»--to- »u|>pur t~aira- -gecry 'f<nr-htg-- " ^h*-i4» Th« «-#idcac« 

t«nai.Ho 8iiO-» t/ittt^-^^ r*aator wae T«ry fond of ^aa ohil<t 

snU timt h« diti aot intend in aiij'Vi'ay to jsurromler ai\y of 

hii iifihtB by tiuuin^ h^r ovo»r to r«j»i>i)MKi»)fSt«j tJuvt in !» 

» >itrcn*3, hijaithy ssan. is a aarpmit»r aiui «<mtraatpr, arrfi 

oogagAd i» Iho lus&bi&r luueinese} that h{» hai hold i>oftiticiui 

of pul;Iis triiat* auca aa ass^oiasor, i3«<Bli«r or th<% TiXlage 

coundil. etc(«s tiiut ho i^. hono»t v.nd induotriouB. and 

has no bad habits} that h<^ lias ha<i ooaa fiaancinl r«voro«ii 

oooaeiinod l>y Ui<? d<*»truotion by flro of relator** luabor* 

yax^A/vaa ind«bt«d in »«T«jral sbmII bums; that hWwas eamiae 


. lX»w Oil* - . • ' 

t«i<#« XCA lQ^ i»i»{»di o^'^oliftiifiJt Sii litttXAqi ^At 1o 0. 

<a n9fp^% tit A «i 

«/l^ 9VS11 o^ iio9)<^« tit A «X in itsxfw ,aoiinst 

f(^. :>vXo oc al baa* na^uliXitlfi Ito xbc 


aa ft^XX to tJ-^ ■ "••■' •-■■■- '• 

nn»Txuar oJ v^XW* «^ bnsj-al Jw- «-., - - 

^n;4 ,^o^o<iXtJio« bam Yft>lnoTsaD a «X «iui» yyiiimt^d saoit^tt « 
•n i.i^ iaaajilawtf t»dte(X mU «X ftftB«d«« 

i;«iJ ,»i. -c .; ,.. _,^iJ 2»0ia ,Ii;_A 

jt^Tav X mom bAd tiati '^fi iitiit inttdmd bmi on mad 

>«riKuX •♦•toiaXoi to eitll v ^ i/onaiaa**© 

aitXit's»» aMmxnl i»d) {wmtm llmtH Ijaioytxi al «air\|pun( 


AliOitt #100 pw Bontbj til at h0 hoa arrr.ngid wlt!> a 
family living xn Idmwpota tc tako cnr« of hlriipfflf (^ml 
iifcild, Kesi>ottdi*nts fm-th r cjoi\t':na^«4J tht» co j.j-t 
"\V*''" i^ouiKl Mi«t thtf relator «a<S hie wife T»r>re racirrlrd in 
WlDccnoin to eY«4« th» laws of lllln©l»} thevt th« 
atu ritHj^c r?ne incestuouo gin.i void £ji iiiiiio.; ^-"^^^ ^^»n 
roepomtnnto arc pi'opi»r pursotta to huv'^ tiie ountody 
of Va*^ lafAnt child, ?»,ni^ tlmt it im'^ror th" c>tild*« 
y*9B% interest to he r^yaB-nd^u to thoir oui^ted)'* 

\ntrt>tivktMd in evldanoft, eiiowiiv;^ th«4t <M»u»ln« of 4^0 
«r»t aegr^ tany lawfully warry xn uaid «ta*«/, Th^ 
l^ality of \t«*i*ria«« takintj plttCfr iia a f0jp«ifia «tite, 

i«D qu«8tioncclNkn iliinoie« ie to be e<jk^ud^'»d by lie 
Xiw of tii« for«igii\^te JmT.P^'imH'd. Xi, MAfachniider, 

2"^ ill. 92), «xoopt wfcil>^e u.f- taiti-^ago it in viclwticn 

OfS ftOM* p08itiv« X&m of thhi «tajr«« 

xaj5 111, 460. ia t)jr cno© at„)f»ftr, tXie partite Imvfm; 

3(4* Heifealauudyy. gu.>ya : I^ ; o|| v^, : | V,on ^ 
m^lMM^ Xm. iM&S^» $t/i11. 548} £iai2£ 3U. 

l»^n warrif^d in Wisaaein, ,tt;e lei;l8aitj' of th« anrailiiijfi 
ajet bft attJu4jK»d hy 'Jir lftW» of :*it«'M*«in ( Holfcql^r pjc 

3C ni. aUj 



1< 1 III, 

411), urJL«taa the ^rti^ihav*? Tioli.ted «K>rti«? i>o«i\ivo 
©4 tiiiR etfct«, la th« c»s« of '^ilaoff y. .:po». 

held tliatr a smrHA^e brtw««n two citix«n© of ti»; 
efat« wi«>ii*nt to tlie otatc of Mieaouri, «md wor* th« r« 
aaavlHiy&nu iaL4.«ditxt»ly r«tarn«d and re»icied in thil 
csiat«/ th^ sL&rria|(« having tAkma laaoc within one yttXr 

T one ©f thf parties liad li««n dlvor<i«a; vmi» Tfrt^Jl^ 


^:b "Cff J»*2ibiiti^« o«r a# ai ,«XactiIXI ojr JDftnoidsojjp n»rfw 
:.i..^ .; .V ^ .. ^rjp^fdw ^qnox» ,(S« .XXI ij^S 

o«»aXW lo sw^X v>/Ur ^i^ b«t|^i«t^^ AcT J-aiua 

.^op? jX fioaXili lU iiX\ «•♦##• •ii(# 

lij to an«sXlio owi aoQwjjd s^Hxaoi m^Aiii. Matl 


ti .4 «»ai:j8* U y^^i^o 

Tiie 00 rt tivvrfi «ay» ?* 463l '*'Bsfvtry Citate Jui« trie pow-i-r 
to «iimot laivB whioh -feilV iutrttcnully Ijind lt.» citixffn* 
idiiiltt aojouruixig in ^i forei^^n ^uriediation providt^a euoh 
laws proJre©» to «o biiKi tiiCMv, fenu to u-'-olora thut warrlae*^ 
contraot«d b^tw^en itn oitiaene in for©l(pi f tRtes in die- 
regard of tlifs 8t».tut«» Of the Stat© of th<.<ir doaaioil© will 
not he. rt^oogniaed in th« oo .rtB of tii*» latt^^r :'t«*te tlii»u,?::ti 
vs^lit^ wh«r«i» aolebrated," Tho rjca-t quoted wit.. ap>)rQvaX 
frow thfi (3ae(a of X^ihw x Xa, l^ija>|^» IS'"' •■^its, 36C, a« follovjJi 
*It (tlt« law prohibiting emrrlagft within it y«o.r tift^r divoros) 
»e«i&» untjuwationably int«'nu*'ia to 'X^ntrol th« ccnduot of th« 
r«»oid«iitt» of th« state , ^hotJi*>r the?;/ be within or out»id«f 
of Itv tKtund&rifs-ei. fvucJi b^lnj?;, in pur osinion, the evtd nt 
and clearly «xpre8B»d lnt*?nt of the le'^i'sltsture, w« hold 
ti«it whwtt pi?r»oj»» dotaioil^d in titAiB Btaiu «nu «rijo are 
«ubJ«ot to th« provietonw of th*^ lt%w le?AV« the; :)tftte for 
the p^xT&oee of ovadittg tho»ai provt8lt(»n8» and go throuti^h 
the a^rmmny of w^rriais* in anoth^vr s'^^tate and return to 
thc'ir domicile, »uqjii prtttended K»rriaji:e i» wituln th« 
prorieione of Uw law and will not )»« reoogtiised by tlio 
oourtf) of this f?tst»«^ la «»« "ntlKOp ^ ffi>»e realcante of 
this 6t;itt>, left thin state and vejjt to thn state of 
Uieeouri fos- tu^ i>nrpOK© of evadit^ Uxf* ©t;>tutOB of t)iii 
st»tet went Uxroui^i th« irteunriage oer«£»>»y in i^iesouri* 
ajoi IseMtdiatvly r^turned^ to Ililncia* The court th^re 
hald timt euOi aarria^jo was T«id. In tiie oaao at l»ar, 
thK r«!^l&tor was not a roeici'^nt of thiti stnt« but was a 
r»Eid*^t of Uinneaota. He Iwtd ti right to e* to Wisoonain 
and be aarrlttd and TJn.<fK r«turn to iiiu ];•'>«« in Linne»ota, 
th« law in both of thor.e svatva parniitting narriagas be* 

jCX^ir 9U9jtn ■■9 ni»i% •Ai lo mniuittim •di to *'x«2i«'< 

•dd to ^ov»nyo •li; X«ti*acK> ojT ov»Lia9$uX -y^Xcfanoilafiivpflt/ i9uu«9« 

t'l ;;i- i.-:? .f'-.'.'Ti ■) -Xij /ti ,sfiif»a tiDtfr) , J all 1« 

■'S to #a<»^al l>«ao«>'Zq[X» >(X^uii»Xt> ba» 

t littllBilmoii «ao«i9q aocN t»*ii 

YOl f <V<»»X wmX a-tit to «itoJ:«ivoig[ Ofii 0^ tvl(]lu9 

;f ,;.-:? i; / . ■^ -,/ « Of ^ ' - ^v -- c^ ono;f:t 8«ll)St^ "^ - ■ -■■-■•• tuiS 

O^ ,T-1£ f'-l ::1>:^ M + .'^J V. f J i Oj^lTIt^i* 1 . »«U 

eitt fliu#iu( oX t:^!') i9ttfi ilou9t ,»Xi0JtMOb <xi»r(# 

»iir xrf b»«iai»oo''i otf ^oft XXiw htm w*X ♦#it* to «iio1«1yot« 

to aftt«iilit«tt amyq fiogXxW flrfi al ••otairs olrf* to q^juoo 

to ntBtm ofU oi jffsw^ httn ttieiiu itlrd ^toX «oi .in ttsit 

tkiii to aotul'iJa niKi ])nXi}4»Y» to •aoq'snni oa^ lot k*tu<i«tHiii 

.XtJiooaiU rti xincMnO'Xoo •HH>'i:'<'XiUH »ri# Jlawoiri* *nov .wj^ia 

'»r •!<* ^-xuoo oifT .nloflXXiI o* ftoniw^^oTC xXotalbor.-3si ^n4ji 

tttai Sa 9»no i>tU til »bimr mmr •^kxtam ACiua tatU bl'ati 

M 8«w iwtf 9iiiiStt HlHS to *ff(r>yf- *'"^ bow tolaX»>'Z i»rfi 

nianoosXW oi 0:9 ot ^li^Xt a i>ad 0: iinJtU to ^R^blaAi 

«r; aoaiM al otaou oXri 01 tnuS^t n^tfJ bOA toifum ocf imn 

«otf «^ , a-juftw snillifiiritxi aoliBJa oood^ to 4Jo<f ai; waX orf* 

tween cousins of the first de^^ree. The inarriage was, there- 
fore valid and "binding, Undrr all tii^ facts in this case, 
we have no hesitancy in holding that the relator is entitled 
to the custody of his child. 

The case will th' refore be reversed and tiie cause 
remanded, with directions that the child, Vivian Dorothy Schutt 
he delivered to the custody of her father, the relator. 



,9aB0 airi;t nx aJofll xio' lis i-'bnU ♦snibaxc/ bnjj bxiBV 910I 
bslJid-ns ax io*nl9i edi tsiii snxbloil nx xonisJxaexf on sverl sw 

• blxrio 3 in' "io \to&aijo eiiJ- bJ 

aajjso edi bns bsaievs-x otf a-iolsi-'xi^t CIxw. aaiso srfT 
;f^jjrfo3 ^J-oioa nJBjfcvJtV ^blido srij ^,«ri;t anoido ailJb d) lir .bsbnarasi 
.'loJsIai 9ifJ- , •xaricfjB'i isrf lo icbod-a/jo 9i{i ci ns^rwi Ir»b scf 

.ailOITO'JHIO: HTIW (I!!![CraAM:^'H CniA aS3fl?rVHH 

6 - 21420 

i'AHY KRAi;S, 

Defetj^a-nt in Krror, 


} laxntiff\in iri-or. 

HUH TO liU/M I C.i I- Al. CCUi^T 

193 I.A. 345 

^ - ; iHinti^f OaiiflB on a borxefit certificate isi 

3ue4 by dcferjuMnt on.'tne Jiie of Julia hiauo. iior ;^other, 

1912. upon trial ahe isaf jud^sajent lor 

who (Uod December 29' 

Aiaoiif^ the grounds for reversal preiiented we nhtalX 

"^^ ^"iZJilllJ^"^^ °^®® InYolves^facts 'subatMntinlJy like 
tho«« involved in Veentm ▼. National Council . KniK),to and 
LSJias of .iecurity, Ifeb m. App. 4S(^ J^esoription of the 
Plan of ln.mrance, with benefit certificatea and b.y-lnw8 of 
the defendant material to the poxnt In the instant cnae. X^ 
be found in the opinion filed in that cane, 

hy defendant's by-lawa it ^fl^jrovided tiaat - 
rin» ur.A J-.^^^ aBoeoB.-;.ent8 for every cionth siiall becoae 

cate of each weraber wzio ims not paid auoh aaaea»;.-.<:nt or 
aa«es^r.,«nt8 »na auea on or before U.e last uay of tr^e ^.onlh. 
Q ? rr'ttL '** f**""- °^ ^"'^'^ non-pay:.ient. atw;d uu..p«nded wit. - 
Officer th«.reof, or of Uie national Council, ai.aU be re- 
quired aa cjsaentxRi to .such auui etiaion. anu all ri/ 
under aniu certificate .hall be forf^.ited. ?;o right under 
?ei;.?n[ii h'^u ^^"^'i ^'^ rcBtored unUl it has bfSu ZIT 
IIaII <t^ .V'*" ^-.eir^ber complying with the lawa of the 
Order, with relerenc© to roin3tateaent.« 

It i«*1ilBo provided thflt a menibor might be reinstated by 

payment .vithln 6( daya fron; date of euepencion of all «r. 

rearaees, -provided, however. That he be in good health at 

the ti:2:e of making pay-.-nent « * ^ provided, furtner. That 

MOH k i 



.ti'lflimja « no amiiafo lilijn 

.'■■MBfiA- AiLul lo ©til »ai',no ,fi\«VM>-.- i-^n v,o y.oi..T. 
tit t>ila loi-ii norf ; .iXQX ♦Gia l^iimaoov. fofixb bi(vr 

b np. 6 iii\.^la. [ . ilXonjuoO XafloiJaX .v nii«9»>l «i bsvJtcvnJ; ©aorfi 
9ii.i lo aoi4c.iiottaCI .ptf* «q.<iA ..XiX Hi^i ,,;^ JXrrvoso to aaiitaj 

•(tHy:«^ ,98i3o l^ffjtijsaJt ojlJ fll #nioq[ Bdi oj 1^11^.14701 ^nAbn»1:9£> > j 
,9800 iaiii ni b9li1 aoiaiqo 9di ttl bnuol :Ki 

- J .-..^j i;-.?i^i>.ji4 iBfi ii 8»rjBl-v;rf 8 'laabfiatab Yfi 

9£a':)0»d Xliiiia aJ^ciOiit yt^svo iq1 t;iji3iiiaa9««A ri/" 

'tiJ-xfta Qrti .iUnoifl 3AiJ lo y«J^ Ja-xit <$a.i r. cnw awfc 

to inons9.9»iiei 1S0U& bJt-aq Ion eail oaw %«4> tc ^Ji^u 

•' ■■ Jtaal »AiJ tsurtolad 110 no »»u:y ... c.^ .,;..:•.« a'^yu.c 

;e , J^nftiuYnq-rton iiow* lo J oat srii >td ,.lui)iu 

fiiij io .^I'T Oil J (to iOix on r-rt-. ,^Di*oi; Juo 

-;;*'; :id iXJ.-ii- , Xioai.' ' ;>1 OfU to 10 . ■ . 'rto 

eJis',;)!! XXj* anu » .-. riow«- oJ £f i'up 

isonij tdgii OK .i>oJx ^ ' '■ -.. r,,, 

\;Xu/) uooo" afiii Jfi XtUw . 

9xx4 to aw«X i9iU :liiw ; 

YQT l>9i«ianJt0-x 8(i ^tl^i/n nocTAt^a « iAi<^ 6«blvottq oal/Ta^ il 

-i.a XX«. to aoiam)\K(.:ts 'tc ^.-tnb nnit av«ft "» niriJl" *a»<nY«<I 

;}B xiiXM4 Jb«os n ^.t^^tAvi 

.-XQiUii/t .bMblvorr rivals': i$q anlMatn to 8mi;r fnii 

the receipt nnd retention of auch •.tUBBtmetntB or auea, in 
case the ouat-nded jx.e;;iber ia not in ^,";ood hfalth • ♦ ahnll 
not lifva the effect of reinatBting said member or of en- 
titling hlia or hlo b<?nr»f iciariea to any riguta under hie 

Benefit Certificate," - > vi * 

J-t t^m^-^um^^i^y ja«im4aM»'V'VT^^£i4,,,JM^(m nsBe»ojricnt 

for v>«ffibcr, 191;i, was not paid during, thnt month y^^^^ki-oilj 
pie4r-vm:tr~7Pxft±t!i-f'rtt^y-^pro'vt^^ under the aut matio 

operation of the by-lnwe Jt3rS^P^j¥e*H» becwae suaptnded, and 
Bubeequent peyBicnt vrould operate to reiriat».te her onXy on 
condition thMt at the tinr.e of such psyxsent ahr wa« "in 
good health," A payment was n.sde on October 7, lt»liJ, [ Tirere" 

f6re» the cr^i^psl queotion is, waa she in <r;ood henl'th o» 

Uxat datet / If she waa not, the payment st£.a intff ecti/feXtoi ' 
7 / yf\ f i / ; 

j^einstfete her, iihe diedflbeoiaffiber *iB, Xitlii, and/ if not reln- 

atftetl tfhe was liot "in .-good $tandio|;* - a condition necessary 

tovii»P08« llabil\it^-upon t|ie defendant 

■'l/( A i X ¥ Of ' :mMsm y iMmm '''tixtn\i:'he-t-^y i d enc e 


that on October 7, 191--, <Msr¥¥«=?rrmJia whs afflicted 
/ifith siitral rcfjurK-i-t&tiori - a valvu.lar dieentie of uhe 
heart « nnd th£i,t che had been under the cme. of a ptiyaiciajn 
for tiii» ciiaeaae for ccvrral oionths pi'ior thereto; that be- 
cause of tiiis didcase and its consequence* bhe was confined 
to the house for oaxfie eight cionths before her deeth; tiiat 
Uic diseaac prcKreusod, ^itik the u;5ual dropoical conaitions, 
until it c.->.u^ed ner death. Tha t oho w wia » a t i "m f' 

Altiiouph Qounael for plaintiff aeeiiio to i»ttt.qpt 
to cast aame dpdbt upoiji the cojxipctenejr of the /evidence tnat " 
tbre ;ieptei2(ber asaeuurjo^nt &aa uo% paid, yet v/^ arc of the 
Opinion that tnia fa^t wao properly proved./ There can be no/ 
iaerioua contention tiwjA the payment R.ade oj^ October 7th wa(i 

ni ,8v5iib 70 9in9it{»t»AaB» rfoufe to noiJn'sS^i baa iqii»09% 9d3 
lix:de * " ritrr-«!^ booa nl ion ui i»cfin»Bi l>abn(?qBu8 »xW aojjo 

■.>bau BJitr^ijiT x"* o^ B9li«ioilflii©tf aJLri to Mid -naliSii 

^ttM^'^diaom *»"»ri^ ;jf!lf«b l)iB<7 ion •«« «&X«X ,i9djawlq«B tol 

btiij ,i> -dioaacf »*HHH^-«««r^ awjJl-Y,d •d^ 'to aoiiaxfKio 

no "tlno t ui KT-jJaniat oJ aiJBiaqo bXi/iw ^Taotaxeti ^rtaupaadi^ii 

ni" j:.'.;., . li j.sjJ;..- :i aj^-3 lo 9.T}ii 9iLJ 1« ^JSdJ aoiilbiio-j 
•xerlT , . «s« ^nsnxAl A ".xUijtaxt bo© 

.i aoi4«9iip Xaaij 

'^i'l.iai. ujMi, 4'a!4u\X'»>4 b>^^ \i<ia amr ode ill >'4»J»i) JAii- 

-\x;i J on liJ)n« ^HlQl ,4s; T©.-' ' ' !,) »i1i:] .^orf »l«iani3i 

Y.aB«sc?»03a no.l Ji'. .icio s - '♦^ai.iJi. „ ai" iop umw sila l>»i»JL 

.iaaba^lBii 9At aoqu •^ililldMll taoqatlAti 

baioXniA «Aw au*it??MS»«4» ,i..Xex ,V -xacirojroo no -*aiU tre^«*i'- 

9xlJ lo 9afl9aii> TcaruvCav e - f:oi^fl;ti:4i«:a9'X l»t3 hz di ir. 

mi :;i.. i-"iCl » lo 91J30 9ilJ "X»i)ii« n»'i€f l)«il 9d<. JjtriJf bn/» • ^iBorl 

;oi"s>tt>i<i loi'i.i ari^noa X^iavoe tol 9z»»ulsi aliiJ to. 

{>anXlnoa sen ©da •9on9wp9eaoj> eii i^nt? 9eii*«lt airii lo 9Bi;i. . 

^jdd^ jriJsoi) i^d ^lolsd axUaoa iiisXa dtaos tol vaijoti ad^ oJ 

. snol^jtbuot) laalQqoTb it'»uiiu otli iUiw ,i>9Be»'xa<^'xq otiascxb 9;L' 

a ^ iU'TJ ' * H»4^ '•-■4o « lit aw m io / «dT .dijt9b lan taeura Ji liJn-- 

.vb . n U iUn n i r ii iXiW fcaif ^ ttt fctrai i t i I il T' i '"n *- t tTt_ 

iqpt&iJR OJ •ffitfttt lll^nlAXq "xol X9«tnxioa ..dauodi'lA 

iiikU 9on9/jiVi>\ »di lo \tMie<t3qmoa 9:1J ^oqu itftn)!; dm. . iao.a oJ 

fKiS lo oiM W ^9Y •£>i'Bq ^on B»v iakiaaa»mua x^dta&iqni: v^J 

on 9d n,80 BiodT \,69V0^q yXiaqoTcq «mr Aiil ildi i«ril aolmXqc 

am; xUV avdoloO ^o 9i>s3i iavspiMn aAS'-iAAi aolinoinoo euoiis^r 

nn nitotupt to puy tlie aisaciiiii^ent due xk October. The/aus- 
pension for non-i-ayuient operated automatically, and n/j order 
by iiie defendant society wau neccdii 

Lany points, presented in 

in the opinion in the ..fleerign o»oe, jBd 

tioi^u. ihat ia the;i'e said nvplicable 

tion\meets viiith ciur aMroval. 

Tttera can be r.o recovery 


tixia cnae are luacuaaed 
r » « ivith abun(|ant cita- 
to the pre sent oonten- 

in tiaij vaae» and the 

Jud<jiVnt of ihc Municipal Court ie revWraed with n finding, ol" 
f -^cta, Nftcd Judj:*ient for the dcf enaftnt filtered here, 


n»i>90 an ban t\HMot$i^iuM b»i»^6iio tfai»M\(j>q*aoa tol aoiva^q 

•iiij i.'un ,y«r.ii i. x^'j isx' ^; ■i'.tyf<'.-i'.ri on flCf fi.50 BlIOliT s 

6 - 2U:iO 'ajujiyrc of pacts. 

We find Uiat the inoured, Julia Kraua, failed to 
po.y the v>epi.ei;ibor, 191»i., aaaoaaaent and duea, anJ tiiereby be- 
CRfiie auspended aa a nenber of tUii defendant aooiety; that ahc 
was no I. in ^[.ood health on October 7, IWlii, imd Uiat the pay- 
cicnt tiu'vcitj on tliat date did not operate to reinitfite her; 
that uhe vru not » ££.f:!rabcr of the defendant aooiety in Kood 
atanaing at tue time of her death, and hence it ia not in- 
debted to tm.- plaintiff, \ary Krawtt, upon the benefit cer- 
tiricate sued on. 

oJ bsliii'i ,yi/itTi «ilwl* ,b»'xi;eni !*iii jBiii bail 9\. 

-3d Y«;f*v»aJ^ i>aa «e»ufr i>a«i ine^iiiio«(«fl .c^itifX ,'X9t/ia'jJ ^^w 9tit \a<i 

axis i-ajcii ;ii;r3ioou injain^Btsb eJj to tadflwa « •« b»6a3q«w« •«»• 

-Y.«H fi-ii- Hi^dJ btui «Kitfi ,V itK/oiou no iUl»»ii booa nl ^on mmi 

[i^d sSai^dl^t oi oiHieqo Jon iilb •iAb ^mtii no !»br.>ix iiiom 

1)003 Bil \t9iooa iattba^titii 9tii to istfiaoat « i'oa «aw itiia JAilJ 

-ax ion «i Jl so: , ;iA9h lOii lo sxixi oiit jlA Anibaisia 

-tor ♦>'*-' ->; ,t , - ~ , '"*!»ninXq arii o* boidob 

,no bsiiB 9iAoJ:1i.t 

5i) - 216fcl 

GEQHOK L. THAFTOK, Guardian of 
Alfonoo C»ci»jinartrie, Louise 
Cadamartrie v'*.nd Jennie CaUn- 

Ijeferidant in Krror, 



3JVDIK3 0? oECUI^TY, a corpo|tation, ) 

PlRii^iff in i;;r3|^r. ) 

\ / 198I.A. 847 



e^HrrTTTSinnr-ctrTToi'BrXTK^^ . 

I CSirhis case if) its general featurea and aa to the G»t«««sX 

queation involved io aiuiilar to tae case of Krauo vt. trre- 
3«ifre-t«rr-e tman t , i,^jte^*^«*14f#4. , o-^^tni^w f 11 ed tr* .i** ^AtQi^ un a 
Neenan v^. st au T fe'^ a o f ftaoaa^ . It^b 111, App. 490. Heffcrenco is 
made to the opiniona in tucae caaea for deacrii tion of tae 

v^^^, ciiiiracter of the benefit certiiiuate and tht- by-iaws. 

\ The dcfcnae in tiiia case jm that the insured 

did not pay the aaacaamcnt under the certificate for the 
month of July, 19i:i, before tno laat dny of the montii, and 

i for tnnt renaon, under the by-Xav/a, she became susj.ended, 

j and tiiut on August ;i6, 1-^13, when ahe paid the July and 
AwjuBt aoaeasments, 3he -vas not in tjood healtn, a condi- 

t tion neceaoary to rein ^ta^ ment. The queetion to be de- 
t»*mlned is whether the inimred wao in good health on Au- 
-g»i»t it6, lylb, for, na has been neld in tueae otner caaed, 
if Bhe «»8 net in good health ot ti.ia tiwc the payment uid 
not operate to reinatats her, ar.o therefore under the terma 
of "%he policy oiie was not in gooa atanding in the society 
at tne tiuiC of her death and hence caiinot recover upon tae 
brenefit certificate. 



.■.li OT HORM. 

• ( 

I 861 

i^M^ati" s-rT^if^r -r^r'f iwa"" »7riart ii7 . il rj?mrf^ 

ii ooas-x^'t^H .09^ »qqA .Xil ddX « »it<(fiw;f tgo? 
&i\i to noxJ^jlioutti) xo% ci»aA9 fteDdl ni snoinlqo 

.awai-Ycf a4i boa 9iftoxliJi9o #il<*a*cf axli to 1 

bnA ,xi;tnoin SiiJ lo ^c^^ :tajsi Atii ^lolod «eX9i «YXxfl 1q xi^nom 

ba& xlu], aAJ biaq odia n»iAtf ,fiX<^X «dS; Jax/a'^A a. r\:^- ■.■,10 
-ihaoa « ,xiJ'X*i94.v I.'go;., <! iont atsK 9;iu .uri\s :r.ii:'j» >;;•!« J vu/.-ajjA 
"Ob s»d 04 aoii.. 

"UA no iiJ isi 

bli) ^noor^Bq stii ■ju..i.o .-.i.,,., u*. nw ;./.., i, wuv.,;, u^ .-...i oji^>. 5ria 11 
./'I-X94 sxiiJ TOtn;;j otQtit'X»tii una ,«(»h •JkiJuciioi oi oixjiiqo ion 
Y^tsxooc; iaibiiiiJ* booji ni ^on ««w ^xui xolioq 9ti»~ lo 

9xi.t noqu V9V0d9'X ionaao aondxf ixt* xijlr««r||[''K»ii lo enaiJ 

"''^^ it. was proved 6^3?^iMFe9Te*aNMMW»«y Uiut on August 

2fa, 1913, tne inoui-'ed was auf feting from a t^uaor oJ" txa» uterua, 
with preaaure symptoms vmich, in the opinion of her piiyoioian, 
required the removal of the tuiaor. Upon his advice she was 
taken to a hospital and on August .^Cth an operation was per- 
formed rt-unoving the tuiior and also the uterus, fallopian 
tubes and ovaries. The tumor was about the uizc of a fist; 
the doctor describes it as "quite a lar^je t-uiior," It is also 
not controverted that this tumor had been growing for a period 
of at least several months prior to this timf>, imtaediately 
after the opprntion hf^r ixeart be^an to fail, the doctor testi- 
fying, "there vma a v;ea]c heart-;^udcie, the imart wasn't strong 
•nough to carry iicr alonti durint., the cunvalescenco, " L>he died 
on Jcptcr^ber ind!^ i-^.---±-r-^err'l!lTi:'S^nr'''ti^^^ 

-4iW"-i«w-rr^:*ir^ifft^gn!%irice--<>^ ere vrtis testi- 

mony to ihe effect that lii^ie appeared to be in jrood health^^A-jrWit 
T^ M 1 a to e (J o u r t •• ^■ et! i- y rPTCq--<^t-fe<ii--''4Ky ■-tfair'''^^ 

neccBB««r under Buch circuiiutancea ia the appeftjpwlce of 
gJod health to~^"©ij^i;ervcr3, we -nre not incllne;d''^o follov/, 
uideratand the words "*Kpod health" to ac'an that a person ia 
ir a reasonably good st8te ©C health and free frofo any disiase 
oj| illness that ten da &er,i«PU8ly nwc^eriUBnently to weaken 
impair the conat^i*tlon, in so aolding W#^-a4re following the 
decision Ijr' Court of Honor v. Dinger , 221 IIX, 176. Teatfd 

by'-i;tTi:^""g:ifT:iilXTjm'Tlie ' 

■^ -jm.^ contenti^i^ tixat UtC by-laws were not properly 
introduced in evidence^t -g- ' Aith cnat Tserio. Thejr vere certified 
under the hand of the nr*tional secretary, witu the seal of the 
socic?ty affixed, aUxia rt ttr ^omp'rit^nce >tith secti-ow -15, 

BBW «ile soivJbB airi noqU .locuj^t sdi lo Ibvowdi 9ilJ baiiup' 
-loq earn aoJ:*«i»qo nil xi*0£ ieif^xrA np ban l»SlqMoA m. oi «3>i,'j 
iv^'inloilHl .auTiDcfij axiJ obXjb baa toaxui 9sii anivc 

.. 'to »si6i 0xU ^uodii BBW losaui odT ,e»iii!To i>ajj estiiiJ 
:.;i ii ,^1 "^lOisi^i aaifll J8 ad^xup*' Oil ii eodiiaaoi) lo^oob orii 

YXo;rjili>su3iBX .amx;r oid^ oi loltq axilnom I«a;9V«8 #«A9l 

aaot^a fUianvf iioBii .i£ii ,9lOhUii\-iiBod lUiev; a etPK uttnii* %'d^is.^ 
bolt r:3ljavnoo sdi aaiiuL %noi& isd yiiAO oi xiaxfon* 

i»0 ;t eiM u o 9 9rf "ilfi ttfr- j lo j • f^lTir'*! AiiJ H> ttwut ■ ■< * 

tti**»{;-A^/v^rftfIi»9xl 1)003 ;: » IH« 9ii» JsriJ Joslto 9ilJ 0* ^noa 

1o donM':(«9qqA ^di ai eaoruiJ-auu/O'iio iiouK rxobnjj ^%JMB9 09n wX 

9. .woIXoTt oJl' b»rtilani Jon 9i« av/ .axaricsniiUr oJ ftiXaoxl 6o >g 

il nosaoq a iadJ aaota oi ^dJJLaod boo^* abiov? -^di banjBt^bm 

•8A»8il> yjxa fcoTtl 9911 i>urt liStnnd 1o 3ia;fs booa '<X»iAaoefl->i « li 

Tft a9:i«9w o;r Y^in9r(«m<X9.; sijcsa Bi>no;r .tAiii esgnXJli jto 

94^ S^niwoJCXol &%» Hv anxbioi. .iiQlSutiioaQo 9di Tlaqai 

bWttjT .avx .1X1 XiS . . I.' 

^ ,di ta9d boo^ til i ^,. .. , 

NCXaeqoiq ion 9i:9W awaX-Yd "»«W JaxiJ ^b4*n9Jnoo /j. 

oailxJieo aiQv, ^xnd^ ,44*t9«~TxWrt3irtr'-**^9on9bXv9 ai baouboiinl 

3ilJ lo Xasa 9xli iliiv ,x'XAi9ao9a X«noi;fiin adJ lo baaxi axi^ isi*! 


-^a^p^^f^X^iZXllin^XB iitatute pniivideuce »nd Depositions, „. 

y^ It iiU-alJ9P contended tkat the defcndent ¥/aived 

the proviaion of the by-laws with reference to jood hcultb 
when the finKncier of the society acoeptnd the asBessment on 

\ August 2Cth. ngi ^u"^uL ui,ifS 9 v i i Lr rtirrr-c-offEiw " " 

mere acceptance of the aaeeaament by the financie^r having 
\de,e that the insured was in poor health Uiight operate 
waiver - nnd upon this v»e express no opinion - there 
LS not onrv no evidence in the record-'that the finrt.ncier jin 
^hRt the insured w^s not in good health, b 
itire conten><pn of plaintiff's counsel is that on ti^o 
oraent waxj>j*ld the inoured appeared to be f: 

1th. As uas been neld in the two 
eyond controversy that the in- 
sured atxQ not in, good health at tKe time the assessoicnt in 
arrears was paid. Vherefore paym«'nC\did not operate to re-\ 
instate h«r, and there is no liability \n tlie defendant upoi^ 
kue benefit certificate. 

/ Other questions are augt;e8teQ, ds^jjeciaily the 




as to the right of the defendant to opftn and close 

tMe artrument, but in the view we nave taken it ia ^pneccesar; 
to ditiouss these. 

The judi'juent is reversed and judi.;ment of nJ 
V<UHp4^it- ,jiill--h^ -entered in tiiis court. 

dJIfigd 0007) 03 QoiiBt^l^t uiiw ewi«X-\;tf »xii to nolaivotq 9ilJ 

\ / ■ 

\ ^tnAi - noinl^ on 8B9:iqx9 ©w sliii^ aoqu fcno - i9/lf?w a a 

nlj "XsJtoitnnil siU iaxli^^Jb-sooai »rfi i!i somaljivo on vino ^oa a/s^ 

iiid «xi^Ii)9ii[ Jbooa nl ion ft«w beiudnl eiili Jmi^/^9n3j[ 9a«o at 

a^i no inAi sJt Xaenuoo 8'11;jt#nXAlq to ((o>^«inod 9<xl;tn» ad ^ 

oi?f srlJ ai £)idd no^cf aAii eA .riilAi('d Ijooh nl bam acHosib moi'^ 
-rut axU JadJ ica-xsvoaJnoo bno^a^anawqqa il ^b^^i>> ^uiil saejco^ 
ni inotaeasiGeit nAi omJtJ a^ ;ffl riiXaeil boos nX ^on e«R? baiue 
.-91 Qi aJaiaqo ion bjtb.'^ni.iay.oq aiolatsdA .bi«q 8*w a'X«^':Tjj? 
fnoqu ^nabnolab aiU n^ x^iXidisil on »1 'jtaxli bna .-xswl a;ti>j..ia 
/ .aiaoiliJiao ;>X\»n9tf axt;)^ 

9aJ YlX'3^09.m4 ,b9.t893j(ua otjQ anoXiasup ToxiJO 
j 9BoXo bnjB oAqo oJ Jniii:>n9l9b axU lo id^X-x aiii oi na noihi&up 
<!L'-r/5oa909ftiTtf Ml J^X nf»3l«i 9vmi 9w W9iv '* •' tiud (Jnaaiuai* 9«W 
/ .dasrij eauouXb o* 

^n lo inasa^hul bna bsainyt aX inaoiF^bArt 9ttt 

35 - 21681 ?TT':)IKO OF 7ACT3, 

We find that the inaured. Flora Cadaifiarti-iP', 
failed to pay the July, 1913, asaeeoment , an-:! thereby hpcome 
suspended as a member of the defendant society; that she wh» 
not in good health on Au;.,ust iiO, 1913, and that the paycicnt 
made on that date did not operate to reinstate lier; that she 
was not a mesiber of the defendant society in good etanding at 
the time of her death, and hence it ia not indebted to txie 
plaintiff, Gfeorte L, Trafton, upon the b«-.nffit ceruificate 
sued on. 

,Jn-j axW bna ,5X«X ,0S ;t8ijf:-,uA no £l;fl»3»ri booa ttl ion 

:.i J i.i '/iilaa oJ 9;f«io(io ion bih siab Jflrij no sbaui 

.^a ^nlbatiJut ^.Uw^ ul ^^i-jiooa inabnolsb »£li lo T9ftiBQia a ^on aB» 

9iii (ii bai<i9btti ion si )i oanoxl bn« ,^lJBftb x»xl lo ^exii otlJ 

«no bdiis 

11 - 21631 

CKA;>. L. J&iiNSOK, 

J}^emiant in Krror, 

iJ, Pf'KGl'oOK, \. / 

1 laintli^f 9 in J^ror. 


193 I.A. 350 


guson was not served with amamona, ancl auit proceeded by trial 
by the court to judijnent for 4'617 ,S>Q at;ain»t Jiorfcan, f/ao seeks 
C jlX ^ rf' t 4 xi'«-s^pt~a»-9e^, ^der severing ?ergu3on and permitting 
ioorgan to prosecute hia writ ol error alone nttarrtjJt&n entered 

in fetri^r Court. 

By his 5tRte{..ent of claim plaintiff averi^timt de- 
fendants aiade a contract aitii him to deliver and convey cer- 
tain land in vaahburn County, ifiaconain, for a consideration 
of ;33QO -T/hich plaintiff pwid, but defendants brenched this cai - 
tract and iiavs failed and refuaed to deliver and convey the 
Innd, to the daciage of plaintiff, 

ilaintiff testified that he met j-'erguaon "and 
talked to hifi; in re^-ard to soiae lots at Lotiil Lake in .vashburn 
County, ^'isconain," Thia ** the orily eviaence an to any con- 
tract, ilaintiff then introduced a warranty deed ^/hereby de- 
fendanta conveved to plaintiff a nuir.ber of lots in «Vaohburn 
County*, *iuconain. The deed appfari«to be in proper formr--^ 
was duly delivered to plaintiff. -!J*ttt»-f«r-4,A€-~evitttnioe falla 
4»<r'oEoirany tlfeacB~Tfr~Hnr---««a1irifcCt. plaintiff then aai»4 ti.ut 
he sent the deed to br- recorded to the registrar of deeds of 
Washburn County, Y/isconain, but it wao returned -.vitj; a letter 

X63XS - Xi 

Jiaa ni iaas 

■1 «1li;rrrirtl£ 

.iil':! M, .i:V! 

co'H J. J 

IB'i .. | , a^n.8jUu:.- ^-'1.^ J t;ijji,.i.r;.ts o ix),. o il : .': t '.. "i c I Tiii iiifi.fc-j- 
-awiri »noXi» loll* lo Jiw ttiu o4«u ■ 

-tao \;9vnoo bnA i^vil^b oi mhl iUl:r ttMtinoo « 9bmm tJ 
noXia-sebian ,ni&nooclf^ ,y;ini;oO at««<fi«»v.' ai f)n«X niai 

too eXdcr borioaaxu BJiijai)n»'i»Jb iud ,blBq ItXittimln rtoXriw OOEi lo 
^.! v.>v.-^- - ( — • idviX»jb oi bseulsTc fin* tooXXxil ovad brw ioaii 

-noo YHii oa ^ , i>-j:io.:iv9 \:Xno axi^/iji aXiiT *.riiiflo»«XW ^xinuoO 
-Ob ^trfdiajiv JbsoJi v:<Jn«iiJ8w » baoiJiioiJaX a»d,f tllin.(.i»fi .ioini 
arudiiaatl ai aiol 1o t&daiwn a tlXJnXwXq o4 beyavnoo u^nabnal 
H^mioJ. roqoiq, ai ad ojW^a^qqa bnwb aUT .nlenooai* .^Jnuoo 
8Xi«l 90fnrtriv»-iwii-«a^-<tt, > beisvXXab vXub Siv 

JMi:l>t ^Au aotii llXinijaXi. .Jujiuau^ llim i:^' iibceinr ~5fifa'wbxTr^u J 
lo absob to laicraXaeiTt <»il;J o^ bsbioo^i \^d oJ^ boob axii inoa s> 
^aJiaX « riJiw fitntiiJe^ oaw il itud .nXcnoooXW .vrfnuoO ntudAeiv 

froffi the registrar wiiloj-i t.ttid taat the ijIblI of the property 
mentioned iu the deed iiud not been recorded^ 'l.Tr|;5|1^5(B«nRlT'*cf 
•fefeanwHTOT. ... Tto#tl^!Bt|ig^jgug^x^^^ *;*■ JM^pi'-Tooin© f roi^-''' 
stfar wao incompetent, but even if we could consider 
-cmit^d--t'0 -p^r<>ve-iit>tiT±ngv i-l«ifttiff ., therefore Ja*." 

1^0 w o v o r r-*ryi^gyg'"giy^<^tf ° fe'Stt^lT**^*^ t io n -to the en- 
WrTTecorTlmr'lTn'Q'^'^hi^lTa^^ JTiie 

lots conveyed hy the wurrojitv deed *ww described aa in oer- 
t&in blocka in "Orielle iark, a aubdiVi.tjion,*' t-tc. At the 
date of tii»: deiivery of tiit deed tutre waa u aubaxviaion, 
duly platted into blocks und lota, ol timt name. The lots 
laentioned in tlie warranty deed ©«uji be readily identified and 
located froai this platjf^ Uf u o t i fche- %yi-»i--'the plat ..ftecm^-^to-. 
h^ye be e n -nBrtTt^cff^"f=rogi tfag rec-ortf by the trial judp.«, wx.ioii 

— --^cuSftw^ ai pearA^that def e.^ruinnta auppoaed this plat had been 
recorded in the office of the regiutrar, but uuch \m3 not the 
fact. It <1^4» appear tuat prior to this auit the tract called 
Orielle i ark had been re-platted under anotaer name, which latter 
plat had been recorded, tiiat tht' blocka in thia later plat were 
of the Bar;-e siae and nuir,bored ider.tially as the blocks of tne 
Orielle i ark plat, and that the lots ;iientioned in the deed 
could be identified and located on this later plat. A deed 
convoying to plaintiff these lots by more definite descrip- 
tion in accordance v*ith tne later piat was offered for ^Jelivery 
to plaintiff provided he siiould withdraw nit* ouit, J 

As we have indicated above ;laintiff iias failed to 
prove^hia tJake, and tiifese lat^ei^.oonsiderati^J'ni ternd tp ^pport 

'' ■ i ; ■ ! ^ ; / , 

ou)r cioncluaibn thnc ha is not entfitldd to recover aj-iythi^ig from 
deifen^^ts. The jud^p^iit ia revfrsed'^JMid jud^^merilr'of nil oapiat 

will be entered in this court, L' RKVtR;J3SD, 

io' , , . „.. ,..,-. .,,',:. tor>-i T, >>■■ .Til,' I, i.: I. •... -wU ni banoiJnam 

»ii) .: mSuu » t^iOJii nil :)Lool(i anAi 

i]ioX »xiT .stxoAn JAii4 lo ,8^oI i>.ujs a^iooXd oJni baJJAlq; ^iub 

baa b9i1l)n«bl xltbaiat ocf ^ao b»»b xittJi%i0m 9tiS at b&aol^a9a 


"■i^AtiiT: ' '- '---"Tiroo cii. J.-. i. I '4.0 ii/; 1 it'^n^ fti „— w 

9iiJ Jon e«v/ xiouu Jud .laiJ^u 1:301 3rfl lo •oillo ttrfi ni, bebtoo'.i 

.,31 Coo ^OBii Jiiif J-iub ejliij oi laliq i«iii ««»"»Mn ej^b J I .J-o-il 

ictJiAl xioiiiY/ ,»iiMn i9zi^on«i is^au b&JJ )J boil ixiri •IlsiiU 

Tt3w *Hlq: isiaX eltiJ nl exooXd ^di .- .. , i. / iobelt a«ocf I>bi1 tfaXq 

3riJ lo ajlaoXd axi^r aa ^XXaiinebl bm-'cfTd/r yri« a&ia 90UBa erfJ 'to 

b39i> 9xi;r ni bsnol^tnoiu a^oX 9Ai ,4«Xt2 )(««H[ aXXaiiO 

b)9X> A .iaXq laiaX aiili no bo^faooX bn-a bsilXmabX od JoXiioo 

o 91001 yjA eiol aaddi IliJniAXq oi ^nJL^ovnoo 

10 aaw ^aiq i9iAX axii d^riw oonabioooa ni noli 

,iiwa 6ixl WAibrftbT f)Xi/oiie" til Jbobircf- tliJalaXq oi 

I lAt aA<i IliinxAXq 9yc. i Dni avA;. 

.)mi .ai^Ab aiiiiardq 

I '"' I ■ 
l^iii-.u Joai ij • ndieii'Xoaoo n.^ .-. 

I \ I 
_,_._ .^ y. .x,^. L■:^a^»v9^ ai i.' -^ .ai'rti^J^nol-" :, 


21 - 21586 


Defendant In Kr/or, 


i^laintiff >in 7rror. 


198 I.A. 352 

UP., 1RE31DXMG J^^XCE iiCotJHi-.LY 

April 16, 1914, Jucl:r;eTt by ccriffiSBion for rent 
was entf-rcd n^aiijist defendant. iiubJBequently he was !allpwe|fd ,. 
to defend, and nfter muci; delay and \two trinla judrment wft8 
efci^ered against him, , far ,4^ 50 „wi4,Cli Jie aeeJLfl.Jto^Jiave^jreversetl, 

The)rt?jtirf^nijiisi JAimiiwisow tirat'^n (^ttUg?u«ry 25,1913, 
Jncob C. iaquet was tne ov/ner of an apartr-.ient building in Ci-i- 
cogo, and on that date c:ntf:red into a .vritton lease jith the 
defendant for an arartinent, the tcrui Lay 1, Ijlc), 
and extondint^; until April 3u , 1'j14, the rent to be 44--.. 50 
per i.onth. aubsequfi^ntly, in April, ISl^^, J-aquet aold the 
property to plaintiff, Dolanv and loker's lease was asoigned 
to plaintiff, J, L. ivCDonald appeari^to have been acting as 
collector for Iaquet, and he collected socie renta for a Ui^ort 
time after plaintiff becauic the owner of the building. i;e- 
fendant aa|64 that on June 14, 1913, by agreexient with plain- 
tiff hia lease was canceled and a new loaae entered into ex- 
piring tiepten.ber 3C, 1913, and as evider.ce of thia he produceit 
v/hat purj-ortAlto be a duplicate of the lease upon •viiich judguisit 
was entered, acrooa the face of wiich is written tneoe v/ords: 
••Canceled June 14, 1913, J, ! . I'cDonald, Agent." It Ji^ad- 
i.dtted that kcDonald wrote thia. Defendant also produced a 
.Teffiorandum which he niijjself had written, miiaa ia to the effect 


aaexs - is: 


( \ ,HAvioa .0 fcAiiOH'; 

JA'^iv»I.TUW or Hv>^.H ( 


ya-Uil/cOfA .fyJ 

.'i':i,)iXi MHT ■•iO MOl^iiij 


. ::x(.^x,esi x^fuMMiAiB . . 

. .:0 nJt sniijflud Jj}-j\.i.w. .»:, ■. itv > .j ;•,>• jiwu^.i. ,■■■ uu;j>m. 

■3ri^ xiilv7 9aa9l no.tJiTw a oJnJfc fcaoa^fno o*Ab JariJ no has. »03Bo 

,6Xis,'X ,X v;«i aniaais^d ssit^i 3iii ,Jn9ai*t«(ia na lol iniabnaleij 

Od.bifrij, 9cf o^ viiot 9ilJ ,*XtM , 0£ XiiqA llinu jjnXbnoJxa iin^^ 

art;t bXoa rfawpjaX , ilGX .Xii'^lA ni .yXineupsarfjia .riJ^noui -raq 

Jbsn^xu/jij saw suflsX a'laioJ bn« ^aaiQd ,11i;^ai«Xq[ oJ yJis^piq 

eo :^rn,*o« fiQ^d averi o^^iasviqa JbXrtnoUosi ,'ii ,\ .llxJHiaXq ocf 

: ioaH a •xol e^roi amoe bSv+oaXXoo 9j:i biw ^ioupAl lol iu^09£Xoo 

♦ oU .aftibXiutf 9fiJ lo rtanwo nAi 9ciuso9cf llXiniiUq iscfla amXJ^ 

-axjoXq xl^iw JrtaraaaijiK \;d ,&XQX ,frX onuT, no J«iiJ ^bb Jnatiaal 

-xd o.;^nX bsis^no osaoX wdn « biiit beXdonao esw saJSftX bid llit 

^owbo-iq dxl aixlJ 1q »on9blvo B« b«i5 .iiXeX ,Ofi iQdmsJqs.- ani-ji.i 

^romabiji, xloXiW noqjj eaQoI ariJ "io sJjsoXXqub b »d o^f4Jno.iyq ^isav 

rabiow oBsxiJ^ n9.tJiT:w aX rioXxtir 1o aool 9xl;t aooioa tbait^^ne ar, 

-ha ^^^l ".insrjA .bXanodoil .J ,T, ,£X9X ,^£ siauL boXdO»T«0' 

a bsouboiq oeXfi Jmsbnoloa .airii s^oiv bXiinoaoii iar(i baJ^X 

fusils j. .. o;^ Hi iloXilw (i-io^f^Xiw b&A IXsauXrl sil xloiriir nubiiAiocB' 

Uiftt the »parUuent had been leased to the defendant from July 
1 to aepteraber 30, 1913, and upon thla rueraorundufli i-cDonald 

wrote his name. ___. — _— — — __ 

The-^itnllTig r6rce^Tr'tHe8»~'ffiemoranda depends 
utm- n tit ^.4uxU^XJ.fcy,p.,f_lx'Donead,J^^ act and bind the iil-«.ir»tiff . 
J lamtif f testified that he could re(?.d and vrrite and that he 
never authorized JvCOonnld or anybody else to make tlxe nota- 

Q tion of cancellation acroaa the leaoe, um^ that he did not 
see the pnper prepared by defe;;(iant, nor i. or.>onald '/rite 

» his name thereon, and tnat he never directRd hin to bit;n it. 

I JtcDonald's aut: ority to act^in the mat ter_ if denied by £lain-^_ 

f tiff ,y^e have considered the eyidttias lending to contradict 
plainti^, an/a^ of ^ie\jpinion' that! th^tf^coiyclu'siyn of \tai«li 
trial CO uVt /that iloi^dnald l^ad no autlioirity to cancel the lease 

jivas justified. 


As tliere was no cancell«tion of th<? Icas-e de-/ 

fendAi^t was hound by hia oTbliga'tion thereunder" to pay ren^. 

The' ji»df:aient is proper and ia affiriced. 

■ AgPIRyjgD . 

XlwC KO-sl itflBbnalsi) Bdi oi baaaji no®(i bail Jnato^J-xjiqii sil* Jjz.-: 
l>i.sno<To4 im/bnai Offlon airli noqu brui ,SI9I ,0S a»dBwJq[9e o.t 

,Bamn aid o^or 

"RJon oiii 93iB£Q oJ »el9 xi> 10 bXanoOoU boaxiOiliua •i'>v -n 

Jon bib Sri iJsrU Jkttm ^eafisX sriJ aeoToa noiJi!ll90n«o lo noxj 

0iltv» blBno.loi ion «Jnflbn9l:9b yd hetifi.r'jt^i -tgqtiq »iii aai 

.Ji a.^jt oJ :iiii biiioe>ii:b tsvon ari iariv bn« .noaiari;? Oipjin aid 

Joib<n:*floo otf snibnAi apn^biva odi batabisnoo avAd eW^.lliJ 

9(14 1 to n^ieMioi^oo ad* /iHdJ Nioiaiqo/aih^^ "lo a^liaA ,f<tiinleX< 

osaoL ociS l9o:tAo oi yjiaoxUtJA oa baA bLenhaMi iad}, tiuo9 Imixi 

-9b auijpl 9dJ 'to a»ij»«H3 0ft«o on saw ai?. 

.baanil'ta ai bna laqoiq ai ;>tt9ta>»A>fc((, adT 

.^91 yaq ladJ noii'ftsilJ^o »lti x^ btiuod 

37 - 21687 

WILLIAfe W. i-AIaD'Y and ChA 
H. «AJLKtM, trading RO i-aial( 
& «ralJcer» 

Dafenaanta in Lj^or, 


y^ \ 

I'lai^tlff in ^rror. 


193 I.A. 354 

DJCLiVlJ-tED TK£ 02 i.'ilOi; OF YI-LE COUUT. 

iT^-ent- TTOl^ir "Blide Vy' def er.dnnt j ud> ment 
-%y-«e^rvf<w(H:crrr-wn^;;gnrg'|;^ja^^ « ntered nia 

motion to otay execution nrid r.craiit iiira to plead and defend; 
till 3 tiiotion was by affidavit. After hearinf, tne 

court der.iod the notion, :iefendfint I i m" t\ ii li>tH "TTTPH > 

that this orxould have been allowed brcauae the nff idavit 
BhO'.vy R (;ood and meritorious defense to the action on tnc 


to permit the ciefencfint to plead ohoulj^L^ot be I 


it satisfactorily appears t,©-' tiie court by| 
.davit what ^e def enuant haa a ^-^Ojcrd defense upon tne \ 
.ts, "In an ap]iV4^cfition of this character, to vacate ^ 
ludgraent and for leave €>>sj>Iead, affidavits filed in supi • 
jof txie fuotion are to be conat^J^Hed moat etrout'ly ifOinat tl^e 
/party nakini; the agLplication, it >ii^not sufficient to atsjte 
;faota from which, if proved on a trial, V^deftnaa ir.ight be 
finferred.'V ChicaKO Fireproofing Co . v. i ark > ^t*l Bank , 
f 145 11K''481. -he do not think that the af f idavit'^Vceaantefd 
waa.-'suff icient to justify th«? court in granting defendant^' 
wctfctan, -Xiifi-iSfatter aet up aa^ d^efenae i tlx»fr'i>Iaintiff « 

vadxij - V 

.. :■}/,: 

j^58 .AJ cer ' 

. ai fLiiM^trt^ 

1 xoiTiiui. oHiuieaHi .j: . 

ftxiJ- »nlaa9ff la^lA .^Mvablllia \rtf boJioqqua bav noiiom ax 

^iiTAbll'Li 9di 0au093or bawoXlii n»9d avjixl btmA* alxi 
3il^ no noJLJOJB 9ru o:t ssnolsi* 8uoi:£oiiti. ,>j aHn»Oi: 

- ^^'Ttxo " V;<i 69 tf»^itw ^^rt rrtc^£rt"«"TTffq:o-o J . . ,... ^ . > 

BJ'/tiabnaleb gnUnma nX iiuoo erf* yli .naJtoniv 

^vhlle acting as agents of defendant falaely and fraudulently 
fliade certain representations and that defendant, beint: in 
ignorrince of the fjicto and relying upon the statei-.cnta of 
the plaintiffs, waa t/iereby induced to trade a piece of real 
eetPte for a note secured by trust deed upon otiier real es- 
tate, dcme atocic m a -"ive and Ten Cent Btore, ii if«/-*-*— 
3aid, first, tnat it waa luiarepresented that 4;i;,G'00 hfd been 
paid upon a ;i>lii,000 incumbrance whici. was a prior lien upon 
the real estate covered by the trust deed securing a 5,6, cuO 
notf 'whicz) defcr-dant allef-e\he was induced to accept, and 
that certaxn interest in3tallment8 had been paid ui-on this 
prior incumbrance, y'tii^,ge. EBpr^ttentatlanB mi^hV have been 
/ iDkac R3 dtated,^ but as ilKioes not/ appear what the yalue of 
/ ne security >pa |t woulq Uiake no/ dilf erenc0 aa to the yali^e 
I I if, the ^,€),0UQ\not6 received by defendant aa to wlii«ther,the 
> fifrBt iiicui^rance ^a^ #10»000^ '"^rZ.OoO c^f^M t amount 

qifLlft t ci W t-tmpald. 

^^Anotner representotion aaid to be fraudulent ^ 


that the stock din the Five and Ten t. tnt store had a xiiarket 
value in excess of vl«;b per shure, "whereas in trutxi and in 
fact * « said shares of atock had no market value, but their 
value, if any, was entirely a: eculfctive ixud uncertain," De- 
fendant dfe^ not allege tii«t the utoc:-. wee not vorth i'125 
per si.ure, nor that it could not be oold for that aii.ount, 
til egf»t ion that it has no market value nnd tnat Its ^^ 
ilue is "«ntrr6Ty---*}i«aulative and uncertain" ia not equivalent 

|to an alltfution that it -as ac tunTty -wuriyi less tiian ^li;5 ' 

I . "^ - - ■ -.. 

jper share .^^TJai* allegation itj insufficient aa a atatei.:ent of 

•~- i^^mT \ >It La also all. .red that ti.ere was a falae rpre- 

eentation that the 4J6,C'CO note and the trust deed securing- it 
v/ere "in le(~;al form,*' wiiereas the note was not correctly 

«fi9 1091 -XBiiio aoqju bQ»b Jiaut4 \d boiuoaci o^oa s tut 9i«itt« 

boa «;fqdooB o^ l>«OiJbnJL aaw sxiyBaiH^iia iaAixisldb xvoirtw ^ign 

• itii noqif iiljsq aoacf bJnd MindiaHaient Jaai^ini aiAjieo .tariJ 

naad 9V«fi jxtjiim anoi*«*t««»«»"r...; i •juiJi"' ,' .yunn-iv; ,l'oi^x fci'i ; 

eUlBV i19-X9llli) \Ofl »3lAm 


,btBqnu J ti =ii i inl lo 
Bit ia9ljjfauj6T:T: srf cf bi«Ji rrolJ«i«3««iq«l n»ilJOrtA , 

i^ii'ia>& e bail oioin JuaJ nsT biia aviti 9£U ni :tOQJe oxi^r JaxU 

al bna aiui) ni aaoisxlw** ,9-i«ixi8 i»q CUli^ lo auduxd xil buIav 

liQiii iisd (duiflv ;r9}t'xam oa baxi ioo^u lo aai^uia bx«a » » Joal 

-fia *> ,ai&it^onii bna 9vi;falii0'* le v-f9*iJt^"«» fiJ^v^ %V^^ '^^ ,oul«T 

eSXiiJ xli^^ov Jon a«v/ :<ooiu arf^ J.eri4 9b»IXb Jon ^>N»b Jnobnal 

.JiijJo.r^B Ja.lJ lol bXoo ')</ Joit bXuoo il inni ion ,aiaxis toq 

Bit i£iii bnn eiilQV Ja^Miata on eaxi ii iaiii tt'OiinT^HA-:Mk- 

Txw,,>9 Jon ei "nX^jJiaonx/ bna '^xliBlu^Atttr x^^-iiinn* al 9uXaY 

dSiX:!' n.>5rJ:f gsoX riJtxow- ijIX'jbuJo« aaw ;»! 4«xlJ noXcfcT'rrn no o^ 

lift Jn > aa JnsxoXllusfii si aoliaa^XXa eJtxi r^< 

'"tqoi aaXfll a 0T3ilJ JbxI* bs^piXc oeXa «4 ;fl< t; '>s/i\ 

-X 3niiijo«)B b99b Jawi* sriJ bna sJ^on 000, d^^ oxii iasii noiinicxBh 

described ii: the trust deed in that the note v<&e .Tiade pay- 
able "Koveaber 1 at after dnte,** and the truat deed rccitetfi 

Uitit it was "payable !:oveiaibfir 1, 191fci» rafter date," 

trill a, 

MgF*=^2»;aa::m£X*i,v .«L .cifiricJSl -ei^ror huo doets not iaij;«iir t|h( 
iluG of the note; -~AlJL,cgst ions in tiie affiaavit thJtt dc4 
mdant is informed and btli.eves ^iSirt -tUe note and trust! 


ieed might 

«• collaTerratl: 

Test!^ by 
its affidavit of a go^d and a-erii;orioua d 
The court below ruled 

the rule f ira^ abtTve ct;«ted, defjend- 

\ ' \ 

Jefense faila. i 

orrectly in overrulling defendant' 1^,. 
tion^ ana the jud^:?ttenV^a affiriiiea. 


jairiTJ ".eJ-afa id^ls ,8X«I ,I lacfraovoJI 9XcfflY«q" ««w il iadj 
3ci\i likiiiai ion 990b baa ttyx^t^. .lAatTi>,ft% ^ y t^^^ttt yjyyf-y . 

.«XW^ aorrt^lJh 9uol-io>iiaa: b;i»s bioji a lo tiYBbiYta aAs 

j'^xuji)n9'i' 3vg rtjt xUoBnoi bslut woXstf Jitfoo aj' 

...■aani'lla oi^a9ia:.ibul 9tii ban ^noiJ^in 



Defendant in irror 


•ation, / ) 

3AflAXH AKD Wi.iii4^> 
COUAliY, a corpoVa 

ilHintifA in ::rror./ ) 




193 I.A. 357 






riaintiff b jcm^ij fct • ul t aUegAijf that he had de- 
I poalted ^^QO with defendrmt as aecunty that Anton J^eciiowicz 
I would turn over to def eii <ant all coll<;ctionj i-iade by him 

wiiile C!i;ployed by defendant, w;^on, if done, tne deposit was 

to b(- returned to plaintiff with five ptr cenx. iiitercat^ 

I I l*i«Mrf -f— fiiS^i that BUbBequently i.ecuowioii left the ejaploy 

of def oiiujiiit , having, turned over to 11^^11 J'Oiicy.^ Cuilected 

by hxEi, 
i defendant fey its affidavj-l of defense Baj4 that 

' Leciiowicz, t^iaployed ai saleaianii and collector, made collections 
at;{;refcating ^190 ,70 wuici. he failed to turn over to dofenaant, 
also that iie i£3 indebted to defendant for a balance on his 
aerchandlise ond caaii account, olao for an item of expense 
incurred by defendant in v^rifyinK accounts tiie Lrade , 
also for co.'.misaions advanced on uales wriere the accounts 
were not collected. The trial court strucJc from defendant's 
affidavit the last three ileois just described and entered 
judgment against deferulaut for the difference between the 
aaiount of plaintiff 'a claiiii, ^,biit;, and ^190. 7iJ, the collec- 
tions sf'-id not to have been turned in, mich ia :,336,ii5. 
I The court reserved jurisdiction of tiie i^jaance of plaintiff ' 8 
claixu for future deteriiiination* I 


fu - e^ 

I oQl 

IT aKasviJsa 

laxii \ii 0'baiU. tiCtoLioulloo lia inButf^JBb oi lero niir^ LXjtfcm 

TfoXqiEf) 9itJ Jitol soiwonoaj Y.-Cc^n9jjp»edo8 JsjU ^^ig^-'tldt-^fli^it i 

fjiioaXXoo 9bac£i ,.ioJ-otXIoo Lrtia njSiuAvXiHa e« bo-\j;o^1<»^ ,soxwoxioo.i 

aXxi no soni^Isd a lot iaabafttab oi boid^bnt oi oil iAti^ oaX' 

9en.^qxo lo maJl na rtol oeX^ ,J«i/ iieflo baa 9U ibnatiott*:. 

, 9i>«iJ sriJ ,9noij.H sJnjjoooA snlxlltav ai inabn9\tb \,d Jbaxiuoni 

sSciwrooa a.ti aisriv oaXau no bt»onnvf~. an:. iaalaiiioo lol ooXf- 

u' iiifibii'^'i^b laoTl jloutJa ^it/oo X«X*i . . jJoiiXfoo *on stsv 

i)»i9^n9 bn« bodiiuaob a'ewt aai»il ssirii JaxiX 9x1* llrabillii 

9x1* nf)awJ9d aaaHiotlib 9Ai lol ^luibnalsb JcnxasJt Jnamr^btrt 

-oolioo ariJ ,i:V. oex.^; bn« ,esd4 ,«xbXo e'lllJnlaXq Tto J-nuoam 

.CS;.8£fi^ al rioXn'w »nx bafniii nesrf evnii oi ion bXJ3e anoi* 

a'llXv'niaX^i lo sonelfio aiij to noiiuibox'iui, baviaBoi ituoo 9a'X 

,noiiBnlai9J9b 9iuiu^ nol mialo 


We hold that the jud.^ent of the court on the 
iteiiis diaallo.ved was ri{)it. The condition of the dejooit 
of t/ie i,'oLQ wft8 stated in the written afc,reoment of the par- 
ties to l>e to secure defendant "a^^ainet any 1ob3 frow dia- 
honeaty, xaisconduct or neglect of buumess" of Lcchowicz, 1 
Wc are not of the opinion that tr.o deposit wnc int< need aa 
security for .^ny proier obi it;ationa of def encin.nt ' a aaleaman 
in the ubual course of business; the iigreeraent does not 
reasonably bear that construction, ';')i.e conaitions por;..ittin g 
any deduction froru th'; dejOoit vJtitn returned h».ve reference 
to any inacbtedneso due defendant or loaa sustained txirough 
dishonesty, neglect or /r.iaconduct of tiieir salosjiian. The 
construction placed upon the agree-icnt by the court iaeets 
with our approval. 

ilaintiff ixua asaif;ned cro^a-crrora fjll'ging that 
the court should have atricKcn thai part of dcftrupnt'a affi- 
davit setting up ttii.ountB collected by Lecx^ovrici'. but v^iich he 
has failed to turn over to defenuant. ue hold tiiat the de- 
posit by plaintiff was intended under tne agrceiaent to apply 
to sunn collections. It lauy be ihnt tnia failure can be ex- 
plained, but st."nuinf,- alone and unexplained it i:. plies a losa 
to defendant tiirou^rh dishonesty, -'.risconduct or neglect, and 
tnerefore comes witidn the laanifest intention of the sgree- 
ment. It mifjht al 30 be noted thnt tne averment in the affi- 
dpvlt of the failure to turn over collections, puts aqu^rcly 
in i osue the alle/;;ation of plaintiff's alh '..eniett Of claiti 
that Lechowicz, when he left the er;iploy of defer.dant, had 
turned over to it all t-ioneya collected by nirn. The croaa- 
errora are without merit. 

For the reason above indicated the judf^ment is 


-axb O'.i irioi ■v^.! \ janxHBB" irtAbndlob six/oae o^ scf o* asiJ 

\ .saxworlon i. lo "easaiaud lo ^TosXaan lo ;fOJi&no38iiii tXiit9noii 

B£ Sob.rUdi iT!^>v/ ileoqsi) !j>iU JmlJ noiniqo »rf;r lo it on 9ia oVi 

nnxaealjss a'i;: o aiiol^tuaxldo laqonq x«« '«o'* vSiiuomn 

ioa B9ob iau&nlQijd lo avtuoo Ii»i/«ij orii al 

a nxJJx :Toq arfOi : : u :; .noicfoifi J'GCJOO it«£i.J "XM^d YJ^cf*noau9T: 

9onoi-i.lTi'i -v^.i b ri-i.-.toi a • .'^-^ iitioqafc sulJ raoil noxJoubab ynn 

d^ti -1/ .: u: :U .ioloL 'jijL «89nba;fcf9cni y^ns oi 

Bii'I .fi/',auoI^,a TioaJ lo ioubnoo&ioi lo iJo^Ijjan .^^•s'^o^a-^fc 

bJ:)^.. jtuc:) . j-xafi 9"-^ »oqu bsoBlq noxJoiii^Bnoo 

,lavot \it\ iuo ilixw 
;>•. i^ -40x3:3 Ila 81 ID banaxfeaa nau lllJnxali 

iB a'inabrit)! jJt) lo iijaq^ isiU aaioixJa avari bXi/ons inuoo 9di 

9x1 rioiriw iwd !iolvodo9d X^ b^Jojiluo aioiiotuo qu i^iiise iivab 

~9b QiiJ .ImiJ biuii 9.. .iiisjjnslsi). oJ lavo mui Qi belial aiuL 

Mlqqs oJ Jnai-T^jsiaa onJ .rtdtftu babnoJax saw ItlJnxniq yd ixuog 

-X9 9d HBO 9iuiia1 hXjAS iiUiS 9(/ ^iMii Jl .anoiJosIXoo houtt oi 

oeoX a Q9iXi;..i Jx b9iiiH.£iix9ciJj Lat'. aiioXu nnlt^n^jB ^ud ,b8niaXq 

ban ,^o•^*X^'^^I 10 iaijbnooelsi ^y^asnoriexb rir^x^oi rti iriAb.'lelsb o* 

-99i3« 9d,;f lo noxingJni isalJtfiflin axij nlii^xw saaioo »iol»i©ru} 

-ilia axli^ nl d-rtniatsvn Qcii Jr.ri* baion ad ocX« ;fnjjX« *I ,Sn9m 

■^L^TRupe ecTuq ,anox;to9XXo3 -i»vo n-xwJ oJ BTuflnl irti lo i^Xvob 

raxflXo 10 JfOma'sJe s'lliiniaXq lo noiJiJasXXB oriJ oxieei ni 

b«il ,c^lli^o.l:!)l9b lo v.oXqins 9x1* *1dX 9ri nsrfw ,solwoxi09a iatli 

-eaoio 9dT .raxri. ^d beJoaXXoo •v^anoiu IXb ii oi T8to baniui 

.iliem JuoiiJi' ^^ • ""^-''t- 
el Jnaaivibut Oiii^ b^Jaolbni svods noaris^ aria tco^? 




liarch 27, 1916 

6;i - 21811 

„ ;;,:.!£ 0. LKAQ}]M^, 'XIIILO A, ) 

.,Vi6 and ::.l.:Yi,OUr. I.X'iviUij, Tr-jater.'C } 

under Otii> 'rru;3t /uireemcnt » } 

Def cncp-nto in jirror, } 


ijRtcoK TO :.ii::ic;i,iAL 

CO■iJj^T Oj^ C};iCAGO. 

;:;,:ii"iY H. L01ii)i.LL,. Trustee for ; 

^:.-.uiel iitlvik and Leo J, Lieber;iir,n, ) 

.oj-artncra doin,'.'; uu-:iinci;s as La ) 

..■die otrcet Jiioe ijtorc, j 

i-laintiff in J-Tror. ) 


DLLIVI'SSD Ti-E CLITIIC:; 01'' Tii:-! CC;-£Ji.T. 

IlMlntiffs broU;.iit 6uit cl;ii;;; to be entitled 
by reason of a lenue to a pro I'ata, filir-a'c of uionoy^ rcc- 

ccived by def er.v*arjt ,_ Lobaell , tru^'toc-, frofa tliii ^rilc of aooeta 
of iiaviucl i'itlul-: and J..eo J. ].i cbc-r.;-.:;-n, co -part; era, . \;con uTitxl 
t!;u court In-^zructcd the jury to return a verdict a(;a.ix^.:3t <lc- 
fi.r.dant for :,.l,7o4,22 upon 'jnicii Judi;.acnt was entered, Do- 
fci.aant seeks to have ti.ia rcveriicd, 

i'itlulc .-'nd LichexiutWi v/cre Ic^aecs of a i^torc 
-nJer a written le.p.'^c fro.u plaintiffs for a ter;-! be^:innin^i 
•7 1, lOlii, arid ending v\pril 30, lul7, ixl .'■■ i...ontnly ::'ontal 
ii' ;,500 payable on the first day of t-ao.:: ;<.onth durinp U:e 
••;^ra. '2he Icaar^GS r'l&o a('.; rjivy Icscori: for electric 
'iint uocd. In April, li:^lo, the le.-j'joez ;:..adc an aaiiiignxaont 
■'•"■ tiicir property to Lobdell, aa truijtvc, to ue converted 
•"to uoricy to be Ui,;cd in paying': tiieir creditors. 7he rent 
■i"'the ctorc due April 1, It'Io, waa not paid. On April loth' 
'•■•■- trustee took 2)o:J3e5::3ion of tnc prf;-.iie3 and occupied 
■ ''"il April' Ibth. i laifitiff 3 ciaiiii that under the tor:;.B of 
"•'^'icn.c:e» the Icsucc-ia'. in defii.ult not o.aly asj to rent 
••'^on covcrianta, lr,r- citiro .rental fur the ba!; ^^ricc of 

l.r.icd tcr.-r; bccc->:-.e due arul Uiot i:lvtintii'i'o --•re crodilors 
;-,luk and j^icberuan to t}:at air^ount, thnl is, fro;:i April 
i..i3, to April 3U, 1917, at .,,bOO n /iont.., it) .;i-4,5C;o, 
to this should bo addea a. til- of vSc.2.10 for electric 
::t. :;iri;:inf: r> tolr^l cf :. ^4 ,bo2.l:; ; fron thi3 al.ould be de- 
le;! the T'^io-unt p.-vid by- the trustee v/hile he v.Ka in pooaeission, 
.('ly, vl"^i.^^-» leaving a b.-ilancc due pli-intiffs of . .;4,7G7.59. 
.ed upon the allovvancG of plrinx-iff b' cl:'ini for this ;-...ount, 
^.,;,;;;crit \^:).o entered for tncir pro rata chare of the ij^oneyo in 
the hnnda of the trustee. 

It la firi>t contended by defcrjuant 'ch.';.t the t' 

J tiffs v/crc not particc to or "wonof ieiaric'J cf tnc; a;;aii_;n..-erit 
I fror; i'itluk Lieber.-Vian to ;.Gbac]l, '-e, ii: thrtV. it .-.vas 
\ neccaoary for creditors v.-ichinf, to participate in tiie benefits 
:' :f t;ie aiiaigncd ca^:'..te to bccor.e parties, to said a;;reo— ent of 
. i-jent by sif;nin(;:; their n.-irucs tuoretc. It v/cula be a. 
-icient reply to i;ay that this dcfenije v.-au not ::et up or 
.Ira.'jed in the affi avit of defenae filed iii the Lunicipal 
"ourt, under the rules of tnat court, w'hic;. arc ..-rcperly bc- 
. I'fj u'u, dcfendtar^t v/ill b-^ h-ard only aii to t^^oae natters of 
rctioc specifically set out in his arria;i.vit, (ilee ruloG 
: i? f'.nd 20.) 'l^h'i only i:;3ue xace oy ti:c affidr.vit of di:fcr;r;C 
'• the aiiiount due. p.ut even if v.'e should not spcly r,i:o rules 
."ictly, the evidence failj to sustairi the con teatiort 
intiffc di;i not aifin tlae aaaipnrr.cnt R;-:ree.'.!ent; rather the 
•'Tcnce io o up.e rr/i 3 e . The docu.ViCnt in queiition refers to 

;."5rtie3 "v/ho:iC naiica az-e aigncd hereto, or to a copy 
■of, boinfr. creditors of said firijt partzr.:; hereto," 'i'he 

■ ■vnt in cvideuce io isifncd by only one ci'cditor« ACi the 

- -cncc s.iO/o t,i'!.t eight or.iicr creditor a o.i.-rcd in t.(.c .iis.r'0- 

-'io!i or tii(j Tjrocceds of the t/icney in tne i.aaun 'of the truatec, 

^icouj-ption iu raiaqd tiiat txir:re iriust iiavc been copy 

ctiicr copies oj" the agrocnent, one of ■•.•/:. ich ::ii).y hove been 
r.ciX by plaintiffs, '^here v/aa no evidence tl.r'.t the copy 
tiic record v/n.a the only cc;-y of the «,",rcca!:nt , and there 
3 no evidence thrvt pl.-.'.intif f 3 hral ncl ni,:ncd anotiier cojjy. 

Gojcction ii> rande to the forin of liic V!.;-r;^iot 
.::.d in tiiC files. ..'hil c-; tj-io r.iC-.y have been info:.-..;!] it, v/ra 
_.,::i.ntially correct. In t;ny event, tiie rccitnl in the 
: :ord aa to the verdict returned is uufficient, in Ciiltten dRn 
;. _ 7P.n3, 48 111. 52, it was anid tnaL. it -vri.s not necessary 
.;• a Jury to reouce their vcraict to u'ritini^ thv-3.t it 
. . ;/c be reduced to j^ropei" forni by t:ie clerk uncicr the 
..rcction of the court, •. • 

It waa not error for the court to deny liiavG to 
foti'ir^nt to ;\..i(-:nd hia affidavit of defcnuG. The ;ao^ion \kv3 
ic ..evoral -.veeha after the cuneluoion of the -crial, yar- 
•r...orc, no rtrncnd'aont was prcocntod to the court at the 
•. -c the r^otion for Icixvc to n/i.cnd was .•vi-'de. : G:V:^r)rnd v. 
:"v"'Ool^, 13o 111, ^'j9!?i ft iloher v. Sciorik , ii07 111, b26, 

ijiider the proviaiona of the lease above referred 
:.; it -.vao 2>roviued L.iau if ohe leiiiioea aiiould ;:.':!ihe nny acjiiifin- 

nt of their pi-opcrty for the benefit of creditors, the Icoyoro 
hiit tcr:.hnatc the lease and re-enter ao.xa yrc;..ioea and re- 
-oscas tho.uaelvcs thereof* and it v.aa Turt;;or provided th.-.t 
-■• cuch event the le^aees should o.t oncu pay to the leoiors 
■'■ bufi of xuor.ey equal to the entire jiinount of rent by thia 
■ ■' oe r.rovided to be paid * ^' •:* v.z the liquidated d;u.;r..£iC3 
•' iLe iei3:ioro," ihe claiin of plaintiff o for tj:ic catire 
■^'X.t of rental ,-i3 liqtiidatcd daruai;c3 vras juatifiod unc:er 
• •■! of the IcacG. Ar-onc the casco 30 l;cldin£; arc 
■--:li:^- lnvn:;t. £0. v, : onich , £G7 111. oG-l; ;:f:iith v. Cood- 
Jili I4uni. 7b; r. roi.:.:cu v. Jt . Paul 'Vru-^t ;:o., 147 111. 
••': and jiliiacis v, Uhort, App, CoUi^t ::o. liObol, not yet 


:;o sufficient rc-aon bcin- brou;;ht to our uttcntion 

iioturbins >^i-« juw^uienL it- i- r-iiiriiioa. 


64 - 21814 

DA^endant in Error, }j 

V3. '\ 


WIU-lAii Uo JwY, / )J 

ilnli^tlff in CTTOV,/ ) 


198 I.A. 361 


DefendATit, oiiarged «itb panderini.^, vyaa found 
guilty and fined $300 and {sentenced to be ccnfini.:d in Uie 
Houae of correction for one year, 

li« 0ceku to have the Judj/^jient revoraed, aaying 

that the infora^atton ia insufficient in tnnt (a; it cnarges 

vev ral offense* in tin a] t«t.rnative, ana (bj ti^e i lace of tiie 

offense ia not dej^cribed. j;efendant'8 attorney went to trial 

without oojection to the infonuation. The defects »u£i,eated 

do not f.o.the question of tiuilt or innocence, 

t itf too 

lnt« now to object, i <^9P^; .f, ▼• V^eber , 15<i Hi, App, K;*;; 
leople V, Ji crca , 161 Ui, 666. however, lae information 
charges only one offenae, "Inducint^" and "persuiiding" are 
practically aynonoBiouift, 

Th« place of the offenac i:, ijuff icicntly dee- 
cribod; it is charged that it happened in tnt cicy of Chi- 
oat!.o , at No, 671 Milwaukee avenue, {See opinion in i eople 
V, Leon, Ko, ai745, thia day filfd; alao i eoplc v, B£nnett, 
185 111. App, 316,) 

Was there a Jury ./aiver in writingv ^e hold 
that tnere waa. The record recites the execution oi' wucii a 
waiver; the record iwporta verity, rioliu i aon v, i.oeff , ^53 
111, 6*i6, And the waiver io in th« record, .'nat tiie de- 


i>Lsr^ - *a 

. JOAOliiO to 


yj:a«uaoM soiTauL OHiaie^i .Hi 

9iiJ nl baafiaoo otf ocT b»oa»ine8 bn« OOC^ toanil Jt»n« x^^-^^ 
."XAdx eao lol aoJL;^o»tiou lo •ouoK 

Q'^-^inao ii [a) iudi al insioillu&ai: ni noi^^AmiQlni axil ^fad^ 

. to aa/Jl-i sai (d) bna ,«viis»-X9.f I« «i(i fl^ t»«n»llo lMt>vu 

l»iii oS iiT9w x^iiacJiiB B' innbn^ltii ,b9<Slto^pp Son &L ocnsllo 

;j;OX ,4qA ,XXl i»cX , T t9 tf& \^ .t atlfiooi ,io^liio oJ won ifSnl 

noiJajaioIni otiJ ,i9V9wOii ,ddd ,bl_ mi « £Ot»;t ,v o Xg^oai 

.nuoiaononya xX^*o^'0<fi'X-l 
-tt»b ^XinoXoilliJu Bi SQn& j. j^ ,> ^.lo lo vOfiXq B£lT 
-lilO to y,iio ^ii3 al b»a^':i(iaii it Jadi Jb^g-XBrlu bI ii jJ^adXTO 
»lqo»i al aalalqo •eO) .•j;/n»r« •ssLumrXXii XVd •oK 1« tOM^o 

•££2iI2M "^ aXr.pQ--^ o«X« ;i)i«Xil xab &liiJ .C^VIS .oW ,nooa .v 

(.di£ .^qA .1X1 eax 

oloii 9V, v^n .1 -•■ X TV. ni -ir^vi-;-. y.i/.'^, a .■j'xnxl.J aitW 
a tiowtt lo aolsuo9X9 atii ssiloa-x Moooi auT .awr s-xftril Jiiiatf 
Ciii, . 119 0,1 ,v aotjt'jdol'A .^*li9f a^toqal bioosi arii :'C«Yi««r 

-9X) ailJ JiSdi ,btoo9i flU^ ai oi idvinw »di bnA .Oaifi .XXI 

fendnnt sl^rned by Ri&king hla mark aoea not impulr ita xn< 

The evidence iiaa not been preuerved. The 
errors alleged againat tlxe atatutory reoord are without 
merit. The judgment ia affirmed. 

■ ill aii liAqini: Jon tt^oL ^imn slil -s^aiyimKi xcf l>on7)lQ irtiibnat 

65 . 21946 

JOaEiH FUAKKLL et al.. 
Appellee 8, 


va. -. 

, oAl.ZKNSTElir, 

A! pellant, 



193 I.A. 3G3 


>laintiff8 nraploycd defendant aa a traveling 
salesuiian. They bring suit clai^iiing that their advances to 
hin) exceed the amount due hijn on coRimiaBions ana that under 
the contract of eisployiaent he ia obligated to repay the dif- 
ference, lipon trial by the court judt^ent againat the de- 
fendant was entered for v36fl&.74, ., „ , - 

The contract coDuaenced to run ifarcii 9, 1909, and 
ended }?ebruary 28, 1910, It t^ claimed on behalf of defend- 
ant that plaintiffs wrongfully diocharged him before the end 
of the contracty>(^«— ax«^ not per«ttaded franr the evidene« thAt 

/"thj.a waa-tb^ f«ct ; me trial tfotrr* propeTlT'eotllxl Tlnd that 

/ inLj3eceBib«r, 1909, or jnrm&ty, I9l5y Tby mutual agreement the 

~ »ht!'' evidence 


contract ^^mrttSBiiil'ttat^d . 

i.Vf oy 


^o> to the effect timt at a xneeting bctr/een defendant and 
plaintiffs in December, 1909, or possibly January, 1910, de- 
fendant proposed "to quit," to which plaintiffs agreed, V<§6 

liacixZtrg^ There beinf; no wronf/ful discharge and no refusal 
)y plaintiffs ^o^-^^io on -vith tne contraot," they are not in 
ilefault, hence are not 'T5»i;5;red from secKing to enforce the 
t[ern*3 of the contract a^jai-rtat oieCjs^iaiant, 

\ Is i.nere competent evidencrf-'^^i^ which to base 

tiiV JudfgmcntV It is allef-ed in the Gtateaent o'f'C-l^im that 




&MIS - <i8 

xJ3 *9 JaOKIAHt mi&OX, 

,lIISTfcsMSii.lAa ,0 JOS 

§08 .A.I 861 

YjjiflULoii atoxTaui. i)iiiaiti."wM ju 
.T/iuoo anT uo uoiai 1 ' ■-" • ■• -t 

rajbaij iaiti Ssaa aaoisaiuunoo no inlii nub inuooia sxiJ bssoxs mXri 
lib 9xli Y^qsi oJ bdJA^ilcfo ei Oil ^no;ii\^oIqm9 lo ^9B'x;tnoo odi 
-gJb 9iii ionxBso J^namaJbut, iiuoo asLi \d lnii^ noqi .»on9T:3l 

„ ,., ...... ,y rlo'X^M nun o* h»'^'-- > < -^-^ joa-x^noo »iiT 

-brt9'i«fc lo "Jifldacf no bnoiiAi .0X61 ,as >caAiitcf9^ ijafcno 

bna 8iii atol^cf mix! basiAdoaib -^cXlMlgnoiw alli^ai«Xq *«4* ^ob 

i&di »xm9bly9 9tit rcixrtJ bob»aMri9ft^9n ^rtM--^^ »di lo 

i Rd3 bntt bliSo ■: ■ci -^ixrcro XAil* 9flT . *&*! ♦flW ««at_JLyii 

bnn iaBbnetteb n«»wj9cf anl^dain ,« ^a ijuii Joalla silJ oi 'S^ 
>b ,OXQX ,\:i««n.8!, x-CrfXsaoq to ,eoCX .torfffioosa ni •lliiatalq 
T?#"] .J[)39-ias Blli^;-, , • Jnsbnsl 

XijlsffOTw jj lo nc . ;3. ixij,ta^ 

X««n/l9'i on fin» 93i«iiooli> Iwlanoicw on ani^d •ladT ^nrririoail 
ni jTon •la x^^* ■,>ofl'x;rnoo axW liiiv no oj..-<rf^alliini«Xq i^c 
9xii ooioln© o^ 3nli99B iao^l bia'tjfjgfiioa 9X» •on«il .J-XiijBlo 
.J-njuKn^lflr^^ J-cTii«j>fl Jofiiinoo axii lo 8in"X9| 
•asd oi rioiiiw nijsyr^bttohxva J-nftisqmoo d^oxt.; a I 
iBdi mijMO^^o JnauwjJB^te 9rli ni 6939 XXa al il S'lnsnrabi/L fl^ 

the adVHnc«8 to defendant amounted to $4464,50. The affida- 
vit of defense adiuito this. The otateiuent of Claim further 
saya that orders obtained by defendant upon which he is en- 
titled to conuniaaion a/nounted to o;21,934.46. Attached to 
the otatPtaent is a aciedule piving the naiaeo and u.noanta of 
eacii order, and it was alleged tior.t ineae were all the orders 
upon which defendant was entitled to coi&aiisaion. If defendaiit 
wished to question the correctnesa of t/iia atateuient he 
should have specifically done ao in his affidavit of defense, 
as recuired by the i'.unicipal Court rules, wnich are in accord, 
or, as provided by rule ^^iO, ne could upon taotion be excused 
by the court from ypcoifically answering any rartic .lar al- 
legation, upon shelving to the court that he could not answer 
it becHuae he did not have the necessary knowledge as to tlie 
fact allMgod, or for other good c«uae. Defendant did not 
avail himself of the provisions of tiie rule. Upon the triiil 
no attempt was mride by hiet to aho / tiiat the amount of orders 
was not correct. The books of the coi..pnny, upon xiis re- 
quest, could readily liave been brought into court. .<e are 
of the opinion tiiat the correctness of plaintiffs' stateiscnt 
of the account was admitted; hence it was unnncejdar.y to 
raake detailed proof thereof. 

The points urf.ed for a revfrxsal are not con- 
vincing, and tile Judtifljont i3 affiriued, 


~u9 BX »f{ xloiilw noqjj inking lol) ^cf bBnt$tdo Btitbi^ I4WI SV;«B 

.ti-ici)a9'i9i3 tl .noieaimmoo o;t bsXJlJ^n* •Jrtr *ii«b«9lt«fe lioiuiv tioqts 

. aaaslgb lo HvAbLViA alii lu 08 «nob xllaoilioaqa svaxi bXifoxia 

ooofi nx 9ia xloiriw ,09Xut[ ^iuoO Xaqloinwii 9tii x^ bmilup^yt ba 

beeuoxa scf aoiJoui noqw bXuoo Sii ,0S »Xui ^o' bofciroiq er ,to 

-Xjb ii?I.toi*i«q y;na gniaftwunn YfXfloilxo«qB oiotl 

x9wc>nu Jon bluoo sd ;iadi iiuoo 9ii3 oi aniwoila ao<iU ftiottm^al 

odt oi as 9sJb9Xwon3{ yrxABe»09n «>r[.t 9VBii ^on bXb e»d[ ^exraoetf il 

ioa bib iaaba9t9(l ,9Buao booa 19/lJ^o lol to (be^ftXXjB ioel 

XfiiiJ orU nuqu .aXua: 9d3 lo iiaoXeivoiq dxli lo IXseMJtii iJtnvA 

stdb-xo lo ^TnjJooiH 9xiJ imii woilc o^ mi^ X«f sbAffi 9mi iqvBSiti on 

-&i «xxi aoqjj ,v.ii>»q*>foo 9tii lo e:ioo(f 91VC .iodtioo Jo.i 8£v 

ann 9\i ,ituoo uinl id^iuoid nsecf avjrav yXAbA^t bXuoo ,Je3Ji/p 

.i^rn >»J«je ♦alliJaj.AXq lo eegn-Jostioo »tU iAi.U noxniqo odi lo 

o«t x^aABCSooiifiii SAW ^i don9d :b(iJiltiib4S ajsv Jauooos ailJ lo 

.10819x1;^ louiq b«XiA;f9b dsDsm 
-noo :ron fiiA XAaa^vat a aol bsaiu aiaxoq; silT 

,b9:OTCillA el inoioiybul 9ili cai! ,a«i.o.:iV 

36 - iil684 


tiff in Er 


ilaintiff in Errt 

".\ / 

PAUL ySYJU^iiiai, / 

Defendant in Krror, 


193 I.A. 367 




> i-laintiff had a contract to do certain work in 

the erection of a buiiding for defendant and after all tae 

a work r^ad been done received an architect' e certificate for 

F <^671, the balance of tiie contract price, by tive tcrcia of 

WT* iy^(. contract pifiintiff oii^-roed to cociplcte all tx^e .7ori; he 

I Jfiad under *-akf;n to do on or prior to Auguot ^5, 1W14, As a 

iaatter of fact tiiia he failed aa to one store to do. The 
work of plPintiff on atore w£io completed on September 
lb, 1914, ft delay of twenty-one days. :)efendant clairai^hat 
he iiiad rented this atore to a tenant mo hnd paid ;;>& on ac- 
count to bind the bargain, at a rental of ;^55 a raontii, v«iioh 
waa tne reas3onabl« rental vnlus' of the ator«. , 

XhA-X^u^mony- 9£~ |>ef endant tw»*«blilaned the f ftct 
that he never aa.v thia prospective tenant again and was un- 
able to find hia, *he store reiaained unrented until iay lo, 
1916, ana defendant clajLJiied tnat lae lo-ia of the prospective 
tenant wi^a due to the ntore not being ready for occupancy by 
ouch tenant at the time plaintiff had contract, d to co.iapJcte 
hie work, Jefendant claimed Uiat the tt»eaaure of i^a dataai^es 
was tne rental value, of the atore vturin^; the titu<.' it rewained 
unrented, and the trial Judge, heeding defendant 'b contention, 
;,ave jud^jtent for ^404. »C, the atnount of the arctiitect'a ccr- 
tilicate. less tiie rental value of the atore at the rate of 


♦ OvJ. 

T8 8 .A.I £6 1 

i^^^X!» - f3- 

•iferxaa ax llUaUlt 

iiocuuH aaiTcut, .itii^y 

■xol »J«ol1iJit>a •'JosJldorui on h^viooai »nob aoad Jbfut alaow 

10 no ob oi nttjtAaidLm/ bai\ 

j:i/ ,vt /J JioJi- c-uo .J tffi i;viXi»l 9d Bin,* iowl lo i9J.}jBAi 

i9(fia»iq«»c: no balsXqcaoo aim oioia aiiii ao lli^ni^Xq lo :i{'Xow 

JaiiA%n\i«ff> ^(^wlxislsa ,Bv;jai) ono-v.^taowJ lo x«»^»i'> « «^X«X ,dl 

-o rui 0dm iaaaat m oi tioiire ai>{i b&Sa9i bmi 9u 

xloiutY ,ii^no!. ^ X».tn9t « ^« taim^tad •liS bald oi inuoo 

. ^ .-^lovk 9iW lo "»ul«r XaJnui •Xrf«no«ji»'j »xil «JiW 

-n. nlA^ injino^t 9ViJ09q«07<{ aidJ w«« -xavs.m sri iKi-i.) 

iiJttij JbdJujittif Jjsniamoi 9-xoie adH ,silti bait oJ aXcfu 

tivxjua^«i0'xq »£iJ lo et>oX 9xi4 iaai b*Biiaio iambifl9b bau ,6X6J 

ycd y,9ni»quooo aol \,bB9i anlatf ioa 9ioiu 9iii oi oub e#ir iaan9^ 

9iol(^taoo oJ l>jjoa'zjnoo bnii lliJaXniq 9aa4 adi ta inBn9i cioua 

•o^nust) alii lo uru9»9m 9AS iBxit bBtaitAo inabn9lo:: ^jiiow aid 

i>oniuifi»-x il 9miJ 9Sli •svattub •lo^a sxii lo 9wX«v l»fii9i oai mjiw 

oiJneJnoo a'^nabnalgb j»nxi)^9ri .ojDi/L X«iil srtJ iOB ,b9*««ar! . 

tio B'Jo9JiiioM »iU lo JouoBJi 9iU .oe,J>o*4 uol ^fleilliibwt, «V«.j 

lo oJ«i »ili ^ji 9toi9 9ti4 lo ouXav XAinei 9ii^ tta9X ,»^AoillJ 

$35 a jnonth from Augvet ^5, 1914, when plaintiff* work aiiould 
have been completed, to -ay 15, 1915, vshcn defendant auccecded 
In aecurint; a tenant, i laintlf f »eigj<a a rev A ei»-t>f" ttii» judg* 
.B<^nV-liy_.ULlJug<WF% ■•■/j aakWfor a reveroal and a judgment in 
his favor fox- the tuaount of the arciitect'o certificate .xth 
intereot, leaa tue rental vniuo of the titore for twenty-one 
days, defendant 'a damagea aaaeaaable for non-compif-^tion within 

the contract time, - _ 

:tlaintiff cuntunaa that in cases like the one at 
bar, -xLxerc a uontr-ctor fuila to coir^pj eto a builuint^ within the 
contract time, the laeaaure of dariiagea ia tiie rental value of 
the pre.-:.iae« from the tii&p when auch premiaeo ohould have been 
completed under the contract urjtil the tiai*: (siien they were ac- 
tually co/a] Ictcd. 

There io no authority for auau(f»int.; Uiat de- 
fendant Buffered any daii^age by the loss of the proapective 
tenant who proved elusive, and nothing in the record jutitify- 
ing a conuluoion that defendant's peoapective tenant disappeared 
leaving ^b in jJ.a utinda becauac the «tore was not completed 
for twenty-one days after it uhould have been uniier the con- 
tract . 

it la tue law U*at uuere a defenaanl ci;Ni.a»B aau- 
agc* by roaaon of delay in the perforaitince of a building con- 
tract, wi.oreby aucn defendant nan been dej^rived of lue uae of 
the building, he i^juy recoup the amie m a suit at-^ainat him by 
the contractor and the i:»eaaure of damti^ea i^ the fair 
rental value of auoh portion of the prc<..iaea during Uio p rlod 
of delay. Callbrnith v, Ciacago Architectural worka , bo ill. 
Avy, 246; ^juell v. CottinKhan; , 7ki 111. 161, 

It ia not disputed tiiat ^'it a uonth is a fair 
rerital valu^t for the otore, wiiicii «N)t8 not coiripleted by plain- 

aj . j/i^.-i .5 c '^o«»Jliio"i« t#ii^ lo Jnuoaui ariJ to': loviil ti. 

j»XqmoOoxion lol oXdaecsaoA e»'^Am«l> e 'lnttJbn»l»l» ««X^ 

J ;. one ttom-o ux j iuij tiiiii ' Ji-.o-j i.xj.<A->i. 

tmUv X«*n»t jttii.rti; lo oiJj8«oai 9£U ,«aii^ Jojuiiaoo 

11 lua natlw -smiJ oriJ moil a^ai^saiq »ii. 

-3fc Ji>i« anlAuaaa tol ^^iiOiWi;* o« ai »i»xlT 

->0.iiHU[, £>-xo9»7 »iti ni anlxiion ban .©viajjXo ijaroiq oxiw iiunei 

bsij&dQqaaxi) JruBixs^ svXJoaqBOsct o ' J^nHbnolat ^axU noioiiXunoo e anl 

Jio.t3Xqiftoo ign aaw aicJe »fii ueij^oso abuaa aiii ni d^ ynivB? i 

-noo 9£U leJbaw nd^d avBil jbXuOii* ii taJla a\;ii/j »rto»vJnowi tc 

-ttUBb aoiiiilo J««i>a9lot> « aasiiw i«*ij w«X oxi,t yi s! 

-noo jiniJbXiud « to aofljaatotioci atiJ ai xfl^»^ io aotJAHoi \(i aa^a 
ro sou siii lo betviiq^kt naacf aad iaabtflob noua Y<^aio;ai ,ioai^ 
s:cf aiiii faniti'^^M J iua a nx aouia idJ quooot XA>n a^ t^nxoXiutf s^. 
iJtAi't 9xU ex ••tiii\sa»b 'to oiuaaaoi sxi^ jAiii bna ToionT;fnoo 9. 
X>oii q aiiJ ^atiub asaiowiq aiU lo noliioq xioua lo 9uLnY Laiii9'i 
,1X1 wd « ti.^ioft I^m.^oaJ XtlQiA oaaoJtitD .v l iJtlniiilljiO .-^flXol) lo 
.XdX .XXI SiV , inH^i':^niJ3 3 .V (XOiia ; 8*i .qrcfA 
lial fi &X ii^nom a €£$ ^axicl bt»(^iiqt;ii> Jon ni il 
-nlaXq \<i lHii«Xqmoo iun am aoitm .oioitf adJ lol ^uXav XaJiii'' 

tiff until twenty-one diiya nfter the tim*^ liiuited by tJ^e con- 
tract. 1 iu; rentaX vaiu<^ fur tnie, t^venty-one dayu Rt ^6b a taonth 
lUQOunta to |p24,36, for v»hich amount defendant in < iititled to a 
credit, rcductini: tiiia awn from the; amount of tiu; architect's 
certificate, ;;.6'''l» leaves a balance of <:;640,G4, due plaintiff 
January 10, 1915, for which aum, witii interest at the rate of 
o per cent, s 6;r annum frora the laot date, plaintiff should 
have had JudKKient. Mot having ao recovered in the trial 
court, plaintiff io <:nLitlcd to recover in t..i» court 
4i646,64 ritu intf-rest from January itj, 1914, to the time 
of filing tiiia opinion, which interest its ^70, 94, 

The Jud{5Bient of tue Municipal court io re- 
versed anu jud!;':^ent entered her* in fovor of plaintiff and 
against aefer.aani. for tue auia of .^717,i>fo, 

RJEVEHSJSD AKIl JUiKikiiOT liiiRK ¥011 ^717.5fc. 

l'illnl«l<f «ut> »>.■). 5frd.1t lo •o«*»X.Bcf A HBYml .IVd^ .»4jioni*i»o 
io »J«T ndi SB iBBi^Sai liitv ,iau« lioJtxftr tot .fiXWX .01 v.xounm 

iHi^i tuiJ 111 bBievoooi ON jjnlv«il *on .tfa^nrHtowt ftarf ovjw. 

iiuoa mini txi wroo»t o^ b^UiJa^ ol rilinUlq ,tiuo!, 

>):aj 3iii oJ ,i>XdX ,dX vwi/aau ao-ri iatiw^ni x^;riw ^d.d^dij 

.f+O.VXrj; to aujii »Ai 101 ■a/$l>jvjt.;,ii Junin.iii 

196 - iil6tt2 

SALTER B. kcKi^liNA, 

i iaintif f in Krrorj 

Dttfeiidant in /jfV'ur. 





193 I.A. 369 


Walter K, MoKenna was a patrolrnHn xn tue craploy 
of the board of i:»ouUi lark ComciiaBionerB. KoKnnna vraa what 
i8 known ao a "Civil Oervice employe, •• He received hi» np- 
pointmcnt i^ay 17, 1911. On August 17, 1;»14, trie Civil Jcr- 
vice Board of the aoutxi i-ark Gondii j»ioner a i referred churj^ea 
a, ainat lic>;enna and appointed h. C, CHrbaui^;h and K. J. Furber, 
Jr., a» a trial board to try J*CAenn«,«nna waa Ciiargcd 
with conspiring -arith officer aulllvan on AViguut 8, iyi4, to 
de.'i«nd from Salter h. ^ulser, vdio had been arre^sted, i»^0, 
:i^ul6or paid that sum and i.Oenna released uisu, i,n ti.ia 
Ciiarge Icl enna was tried, found guilty and discharged frojii 
hi a office. ,^c!TTeTmK-^rrmr^5ninLrriV~ma^^ to have 

the iiouWi hark rroHTjisoioner 8 ordered "to f^»rth pl«ce hi» 

.Baise upon tiie roster of patrolae-n, »o that he fitlgiit perform 
the duties of and XtfP.. .t^t^ ^^f^«^« 

it appeara from Lei enna' a petition that a partial 
hearinf^ of lils case was had in Ljeptewber , 1914, before carbaugh 
and Purbcr, the trial board, and that owinfc to tlie sickness of 
McKenna the further hearing: was postponed until February 15, 
191vJ, at wiiich time L'CAenna personally aip«»art«d and waa hoard 
in hia own defenae. Furber did not sit upon the trial board 
rnd the hearing of LcKenna in his own defense vr;<s hud before 

Carbaugh, who alone sat as the trial board 

:he TXyuit 

»r»^-«rfr ttoa wrik^-faf :aanaar:>u& 



\ u^dia - d«i. 


- :._ f 1 I I jv '.!,... -1 '• ' ".exoi^^'o HOiMi-'i: iivi'j'^ A AM) nwonj< «1 

i)<»3^ ».. -innsAO'i .Hnns.loM Y.tJ oi biAotf Inlii a «a , .xi 

o^ ,^iwX «d itiiJ^A no iiAvlXIjucii tijoillo dJlw anXiiqsnoo dilw 
. ;£>^ ,l}9jQ9'X-x« QttAtf l>«(i Oiir ,xe8Xxr$f .H tttilm^ aott i>m^> -li) 

moil Jvcji^uouib ,i>!)xrti smw anaaJaH ABiAxio 

eiri 99hX(( ftilrniT<?> t 

. >'ji X . ijuh •tii 

ti^adiiio siolecf , ^IQI .ivdiusiqeu nX I>bj1 tfiir 9«ao tla lo ^nltnaA 

lo «eoa3ioxs ttili o^ h^Xwo J "rii '^n'i .briAotf XaXi.^ •di tfdtut bna 

,dX TCXAuitfa^ liiau 6«n - anliAsil tAiu'-iul mta ancin>[o i 

o-r ' iXflnoB-x ' ■aim im ,cXyi 

b-mou iBi^j ..1/ c::: .. j xa ion bxx; -x tjiu- .». !v-..< igb nwo Bid at 

aioldd £»Ari atiw osnolsxj nwo ^^i ■- i.i ^an^XOJl lo anXiAoh siii l>aA 

.bXAOd Ir.i '■'. tarn AaoXs Oilv ^li^umtiimU 

predion ted uj^on the contention tiiat Furber was abaent at the 
hearing on February 15, 191b, and that the ro] ort on LO.onria's 
caae, whicii was adopted toy the Civil aetvice Uoard, was mad* 
by 0,arbBugh only, and it It* contended tn it Carbaugh had no 
juriadiotion to hear alone the chnrf.ta and rccort hla finding* 
tncreon. To Jk.cli.enna ' a petition a ^.i^aernl demurrer was inter- 
posed ana uuutaincd and the petition di so. i lotted, and LcKonna 
prosecutes tiriis writ of error, seeKint<; a reversal. 


iiection 14 of the lark Civil service Act provides 

ti;ftt "ciiarKOo shall be inveatit:ated by or before the Civil 

jervice Board or by or before aonie officer or officrrs as.- 

poiiited by the Board to conduct audi lnveatif;Htion, ► * •• 

The objection that CarbRu|;h CwUld not act alone aa a trial 

board ia made in thia Court for thr first time. The record 

does not disclose that LcKenna was deprived of any le^al 

rii'^^t, and it is not denied that the proceedings were in every 

particular, excepting the- one complained of, rcuulur. as tne 

i'«rk Civil aervioe Board approved of Carbau(>)i as its trial 

officer, (it will be asiiumed froui that fact tiiat ae was authorized 

to Rot as the trial bourd in l^cKcnna's case'. As undeiP .>ection 

Ikj, aupra . it ia corjpetent for one person to not aa a trial 

board, MLt v»ill be assumed that Carbaugh v/as actint> aa auch 

under autriority of the Civil oervice iioard; who not only v 

approved his report but acted upon the recocuiiendation con- ' 

tained in it,^ That he was not so acting is nowhere averred 
' in koKenna'a petition, !<eitner ia it averred tiiat Carbaugh 

had not been auti;orized by the Civil service hoard to act as 

sole trial officer. The Civil dervico iioard had the po-ver to 

change the personnel of the board at any time, »nd in the 

absence of any averxent to Um contrary it will be assumed 

that it aut lorized Carbaugh to proceed as sole trial oiiicer. 

As said by the writer of s^ia opinion in I coile v, i owell . 

e'«nn«.toii «o iioiot 'JtlJ i»xli baa «ei9I «ax X'xa*'*i»^«»"* no saixaR 
9baa a^w ,fni«oa ft»iy3»e llrio saW xrf i>e;^qoi>A saw noldw ,«iii : 
oit bAil ila^BdtAD imii b9bn9ia90*u iJL f)n« tXlno ii^u4xm0 \ 

i9ini ««w tsTtuuiat liiisnwa « noliiiaq •♦«fl«s;iOj*i oT ,nooT9n4 

troiq 50A aoiviaii XlTiO Jtiuii ntU 
Livi'j 9tii ••lolao' lo \;d i}9iA3<i^etTnx stf IXaua 0931000'' J 

*q« aT90illo to laulllo amoa siolod to >c<f to binnS. »o 

" * * .nolfAB^^*>*T(ii rioya ^oubaoo oi btAOfl odl >C(f be^ 

ialti m urn onoI« Job -Jon bii/00 ii:>vp.rfTflO lAiW nolioatt'o .oxi' 
bTiooat »4T .aoli iftll axli tol J • nl oLaas «l bino' 

Xs^eX XLoa lo bavitqal) eaw aansxaii J«a4 oaoioaib ion aso; 
: ivd aX atow aanXiiaaootq aiii imii bslnob Ion al ii bna •- 
j.^i «A .XRiwijat tlo baniuXqnioo ;?iri ..v.t gniJ^aoxa ,t«I«oj 
Lai.ii six aa i.i;jUAtftJiO lo bav -oil aoXvtoL Xlrll> 

basX toriJiti) a«v «4 iaiii JobI JjuU tuotl baiBuaa« ec( XXXw 41) «tOoXll> 
ao U 00 iiiW»bau aA .^a^o a 'Anna.) od lAXti o4i •« ;^9a & 

XjtXti A «A ;>o« o3 noataq ano -to 1 .jii-f.M'q»noo «X *X •£SSm£. •- 
iioMtt QA yniJoa OAV/ ii^uAtitAO i ^.1J o .-;<*-««« orf IXx«r JX),bt«c 
>cXno ;fon oxlw Vb'SAoS ooXvi. -Ai lo x-^Xto^^iia tabu 

-iic/o noiJAbnaaiaooot a^ noqij o-^ioA iud itoqat aiii bavotqo 
bottdVA ata/iwou ai B<iXi0ii oa ion %mi oxi i4Ui7 f.iX nl banXt; 
ii»ij«tft«y iisriJ baitaya IX aX taniXaa .noX;tXioq a'aana;IoiI r. 
aa tfos Oi> btBod o;>i/i<n lirXO arli Y^i" boNiioiUu* naad toa br ■ 
oi tavoq 9iU bad .tab XXvi ^ laoXllo XsXt^ 9ic< 

9Xii nX br. (A i« btaotf adi to Xaonoataq adi asnAit: 

bou&<aa« ad \:tat^noo oiiJ oi iaamtarA y:n« lo aonaad 

.taoXllo i^iij •(..>.. ui baaootq oi ii^uAtftAa basXtoii^wA ii Ijuij 

127 111. App, 61A - "lio^vever, if tiierc was room for »ny uoubt 
ae to the legality of tiie nppointment of tiie persona consti- 
tuting the trial bo»rci, tiie rntificaiion of the action of tne 
board by ti^xe coaamiaaion in n; irovinf: and ndoxtinji it a I'eport 
and findings wan a sufficient corrective; ** and as furtiier 
said in the iowell case, suprR . "he appeared at the trial 
in parson and w{%8 heard in hia ovrn defense, and in this re- 
l^ard All tile requirciaents of the i;tfTtut« were fulfilled, }je 

ride no jroteat or objection to the juritidiction of the 
trial board «*ither br^fore taut boiixd or to U^e coai;iiia3ion. 
The Jurisdictional question cannot be raised on tula ajpeal 
fur the first time." Joyce v. Ci l^ ^ of Chica^, 216 ill, 
466, is a supporting autr.ority, 

Citv of Cliicago v. The leople, aio ill. 64,- 
urged by counsel for plaintiff in error as controlling au- 
thority, ia in «',> v/ioc applicable, because in that case tne 
trifi of Cray, the relator, waa adju.i^'.tsd to ha irregul^^r, as 
tiie trial board waa not cunstituted as required t>y the rules 
of the Civil iiervice Conuaisaion, and Gray was also deprived 
of the opportunity to be heard in iiis own defense - cloaionts 
which are not present in kcKenna's case, 

if it were neceaaary for u« to decide this case 
upon its txieritu, wziicr. it iu not, we should be itupellcd to 
find that koKenna was convicted of a neinous offense, diaiionest 
in itself and destructive of the discipline of tii.e police 
force, of wiiicii. he was a ineiuber* 

The proceeding a^^ainst I'oKenna, whicu resulted in 
nia discharge from Uie service of defendnnt in error, being 
regular and conforiuing to the Civil service rules applicable 
to cnae, the Judf^a^nt of the superior Court in affirmed, 


tduob lot laooi ■«« sidiU tt ,-x^TftwuH" • l>Xd vqc^A tlXI tSX 
-IJenoo onbeiQci Siii lo Jn«ainJtoqqii »xii lo xillJiBBX •£{} oc^ «ii 
oii.t lo noX40« 0iii lo noJc .QOitlcTa'X tnii ^binod laliS ndi acUti 
lioqtti ni^jt anX^<lo^« l^w* anirot'i ;« nl rtoieoimaioo sxii ^d Jiiiso 
i»ri*iul •« bn/9 ♦•;9yl:crj>«»T7oo ^osloillue a Hsmf e»niJbnXl hn/ 
I/tiii 9JcU iA I)' . "/tLji-vS ,9B/jo Ilowoi »*iJ nX bii.. 

'leu nffo alii nX JbntMen saw bna nosiaq r)> 
J.. .1 ji J itur : ,)T^:^'. oJi/JwJe. 4ii;t lo airiatadi Jtupoi odi Ll» bxr. 
:i.^^ lo nolioil lu.;. »iiJ o;^ noiJoot<^o lo io^Soii on •!)«» 
^auaoo Ail. aiocf imii eiolwd tȣlJl9 bxaocf laitJ 

I*i):H-<) uiil^ no i)9i(XA-x »tf ,tonnj»o aoii«»up X-nttaiJoibal'Xiit 6^' 
■ *2M21^i 2SL ,v , ^'t:0 .V 90v;oi; " ,9adJt Jaiil »ftjr tol 
.y,Jixo:iJua ^niiaoqqua a ai ,5c)^ 
.V oaaoidO lo Y.iXO 
joTtc® ai tli/alJiiXq lot X»»nuoo ^tf bn^^i- 
»xii dttj' gaunoacf ,9XfiiJoXXqq« »oiw oa al aX .x^X'JO-''' 

ea ,aAXfJ^9^'i^ ^^buUsa aJMr ,10.}/ 

0'»lui odi >c<J DsiXijf.v^i ai» b»;ti/JlJenoo ;fon . 'v :)'iHca lp.xtj .^i 
boviz^/jtb ouXe »«w X'«'*3 bn» .noi«&i..... o ;>3ivi»ij; XlvXD «dl T- 
eJ: ;.- - oeinslato nwo aXrt nX bnj»» 1 injuirjocjqo axtJ '5c 

.aauo a'Anna)lovi aX la«8^-i i ion ^i-xjn iioXilw 
9a>}0 sXiiJ 9ijX03i> OJ «!/ xol xiJiaaaosn 9i9W iX tX 

oJ JOaXX^qiiu scf J:/XiU'0d«i 9w ,ion cX IX xiaXiivr tBlXlSi.) cia ivw^ju 

iti;9noilQXb ,»an8lto euonXdxl j» lo b9Jaivno9 baw »an9ii0iii Sadi bai't 

aoXXoq 9iii to afllXiiXoaXb »il^ to aTi;^0ii-xJaait) bnm IXacJi nX 

tiodmoiu & aavv od ixoXriv lo .aoiol 
ai bT^iiuudi aoXiiw «mind;(6:^ JenXA^iiJi aaXbaeooiq 9i\\ 

^niitd tioti'i ni .^nabiistab lo ooXviaa »ii4 aoit h^^i .>.j^x>.' ^. i 
aXdaolXciqa 8»XiJ"x aoXvxaa XXvXO »di vj animiolaoo ban lAXusft 
.JDaonjilla eX ^iiroa aoXioqu^ Bdi lo Sn9mi^bul •di ,aaAO a 1x1 0. 

- <117^C 

)efen(iArit in i!;rror, 


ClUY 0¥ CHICAGO, a icunicip 
corporationiv anci. CH/CxLLli 1^ 
CoflUBiaeioncrtof Buildiniis 
City of chiccko, 





':^'- '193I.A. 372 


The order f QP- a .3u:it -or.iaaij(iJ.aaiu8 in this c.a»«- 
na^sf'-^e reversed for error in procedure, and as the case 
must be af^»i|i^ heard in confonr.ity vuth the ti.eory indicated 
in tiiia opinion, thf -Merita of the cauae vill "be neitaer 
detcrriincd nor discussed, 

Def end&)>fe"'in error filed hia jjctition for a 
ixit of man dami2|3^3e eking to couipel the plaintiffa in error 
to approve plans for a certain building and to issue a per- 

metnl cover ing was to be u'ied for the wqIIb and ceilings 

of the building, vatziout any plotter on the inner side be- 
tween cucn mctnl and the 'vnll or ceiling, ./iiich was viola- 
tive of the jrovi'oiona of .iection 6C5 of the 1911 Chicago 
code. The reanondents interposed to this petition a gen- 

w-wo. v>-v» ^i <^ H^''*v Hj V 

df'.'iurrcr, Th^: finding pn 


Lng part of the final order and 

Jud^yaent iB^ptiJf^iS-i^ittwk^*^ a a follows; 

"Tiiis cnuse coruing on to be heard upon the 
deirurrer of respondents to the petition of petitioner and 
after arp;unients of counsel sno being fully adviaed in 
the prei;iiBes, the court doth find that section 6ct) of the 
building ordinances of the City of Chicago as a.iended and 
passed and in force on and after i arch 9, li>l4, ia ur reasonable 
and void as to each and all of the provisions thereof re^;uiring 
lathing and piaster above and behind metal covered ceilings and 
jralla in buildings erected in said city,* 


JiiVIS - s> 

.1011:1. ni tiiAbn-^'l 

( ' /J HO YTIO 

( • , oii/iioqioo 

( f" - .u.tjttii. w . -^ ijnolaelitmoo 

^:^ * \3 •ii.l O U JL ~-._^-' 

.THUoo mi: %o hoihi'io sht asHsvi.raa lioajon xoiTiJUL ,m 

99AQ_^Btd.i Cii 8JJ, ./VodauL -lo- i-tast a. toI rjobto sxlT 

9(f ivija 

,Jb«eauo«Jtb ion bnnltaioJet) 
a lol nolJxJs^. Qixl 1)9 Itl 10113 ni'-^Qjsfinale 
iQ-rir) ni 8lli^ni«i^ srii Xaqiuoo o:f gni^fesa ex;iiis&n.<3m -^o SltL 

— • l.noJ^ oem «^± Brtiaitoiiiw.* ^xw 

aaaiXlso baa alljjw arii -xol b»cw sd oi saw anltsvoo rniaai 

-r,Ioiv a«w rloi;iv. ,3nJ:Ii9o 10 Xlav- »iii fcruB U;t»ra lioua riaowJ 

orjfloiriD IIOI sriJ lo eos noi:^oot; to anoisivoiq 91U lo gvx^ 

-no:^ e noiiiia.i eiiiJ oJ bsto i .t,:} ,^ •• , ,^ ,., r^ , .. •• ^oboo 

hnsi irtb-fo Xflni'l.srii to J . ^ Xj319 

rawoIJol 88 a^iftfenw ro-^it b«Nttof:« I: ,/ afjojibu t 

9rii itoqx) iiiflSii scf oc^ no anlcnoo •eu«o aidT" 

i>nB isnoicTiiaj lo aoiiit^q mii oi a^fnDbrtoqa-^T Jn 'r-»tnifra»J|> 

nl i)aaivi>- '^ ^ X9uni;oo lo i ; i^ils 

QiU lo cJOd nc. ;Gb tiuoo ^.io , ^ 9rl;t 

bna b9ba9.:^ a: «sfl;f lo asnn/.:, . ,..^riijd 

aldiinoajfiaiitu ei .f^Xbi ,vi ii;>ii»:i ^ailj* bnic no aotol nx bna baaaaq 

anliU- ^^ot 1o9i»»rfi anoxelvoiq 3xO lo XXo bna i1o«9 o^ ej» bior bns 

bna aaniXxaa baiovoo io^am bnXxlacf bnu avotfa lectasjl^i bna gniiiiaX 

".>Cixo blBs ni baJoai© B»nJ:bXJ:i;ct nx eXXaw 



The order continued by awarding a mandamus acainat 
the City of Chicago and its jmilding Couuniaaioner, as prayed 
in Jiartnian'3 pt-.tilion, .,,,,,,.,.«,,™»«,™,».=--«^^ 

It will be noticed that tJtie demurrer is nowuore 
diaposed of. x'he Court could not enter a valid final order 
without disposing of the demurrer. After the diopoaition of 
the decmrrer reapondeuts had tiiCir election either to abide 
by the dc-iurrer or to nndwer the petition. If reaioruient 
shall elect to answer the petition, the question of the un- 
reasonablenesa or reasonableness of tl-ie ordinance amy becoaie 
a question of fnct to be deter... ined as other questions of 
fnct. This boin^: an ordinance passed presumanly in the 
exercise of the police power, it will be as>3urned, until the 
contrary is made to appear, that such ordinance is reasonable 
and the deter.'i:ination of the Council on that tiubject held 
to be conoluiiive. Lancuel v, C i t^ , 197 111. 20, 

The jud{jnent of the Circuit Court is reversed 
and the cause reiuanded v;itii directicna to the Ci.-cuit Court 
to proceed to hear and diSiOse of the demurrer and thereafter 
to proceed as in like cases, 

RZV£Ba£LD AUD li£&iAKD£D. 

baxBiq aa .iflnoiBBtmiooO anibXiua «ii jjns osooJtrlO to ^i^lO O'- 

Qiuii.v.on .:;i •i:)iaijai9f> 9iW Jjidi bBOitoii sd XXJ:w .^ 

■xabio I^iii'i l)xlBV a la^^na ion oIkjoq iiuo'j aax .lo >i9uoif:ifa 
lo r!oiJx<. c laib erij la^flA ,i9TXJja»i) axiJ lo aniaoqoii) iuoiUiw 

-nu 9rt^ lo cioiSs9up 9tii ^aoiiliaq, oni i»v.-8njB o3 JosXa I laiiai 

8aioo9d xaia eonAaibio asii to aeeitsXcfflnoaaoi to BasnaldBnoaa'ii 

lo enoiJBfmp aedJo sjb baniiiisJ^b sd oJ^ Jon": lo nol;fa9up « 

srict nx Mldamueeiq b^aauq ooaanibio tia aniod olxlT .i'O) > 

Siicr XiJnij ,lj^::iuaaj8 ©d XXxw ;^1 .tswoq doxXoq arf* lo soloisy. 

9lci«noafioi 8i aofUMiili'Xo rioua iaai .tAoqqA oi eJbMo aJt ^iai;tnoo 

^^2.:i '' ; ? ad J /no iionwoO mi:} lo noiianiinid^rai) «nii fanjB 

.XXI vex , YJi:0 ,v l9uan«J .svifc^Ionoo 3d oj 

faaa-xova-x ax Jtjjoj ,JxjJoixci ^il^f lo ii\-im.:^bui sdZ 

ixuoO Jxuo'i'j ariJ oi onoiJogiib iivtiw Aaljnsiawt aei/KO atii bna 

-X9it«9i3nj ijn.c isiii^aai) sAi lo aaoiaib boa :t«9£l oi baaootq oi 

.898^0 ♦^(XX ni 9« b*900iq c..t 

44 - 21726 

I. LUHYA Liil.,aKr, CO., a 

L'efcndant in j^rror, 

kliiiniirf Hi ilrrot. 

) OP Oil IC AGO. 

Yy 198I.A. 374 


^-.jrhla ia.-^h, n.ction^:^r,a mcchrapic'a lien in 
whi^h pluintif^f recovfrJ?fl a money ^kij^fyaient for ^200 Uf;tiinst 

defendant on tbe finding: or~ the court .T The olniia for a 
mechanic's lien was not misaed upon»li a«4~def««4«Trtr'3'!>€k8 



^^-a^^^iS^^U ef e n da 

nt had a. contract with 1. 
Harria, a ^^.eneral contractor, for the erection of a build- 
ingj i^ G^^f^t>ft.tract all liens and c]jaDiB or right of 
lien under the lechanic's Lien Act for labor or materiala 
furnxBiied, etc., were waived/- 

</One Lazax had a contract A-ith harris for car j. enter 
work to the fuflount of $2100. ilnintiff furniahed lUtijher to 
hazar, which was uaed in defendant's building under the 
Karrio contract. The- Heita.nn Bond and Mortgage Company jiiade 
a ■building loan on Goldberr's property and plaintiff exe- 
cuted and delivf:red b. rvaiver and release of ony ana all 
liena and claiaia or right to a lien on Coldbcr^^'a preinises 
on account of any ziiaterial it iiad furnished to l.aznr, vrtiich 
vsfaiver and release it delivered to the VortjiaKe Company. 
The Court ar/arded the judgment en the theory that Goldberg 
had teatified tn a prior suit tiiat he had reserved out of 
tJrie money due and to become due to Lazar^ ^200, v/hioiji ht was 

tit was -> 

^i^VXii - t* 

( .-tcxi:! iii VlldniiiXi 

^T8 .A.I eei 

A tol ni«Io sriT 7. Jtuoo tfrfJ '^0 '^ntbniY -»rfi no ;fn«bfl^»t»fi 
a:i»fr8~'tm!»fe«'»lafe-<&«!« ^,«oq[w bsea^^ ^toa ejnr nali »'ain«r{osm 

-i)£iwd £ 1o noxJosis aricf lol ,ioio>j'ict«oo I^Bi^ns j a .uiiiflil 

lo Jiisi'i 10 ami « to fcn« snuil XIu .tamJ'flK^»-^--u.wr /ytlL .ami 

aXfllTs^tA^jc '10 locfflX lol iok naii 8'oXn«il3»4 stdJ tobnij n'SlL 

laJns) fxeo io1 8jt"ii:jaiH; rf^iw JojB'iJnoo 43 t^ai ijssaJ 9t\j\^ 

OCT i3cfai«I i)9iia iffxul llistnisX i .OOXS^ "io ;fnjjoai.B ailJ oJ jfiow 

-9X9 lll^HijsXq iin« xStBqotq, ««3n9dbXoo no nsioX anX^Iiiftf a 

XlB bas Yfl« "io 9aB9X»? Jins •xsriBw jb bf^-invi f.jfj ban b»;fuo 

aaeinifliq o'liTocfbXoO no nsiX « oi id^lt lo aajli^Xo bna analX 

dyxii^v ,ins^.l oi ijj.'lain'xul bBxl ii Lnin^itma y^aa to iauooon no 

.Yneq^aioO eaus;^!©!.! 9rii oi boi^vilob iX aeaaXan ban ivrlav/ 

aiodbXoO *«xlrf YiooriJ od^ no inosvtbut. oxlJ bnbiBvm ituoO sriT 

lo tfwo Jb9Yi9«ei: i>jaxj[ 9x1 JarU ilua loiiq a nX belliica* 6«d 

y- ««w aft dolxlw ,00S:^ ^iBSBj; o^ <»ub 9saoo'ni oi bna sub Y9no.ii »sii 

-(^holdinp for the plaintiffj) 

-4^ vft n o t be e n f B V c r «d--wJLtii. ol tLer.-liri*4jC> 
part of plaint ITf, 

tiiiiiic it clear that no claxm fcr o. lien 
maintMned by plaintiff, aa under the contract vtith iidr- 
a aechniiic' a lien was waived, tr.ia pari 
of tne contract ix.l:un.>xng upon oil per Bona furnishing la- 
bor or li.ateriald undds; any aub-contract with Karri a, thi 
general contractor. Vor^sllaten v. > interbot haifi. iiCS II] . 

j laintiff hod noNjLien and it did not try tjria 
jcaae upon that theory. vVe tiiinK'spiaintif f ' a rifChts muat be 
JBdraeBSured vfithin ita complaint andStxiat therefore the tcaney 
ijud(,:ment was erroneoua, lacking a finol^g that plaintiff | 
|iad establiah9<!( ita ri#^:ht to a lien. 

£ut, prooeedin^ further, v/e wiiI\aiiJioae of 
tne clalja laade by plaintiff upon the trial that 
jfiGldr out from the contract price $iiOO, ^which waa to 
led tOTmr^ plaintiff flciniJB for iuntber fitmlahetJ- 

/^7hi8 claim Ina^efuted by the tcatir;;ony of defendant, Karrle. 
the general contractor, and Frank Heitman, who repreaented 

the Mortgage Co«ipany^/«t>--^ha1; if the law woulii tolerate^^^ 

Oradhi tif r » ^ '"alXergTrie "gne cnu^e of action and-proTing another, 
wMch^^i^~~^«^ni--TMa*...8tiU y laintiff fails. / 

The Jud!:mewi?oF"^ElrB-^a4Qic^ipal Court ia rcveraeA. 
and a» plairvfciff haa no cause of action ago Ih^t -defendant/ 
ienforceablc in a court of law, tixe cause will not be re- 


a on Sadt laoio il -^liihiS ^\" 


. [II COiJ , iumi J ocf la^niv, ,v fi9;r«I l / fipv .loJoaninoo XaTsno . 


elai Xi-^ ^on blL Ji Lna Mly'oa basi llUaiBl i 
»cf seum adii-jiit e'llUaiai^^^Lti)' »v .xiojai JsaJ noqu aejin 
icsncia axlj onolansiU imiyhaa inii»lqmot> eJi aiu^iw ibdai;«B9iub« 

.aoiX B oj in-^ii e.;fl h^uaiLd^ia^ bmn 
jlo saoqaib^Hiw aw «TC9iUiul snibeaooiq ,;»i/. 


o^ aaw doicLw .OOiiii •oiiq Joaainoo 3/W moil iuo 

;^^aba«>1^J». t0ftraalj''nol;ro« Tto »ex/i»o on ««xi l^i^nlaX.? •« bna 


46 - iil745 

Thifi iKOi^Li. OF THf. STATE 

defendant in lirrcr. 

1 sun tiff \in i'^rror./ ) 


^ 198I.A. 3 76 

Uli, JU3TICF. HCLBOK DELIVHBEl) tlili 01-ljaoK OF THS CC-Ul-lT. 

DefendJint bringo this writ of error to uayie u» 
review a judgment convicting iiiiB.of biding an inraite of a . / 
hduoi of IproBtitutlon, «tc . . ^contrary to aec, 57, A, I, ohajt* 

5^|y_H^JijjA Jury beinf:! waived, tne trio), wudg© after hear- 
ing the evidence f « und defendant fpiilty of tne crxminal offense 
of being an insiftte of a houae of ill fame, ikept for the purpose 
of fornication ana fixed hi a puniai.xuent at 3c day a impriyoniawit 
in the }iou8C of Correction, the payau«nt of a fine of ^l(,0 »nd 
coata of th*^ proeection, taxed nt ^6,5o, in default of payjjjcnt 
of irhich defendant wao to be detained in the : ouue of Correc- 
tion until the fln«^ and ooste are worked out at the rate of 
^1.51. per day, or until discharged by due process of law as 
by a tii tu t c I i'o v i d e d , 

S^^l« ui. The er- 

Only the stntutory record dtlPSftfoii 


rors cowxlaincd of tt*4j"8aid to be enooapasaed within this rec- 
ord j-) •i4r-tHr3rJ-~UtWF^ fer e 1 ) 8 aa gTicred that the evidence ^v&a auf- 

L. augtwA«"-the cotivxction and Judfment if the informa- 
tijB»--imrranttfd^^-tRt!r cronvictlbn and the Judgment i« a lawful 
iw&f'M'eWt yi^he prosecution "ta by information. The otntute 
which defendant Iji'^criftrfCd wit/, offending went into force 
July 1, 191b. :>efendant contendrf^that the information o«axg«s 
no offense ^^1^ i •* xr^ Um t «itere"l-r''Tro«re'-«Tu<HmetM^---i«. JOie ^ 
«I3I,-1*- whi«tr Uia* <i«cu«L«»t is drawa, .TJae»#-^<«rv'-%ft«"lWrffr""lnBr^ 
^ ytTtrrtr-nre i n f i x - - i^y- ar.^sue ^.,xa . aaad. to axi^Hr-f Vthnt def enuant -^ 


.v:>l)A'JiiIU "40 T.<aO; 

£<t»VX^ - d^ 

►TtoTtX ai/ltUixiHli 

aT8.A.I8GI \ ,/ i 

,:r\\j^.'j .Tiat ->;u .lyiKtISlO SUIT a: ^i'iVi.U'ia .iOJi.i'jJi TOiTiUt ,>m 
« to i^i^sani an axiZncf lo^ailtf aniioirnoo ^n^vHTiiut, « valval 

.CjjfUlO ,X ,A «Ve ,061: OJ y;Tf«l4«00 ..0^f» ,nOi^uiiJ«0-I ;' If) » ir 

-TW911 ttti-Ut •abMw lAlti 9rii ,fe«rl«w snlotf xrswt A 

»aoqxjuq 9ii* Tol iq»i£ «>«iil XXI Tto •e ^i«awil rui aniurf '3: 

* 1!^ auto w lined 8>c«Jl) OS i« ^nsaulBlnuq Biu iy,!^xi. -jtua noiiMalatot 1. 
an OuXvi to anil a to Ja9flix«q aiU ,«oi#o»no;) to •euo:.! atii i' 
5>K.'\t«q to *Xufflt3i> nl .od.d^ 1« AoXAi ,noiJo«»«anq fni^ to »^8c 
-ooiioD to »«wo:t 9iii ai fa»nl«i»|» od oJ sm in^fenstot; ilax 
■Jo itiat adi iM iuo bsaitow 9'ta •;taoo bns anit oiii lUau no.. 
o., *,.,: 'Ik ».,...,...,, ^jf 6»-r-r - ^' lunu TO ,Tca|j ifiq oe.i 


:oT Hitu fiXitJiw fisaaaqcaoona «>of oi bJt«« "r.** to banialqaioo »ic 

^m-Totai^ «*j • tf fi.«,flr^bj^^ bn« noiioirtroo »ri* -ftA^J^ut -oJ -J.oj»Jt«X, 

xrxotnJt xd »J itoUwonao'iti »xfTV ,7h\ 

i 4a»w snXJbnotlo ii' ^tiabnatob xfol... 

lotitl erfJ i>uiJHb ,<HQI ,X x^»^' 

•..>ino swotr 8i '9T">..- - -. _ ,i. .eonotto oa 

iinrtjr'"»iM--»iBi»..»«i»4vT. ,fl»Mi<xt-Bl^4«wJUiO0i> J«^*-rt^«*f-»X-:t«v 

"on the 7tn uay of August , A. :■, l^Jlb, at tn^ '■..ity of Ciil- 
cago aforcijoid, -^t, t.o-wit: 12&9 -if, liadiBon stroet., was then 
a»dl there »n Im^nte of a house of ill fnxiie or assignation or 
proatituiion or lewcuiese, contrai-y to tne atatute," The con- 
teiition ^ thiit the charges bein*; in the diajunctive are in- 
sufficient to cli&r'ge nnjr offense of which defendant can be 
convicted* and that the venue in Um oai tion of tiic informa- 
tion is no part of the informtition. Defendant voluntarily 
?i(ent to trial upon the information without objecting to ita 

sufficiency or moving to quaah. 

The objection made on review 

for the first tlae la without force. The trial court conraittdd 
no error in rulin;^ upon the ouff of the inforHiation, be- 
oauue defendant did not ciiallenge in any ivay its sufficiency 
or call for the ruling of the court thereon, Beoides we are 
inclined to the opinion that the offenses charged in the dis- 
junctive are in legal effect and intcndi^ont but one. Hither 
one, lea* than all » ;aay be diare<.:araed, ana an offense of a 
siu:ilar character a^^ainst the statute reuainu. A house of 
assignation ^ixere prostitution la indulged in is a house of 
ill fame ana prostitution is lewdness. v;e regard jaletucr v. 
The leoyle , 76 ill. /iOb, ao authority supjortin^; thia /dicta J 
and as in no smv contrary to it, -he venue ia n }mrt of the 
information and the charge that the offense was coa;iaitted at 
tlie "city of Chicago aforesr-id" , etc., by construction refers 
to the Tenuc as laid in the caption of the information. Again, 
defendant claims that it is not ci.nrgod tuat his act of be- 
ing in the house of ill faxi;r was unlawful. j-,o;cver, tne 
charge was in the lan^unge of the atatute and the atatute 
made tiie net charged unlawful, Tnat vms all sufficient. De- 
fendant says he was not an "instate" witnin tiic meaning of 
Uie otatute, .n the condition of thia record tiie eviJence 
nay have establianed, for aught we may know to tliC contrary. 

-iiiO lo xti'^ s>ni i« ^aikl ,a ,A ^^ou^uA lo x«b diV »ri;r no" 

Dili sBv. .jftfl-xia ao8iI»t^ ,W (ld£X :ilw«oJ «i.<« tblAoaiolLjB o^ao 

\o noiJ4nSiJ(a«« to euittl: li^ lo 9auod u lo ei«ani a.«i oi^ri^ boM 

00 ftilT ".ft^iiJitJii siii^ o^ ^C'XAi^raoo «8tt9(i^w9X 70 aolJuJiiaoiq 

-at d-xs 9Ti.loniJt»<tb Oiil nJt ^tiind ••j^-iailo •»ii^ iaciJ »i noiinsl 

dd n«o J^n«i»i9l»t> lioitiv/ lo aansllo t"JB a^iiiilo o^ ^nvloilli/a 

-ata'xolal oxli lo aoi^qao oiii ni ai/nar »dJ J>jiU diim «b»i#9JtTrf09 

XXxioinuXov ia«bn??loJ .noi^aiaiolnt sxU lo tfiaq on ti aoit 

e;ri 0^ 3flIJo9tcfo Ji/o(Ulir aoi^a.t.'xolfl.i 't/li noqt/ iaiti oS ta^v 

w>lv9i no 9£>iua noJt^09t<'o <*<tT , .flaaup oJ ^nlToin tio YOti^-to^'^'^iUt^ 

tb^ilcuaoo iit/oo iniii odT .•otol ^uoiliiir al sali iaiil 9fi^ tel 

*r)<i (iioXiAiKiolnl oxiJ lo xoooioillua aii^ noqu ^nilui at totia otit 

'.;>u9ioillu« s^J: XMm XA* nl •anaXiniio ion bib SaBhei^tttb ^humo 

in 9W e9bia.tH ,aoen;»iiJ iiuoo Aiii lo tiniXuii 9tii tol XX«o to 

i.t) axiJ ni ijo^taxlo aoaimllo 9xif iadi noinlqo 9tii oi banllonl 

iitiJia »»no iu<i in^iobaotal bnm io»ll» Xfl^oX al 9t» tiwiSoaul 

» lo aanallo aa han «b»l>-xaaancaxii »d x"^ « 'J^-^a i^AdJ aa^i ,9no 

lo oauoii A ,saimi9T. ojrwJnJa ';.u» Jania.^ts iQio^ifnio rmlliRit 

lo aoi/Oil A aX al bo^^lubni al noUu^Liaoiq atadw aoilttnaXaaA 

.V rtgtflsj^a bia^at aW .aaaabwaX al noXiu^Xjraoiq ona ooal XXI 

jUJoxM aXiiJ afl-^^i0'ici«« ^iito»Uu« an ,edii ,Xli »V , »Iq[09 i aiiT 

Oiii lo *7»a M fii aJinsT aril .;>x oJ vtatinoo vfn'v oa nl e« bn« 

J} baiiicuaoo 8«w aaadllo 9iiS ia.ii saiario aili baf^ nolfnanolai 

R-xalai noXiouii:.noo \c«f ,.oJo , "JbiKaaiolc 08«oliiw lo yiXo" 9iii 

...iM.,. fiDj.t,.: '.c ivn 9ji;r lo noiiijiio 9dJ nl bimi «* nunnr 9di oi 

li beatA£lo ion a I SI intii aMilflXo inabitalob 

exli ,i9V»v oa .XulwflXnu aAW »aiMl III lo eeuori orii ni 8«X 

aiujjsie ariJ bnua oiui^iia sUi lo ssnuaruti oiii al mmv fk^xruio 

~: .inaxoxllu^' XXa ami iati'r .Xulw/iXnu b9:s}'xarfo ion axli ab«m 

lo sninii9m oiii nlxiiXw "aiAjanX" n« ion a aw 9 A a^AS inabnal 

aonttblTa axii biooo-x elxU lo noXiXbaoo aiti nl .aitfiiiia 9;li 

.y;T:a'Xinoo acU oi won>l ^«ai »v irisua lol ,banolXdiiiae arari x««« 

tiiat he «ai penaanently resident in the house of ill fj»me in 
which he was arrested, and nil intendtnents lauut be iriaul^ied 
neoessary to sustain the charge in the Infonuation. 

Defend«.nt 0i..nllenge8 tliC coniitituaionai ity of 
the statute for tiie violation of w)ilch he vcaa ccnvlcled. 
ifhcjther this challenge be well taken or not ia notif. of our 
concern, "hie court io not vt'sted with Jurisdiction to ae- 
tPr:<'.ino constitutionnl qucationa. If the constitutionality 
of the statute was involved, the review should be prosecuted 
in the ouprejeie court. In tais court the pi-esunption obtains 
that, the statute does not offend any constitutional provi- 
sion, i:.arne» v, Dralnp^e Cormc* rs, 221 111, 627, keeking a 
review by tiiia court waived any constitutional question 
wiiicu jaight otuerwiac be roi.aed, 

Ivefenaant contrnds that there is no statute 
authorizing iaiprisonment for the non-payiiient of "fines" or 
"costs," In this he is in error. Jec, 452, chop, 5b, l.urd's 
h, J,, provides: " «Xien a fins ia inflicted tho court iaay 
order, as a part of the jucijjiierit, thnt the offen-ier be cocs- 
ciitted to » there to re.'uain until the fine and coats nre 
fully paid or he ia diachari?ed according to law.'* .;ec. 448 
provides thnt here jail sentences Jtay be is^possd upon de- 
fendants, thr court may jend the culprit to thf- house of cor- 
rection or other plnce proviaed by the county or city au- 
thoritifio. The reiuaining part of the sentence - th«t the 
fine and coats be "worked out" at the rate of .,l,bc per day - 
ie In the interest of the convicted porsun as it isinii/iizes 
hia term of lflipri3onffi.«nt. 

The objection to the j urisdictiOi* of tut. triwl 
Jud(;;c to preaide at ti»e trxbii of defendant ia not ««11 taken. 

?here ia no reversible error in tue record before 
us and tiic Jud. fiitrit of tue lunicipai Court ia affirmed, 


.noJtJx2iXiiolnl 9iiJ til sjiifuio 9tiJ niai»ua Qi v.iaa«»o^v 

.beJolvnoo •»*' 9x1 rioJtilw lo nolJ^filoir «iil tol 3;?ijj ju t. 

1U0 lo ;»noii .3 J; ion 10 nsjiJB^f IIsw od o^ngllBdo elii3 n^Ai'^r. 

-oL oi noiioj^bHiiur aJi.w biie-jv ^on ol iiuo'J aJtrl" .n-xaort' 

bdii/o^BOic; 9(f J[)Xi^o^t«i utiiwQ"*. i>di ,b9yl0Yni. saw d^tuiisia Bdi "^ 

-ivoiq IttnoiJjjJlfenoo yao Dnsl'Yo ^on a«of> s^iiJuie ©xlJ ixr.- 
a aniaaac. .VSd ,1X1 ISS , ai 'aunoD »^«ninici .v agnia^ .nox» 

.b^aiar oJ oeiwioiyo JxiS'^tB ^iaXi.. 

10 "aanxl* lo JtifljU^ji«i»non 3il^ rxol J^nsasaoaiiq^iaii anlxiioiidijp 

■ i'biini ,a£ .(larfo »ii<J* ,osL ,ioiif» ni al ofi ainjl nl ".uJ^aoc 

^iijii iiwoo aiiJ bsJaillni si «al'i b a&xiW* ;««l).ivoTi ,, . 

-nioo od t9f>a»llo 9ili^ ^«dJ .insai^jbwt 'ii^ ^o ^xnq a aa ,^9b. 

ft-xn eJsoo bno anil 9d;f LiSnu nlainan oi 9t9tii «llwt o* b9iJ.'. 

8^^ ,os<.. *,w«X Qi anlbiooaa b9>)Tiii\o&ib et ati to bimq \lty 

-9b ciociu baooqQl ad xi^m eaaaa^noB Xi^. t siwiti Sf^rii aobivo': 

-•:too lo aauoii nitLi oJ JliqXuo sai bns'^ y,nm ituoo ?>d;t .aitiAbri'? 

»un xiio '10 vJnuoo «jiJ vcf b»biyoTq 9onlq t^iiio 10 aolioc 

i>di iadi " «ati9Jci»c utii lo Jifsq -inini.aitx&t sdT .attlil-xo 

- V.ab Tt»q J<3.Ii; lo aJiut odJ ia "iao bftjiiow" ad s^ftsoo bna ani 

e»&in;jjLnia il an nueawq baJ^oivnoo OilJ lo ^asi.Tjnl 9iiJ nl c 

.^naauioaliqni lo ^vfai c 1 

.ao/t*U IXaw Jon ax Jnwtmal'jb lo lAiii ».1J Jsz 9bi.tinii uj jubx 
•loltJU biooiai 9dJ nl loiis oXuxei'ivs': on al ©isii. 

.bQiancxlla al inuoO XxKixolni/Al Bd3 lo Jnoa^^but, odi bna au 

47 - 21746 

KDWIK D. m^^Y, 

D^fitodanz In i:rroT, 


i laintlf^ in Krror 



193 I.A. 379 


Thia ia an autojiiobile coiliiion caue in w:.ich 
the Ki*3 car of dofenaant -trucit the eleclrio car of j/iain- 
tiff *nile txi« latter waa impruiiently turnin^r* uia car 
around from the north to the south in about the aiiddle of 
tne block between Karriaon and Congress streets. The cage 
waa tried before the court, v«fho found in fnvor of plaintiff, 
aoaeasing hia aa::mgea at .i;:25a.30 and for thut tur.ount gave 
judrment, Defendant aeeka our review and nrguco for reveraal 
errors coratiittffd by the trial Jud(!:e in his rulln^ja upon the 

The rulinga of the court arc coritr».dictory and 
in :aany e-saential particulars errontoua. of the material 
Queationa before the court for oolution waa the amount of 
dairtage to plaintiff a car resulting from its oollioion «ith 
the car of defendant. defendant oont^^rded t;int Just prior | ^ 
to the instant collisiion plaintiff' u car had been in colli- 
aion «itii a horse drawn truck, but tae court wrould not per-uit 
counael for defendant to aak queationa on oroaa-oxaii.ination 
concerning auch forcaer colli aion. yeimer would the court I 
allow any queationia to be put to the witneaa oi plaintiff 
twatifying aa to thf amount of dttii^ufce aonc to the car in tue 
prior colliaion with lue iiorae dra-^vn truck. Thia 'vitneaa did 
not aee plaintiff* a car until after boti: colliaiona, and hla 


!f»ru:>0 jJV^ix;)i:!U;ii OT f? 


I ^ SilV^ iJOTOU 5<0TfIIW MHT 



•nijkXq lo T09 oItJ^osXo ttdi ^ouiiu inaija^lob to i«o aa;» »i^ 

to Blbbiisi 9iU iuddu aX A3uoa atii oJ atioa ^Ai ototl bauovM 

9er,Q 9A'i .aioetJe BBd-x^noO Jbnc tioal'sxtiil amwied ioold 9dS 

t'lliiaXtilq^ lo 'xov/:!: al bnuoJ oxlw «irxjjoo 9ri^ s-xolsd b'^itJ saw 

ova^ inuoBM ioAJ to\ baa GC.a^i:-^ iR BB^iaab cJtd Bflii«adee£ 

lacYoyttt io7 saua^ju bn» wyjivs'i two Bildde ^(tHbnsTtaC , ^noor^bif t 

9dS noqjj aj^ailui aid nX »8i>wT. X«ii^ adi yrf b^JiirivMoiJ ■■xoms 


ii,Jiw aoX»XHQ'j ail flaonl afliJIija®-! ibo e'lliJniaiq oi ss^nifliJ 

-iJXoo ni nead beii lao o'lliJaiaXq nciailXoo JaaieaX 9tiS oJ 

iii.'xt)ix J'on bluQv itu90 &o.i iuti «2{oi;*(i nwjsi^ asiod « jcUIw noiu 

aoXie.niiaiixo'Biio-xo no tnoi^feai/p n'ei* oJ inHbimlob lot Xsftnuoo 

I ixjjoo 9xU iXuow lomlall .noiaiXXoo laawol douo jjiilnisoaoo 

ItiJtTl^iIq "to Ba9n;rxw odJ oi iuq Bd o4 enoiJeoijp xn« wolXa 

/aJ nx lao sAiJ oJ i)nob o;t«jiai) lo inuomn aAJ r^i bji :i^lv.liJ«»i 

bib Beenix* eiiiT ,j(ouTt;r mmtb bbtoxI biU d;riw nolBlXXoo loltq 

Bixl btiA .anoioUXoo xUocf ruito iiinw lao s •llliniiJlT bbb ion 

e3tiu.ate of the dacifi^e to plaintiff a oar did not take into 
conaider«tion the foriaer coiliaion. J^'urthennore, counael for 
plaintiff nad tne effrontery to auk. tiic court to diacipline 
counael for defendant for iiia tej.ierity in asking questions 
concerninis tue former collision. Ai<,ain, plaintiff vras al- 
lowed to prove by bis son that officer Golden Jaad stated to 

hiis Uiat his father w«b witziout fault in tiie collision; yet j 

the Court refu.sed to allow couniitl for defendant to ask tills 
officer wuether plaintiff had not »diuit,t<?d to iiirai tiiat hia 
car imd H few winutcs prior ^o the colli oion vdth defendant's 
car been in coiliaion «rith a horse drawn truck, and tnat as a 
result of Stuoh collision his car had been dsuicitt^icd. in all 
these rofi Iters the trial Judge erred. 

The son's testimony was clearly hearsay. Rafter 
▼ , Chicago City |ijr. Co., 139 ill, App. fal. iropoaition ':<o, '6 
iield as law by tht; trial Judge, was erroneous. it held that 
the question of plaintiff's oeing in the exercise of due car© 
ana caution, etc., waa one of law, r/iiile on the contrary auch 
queotion xa one of fact, 

.f'e do not intena to pass upon the wexc.-^t of the 
evidence because tuai, in not before us on t/;iJ review, but 
ior the errors indicated Uie Jua,,ait.nt of the iiuxiicipaJ. Liourt 
is reversed and the cause io reiaandea fur a new trial, v/;'.en 
the evidence excluded, if again proffered, £uust be adiaitted, 

RirvjitarriJ akd rii-^wAKDKD. 

oial 33iJ3i .Jon bib lao t'llliniAlq o;^ o^^^smb fnU lo ointnXies 

re's. Idttauos ^miointoiiiiu'i .noieiXXoo x^miot 9cii attixatoblQttoQ 

•niXqloBiij oJ^ iruoo silJt ^aii o:> xt^-^nc.'x'tla arii fciul T;lltfn2«X;' 

efioi;f3»Kp a«i5ia^» ni^^fiiSias.* aixi -xol Jnjoi)n3l9i9 aol X»«ni;QO 

-j:^ &Rvi llXJnx/iX^I ,nX^«'iA .noitilXXoo 'Xoarxol 9aJ ^nia^xsanoo 

O.J j.5>Jj«^«j h»d n»bXot> -xsoillo Jaii^f no« aiii >cd •yo'xq oj^ liawpJ 

iQ\ iaoi&illoo oul ni il*j«l J«oiWi» ifiJ«w I'Sxi.jAl aJi^l *«iW s&L: 

&liii iLua oi intit)n9\9b lol Ismnuoo woXXa o^ l>9Uiil»'X J'XJioU vnii 

Ola iJRAJ mlii oS bi>iJli(ih£t ioa fcari lll^niaXqt iflpiUaiiw •x»oi't1o 

.' $aabii9l9b rUiw noisilXoo sxW o^ loltq «0.rwfili« w»l a i>ml tao 

/ « aa ian^t bn& ^Aouii nvi^tb danod b liiiy^ aolLtllao at n<99d Oiio 
I ■ 

llB nl ,/; ' ^f?> aid aoieXXXod xious. to ilisam 

il£2£il ,Y.«e"MH»ii yXiaalo b«v x"0i\\Ue9S «'no» »ilT 

,0'/. aoiiiBoqoil ,ld ,qqA ,XX1 esx , , ©2 .xii Y J X '>> o:^jJoinO .v 

iadJ bl^d II .uuoono^'xs saw ,osJbvI. X«it^ tii^ XC^ ^^^-^ ■' ^-i^^' 

r«o oui) 1o oeXarroxo bxI^ ai ^n^^tf e'llJt^nifiXq 1o aoicTasup Sfi.:t 

-ioua y.tfl'xJ^noo 9iii no olJtrtv' ,.. . f in >.(r, an* ,,oJ& «fiQx;^ij«o bnn 

. u(ii^ lo 9no ei noiJa9i,/p 
Biit lo Jiigiow Oil^ uoqif «•«({ 0-} i>n&Jnx Jon o£> o'<. 

^juij tWaXvai ttiii;} no nu siol J««ur •ttuj»»<»ci oanobxv. 

i-iUQ'j inqioXnuil 9sii lo Jni>xa,.ti5U^ ■f-U i>jJ»olLnl aioita oxU to 
atnivi ^IgItJ wan a lol b&baagvBi al oauao ooJ iaos I>««'xav9'x ux 
,b9mad)B 9d isuffi .b^tftlloiq atm^^o 11 »b9but9X9 •onablvo oii: 

81- iii9ao 

iClUi OF THK JTATi: 01? lUAU 
ex rol. iiA^f-Y Bi<XAUCO, 


KO'.yAl<D LAKGjfOkD, 


193I.A. 385 


yttirB— t^r- n pro 8« <H *M6n'"for ""baatra rdy , / I)c f en aan t 
waived a trial by Jury and t.h« case was heard by the trial 
Judf^e, who found the defendant to be the putative father of 
a bastard child born to the relatrix. •!V-^3Btmt!r3r~jiA4t»w£C.t-Xn 
JLhB_ji8ual,.,,far& v^» tmtefed^^^'a^^ fioaecatcs uxiia ai>- 

j^u.l-. Thfc erroru aaniigntd and argued «a:e that the finaing 
and juu--:ment are contrary tc th>-: weigiit of \.iiv evidence, that 

thtitrc im no proof that relatrix 7»aa unmarried at tae time of 
concey tion, and that relatrix nnd defendant were non-reeidente 

of tills atafcc. 

el Vjcelatrix was an unxnarri 

elatrix was an unxnarried w-tmnn, nn t"T-""''^r ^" <^^^^ T-.Q.flinrH 

f oj^3_iUja-**4*»^--itt -tief end«rrt'* g Tr!Tor-n3Tr-;-^ny^ - aue^*-- tjr 04ia4a™^^ e 
in the trial court; the con1,eVition its therefore unava\ling on 

point h^re. 
fused to he 

ople ex rel, 


d o 

eecrvcd the"Siiuf stion for r^ici 
tabiy^ } r. i oaition of fi 

law. in the (jriffi 

that the rel.'VtVlx was a carried wcman at t 

tion. As yicjye ia no evidence in tnis c 

was not aj/uiaarr\ed woman at txxo tiinr a 

defendant etanda convicted of being the father. in the abaencs 


i)Si€XS -18 

:AT£ aHT to aaiOH 



-qfl »lai e«;»xjg©e. Jew ««w-^*ifiL'i 

• Xqos^ yXBoq 
(iin*! lol noiiaoufl/»ilJ bor-xaasVi iji't ; - i ,<»i:>xi inXo 
'ii/oo KiJ iioldw wXX ^o noli.hio-^'t'^ >»i .iniiabn 


j>uU^ 9ai»o oiiiJ I i ;^;jn3i'iVj oo cl &;lohJ sA .noxi 
ibXiilo 9XiJ bov;/9onoa aKu liju.i .;j j « ««iaovs- b«»/-x"X*uju; ^jja io« aiWf 
•on<9B(fiR 9di ni .loxii^fil aiU tjsioivn/o abnJtJa ^nabn^l^ 

Xi-lJ ■:! 


of proof or challeage to the contrary it will be assuuied tnat 
relatrix //as uni^arried at the tiiue of conception. l<'urtnermore 

elatrix teatified that defendant was the only man she ever 
crArnally i:new//MSG atteimot was m;.vde to prove otherwise. [ ^ 

The trial Judge proceeded with care and Circum- 
spection in dealing with the facts. Not being satisfied wit 
the testi.nonv of relatrix in affirmance and of defendant in 
denial of the charge, the learned trial Judge continued the 
hearing for further proof. I At the final hearing eacrj side 
produced two additional witnesses. Those lor relatrix cor- 
roborated her on material matters and contradicted defendant 
ref;arding rta iters vy^jich he by his testimony had denied. De- 
fendant's vitnesses teatified to negative facts which were 
without probative force and tended in no degree to establish 
any material controverted fact^ The clear preponderance of 
the evidence is witn relatrix. "Defendant rests riis case in a 
categoricPl dedal of relatrix' s testimony, but the evidential 
facts so clearly discredit las testiixiony tiiat the trial Judge 
was justified in giving little heed to it. 

\7hile the parties v/ere non-residents of tnis btate , 
they were both v/ithin the jurisdiction of the court, as also 
ms the child, who was born in Chicago. Defendant vms arrested 
in Chicago on relatrix' s complaint and appeared and pleaded 
Y/ithout rr.aking 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 otate a non-reaiuent r^ay maintain a 
bastardy action; so counsel's contention that because the 
parties involved are non-residents the action cannot be main- 
tained in this jurisdiction, falls of its ovm weight. 

There is no error in tnis record ana the judgment 
of the Municipal Court is affirmed. APFIRkED, 

9 n 01X119 a^tuu ,nQiiq,Qoaoo lo asaii arii *j? boiiT&imij bbti xliiRl^i 

19T9 9xia nJBffi x£no sai saw iiiBbnat^b iecLi bai'^x^Bs* xiiiBla^ 
\ — ' ^^ 

:5xw r>9x'iexd^Be gniao' cToK .8J-o«"i edi diiw ^niXjBsJb nx iioxd-ogqu 

ai iciRbLislifib Tto f>rtB sonBmix'i'ifi nx xxiJ'BisT 1o xnoffiii-es;^ ari^t 

9di b&unliaoo ssbwL IjbJLiJ- tsniBSl sdl .sjtii^iio 3ii;f "io Iflinsb 

obxa i-i0B9 snxiBSii lenil 9£W ik l.'JooTq iDrf;fT;j'i lo'i gniiBs; 

-100 xxiJT.l9i loi aeoxlT .assasa^iw IjEnoi:txbl'Jti cwJ- baouLoi 

cfnBijnslai) i)9i^oib6iJ"noo bnB sisid'Bffl iBlisJ^am no lail b^iBiodoi. 

-9C .bsineb beri ^cnoffixiee^J- exil v6 eri iioj^/rt cic>^J.eai jinxbTfiasT: 

9i9\v- rtoiriw 8d-0B^ 9vxd-B:^9n oJ- bsitiie^i asaednJiw e«;JnBbn9t 

xlaxIcjBJaa o* 99139b on nx bebn^i bn.s 9010't aviindoiq ^juoiiiiv 

lo sonB-xgbnoqaiq 'xsglo ailT L.^obI beiiovotSaoo iBii^iRiU xob 

B nx 9aB0 ejfci! eic^i iaGbn^lBd .xiiinlsi iiiiv/ hl ©onabiva ailo 

isi;fn9biV9 Slit isjd ^xaoiaitesi Q^xltiBlat I0 XbI'iqL iBoiTogs-te'. 

9'SbuZ Xox'iJ' Bdi iBdi xao^diiBai sid iibsioeib \;Iifl9lo os b^obI 

.il oi bsari aliiii ^jnivia ai bai'lxJaxji. aaw 

ajBJS airi^ to actrobxesi-non aisw 69x:Jijcq 9ai -JlJcxrf? 

oalr , ;:o 9dJ lo cfoxioibaxiAJt '^^^ niiUxv,- diod bibw y;9.i.i' 

baie^T::'. .: .'jnelaCi .03BoxxiO ni mod «aw orfw .bliiio gri^ ei5 

bsbBsXq bnB batBgqqs bae j'nxBlqnioo e'xxi^Bldi no ogeoxxiO nx 
il .noiJoxbexiuj, a'cfxiroa Qdi oJ nox;f03i,(^o yna y^nxitBdi tuod;ii\ 
9Biwx9xiJo 919W H ix noiiool^cfo Bxxld- ajjiw o^ niai ood" wort ax 
cfoiiJ "iaxid 'xxgii;^ nx J-xinbB d^nsbnglgb 10I Igenx/on .n9 3iB,t lie 
B nxBJnxB/fl YBiu i-n9bxa97-aon a oiscfC elil;t lo aitbI 9ri;t agbm. 
sdi ©auB09d JBnJ noxjnaJnoo o'laenuor) oa [cioii-jr-, xbraSBBd 
-nxBffi od cfonnBo nox;tOB sdi einobiasi-non srxa bdvlovnx asxJiBq 
.id^isy/i nwo aii to ellB'i .noidoibaxiwi, eirlJ njt bgnxBj^ 
i'ngroijbut &dS onB bioogi eisii as. loiia on ox 9i9r(T 

/TWiraTWiirA h««iTr^T-.« ni .t-rtrnn rRnrrnrntra ii^ri.t 'tn 




ii. 5i, MC C/UIHY and C. P. i^ARDlE, 
trading as McCAi^THY & LARDIE, 

COUPAIIY, a corporation, ^/ 




1953 I.A. 405 


This is an appeal from a Judgment rendered by the 
County Court of Cook County against the plaintiffs for costs, 
follov/ing a verdict of a jury in favor of defendajnt, in an 
action in aSGumpsit for damage to three oars of potatoes. 
The declaration contained two special counts t-..v, to each car 
cud the common counts. One special count al.ieged 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 saiae within a reasonable time. The defendant filed 
a plea of the general issue. Some of the potatoes in each 
car wero frozen while at Manitowoc, Wi^conpin , or \7hilo en 
route to Chicago, Illinois, 

The potatoes were loaded into the cars !>t c;pencer, 
Michigan. Before loading, false bottoms and partitions wore 
placed in the cnra 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 c^tr, were issued by the Pere M.c.rquette nailro8.d 
Company on January 30, 1912, which showed that the potatoes 
had been received in apparent good order and were consigned 

^dSlS - X8S 

( \KlafiA^ .^ ,0 Jbxifi VHXKAJ OM ,'S. ,'d 

{ I ,aiaf3[AJ aS^ YHTHAOoM a-^ ^nxbijii 

( J eJrtsIIsqqA 

T^tOHT JAa^lA ( 
,THliOn YTWJno ( ^ .av 

.YTFUfOO ^looo 

go^-'^i^'Q-f -'^"i 


9/i[:r vd foetstnst ctnatnsbwr b nioi^ Xijsqqs as ai airfT 

,3*eon 10^ Belief aisXq sri^ cfanl.js^ xcfmioO xcoO 'to ;tii;oO xtnucO 

ciB nx ,^;xGbn9^9b 1o lovs'i ni X^-SJl b lo Jolhisv a :jjnJtwoIIo*i 

.ssocT^ioq lo aijso asirii oj ossiiosb Tol ^xaqmua8.6 ni noxJ-oa 

Teo rfoiss oJ !-:5 aJ-nuoo iBiosqe nvrcf banxsjnoo nox;tniBXo9b srfT 

sil'XxbI odd- be7:,o::i.A inuoo Icioaqe anO .si^nwoo no-nisoo oxlJ bns 

bna ,B90J'fl:)'oq erli \'xiao \Lbiuo'}U bns xLatse oS J rir^bn&lox) Jo 

-ab bae ^iiiso oi cfnBbiielt'b lo ©iJLfXxel sriJ- bss^J^Xn -lyriJ-o srli 

balil d-fiPbnetsb srfT ^snicT sXcTsnoBr,©-! s «iricfiw ycica srfJ' lavxX 

rioiss ni aeoSBioq orfJ- "io smoc- .suaai. X.eT.?rtes srfJ lo aslg b 

no 9Xi.~[vr -xo , rfX';nor>E:iV' .oowoJ-injsi! :f& sXiriw nesoa'i i)iow liiO 

,exprriIXI <0§is0jL rlO oi acfnoTC 

< leonsqc. ta sii:o srfJ- o^ni bobaol oi9w e©od-,etoq oilT 

s-xow Qnoi&itisiq hrus amoJ-cfod" stX/j"5: ,snxbjr,oX sio^sa ,a£^ldoiV[ 

bns aobxe grid- moil esonBjf^Xb isqo-xq d^i; oii'O sri^ nx bsoaXq 

9iii qpp>[ oj i9b^o nx "bonsqnq bsXrfi-'ob" siaw bnie 'iobisxl;^ abna 

©vo;te jb bxiB ,ax« laj-uo bloo sxlJ- riiiw ^tojBd^noo nof'i asoJ-fld-oq 

6>no jjjni.^JBX lo aXXicf ssirIT .eino 9ric^ lo rioae- 'h^ bsojsXq esw 

bflOiXXBi"! ed-J-eupiAiM £319^. orfd- ^cf beuosi eisw .iho r(o«s lol 

8o0o£o0q axfvt d-erfd bswoila rfoxriw ,SXeX ,0C Yi^i^n*^ "O \ncqmoD 

bsnalanoo aisw bna isbio boog ;fn9ii3qqB nJt bevlaofii nescf bsri 


to plaintiffs at Chicago, Illinois, over route "Ludington 
& C, & N, W," The cars were conveyed to Traverse City, 
Michigan, and from thence to Ludington, Michigan, Plaintiffs' 
agent and caretaker, C, W« 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 e&ch caro From Ludington Uic cars 
were taken across the lake "by car ferry smd arrived at 
Tt'anitowoc, wiBconsin, about one o'clock on the afternoon of 
Friday, February 2p 1912, It was very cold in Manitowoc on 
February 2nd and 3rd, Cn the <ind the temoerature 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, 
knowing of the weather conditions ut Manitov.oc, sent a telegram 
from Chicago to defendant's freight agent at lanitownc, re- 
questing defendant to accept the three cars (giving their 
numbers ) and saying: "We will stand t he loss if an^ by freez- 
ing ; send cars forward today to Grand Avenue, Gliicngo," This 
telegram was received by said agent at 1:15 P, M» on February 
2nd, about the time the cars arrived by ferry. iJefondant re- 
ceived the cars at 2:30 P. ¥. on that day. They were placed 
for a short time on a side track and then hatiled by defendant 
to its "Calumet'' yard, about two miles distant, where freight 
trains bound for Chicago paused or were made up. The caro re- 
;i::> mained in said yard until about 4 P. L', on Saturday, February 

3rd, when they left for Chicago in defendant's re;:ular freight 
j train, Ko. ISf, arriving in Chicago on I onday, February 5th, 
Usually, such a train ,coiTying perishable goods boxjnd 
for Chicago, left "anitowoc f_t said hour each day, but, owing 
to snow ana 'veather conditions, the train tthe uled to leave 
at 4 y, Vi, on i'ebruary 2nd did not leave l.'anitov;oc until 2 
o'clock on the morning of i'ebruary 3rd, arriving- in rilvraukee, 

■ s- 

«XlxO aaiovaaT oi hsYsvnoo sibw qijbo »rlT ".V/ .TI :& .0 :& 

*a11i.dattiL-i .osairfuiM tno^fgnibJ/J ocT ©onexlcf moil bna ^na^lAoi^ 

oriJ- no Bbor s>ii 'loilliaQi ,«i.ta,t5ii .:■: .0 ,TB2ljBJ-e-jeo brus ^nsi^j 

s J-qa.i aaari^r IIb do Lns- ,Oi,BOJ:no oi x^fiO eeisyjaaT mo-xi ri.«l 

eiBO axLf noi.-sniI)Uj raoi'J ,a.'io rio.(j9 nl svoJa aili nx aiil cfoxi 

J^-. bsvliiij hrtB \iiot 'xao xdl ooIbI sxij aaoioa r.o-Aai eiovr 

lo nooni9>tl.Q isrfJ no atnolo'o srio i'jodn ,nia«oo8iV ,oowo:fim5', 

no oo'.voc-iitsJ.! nl bloo \ior ec^vi J-I .V.LQI ,S \;-i;i;icf9'fj. ,Y«fci:i^ 

moi'i Lejijrtoi soucfiiiscTEsd arlj- bni> srli' nO ,bi€ hnn baC Yi-SJUidsf 

moil bic, arid- nc J)aa .oias woXscf assigsb V oJ- ovocfxj eosiaai) 31 

sijjoxl owd iuodk .oi9ii wolacf BsgijnOi) cX od- svocfB easijjsb o 

^allidniisXq .oowodinijM is-i >cii9l ycf bsviiiB aiBo orid aiolecf 

mBtasIsd ii dnoa jOOwodinaM Ja dnoidibnoo isridjEOv; yrid lo afitwon:; 

-01 (OOWodioB! iii ins^^B id^tdnj a 'dnJsbnsTeb od osfOiriO moi\ 

ilorfd :Qnlvi^) 8i«o soidd orid iqeoos od dnabnsleb anidaau; 

-s sQil ^cf ^n ii I J: S30X arid bn.6de XXx w qW ;^nJ:\:Ba bm? ( eiscfrttjjr 

BjfcrfT ",o§noi:tfO ,eijnavrt bnBii) od Y:»j^.9^ biuv/iol aiBO fcnaa ;^nj: 

Yiii^icro'il no .M .'i 31 :X dj3 dnegB bix^a xd bovxec&i axiw fflsigsXad 

-01 dnnbnDla!.: ,\;ii9l YCi' bsviaia axeo srid ami^ sitJ dtiocTjs <bnS 

.bsoBXq: 919W ^sriT .\;iii) dsrid no .\f ."i 0£;S' dr. vivo &rid bsvxtio 

dnGbnolsJj ycf .bsXuBii narld boc jtoB'xd abio jb no saiid dioris b ioI 

dri3X9il siaxiw .dnjsdaxb aaXim owd dijoo's ,biJB-^ "iemvLaO" sdi od 

-91 oino sj-fT ,qu ^bam oiew 10 i'08u«q ogjsoxfl'j 10I bnuod unir.ti 

Xix^JJicfs'^ ,\;^£iudsc3 no ,M .5 i' diro^B Xidnxj biax biaa nx banxii' 

dflBxeil i^Lu-[^oi a'dnjsbnalob ni oa-BOiiiO 10I dleX \[orid nsrfw ,bi£ 

.rfdn ■\ii>;.'jicfo'5I ,^i^.b^o^! no oaaoxxlO ni ;.\nlvJ:iiji ,08X .oM .ni^id 

bm/nrf abooy oXc/xjilaxir^q anx \i'ii 00, nxBid dri^jisil a xioiia ,x-I-XsJi»8l 

Sniwo .ducf ,\;.f3b rloua lifori bir.a dj oowodin«3,l dloX ,oj>'\oJ:ilCJ 10I 

SVBOX od bolu. 9[i'jj niuaid vdi ,anoxdxbnoo isridi^sw bnis wona od 

Q Xxdnx; oowodini3if ovbsX don bxb bnS >cijdi/icfe'"i no ,a .it dc 


%'iB0o.'i3it>, late in thii afti.rncon of th.t day. The ur.iin 
wliioh left ;ii'nitowoo at 4 P, l\ .^aturduy -iva-j the firut 
r^sal.- ;• fr(.;;,,;ht trr-iii tc leuve lij-l^nr the U'ip&rture of the 
frsii'^ht train at 2 A, I.'., on l'ebru;;.ry »rci. .Vf'cer plaintiffs 
had i.«ent the above maniiioncd telHgr-^jri, {ind about no ri on 
February 2nd, one of the plaintiffs, :, ,;. KcCurthy, called 
on B. ;., Littlo, assiotant freight (ilaim a.gcnt of defendant, 
in Chicago, r.nd inquired if dafonar-nt woula accept the cars 
on thoir arrivil at .'••^nitov.oc , r,,n' Little infcrired I.cCarthy 
th.-:.t defendant xn-ild not then accept perishable at 
junction points, 3uch a;? i/snitowoc, on a.Cv'ouiit of tht; tlien 
existin;^ vfoathsr con>Ution8, and that on that rrominr, defend- 
ant hsd r/irod instructions to it;; agents at certain .1 unction 
points, including ;v'Hiiitowoc, no-: to recj-ve xjcr-shablu goods 
fro/s chi.^pura -.r cmn ctiiv-v lines on account of the woatiiar 
condiii.Qns.j Liubaequontly, on thj siiine day, plLinn tiff ;5 again 
wired defsndant'w freight agent at ;.lanitov/oc, aH ^'oiiowa; 
"i'ut c.-5r3 V7e wired on this morning in round house, Wait 
ins Lructinns from J/r. Little." Ihia telegram was r^i-caivod 
oy aefsndant'o said agent at 4:17 P, U, it doet* noo iippe.u' 
that any instructions we.e afterwurda receiveo by said agent 
from Little cr th; t Little was to send vny, ■"'efendant maintained 
a round-h'^UBC at :. anitowoc. it contained only 4 a tells, eadi 
stall capaole of housing one engine or one freipiit car, and 
dofendr.nt there had no other facilities for "roun i-hoiising" 
engines or cars containing perishable goode. On the night of 
February 2nd two of defendant»a engines were put in said round- 
house and two freight cars, of the refrigerator type having 
no stoves therein, contciining ;)«ridhable goods. It appears 
from the- tes^ ifflony that it is not the cuetoni to "round-house" 
any c r containing perishable gooda where the car haj false 


;j42xi:'i: Oii;f c^v; y;iii;ii;d'au ,ij ,<i ^ jij oowo^Jimjlt d'leX rfoiitw 

•1tli>lfjx«lq 'H&jIja .fcifi '^tr^uitfe'^I no ,.': ,A S j'a niaii cfrf^i^'xl 

no ftcon ;tiJocfa brui (invwiaaXacf hanoiJnca evodn y'fi iaoh bml 

ballsio ^yji^jitiOoA .:. .. .alliJ^niBlq orfj- lo tmo ^taS v,-is»^cf3^ 

, d-no3Jon3't3?) to ;tn^^ai3 talaln ;tftr^it5i,*t cfnaJ-ciasa .oIcTJxj; .j. ,S. no 

aixo ©rid- .tqonoii Dlijow ia'-bnolr^l) "iX boixxipni inn .osGoiriO ai 

YXi^ijaOoil lismiotal sXct-tid .oowoiinev, is Xaviiia 'lioril no 

.jB ^rl.iiaul oXtffiilBi'Xi.q iqsooii ai>A.i ion tivct- ir,:ibn9'iob isri* 

-jiio'ialj r-nlnirni ijarld-' no JtirtJ- bnr, , iynoiiitno-j isil^jssw j;niJclx«j 

oLoos oXcfurie i.'xc->q 9V-'c"09n Oj S-on ,oowoctifwj^'; jjnxhuXoni ,r:;tnio(,' 

loi^H&v orij lo ;fiii;r'j'jii no 09nil ,- rii*o .arrro ^c- aioqcidu nvo-xl 

iiiiBjMJ K^lXv-tniiilM , x"^ 9m.'«a ccH no ^v^Li cuiupBaduQ L.aftox^xbftor> 

:hv/oXIo*: hjj .DOwoiinsfA J^a inago ;trlsxr>i'i o'j-nnhno'ioJb botivr 

iia^' .«8uoff ionj/ct ai :^vii. inom axrit no hcixw or- ntj.o cfui" 

Jbovxaovi ar«w mni^fyl&i- uLtii ".exJ^J-iwX ,aM raoil onnxcJoxfiJeni 

•ii;eqqi3 c>on us'bij J^i ,\t ,1 VX:t> in Jtiosx-i biao k 'innfane'ioD ^d 

.:^no3xi bixjs xcf bovinysn yba-owiej "iii 9 sw ano iioui.J-8nX ^fifi Jaxl« 

!/. njnxsfn imjxjnsloi'i .\:tm bnsu o:f msw eXvtJ-ia i- jxU "xo &XJ.txJ moi't 

•±)i»o ,aXiaia ^ yXno banJtc.Jao.) ii .oowoJ-xni;^: i.r> 9fJk»'^rf-bHijr>T e; 

bnJ5 ,Tao ixtcxoti ono 10 anxano ano anieuori lo aXdaquo iXscf'-i 

"TjnxBi/cri-hnwo'X'* r.ol aeiJxXioa't isrfio on b£ri si-»ri.7 Inabnslob 

Jo SiUiia 9tit no .aboog eLdstiaifc^q gnlniaJnoo etso 10 a»rti;^n9 

.Jbrrcfoi hjt-ja nx Jt;q aiew asnijiina a ♦d^oabnalsb "io ow;t bnS xt&uid&'i 

anxvxjrf oqx^ locrxjigsii'lotc sxiJ lo ,eiBo jxlalsil owJ bnc dsuor( 

Bi.oaqqc d-i .fiboos sXcfxjfiaiitJii aainlivJnoo ,nX9i?r£J' aavoia on 

•'©suort-fcnuoT:'' oj tnoieuo oiU do/i ax ii. SmU 'iCioetii^»»4 »A4 moil 

B&liit fcflxl ijtjp arld^ oioxiw aboog sXdijxfiii'xoq ^niniii^Tnoo *it.o ^cxls 


tottoirs and sides and a. stove therein and an attendant to 
maint;iin the fires , as was the case with the cars in question 
It further appears from the testimony of plaintiffs' caretaker, 
Ifiartin, in charge of the heating of the cars, th;. t when freight 
train No, 180, scheduled to leave Manitowoc on the afternoon of 
February 2nd, finally arrived from the north ahout 2 o'clock on 
the morning of 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," w^ich meant that he 
then had in his train all the cars he cnuld haul on his 
division; that the cars in question remained in the yard expos- 
ed to the cold wild; that notwithstanding he kept a hot fire 
in the cars all the time some of the potatoes at the ends of 
the cars were frozen on February 3rd and before they left 
Manitowoc; and that they were in good condition and not frozen 
when they arrived in yanitowoc. It further appear* from the 
evidence that shortly after the arrival of the potatoes in 
ChiC'go, on February 5th, the s.:'jns were sold, and that solely 
because of their frozen condition plaintiffs sustained a loss 
of about $773. It does 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 

It is first contdnded by counsel for plaintiffs 
that, on the issue whether or not defendstnt 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 Chicai-ro, the verdict is 
against the weight of the . vidence. '.Ve 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 

^TDivtssL'p nl aiBO srf^ riJ-iw sano ariJ' saw ea ,a9Tll sriJ nJtBd-nxsitt 

,io^sd-©'x,r-o 's'i'iJicfniBi:! "So Y,aeimlieot eiiS oicit fiiazqqs loM-iu't SI 

d-ri§X9i'i nsriw J-^iicf ,8aco 3rfi- lo sniJ-sari jxli "io S3ii5Xlo ni ^niJ-iBM 

lo nooni9*l6 sdJ no oowo^iaeM svbsX ot bolubcrfoe ,081 .o'rl niBid- 

no 2[ooXo*o ? Ji/nrffl ricfiort otii moil bavxiia \;XIsxtx'i ,bn2 •^i^i/icfs^ 

QdS to -ioSoubnoo edS bii?5xi od ,;)iS ■'-tir.y'xdd'Sf lo gainiom ©rfcf 

niaii i)i.jGn nx a-i^o os'iriJ" ariJ^ i'x/q uon blsjoo sri *xjfi;t yce nxisi;}' 

eri ^arfcf stn«9ffl iloJtj(Jw ♦«,8s«nno:f eld b&si srf" j-arlv^ nou;39i ad) lel 

eirf no li/uri bLsjno ed aiao ©rti II« nlaii aid ni. bp.d a9di 

-aoqxs b-Lsx QdS nx bsniainsT aotie^up ax bibo erid ;}'Brfcf ;noisxrib 

91x1 icd ^ :fqs>f. 9d snibrts^eiiJxwJon *.Br{;t ;t)niw oloo ?rfi o^ b© 

lo alDfis srfJ- iB e&&S£ioq edi lo amoa 9snli srfi lie si^jo ori^ nl 

ct-l9l Y9rf^ siolscf bas b-iC xiisuicfs'? n© nescil siaw eieo sAi 

nssoil Son bns noxSxbaoo fjoog nl ©lew vjerfd- iJ-siW biiB looffoSlncU 

QdS moil'iiseqqs leriitiul cl .oowo;txrtBir ni bevliif; Y.exlcf nariw 

ni esojed-oq: orfJ- lo Lbviiib edi isJlu ^I;t"ori8 cfj.;ri;t eonsbiva 

liXeloB J-prfJ has ,iiIoE; eisw eraoa e>ri:f ,riJ'ci YUBficfa'^ no ,osoOXriO 

aaoX je bsnlHS-'us alllctniaXq noicMbnoo nesoil tl^di lo aeuBoarf 

alli;J'nxsXq Si\di .lavoworf ,ir©qqe i-on csOfc il .£VV| J-jjocfa lo 

li ,\;j3X9b sXcfsnoaoeinxr ^na lo noeROi xd sa-gHmsb xne boislli/a 

i.B BSOJ-BJ-oq sriJ lo Y'^sviXs.b srlJ- ni ^airw ?isrfi xsleb doua 


allicfniiJlq lol XasmJoo xd hebnhS noo SbixI at J I 

arid- ni baXlBl d-nebnelsb J-on 10 lodSsdv/ stjeax zdi n^ ^isdS 

arfj- YiiBO AcXoLae oi iosiinoo baiXqni eSt lo aonjeniiolisq 

Xxcrm; ocwoJ-iajsM Sn msdS baviooer ii amid adi i;toil a9od-.a.toq 

ai d'oxbiev edS ^02\.aoidO S3 alliJ-niaXq oS aiodS /jsiyviXab it 

SI SadS Jinxrii Soa Ob aV .aonabxv . sdS lo Sdj^iow sdS J-anlBSS 

lo gniworaf ,8llxjni«Xq SadS bnxm at sniocf acT bXuorfa Si .ai 

.oowod^inBM Sb Sa&'^> a 'Jnebnolsb Leiiw ,anoidibnoo tadSanw edS 

•ids Sq,eoos oS ,Jnj3bnal9b vcf baviaooi eisw a^XBO arid aiolacT 


cars smd 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 
ISanitowoc, snd the subsequent f.cta of defendant in the handling 
of the cars <it Wanitowoc should, we think, be considered in the 
li£ht of that telegram, tho severe weather conditions then 
existing and the fact that the cars v/ero heated by stoves 
in chr.rge of plaintiffs' caretaker. Plaintiffs' second 
telegrroin to dnf end; nt' s said agent waa not received tin til 
about three hours after the receipt of the first telegrsm and 
until after defendrjit had received the cars in con^yliance 
therewith. Counsel for plaintiffs argue that the first tele- 
gram can not be construed as meaning any more than thr. t plain- 
tiffs would relieve def ends.nt from its liability as an insurer 
and that plaintiffs did not intend to relieve defendant from 
liability resulting from its negligence, v.'e are of the opinion, 
however, that the telegram and the action of defendant in accept- 
ing the cars thereafter should be considered na in the nature of 
a special agreement between the parties. Plaintiffs were anxious 
to get their potatoes as quickly as possible in Chicago, and, 
knowing of the weather conditions and that the cars mif^ht be held 
up at the ferry landing at I'^anitowoc 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 th; t if it would accept 
the cars at once they v^uld assume the risk of loss from freez- 
ing, and, acting upon the proposition, defendant accepted the 
cars. And, under all the fncts and circumstancej in eviden e, 
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, 


Xid-nu ^nsfjns'isl) Y'^^ bs^qsooB ion gisw sTt-.o arTT' .-gciisa^'xl x<S 

aniXbjiBrl arid- nJt iashndlGb lo aJ-oa ^nsirpescfue ©rid- Jbms ,oowocMm;?^ 

arid nl i)o'i9Jbxanoo acT ,>£niricf aw ,i)Xuori8 oowo^irtsM in »tsio 9tii to 

narid 3noiiii).noo loriJaow oisvsa orid jErfB-JasIe* J^nrij lo Jriai-C 

aevoda yo' isad-jsri o-.i£>w a-coo ari:^ d-^rid" iosl srii ba-^ gnidsixs 

brtoosa 'allid-nisll .Tsafad-QtBO 'sllxdnlslq lo opiririo nx 

Xid^nu bsviaoQi d-on esw d-nesB btae B*irj^bae'i3b oi nifii^slsd 

bos <tta'i39lo;t cfaTxl ari^ "^o .+ qi909't 9ri;f isd^a siuori c^airi;^ *jjocf« 

SDnailqiaoo ni 3t;?.o arid- bovlsor.i &sri d-n.3i::ne*!!;9!? i9.-f"i3 liJ-fti/ 

'-.Lq:' Saii'i arid i-^rid auaia allli nislq lol loarruoO .ri;fiwoi9ri;t 

-nialq d-jrid nsrid- siois \;aQ aniitaaai ac I:©if'xdanoo acf :ton n;jD .fiBig 

inoil dHBL^nslsi) svsxXst od ..bnaSni ion bib altldnijBXq dsdd bns 

,r:oini:qo orid lo sib a.V .oonasiXaon od-j: raoil gnid-IuEs'i -^d-xXicrBiX 

-j-qsoos ni dnf.bnslo.'^ lo noistoa arid boa aiBiaeXod- orid dBrid .tevswori 

lo siudsn 9xld nx ar, i)?)iai3X8noD 3cf bXiioria lad-lBsiari;!- aiso arid gnx 

JifoxxxiQ 919W allid-nxfiXq; ,89id-iBq 3ri.t ni^surd-gd dnsrags'iBB Xaiogqa js 

»biis jOgiJOxriO nx ©XcfJiaaoq as Y-Ca^i^iJ^P f^s saodGioq -xisrid dsg od 

jXeri ecT ^xlvixia qtij^o arid d3r(;t bcm anoidibnoo i9ri#j39w sric^ lo gniwocot 

jnxIXxw 3'i9W d-«uoooB dr.rid- no oowodini? ' d-js ^nibnsil \ii3'i arid" is qu 

arid- as os yXXjeioeqaa ,anJ:s9©'xl agodsdoq srfd- lo esoasdo 92fBd od 

,artso 9rid lo aa'isrio ni saw i9:fBd-9iB0 lisrid bna boiseri oiaw a^eo 

d-qeoos bXucr di Ix d rid- dnBbnslaJb od b98oqoiq \9rid- ,9onori ,fcns 

-sssil moil t^BoX lo :>LbJLt srid s.TtusaB bXi-f-^w xsdi snno in aiso sdi 

grid- b9rfq330B dn/ibnslab .noldxEoqoiq srid^ ctocu ^niioB tbrtr, ,snl 

,9;n9bxv9 nt KSonsdanTUoixo boe adool ©rid XXb lebmi ,bnk , bibo 

grid- anxniudsi ni. beinstiBV xLLul 9i9w ^i^t ©^'^^ ^^'^^ 2lnxrid 9w 

,bib xedi d-oxbisv 
;tiJJ00 arid- di;rid bno*noo loridiul ellJtdnxjsXq tol laenuoO 

ax Jbnfl XX .aoTI , ancxcfot/idanJ: owJ x^wt e^^ o^ anivXg ni b9iT9 

VTe are however of the opinion that, even if it be considered 
that the instructions were not strictly accurate, plaintiffs 
were not so prejudiced Toy 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 '-ounty Cnurt is affirmed. 


aTLlLtniBlq ,ed-j8-xuooo •siId-olidB ;torf oisw snoxd-ojLri.tanJ: sricf d,sj;l:f 

'to lari^ie 10 ^nrarfd- "io gnivig erf;:?- vcf JDsoiLutS'iq oa ion oisw 

anJ:bnj5in9n aHi baa jTrisctjiiJUj;, sxii I0 iBsiQvei jb einarisv en ,in9xlcf 

«9GWR0 Off J lo 

.Jbsmfitli; Bi ^is;nD \;J-nuoO erii J.o insarafjuj;, erlT 

36 - 21285 

]>«f6ndant in Kr^or, 

) imnon to 


JAMBS TH01LA,ii ai|d J03KPH K. ;>|iOWDJt;N ) 


jos]ja»H E. aKOTOi-:^r^ / h O Q T A 4 A Q\ 

Plaintiff in Krror. )1 C? O X»r\. ^ \J *7 \ 



Plaintiff in error , Joseph K. Snowden, became surety 
on a recognisance taken in open court in the sum of *1,000 
which was forfeited becauise of the non-appearance of the 
principal, James ThomriB, in said Criminal court. Thereafter, 
on February 8, 19i;i, judgment vasi entered in favor of the 
i^eople againat Thoinau and pit in tiff in error in the cum of 
:J1,000 and coats. To reverse the judgment plaintiff in 
error, on February 27, 191S>, sued out this writ of error and 
n:oved that the same be made a supersedeas , which motion was 
on May 1, 1915, allowed by this court. 

It appears from the origin? 1 transcript of the 
record that Thomaa mm indicted by the grand jury of Cook 
county f -jr larceny, that Thomas with plaintiff in error, as 
surety, entt:red into said recognizance, that Thomas did not 
appeer and the recognizance was declnred forfeited and o writ 
of scire fcaiao ordered to be issued for them to show cause 
why the forfeiture ahould not be rnnde absolute, and th;:t on 
February 8, 1913, the court entered an order reciting 
"the writ of fjcire facias isaued heroin has been duly 
returned by the -her iff of Cook county,* etc., and declaring 
thi-t said forfeiture be made absolute and entered said 
judgment. Nowhere in said orifc^inal transcript of the record 


58SIS . as 

07 norrfia », 
TJiiioo j:awimiho ! 

.YTfUJOO 3000 no ( 

3 Li ,\i 

TflUOO SOTT- ^n riOlWI<IO aUTT GMHJIVIJ5ia yiLICIIJTO ?v0lT2l}X 0Miaia3lH<i ,m 

000 |X$. lo iRUii »ricf ni iiuoo neqo ni naat^iJ oonflslns^^^^T: *s fw 

an^ to yon«i«9qqr>««on orfj ^o sai/aoscf b£)C^j:^'?•1o l aj.w rfoxrlw 

ti3Jtflont>dT .Jiuco lijniinJtiO b|a« ni ,antnor{T eeaiaT, (Xaqioitlif 

arfi lo loviiT: nl boiotno ««« crnwrnsbut t^-^^^ «^ Xi«^^rfs^ •r^f^ 

to mua arid «1 •xoito ni I'ixjfliuXq b(t:\ a^-iiiorfT .?cniB»B eXqos>- 

ni lliJ-niaXq ^rtamahuc eri^ aeiavan cT .s^aoo boa 000, X, 

bna 10119 io Jiiw ;>iriJ iuo bnUB ,aXGX ,VP xiiiwicfo'* no ,ioiif- 

«JKW noicfcOT rioiriw . HjisJb»aio<i[^jo« u ahjfjm ocf diuwe ^ni ;iQd;i Lbvo : 

,;fxuoo eiiU \;cf bswoXXa ,c!XOX ,X Miiif no 

nrlJ^ lo ;+(.(iionn.ui^ I^migiio oriJ- moil aiHScqa ^I 

:»tooO 10 xiiut, bni.n^ iUxW ^t<^ boioibni -; ,y<' t fcynorfx ^artf oioos'i 

a- ^lo-iiQ ni i'lionioXq il^iw nixiaort , nsoxeX icl ^*nuoo 

^on bib ajsmoxfl iuri^ ,oofutsiaaooau hljitm t^iul buioina ^xSqiuc 

Sinv e btiB boJioliol bemXoeb raw sonASioj^oo^i aitt bxie laaqq."! 

0Q«i30 woria oJ- fnsrid- lol tjouaai ierf o* baiobio ajrair.ol siiaa io 

no ;t.:cii btts ^^^uloadA e/>jWK »tf *Ort Mtrorie »ij.rd-ioiiol urli xdv, 

ii:.di jutiiiaoi lobio nja beis^n© *iuoo arf^ ,&XCX «t} xis.\ui<io'c 

Xlub noacf aaii nio%9*i J>oueBi aaioxil gnio-^ lo itiw arfJ-* 

:,nixoXo9i> bna ,.o*© "jYJnuoo 3(ooO lo lliisrf^ ariJ x^ bsnixjlai 

bliiQ JbeioJrKJ bms otfuXoatfu oixam erf ©iifd-i»liol biua Ji5rii 

fcioooi adS lo ^qiioonxji^ Xaniaiio iii/^a ni aioxiwoW .j-nsmsfaut 


!■ there contained any writ of aoire faoias. 

CotueeX for plaintiff in error, in their written 
Buggestiona filed with eaid motion for a superacdettB . contended 
that, n otwi the tfjQ ding the recital contained in the court* a order 
of February 8, 1913, the Judgnent should be reyeraed becauae no 
writ of aoire facias appeared in the transcript, and in support 
of their contention cited the cuee of Campbell v. People . 22 111, 
I?34, ^55, wlierein our biipreme court Quid: ♦•The office of a 
ec ire faciaa ie both that of nurr, and proceoe, and the record 
should ahow, not by recital, but by Ita appearing In the record, 
that the vrit whb actually isauod, giving a copy of it,* 

On January 10, 1916, the People filed in this court 
a motion auggeating diminution of the record and asking leare to 
•npply the omitted portion of the record instanter, and at tha 
sane time presented a copy of said ^?rlt of acire facias, duly 
certified by the clerk of the Criminal court. Counter suggea- 
tiona were filed and the decision on the motion was reaerred to 
the hearing, (to Mfireh 26, 1916, the motion was allowed and the 
copy of SBid writ waa 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 authorising the filing in that court 
of s&id^writ of scire facias on Jtixixxury 7, 1916, nunc pro tunc 
as of February 3, 1913, and asking leave to supply said record. 

In view of the conclusion we hare reached that said 
Judgment of the Criminal court, entered 7ebruai*y 8, 1913, nuat 
be raveraed and the cause remanded, it la unneceasary for us to 
pass upon said motion of plaintiff in error. 

«a hare carefully examined the copy of said writ of 
aelra fsciaa presented by the People and fllod Uarch 28, 1916, 
It appears on Its face to have been issued by the clerk of tha 
Criminal court on January 24, 1913, It recites that Thomas and 


>*ijii09cr i)9»7nT9'j; «rf ftXi;or{a ^iioaisbut o^i^* »£X9X ,8 x^J^WTttf®^ '^ ' 

:? -^oqcjWB al baa tiql'iona&tS 9tii ni baiijsqq^ salOAl a-xloii lo ;Mti:w 

ifi ' ^9iclopH. .V XXa'J<ygix3 ^o bs/jn orf,j ftc^S^lu RoX'ndiciao tixs^^ to 

10 aoitto 'jKT" :M<i» i^tuoo aneTquci "swo tuatoriw ,flSS ,H-' 

ii'ioosi 9ii' )r>iq bOB ,'.n.j*i lo J'Bilw rWotf aX usioaTi ailoa 

.Moost »fiJ rti :sjuajioqqa alX vrf iucf ,XB^loyi \,{f ion ,worfB feXx/orfa 

\^ ; el xXXfltf*oj3 e^w *i"z?; arf* iaiit 

Qdi in bass .iftj-fMi^Prti bioQ9i oriJ lo noXtrtoq l>a;f*x«o orLt ^Xqqtf* 

^•^"^ * a , «Xoiil a ^ l oa lo iitn Maa lo y,^or> s boiti&99'xq 9m.It omaa 

.^•xiioo lanhaXxO &tii lo :ir£'jXo siii xd faoiliiiso 

noi.:toai e;Lt no noiairsab oAi bna ftaXil ©lew anoii 

8iiJ 6na b9«roIX« a»w noliom »ff^ c^X^dX ,6S jlorL^^M nO .^nlrnail atli 

ni lllJjtiJtaXq ,<'iX9X ,S XiiqA nO .bolll ««ir Sl-xw foXoe lo ^qoo 

lo noiiioq boiJ^laio tlna JrrW T^nii-asjiswa s^lSoa s bsXil i^oii* 

Xtf borfaXfll«ii> n^od bcii ,9Xqcti'i ex£* -^if boXil oa ^bioosa ori^ 

-b-ioooiq oxU lo b'laoa's uriJ^ lo meilo'xaiii noxaalmo sili lo noaao^ 

;r*ii;oo i:-xdi al sniXll edi ^fdsti9iiSaA iiuco iMtUaXrO »iii lo asni 

onui o;tq Of KiK ,dXSX ,V x^Jst^nj-^t no aaXool 9ii,t>9 lo *liiir-I>lj*a lo 

• bioaai bl«« ^Xqqua ol ovboX aoljian baa ^llQl ,£ X'^a^^ciI'a^ "^o *' 

blisa ;tj3fl^ bAr[Q.aoioTisxi ov noXnuXoooo 9di lo wolT nZ 
iaism ,c;XQX «a xii^utcfsl b&t ^^na ^iiuoo XanloiXiQ 9A$ lo J^rwnabut 
oj aw Tol Tt'sauasooftjriu aX it ^bobnaraoi 96uso 9di bn» baansTOi otf 
.toxi«» xtX lli;t0iJBXq lo nol^oa bl«a nvqu aaaq 
lo ilivi blno lo xqo« idi bonJtmaxo ic^Xula-x^s sTiid •* 
.dXOX ,US iioinRT boXXl boa oXqoofl »ti^ xd b9in9m9tq, l utio*;! oitXoa 
oiU lo 3(-x&Xs oii^ \d b9U(i&i noocf avsd o^ oojbI atl no atcaeqqA ^Z^ 
^CM aaMOdT 1ai& aatloft^ il .&1Q£ .l>S viebi^oaL ao liiioo ImaiaXtt' 

plaintiff In c>rror entered into waid rmognizance in open 
court on July 22, 1912, that at the Junur.ry, 191.^, tenn of 
said court both Thorcao and plaintiff in orror mudr default, 
un& that their recognizances woro dcolarod forfeited. The 
sheriff of Cook County is therein corcrnanded to sumrnon Thoraao 
and plaintiff in error to api ear before said court on the 
first day of the next terra, to be held on the first Monday 
of February, 1913, to ahow cauue, etc. The first t'onday of 
February, 1913, waJB ]'ebru;iry 3rd. On tiie back of said writ 
is the return of the sheriff to the effect that he served 
the v.rit on Joseph ::;. linowden (plaintiff in f^rror) "this 3rd 
day ef February, 1913," but that Thomas could not be found. 
On the back of the ivrit, also, is the endorsement, "Filed, 
Feb. 3rd, 1913, Frank J. Wal*h, Clerk," iiection 17 of 
Divison III of the Criminal Code (soc, 310, chap, 38, Hurd»8 
Stat. 1912) proTidec in part ar follows: 

'» vhen any person who in accused of any criiainal 
offense shall give bail for his ap earance, and such person 
does not appear in ncoor-iance with the teriTiS of the recog- 
nizance, the court shall declare such recognizance forfeited, 
and the clerk of the court uhall thereupon issue a s c ir e 
facias against such person and his sureties, returnable on 
"the fir at Any of the next term of tho ccmrt to show caupe why 
such judgmcsit should not be rendered against such person and 
his Kuretien for the amount of the recognizance, which scire 
facias shall be served by the ahtriff of the county where the 
court is held, upon such person r>^id his sureties, by reading 
the same to the dofendanta named in such sc i re " f acias , at least 
f ivG dayo before the f irut dg.y of the .tern; to which the same 
is retu rnab l e ; and, in case the person aforeeiaid "cannot 'Be 
found "Sy the cheriff, be sshall n; return of that fact to 
the court. The court shall, thereupon, enter judgment by 
default against the defendants for the amount of the recog- 
nizance, unless defendants ohnll appear and defend such 
ctiuue; end if the defendants shall appear and interpose a 
defense, then the cause shall be tried in the same inanner as 
other cauoeo of a like nature, after any such recognizance 
shall be declared forfeited as aforeaaid," 

\_ The Judgment against plaintiff in error was enterad 

on February 8, 1913, It appears from said vrrit of scire 

facias , issued January PA, 1913, that tho same .^as returnable 

on the first Monday of February, 1913 (February 3rd), It 

«9qo ill oomjsxnaorjan bisa oiai L-j-m^ray toil'' ni '^il:^fliaX<J 
lo ans-t ,*:iGI .^i-JiSWrteL uAi in ^adi ^SllQX ^V.C \Lul. no Si'^^ro 

exlT ♦LaJ-Jtcliol boijaXoot* tt'ios,' oeonssinsoootc tXodi driyiJ Jarus 

©ricf nc iiuoo bias siolacf TBttf.qn ocf lonio at. lllini«I<i fiaa 
XJa/5aoV( *a*?it »di no feXsxl ocf oi ,«i9,t ^t^on .'>rf* lo \ab iail'i 

bavins 9rf ^tijiii :?oo?l£) »ri* o;t lliif'jrfB 9dJ Ic mt/J-an arid ai 
brt£ airi^t* (ioit^ ni llUnialq) nsbwont- ..t. rfqoaoi; no ^tii*- 9di 
^bituot 9cf ion bXi/oo axynoriT i«rfi cfwcf »*,6XeX ,\jniitfiff«>'S lo Xf>- 
tbaXJ'?" ^cTnoaea'iobns orij^ st ,';oXfl .i'lT.v sx{c^ lo toud odi - 
lo VX noXlooa ".al-xaXO ,xlaf-XiiM' .1, :(irwT'? ,:.XtX »i)-j: . 
B*bi0H ,8£ ,q»sio ^OXS .of»y) ©boD XisniniiO 's>d} lo IH no:ji;'/. 

nc ^kd -xol Xi«cr ©vir^ LLadH Qua-^'i'lo 

; 3 0fTOf*^oooi) ni nnovqo ton aso> 

,i:o: ...,..- — . ..^„ , .. . , >ui3X09b XXaiie ^'xx/oo sdt ,SDnasln 

3jiiq£ ®i;aiai noawfti'i'lcJ iXarin ^tl'oo srtt lo jI'xoXo ?)ri;t bwi 

no ^'/d^rT"!;??!'? j??'^ i^tri-rt'f? airi bnis noaicxy rioxja ttscda^^a a . tiXo«l 

Yrf""" ^ .Ttna* ^x©n sdi lo y-sb cfoil'i sVti 

brt :jhi stf ^on bijjoria irwuK^bul rioi/a 

g jij- . — , > .. .. ., ,L.., . lo JniL'oaija «fW *tol eot.^Btua alri 

G!.';^ ■" jv u-.v \,.;?nwcr) a/u to •Illioila aricf x^ bsvxa* stf XXaxfn 8.B.tpi il 

:":;•'.'"■ " v'f , f's/t^'T"" !?irf *?~'" rrf^'T'.^c ff^fjf n""!/ ^M.t.'^ "^i ' *i.r.'''0 

• ( .ij 

-•' ^ ............ . ...... ... ...,. J. ..'- . A 

03 i-ofll Jfsrtj lo cnuSot 9S,o:n XXiifi!i Oit .lll^fj. 1 

-jjooyx 3rii T lol B^n-iL-n'j iHh yfi.t :?/ ;tXjJz1'ib 

iiouB Jj fi- IX-.!i-lf{ M^niJf'njilHt eeeXnu .sonssin 

• : ""i~ , , .,; iladB sj aebnelob 9';; Ix baa ;■■'■'-■ 

e/A 46 odi flX 03Xi;r stf XXsria hbuko sxij nsril ,& 

< -''1 riowo x.iB i3j^ljB ,3TuJx^n e^liX .f lo usoui^o 

".biosaiolfi ua be^X&ltol boicXosb scf J.^biU^ 

butti^no e/.iv -xoi-ift «i lll;f«i«Xq toata^B in^jm^isl •rfl' J 

a xtoe lo ^iiw bi«e moil crtAeqqB tl .iXe^X ,0 x«*«tf9* rse 

oldnaiis.f or s«w oiiiAB wi« ^flrf^f ,txex ,^J; xtawaal. h9U8Mi ,y«i3 

il ,(bi£ xnwuids^) CXffX .xiiitrKf^^ lo x^ibtmU ta-zll odi no 


further appears th;t th'i writ wv.a not eurved upon plaintiff 
iri error until ^ebru-iry 2rd, He was not served "■ t least 
fire dayo before tJ'ic fii*et d:j.y of the term" to ^rhich aaid 
writ WfiH returnable. In our opinion the court wns withrut 
jurisdiction to enter final judgment against hin on 
February 8, 1913, or :\t any time during snid February term, 
becsuae he whs not served in apt time to require him to show 
cauee at 3aid tei'm, and thftt said judgraont is void, ( People 
▼ , ?Joore , 143 111, App, 302, 335.) In the ca;;«> oitsd it is 
said: *The Jurifidiction of both the aubject-rcatter and of 
the peraon is essential to tho validity and binding force 
of a juliclal Bontence, If either of the: g judicial facta 
is wanting then the aentence or iocree of tho court io void. 
In auch a caae the whole pro > leading is cor tun non judic e," 
(.:.e;-, also, _^;ampbe l l v, li'cCahan . 41 111. 1,0, 49; i/lulford v, 
SHalzenback . 46 111. 303, ili6; Gardner v. Bunn . 132 111, 
403, 410: French v. ^egan , 58 111. App, 361.) 

The judgment of the Criminal court is reversed 
and the cause remanded » 


^uorlSzTi 8ijw ^-xf/co eri^ noJtniqo ii;o nl .eXtf-snit-'JK'x o«ff JItw 

no mxxi Jani^.^a J-nsi-nabut li^nll i:jiao o:t iirtioiboiiijl 

,mi9ir ^^swicfs'VI bins gniii/t ainiJ^ xns i/,; 10 ,iiISI ^6 x'^witf'J'^ 

woifa oi miii ailupo'i oi &fxiii iqs ni bevies ton apw r>il ©auBO^id 

gXgPO<i ) ,hiov ai cJ-nDmshwt fiir.e i«il^ ^^fi ,mi9i biwe ;ta oaufi^ 

el Jx bscfin JK-,aD srii- nl (,ci6c ,aa£ .qqA .III £i-£ « &'£oq?j[ ,t 

I0 hnn irtiJ-irt-^rosijcfji/a oii^ dio<S I0 nciSoibul'y.sjl oriT" zbtjsa 

eoiol fialbnld bau ^^IMXav oiii oJ- Inii-jtatieo ni nopisq sA 

B*0£tl laiolbisl Oi.orii I0 t^rf^Ms "il .soneJnoa Xi?ioJ:t'jJt « l^ 

.feiov el cfTiroD arfj- to eeiooi tto 90«ed-n©o oi-ij nsiid- ^olinaw yi 

'*, oolj3» t. nog ffiBiOD ai anib?.'o.jOiq olorfv/ i)!!^ >-ft,30 n done nl 

,r I?iol:XiJ!>^ {Qi ,t:; ,1X1 X^ . mixiaOofu ,v IlgcfCTtxj:') ^oaXa ,vOw) 

♦ XXI ?.^1 ,nni/S .V lenMjL'.O ida« ,e0C ,XXI dfr . iloarfftosXa^a 

(.X9S .qq/, .XXI 8a . gga:^' .v ciom^'x'^^ :0n ^(.0i^ 

fioa-revoi al ;f 11/00 XanlmiiD orfd" "io JiKwwatjut, srn 

• bdbnondi ectviio exf^ baa 

36 « 21285 

Defendant |ln .'rror, 

JAIffi3 TJ^OMAS and JOiJf'H E. yNO.TOl£N. 

JOaaPH ii,\oJIOWDiCN, 

\ Plaintiff in Trror, 

19 o 


.£XBi&^^^£^XL:j£PV'9iU Joseph ii. ono*don, became cursty 
on a recognizance taken in op(.n court in the auit of :ia,000 which 
was forfeited toecauue of the non-appearance of the principal, 
James Thomas, in ^^d^ Criminal Court. Th(arfcafter aucn proceed- 
ingo were had in saia court that on i?ehruary 8, 1912, judgment 
was entered in favor of the Fcopl-: against Thomas nnd'JiftAfi^kf 
^c»P«9r in thfc sum of ^1,000 and coats. To reverse the Judg- 
ment ^^rrt^J^^-e^^r on >^ebrut;ry 2'?, 191?>. aued out t4»*4. writ 
Ol^'and moved that i^^ sarae be mirJe e supertJGdeno , filing vs'ith the 

motion certain written auggeexionc-, which motion vmo on U&y 1, 



191b, alloweU by ti4*e eoi^rt. 

It appeark^t-'om axe ori^^inal tranocript of the record 
that Thomao waa indicted Dy the grand jury of Cook riovinty for 
larceny, that Thorwiu^ v/ith | fca1n i^.i.Arn»fg--^iW5^- v.» ^mrcty. entered 
into said recoRni^ance, that Thomafs dia not appear and tiie re- 
cognizance was ue.';lared lorfeitod and a ,?rit of ucire facias 
ordered to be iaaued for them to show cauue why tho forfeiture 
ahoald not be nia.le abaolute, -.mi. that on i-ebruary a. 1913, the 
^ol^irt entered an order reciting thut "the '>rit of scire facias 

A ' 
issued xierein haa been duly returned by tho iJheriff of Cook 

county,' ftc, and declaring th^t said rorfuiture be made 

absolute t.nd entered said judgment. Nowhere in ;4hU original 

transcript of the record i» there contsined any -rrit of scire 

^^^f aeia.B«y^ 

ties IS - d- 

OT flOKiiT'l ( 

( .Trii(n?OPfG ,K H't .;0X brxB ciAVOHt ESStAi 
.YTTIUOO aoOC ( ' .^— 


rioiriv; 000, 1-"', lo Jtiua aiU ni iiuno nrtqo t\i neiaJ aon«;i;inj}o:)oi £ nc 
tlaqiloRlnq &ixJ lo oonaii)8qq;?-noa eiii lo eauaoscf bs^Jtol'xol aavr 

J-nomabut «SX§I ,3 Yt/imd'ol no tatii iruoo binti ni bBSi »*xov aani 
'llJfc^-iiiaXq boH tiiMioriT J'arri.cian •Iqoo'y; »n^ Tto lovsl ni b9i©»tn» aaw 
-gbut 9'i^ saievoT: oT ,a;teoo b«a OOO^I^ lo fowa &ii3 ni n«w*«wvyri' 
cMtw »JMkt itio bdUH ,cU»?X ,VF: "^•ijiii;-itf8''i no tiyirti»--Ui-^^iinf»iq; in&i 
orii riJ-lw aijiixl . eoaboaToqtJs a ft|)«« »«f •olhe ^fiii» ;Jiirf^ Devoai bk 
,1 Ya:.t «c lijHw noiioin dolriyr , aflr> i jaagaua noJ';^iiw niaiioa aoiicr 

tTo^oi arid lo ^qiiO(mai;t XBftijjito 9tis mo'-i't^iijadqcjij ^I 

-1 yJ-njio:.; >IooO lo xiuj; bnjrita erij \;ci baioibai bbw a«moiiT isriJ 
h9'i^inG ^\iLin.ijH - ? - ;jnm'~T ii f— i fa' ^ "^ n"^ Vf[ ri^ iv. ujboicxIT JAjitf ,\,nci:oinX 
-61 Bit* bn« rtoeqqe ton bib ©anxoriT .JiiXli ,»on«siitj^oo«'x iti&o o)ni 
ajuoisl a iXpii lo Siiv, bau be^Xolioi oa-n »onasin^oo 
'jii»'ito1 orfj Yriw iisuao woric; o,J nioriJ lol. buUBel •cf o^ fc^isbio 
J ,oXGX ,(i x.'xaw'icfpU no Jr.ri.* Iru^ ,9^i;Xoucfjij aiisin stf Jon bjjjori.. 

Boloijl 01:103 lo il^w 8jf J *' J^x'riJ 3aXcfXc»d-i 'xob'io ob bei*Jne Siuoi^^ 

' — — — . - /^ 

3(000 lo lliieria oAS \,cf baniw^fti \XjJb xtoocf ajrari ni&iori i>«ii;e8i 

• bnm Off oiuiial'xol biaa Jntit anl'i«Xo i bna ,.0*0 •'.Vnuoc 

Xflniyiio !»«**( ni ou*ri^ToM .J'nsmabi/t M«e bviio^ns biw »*uXoacfA5 

eiJtoB lo tiTir ^rtfl bsnljR^taon aioriJ^ Bit bioosi »iii lo itqlioBnai^ 

Counael for plaintiff in error, in their written 
euggostlons filed with the notion above mentioned for a 
BuperBedoao , contended thit not-vithntojiding th« recital con- 
tained in the court's order of February 8, 1913, the judgment 
should be reversed inuamuch as no .^rit of scire facias appeared 
in the tronacript, and in support of their contention cited 
the case of Campbell v. People , 22 Hi, 2i4, 23S, wherein our 
supreme Court said: "The office of a scire faciaa is both that 
of narr, and procoun, and the record Bhculd show, not 'by recital, 
but oy its appearing in the record, that the writ vi\o actually 
isHued, giving a copy of it.** 

On January 10, 191G, the ^Hate's attorney filed in 
this court a motion, oupported by nffif!«vit, 8ugg«8ting 
diniunition of the record rmd Moking lo?ive to supply the ojnitted 
portion of the record instanter, and at the same time presented 
a copy of said noir e f?ic iR£, duly certified by the clerk of 
s'id Criminal Court. Counter sug^^ec tions to the motion ^«ere 
filed by counsel for plaintiff in orror anc', by order of this 
court, the dociBion on the notion was reaerved to the hearing. 
These co\mter au/^gositiona have been duly considered, but we are 
of the opinion thfjt leave ah^ld be granted to file said omitted 
portion of the recora and it is so ordered. 

The copy of sutid ^vrit of ocire fnciae discloues th.-tt 
it waa issued by tho cler< of the Criminal court, thnt it was 
seryed by th<; sheriff of Cook county on plaintiff in error, 
Thomas not being found, and thft it was returned by the sheriff 
and filed in the clerk's office. 

The copy of a id writ of scire facias now appearing 
in the tranacript of the record, and the only point relied upon 
and orguefl by counsel for plaintif " in error for u revi-^raal o f 
the Judgment being the abaenco of such copy, the judgment ie 



noctiiiw 'iinff.+ nt ,•10119 nt 'iliicdalq 'iCi latinwoO 

a lol ftsHOlitnam evocfi* noLiotn odi rfJiw Isolll enoi;? eaj^Si/ : 
•noo Ii)^io8i if AS snlbnisisjrfJlwJon ^jjrfi boiMioi-noo , ajBoti9Bi9qmi 

bsm^qcffi 8«l alio a I0 iiiw on bb rioumejjni; b©«i9V»i orf bXworfa 

boiin nolJnsJnoo iloriJ 1© iioqqua ni hnu ,iqiiosmii:f uri* r. 

11)0 niaiailw ,c!j:$i ,^i;s ,ILI SR ^e Xgoe^ .y IIorf<ynaD 'io oaao 9rii 

Jsili ri^ocf at Sflloal aiJtoe a lo ooi'ilo ariT" rbiaa JiuoO sniaiquL 

^LJf^ii.oo1 Y,rf J^on ,woria bXuoria bio-^si nrLt bns ,;!30ooiq brw ,ii«n T:o 

Xllauioa onw ^inv oiiS iadS .biosoi arfc^ nl anJtiB»qq» aiJt xo tfwtf 

*',J1 lo \qpo a j^nivia ,b»waai 
nl belli: v.9nio^^B a'»*B^< sriJ' ,0X61 ,0X yi-bw^^'X. nO 

ani-taajijjua ^SiVHbi'Wa xd I^s^ioqquc ,f[oi;tonT a S'xuoo aJt/O 
bei&tsMo BsU \£qquo oJ ova^oX j<nl;fti!; bntj bioosi ncii to nottlnuml 
b9*nf)«siq smiJ smija isrii J.b i^na .-is^miiani bioogi ofl;t 'Jo noi.tic; 
lo jLisLo 3d& xd bstJi^iiiO '^Xub , aflioisjt a il oh bJtiaa "io yqoD a 
aiovr noi^om arij- oJ anoxiayaa"^ io;f{tuoD .JiwoD XjBaimiiO bl 
stdi lo lobao \.ff ,]).aH to'iis nJ: I'tiJ^nlaXq i«t leaauoo ^cf beXi'l 
."iniiHeri cui:f oi boviaaai bbv nox;Join eriJ no noiaiosb yrii ,;tii/oo 
■ 9w ^ucf ,b<»*t-,t bianco yXtrfc nsocf av/jri enoijaoaijijja -taittvoo aaarfT 
bsi^timo bion j>Xi1 oi bsctmjis 9f^ bXiJ-'-ria arnol S Adi noinlqo edi 'to 
,boi9bio OB ei ai bnxi ttioo^i 9d3 lo noiiioq 
^ ^x(iJ 3ot50XoaiI> ejiioiit niiou 'to *iiT/ biijo to ^qoo o.iT 
aaw ^Jk imdS .S-xuoo lanimiiO sdi lo xiaXo ^rli xd' b^waui eaw ii 
,ioiit> ni lliiiiunlq no Y;;tni/oo :j{"oO "io 'I'iiisria i>dt \<i boTxaa 
lliisria ^di xd b9ttiuSoi umv ii ;!rfidf bnu ,bnuot ^aioff #on aamori'; 

,9ottta B»:li0Xo sdi nl boltt hn 
TiaitaaQqi' vioa at iioitl p iioa Io iiiw jtili.a Io x<Ioo 9riT 
noqu bsiXdi inioq xlno ©rl^ baa ,bioo;)i orf^ to J-qiioemiii nni ni 
■> X.fi8i?>voi a 10"^ 10119 ni "liJniaXq lot Xnenuoo ^tf boi/SLs bn^ 
ai c^nymabjjj, «»rii lYQon rioua Io oonoacf.B s>fW j\niocf J^rtomsbut, 9dS 




324 - 21308 



\ A APPEAL mm 

^®* \ / { SUPilRlOH COURT, 

NANCES A. F.LL^, / \ ^^^^ COUNTY. 


---"' 193 I. A. 411 


i TW:r.aj^aal ia fr*ii»^V decree. granti#^e husband 

a divorce on the ground of extreme and repeated cruelty, 
dlsmissifei the wife' 3 cro8s-hill for separate itaintenanle, 
directifi^i. partition of certain real estate o^vned by them as 
j^ tenants in conn.on, and apoointiil- a receiver to collect the /-"^^ 
rents from the property pending the partition proceedinge/^^^^^^^^^^''''^ 

Afe^^J^contendi>(fi that the decree t^'Vg^st 
the clear preponderance of the evidence^ ^ that the cross- 
bill «r^8upported by the greater weight 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 
interinarriage 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 pasuion, 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 hi3 teeth and at another time on his hand with a 
heavy hatchet bruising it and causing pain; and that she 
used towards him opprobrieue. obscene .nd abusive language 
without provocation, and maliciously and without reasonable 
^cause accused him of having unlawful sexual intercourse with 


.T^iroo FOlffi..'£Uc: ( 


.YTTIUOO 3000 ( 

11^. A.I €Ql 

8oei£ - ^se 

bciBtSBfJci ©i igiasioab a rcoi'l ex Ij*sqq. 

(■^J'Iq.'jio isscfuaqsi baa 9n.»i&X3 lo Jbnuoia oriJ- no soiovxb b 

ass TiQdi yd bonv/o s^isia© Ls&i niaiiQo lo noid-ii-xsq .^i^d-oaiii) 

. asnii5960 0'xq noi^ld-iBq r^r{+ -rribnpq Y.^isq^o'ig ^rf* rrtoi'^ e^nsi 

r- A 

-aaoia eiii^ iaiii if&^ Qotivbti^ > oxio' lo soxisietnoqsaq leelo 9rf^ 

* --«"--• -..vj. 

f*f) sonabivs siii lo drfsiQW lod-jnaia oriJ- xC" l^^^jocqua -ei, Xlio' 

•10 nOiJichlBq 9>"-' n* ,.r, r 1 • ; ?,p : -rit^ OH bsid ^nsjoo Qdi isAii 

.'X9Vieo9i s ^nloqqa 

ii9rid' sonxE bsri slxw odd- cJ-ijrlJ^ Lnuol oeiosb ad's 

\Slauio ijDd-floqai irte srasid-xs lo \!ii nascT a^Bi-iiaici&cfnx 

9xta i&dii ,i-nxiiIqflioo lo Xlxd" ©rid" nt bsg-xf-iiio ejb \IXj3i^nsi8cfjje 

l)esXi;JbnJ: Qds ;tarij- ,'ieqm9;f lo V-iis^BUjs tB»r^ lo osmow b bbw 

anoxBBooo ow^ no Jbf^xf oda isidi ,noiuaBq lo esxXXee ^tnsXoiv r^i. 

said snxJiXii-G ^tciBdavd isd ohiBWOd" sonsXoJtv X^nosisq bseu 

boB nx;;q nx ■^iCililua^t eosl srfj- nl woXcT d-noXoxv b 9ono 

B rfjxw bnBri eJcrf no smx^ i9cId-orte ^ta Jbrni riissi aid snineaooX 

Qda J^iixfcf fcna ;nxi;q gniBi/i-.o bna *x gnieliJid' isdo^sd \vsed 

eSBugnaX svxaurfB bru; gnfyoarfo ^ai/bt^cfoiaqo ntJtrl dI>ibwo^ bget; 

sXcfjsnoajiST ^uoritivv JbnB YXajJOXDxXivn Lns ,nuxJb00voiq iuodtiw 

A&iyr Qeiuoorotnt Xajt/xoa Xi/lwBXnu B«-tvBri lo mxri beax/ooB quuho 


one of hiii temmts. 

^^^^-— -W»^V-th«r« waa suffioient evldonce on waic|x toV 
b^ee each finding, does not admit of arguin*ent, in our opinion, 
^d tether such evidence clearly prepond^ratee in complaiJ^^mfs 
|aTor. depends altogether upon tll^ credibility of the witne'sceo. 
^hoiD the opportunity to see as well as hear gave the chanceUor 
f facility not possessed by this court, one which haa been 
^-eferred to as of the greatest importance in determining th« 
Weight and credibility of evid-noe. ( Cerari v. Olsen. 91 il^. 
f77; Johnoon v. Johnson . 125 id. 510; Porter v. Porter , >^6y 
fttT' 378 . ) 

--"'THiTcKargermarin "^ of the BBJtm^ 

|atur>Njind Giiar«©ter an those charged in the bill, and the 
jvidence wa>>i*^^»lciaillyiy conflicting at mod t of the 

3 en t ial p o in ta^-^ tiW^quir ing eltyHG--TS ons id^rH^tion oZ.jths 
rea4aiilMy_^of the re8pecti>*.j^It^ies:.e8, and oo far as it^' 
etermination bcc^e wuleyidjent f^^'ElN:^ finding the faoL, 
re shall not widertake to diaturb" t"K'&>-^^8|«^r analyze ,ihe 
videfice that seemin^ily Juatif ies^the courT»-8-Tln^4i^^^^ 

jfce»"4TO'fc^m^5»'--w•^^ft♦4^„..tJ*l^t Against the evidence of 
seven witneaaes as to her uae of opprobrious epithets and 
abusive language towards him, siamA^ her bare uncorroborated 
denial, and against three witnesses charging him with similar 
language towards her, r«9t8 his bare denial. The motivea and 
interests of these several witnesses k*e^not Bu£*.*«*wtly dis- 
closed in the record^ y>^«eaaUlA..iia..,.to-«iv« their teatimony d^ - 
i|Ai«fe*>.- Theil^-«ppearance and conduit while testifying ifiay' well 
hUve been the final test by which their credibility was 
(^termined. The application of such test is a well recognized 
^notion of the chancellor, and on« of much importance when 

i% is clear that one party or set of vitneaBes or the other is 
Aanife.tly falsifying, and, apniyin,-; the m.;xim falsup in uno f alsus 

in onmibus. the cli^mcellor may well nare discounted her 

.e^TusnoJ^ ciri to etto 
/ 0} 4oifiV!r no 9ono.»)J:v9 +neioit1i;8 «*»«• aai-ri^ ^^i' 
,noi/tiqo luo ai ,*neW;siB "io ^Jtmh^ ion apttb \^ntbtiit rious aaAc 

aoIXaonsrio cdi svija -upexl as XXow a« era oi x^inuJnoqqo arii oioii* 

n9©>; cBri ifoxriw eno ^iiuoo Bliii xd fceeaaasoq ion \iiXla«l 4 

jsrii aiflotraisiftb ni ©ortBiioquii ia©>*;3«i?j arfi lo kb oi baiials's 

.iXI Xe .n esXO .v l^i ?ioO ) ,6oiti»biv'* *lo ^ixXicfifasio bn« iriaiow 

ScU .-x eiio^ I .V loiipqi ;OXa .bi <J£I . noumloX. .v noanrfoV ;VVJi 

.3vt .hi 
&Kii9 9iit 'i9'^'si»w Xlirf-eaoio o/i:r ni yr-Kin t.ayTorio yn. 

or{* fcna ,XXlcr otii al beiiiaiio snorii fta tffitmiixdp bt^y^iuiAk 

srii lo isoiR i.^. aniioiXInoo ^'x -f*'l i W "' '—»ttg" ^ ^^^ ©onablvfc 

atili- lo ,ml-i^v.yiriBnciir'«gof«-^¥»i^^*^e;*;s*^v^^ "-^ ° <I Xsi i no a a(» 

^il as 131 oa bm: , ijKTfi i£>tqe*it arit ic x*J^iijii*^a^|^ 

,3io,Gt srf^ ji«ii>nit ni;^..i'^:^: n't iHobiv9..i!« amfioorf noxiiinlmiaiaiJ 

9rii> asYXiJXte lo^^^a'-vaAfe- orii iiiJiBlb o* s^tBitybriw ion XXbxIb d»^ 

.a^nib'nil a«i^'uob'Vrf#"aeIllJ^ewt xXacrlmosa .t«£fi 9oii9i>iv» 

10 Gonsbxvs 'idi isnlasik i a rft a »o» '-»w>- -.-©^MW^-erfi'-^O'^ 

bnr. aierfilqs auox^tcfoiqqo 1o aew isil oi ajs aeat-arJlw nsvaa 

b9i.Kiocfoiioonxj easd n:off ^JhMJ-g ,narf abi^.woi aaaur'.rusX aviautfa 

lijXxmia iiiiw miri snls^arfo eat aoniiw ae-xrii iani«3B bftc ^Xainot: 

bftK eaviiom axlT .Xalnab o^Brf eiri aMv^v .rran abxawoi aaausnal 

-aib "^X*rt»Tt»(Wr4wa *on 9«e eauaaniiw Xb-jsvss eoHhi lo aiafliaini 

ft^jb :^£flomi*«e* liftdi -avia.xi^.iiH.j>Xrf«rta.,<vi^b-xoja^ arii nx baeoXa 

IXaw -^am ^ioi^liiaa* aXirfw inubnon bna aoa8ixs»qq»'-«i»iiT .i^lnt^f 

aaw YiiXirfibaio Tclorfi lioirlw xcf iaai Xani'i erfi noed avajri 

basinaoDJ*-! XXaw s ai laai rioua lo noiii»olXqqii arff . banxflnsiajfc 

tiBAvf aonxsiioqtni rioum "in ©no bae ,'xoxXaonBiio »ili lo noiionuft 

ai loriio oxii lo aoeaanilw le^.laa io )C^%aq ano ijsxli aauXo ei ii 

Bijalisi omj ni nuaX^il mixom arii snixX'iqjB .bna ^anixliaXsl ^Xi'^alimuf. 

^R.W^ K/^'^s»'h U-wnti T r<4W ViUTf lOl I<i Q HlJ. dO CXlJ .aXTdinBIO AI 


jt»rfllons of the nets of phyaieal yiolence. 

i4»*i« lier veraion as to both incidents of physical 
violence wao oupported "by her son, who took rm active part 
in her behalf in on© of then, her daughter and another witnoss, 
BB to one occi.bion, and her daughter {ind son-in-law, as to the 
other occnaion, corroborated in the main hi;i veroion of the 
affairs. The main actc of cruelty charijed by her againsit hia 
were pr.rta of the snme incidents relied upon to estHblissh his 
charges of the same p.haracter^ aiui wuBt ij lmi trTrFT&IT'^iy~^CKir 
-tfi*4r-^£^~M^e*ib±il*ty.- It-would mtbserve no usefxil or practical 
purpose, therefore, to narrate here the details of these 
i»i«*<*«ntB. Tn are tjatlsficd that giving credence, o'.« the 
cEoHcellor raur,t have"dcrtxr, -tw-«<>mpaai««nt»-e ^wltnesaesf^ was 

»uf*e5^?a«jt evidence of intentional comrrdsaion v7ithout juot 
provoc'.tion 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 diaregard 
of any danger that might attend them.*^ 
( _>/ _ 'Aflian— *h«fle ■ an'eit*e»tflt^,jyr£ conaidcre(l,,i»--«onn'<!Te'tion 

i»^*vidence showinf; the history of their family troubles, 
which 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 x-orioer roarriage, and th-;-t she wao a l;-rgo, 
strong woman, of high teller tjid wilful quarrelsome dispofsition, 
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 raanifeut disposition to get hold of his 
pr'^perty tmd to get rid of him, and had previ 'usly with ut good 
grounds filed a bil l for sep, rate maintenance wliich uhe dis- 
missed containing unjustifiable ch.irgea against him, -md 

i^iijq ovi,Jofl ns atooi^ otfw ,noa larf \ii betioc^que bjbw »on9loiv 

, .aani^iw lorli^bna Iin« taJffsi/r.I) aarf ,ni©rii^ 'lo 9«o at Tilsded isri nX 

9il* oJ- aii ,rHl-ni-noc: boB iQ&ri^^al roii baa ,noia.i00o sao oJ u« 

9ff.+ lo aoiai'jv ctld ntsm sdi nt food"Bicdo'iioo ,noianooo lodSo 

r laoiioaiq lo Iwltasu orr ovTnerfwR feiuow-^I ~'?X*irfitfTt*«*H»--%«^-4*a.t 
^f(* (JO ,«oaob©io sinlvis d-jwy^ •ft«JtlrJ:*a^TrT»-ia»V''^,wi"i»:fri^xu 

*Baij83.e soasloiv Xr.oisv.riq lo si'OB tonLiaib ov* lo noi^.^oovoiq 

js ni ^itm 3:18 sXiriw ,T:'.J'or7Br(o eujiioa Lmj Xulnlaq a lo axJtri 

biaj^o'iii i b taiiu no snloniva bas i?qma^ sXtfr.nisvogni; lo ocfjilB 

nojitoonnoo n.i l>Dit>ljlaiioo orfi^.fjJns b' t sttx '99«tit~MmU 
,a9Xcfuoid^ ^Xiaifil rtisxl^ lo X'^oiatd 9iii ynlworfa oo;io£iivd,^ii^-A«r 
«3aw r}ri rioxriw ni ai9j*.6ni xeaom zaro Kjsa&cf xXlifjiBcqa r(oif<w 
axatrlr. hud oH jRffi' jjnxworfu bna .ai/onorraj bn?? lisl YXr.inxin99e 
isri bOB lori aftiJBWOi nol^iuoqaxfc eldBOORfyq baa bai^. « booni 
,osi^jX b 80W arte ^"riv? btui .dajBliixMH'J i! ^d naoi)!!! 
«nox.tiBoq^:xl) ecioaXo'x'SiUfp XulXxw hms isqBe^ rialxf lo ^nsaiow snonJ 
aid tiiB mid abisiwoi ssjowansl IJ35XJJV buR ovliatoquiiv oi neyi 
briB (i9ri J-:inles^i ^«fi "tirf ^o'-t isoiliJ'as* raorfv/ lo iX«) ainaa 
aid lo bXorl J-os oi noid-xaoqaib iaQtimua b bsonivd Jbaii ssrfa i£:' 
boog J f;^' rlJ- X7.- yXajn Ivsiq bad bar^ ,mxr( lo M-s Jujj oJ bxui '^^aaqo'- 
-axb ado rioxj(w tJonan^J^niam otfuiuqos 10I ILid: a belli ahiuic- 
ivdi bnr. ,iatci isalfi,:^B Qsaifulo elcfj8.tlx;t8i;tnxi ^niaiainoo boaes.. 


ha i m wa jp nearly seventy years old (her senior "by about 
eighteen ye.srs )/-»»« think the fact of extren.e and repeated 
>.xxii^lA,y, 3.3 h^rotofore int»?rpreied ty our L;iuprar;e Court, 
s fully eytablifhod ;!nd juatifie^l the decree, 

'ii« other point marls toy appellant &g to- the 
coutt'a >a,nt of Jurisdiction to imkn prjrtition of their 
reui 6at&.te uHd appoint a receiver to cijilect the rents, 
ia ko clearly un\Gnable that we need gttily to refer to '■■■ 
app(^'3 authoritl«6 to which aj»t)ellant hne not undertaken 
to r^<jply. (Harrer v. ^>illncr ,f 80 111, 197; H cyinari v, neyman . 
210 ^d. ri24; Van Vleot v, ^^£itt, 20-^ id, 153,) Besides; 
appelxaxit ia in no position such quoation on it0 
ic'erijib, c.j it appeors tl-Kj-t the par<^ic5 had by mutual agreeiaent 
scttHed ail controverDien and queatioh-S respecting their; 
realj estate, aiid it is ko found in the decree. I 

j oO fjaT as the question is one of rilt^.tif ariousnieos 

ixi jjleading it io improperly raised here for thk f irB^ iine, 
(Chi, Thaologicul :.emini'.ry v, Gfige . 1C3 id. 175). ' 
The decree will b'c affirmed. 


Juocfi. x<^ lolaots t&d) bio ais&'o xinurss \liuQn\ a i m »m i e' 

,;ti;ror smcitqu'ci lUO \,S b^ianqifiial ^to'ioiut'id 9B-f%4^JL&u'xu 

.seiooJi Off* l9k1li(iul bns\ bori^l icfe^es x,llu1 S43W 

»rf* o* a^ jTtolX»q<i« ^rf otfiiE Iftioq isrito mi' 

ntiatfi lo floiiiiisq osCati o; 

oi^ •rn'i^i o;^ xXno boon »w i^.BJCfc^ eXrfano/i«/ x-I''t^«jto 0* el 

n&jLiiSthbnu ion. acii ^nr»XIoc|ti3 rfoirlw oi Bp±il'xoA&Uii a'go.CXfcqqa 

. noCT^ftll ,v fiBBn£.^ H ;V<?X .XXr 08 ^jxojlX^^ .v leyaH) ,x;Xq^i oi 

BsMoofT (^ax ,bt -nr ,:'.^2 3l .v JvaXV oay i*>se .A^ OX?- 

aii no noiSh-iup xious :oiJfMoq on ni tii ^fna^j^egqa 

^nsmsaiSB lautua xd bt\A aal^lsq 9ii;t ii^i axd^qqji ;fx r:.c ,aili8m 

itoiis gni*o'<qa©i a^iioi^fsetrp biia eaiaisvoilqoo XXa l>9iU^98 

.oorta^b 9ri;>' nl bm/ai oa ai ii ha» ^sShSbb <'-■'-" 

a8sa8uoxii?li^4^'m lo aao ai no iiaeup adi a« xyl oi; 

■ /" 

,aiHl| *ail'i^.*ri* nol oisrf beai^ii \;Xi9qoiqmi ai Ji anxbtftxt ni 

.(fiVX .bx SOX ,9S"tQ .V y,iiinisaQj. X«sX?,oXoeriT .IriO) 

.ftamii'itl!', fief XXiw !^f»io9Jb silT 

334 - 21319 




B. PETTY and JOHN y6^>l.'XY, 



19ST.A. 414 


-^— —'"""*" -^axiB-_app«Al i« from an ©I'der raCa t ing a J udgmen t 

t«JreTt--agek4na..t .apf>«lie«8 (^iefendants TSelow) on defawlt. Th^ 

>^1<-K order w,-:s baaed on a motion in writing made at a subaequent 
term in behalf of said Milton K. Petty to correct an alleged 

error in fact, «e-fflay b^-iiWTe under section 89 of the 
Practice Act\ «t ioh s wl» »444trt:^'~'myctr-g"Tgffttim"'ror- "tTie "iytt-irf 


J 'grrqT" ~gaTaTC no^b-i^» . llie basis of the proceeding was the 

^ contention that said Petty was mentally incapacitated when 

( -j^erved with, stimmona and 

. .._..._ remained so until after judgmentv^j 

, 'i „^^ ^^ _ ,- jIVJJ ^f f Haair4 4Ln.!aa Ji,B^ i lP TTnftr int*H?ftrll 

the hearing was had orf affidavits. 

rper praiTtlce, 

/^ yyiDi t.HVi Y^ The ijncrlcan Linseed C orrrp aYi y . ^^IS^t^mHiT^f^l , 166,) 
^fttii«^ an...oi^al hearing, ps requested by plaintiff, might have 
been^had in the discretion of the court under section 06 of the 
Practice Act, the record discloses no abuse of diucretion in 

, d^SyiSg the request, 

^- . — y There were two affidavits in support of the motion 

and two counter affidavits. The rormer were by physicians, who 
attended on said i^'etty in the period referred to, and con- 
tained positive, un v^alif ied averments th.Mt he w.-is then 

iiniiy irresponsible and mentally incapacitated. The counter 
affidavits were^one by the deputy sheriff, who expresi^ed a 
contrary opinion, and one by plaintiff's counsel containing 


MOOT. dkd'. 
,THU03 TlUOfiloV 
.YTMUOO 3L000 \ 

eX£X2 - ^SC 

.,ESYa .L HDflSiHT 

»£{>" .^rXwaltab no {wolad a*nr,bn-'1»l^) eft^ilectqA 4^aflii;^»8«'-iw3fcfe. 

ineupeedua .8 ;fc obiaTi ani^liw nt noiiom a no bsand aaw i9hi' 

basellfl Hi? tfosT-rno oi xiiel ,'A noilllH blaa lo "iXiiriscf at mio,:' 

9d* to PS rroi^ope T.>bni. ..^ool nl loticj 

1-cr ;fttw ;)/{J- ToY"r[«fi«'OTn"» rtouTi ;......,., ; i. .. /Jo,. saiiToisiq 

sriJ Biiw stti^^S'Oiq Biii to aiaed" orf'f . ajtrfofr atgiB5~ 'Tff'ryg' 

rsQriw Jb9j^a*io«q«oni Y-C-t»^nsifl ajBw ^i;to«I bi«e ;^£irfi aoxJ-no^noo 

fcH«,^^n9a!3but ^9*T:a Xii,tnw oe bsnismoi 'r^ 'i ri^.iw bsvio.. 

.aoJtlORic t£6qfr«tq~i!wrj[t^~«lLa£^^B*iVJBbl'i'tB hd- x >^ t;; -w aniiisyrf ari? 

. 's^£ ,xai ,iXI XSg'. yitftgmoO basaniJ ti&oi.ioB!j srfT •'^ laCaJicopC ) 

3V.Rri iti^im ,'llid-ntiiXq y^^ boJ^aei/rgi o.^. ,r,'nlfaeri XjaoiO xw srXirf. 

sffj "io dQ nox*o-te i-ribnu cfiimo 9:ii lo ttoiieioalb jM^ «i bad a^s^- 

ni noltBioiitb to eeuda on eoaoXoelb bioooi •dS ,^0A •oltoai > 

',ii:i9up9i arO- ailf^TO' 

noijom fc'ii* to ^loqqur. ni Qcriv,obil'5xi otti otlsw oisriT ^- 

oriw ,E!nBioia\;r{q Ajrf aitew latmo'l srfT .a^lTJsblYla ^a^nuoo ow;f bif 

-noo b(TB ,0^ baito'iisi bolnaq ^di nl x^^o"* biijK no bsbnaSii 

nsrfi ai.!w oii .tMri;+ ainem'isvja JbolllXai/pnu .ovlJieoq bsniisj 

in^rK' oo BrlT ,bo;f BjlojaqBOcti Y.-C-tfl^n9nT bna aXcflenngeaiiX xlLoiivs 

e b'.i .BQicxB oriw ^llXigxiu \Sijqpl odi \d ©no sisw aJiVisblll. 

sninxBJnoo Xoniujco n'llUnlflXq vcf onto bna .noiniqo viwiitnoo 

N-f matter almost entirely her-rsay in character. ^_ 

-" "" TTpy~ord«r fails to make an express finding of 

ItajTout it w.'i3 unqueotionobly bnsed on a finding that said 
] etty >Kjas mentally incapacitated durin;^^: said period, for that 
T as the only iSHue raised and to be determined in the pro- 
aeeding, We shall not dicturb the order because of sucH 
iliformality, -.e think it vaiu ju tified by affidavits of^ 
persons moBt capable of judging of mental conditions, an^ in 
reaching the conclusion we disregard the motione and petition 
fitst f iled ks the subsequent- motion here considered propVjrly 
presented the question on which the' issue was takew-i"" 



.iBiOBinrio ni ^«B7 serf \L»tlittfi SBomlB loiia^ 

biB8 *j3ri* gnifcnil s no fae««rf Y-C'^Anoi^tesoFm; oxsw il iud^} 
liiS lo^ .boiiyq hlae :sviiiub b»tei ioaqGonl ^cXXai^9ffl sawx^it' 
-ortq 9tli ni baniiaiaiab ocf o* bn« bsaliin ©uaai \Inc oii* 8*r 
rtoua 'io stti/iioocf lobao oriJ diui<3lb ion XlBiia sVr .gnitoo' 
to Biirabitln \d b&l^ii vt a^* *i 3fnxi« &.' .^cJiXiamolni 
nl bna ,anoiJibnoo Xja^nora lo sni8*>'^t "^^ sXcfeqno cfaom anoa'i$ 
:ioliki^<i bna anoi^om sri;^ faxaaetaii) sw nolauXonoo ©rij anlxfoisei 
XXieqoiq ba-if-bienoo aisri noicToffl t#«ii;p»8rfuB aril ajt -^Xll *ar)cl1 
.naijsi^ 3J3W oucaJt exli rfbirfw no nclitaoup axli |)oi^iiaa»iq 

ciiO • ;.'liJ8 




COCX C-^nnXY. 

193 I.A. 415 

a<, Jir 'ric"; r!.v>.j;Ka Trrxivfi^^gT) tj.!-.-- cfi»{IO!I o?* rn-i; C"<"^t, 

Thi'? «'■-« n suit, to recover rtjJws'i^RS for ^i«^rnfmal 
injuries. The verdict "nd .1 tH/rmpTi t w-re for $4v'On. Th« 
C07«p»>TiY«n "po*»ai if% bi-nert r>n the contentions the t (1) tho 
v«»r(Uct 1*5 contrary to th<» l.-i^r .-nd tne evidence nnrt {.'') 
is rxcenyive, 

."'^rtol, th« plaintiff, was a nnBiS-mftior on one of 
Tef cn'ipnt'r c>?.rf5 tin/jt In r b-ckwarrt nnv^tiiant c-jlli-^ed with 
s weron sn4 borers ?ittach«d to It. jr^ vrna prohMMy thrown 
frniR the cnr nni !?u3tnin«?(l ln.1'»rlo3 thurefrow. 

The ■iecl»iratlrm ohnrf;e«< th.^-t tho motori'Kin of tho 
car '••^ronrc fully, irmrr>x,rrly nn:1 nef;litj;cintl> or^uafl?! the car 
to be r>u-! ipnl;/ jind oulckly r.t..rtn(^ (vnd in a bf-ck^f/^r-? r?ir- 
«ction, an i to he opornted swiftly In ( bfickward • ♦ « 
direction" jig-nlnHt a enrtain wagon In tho rear of Kaid car. 

The car wos nn open, light (jumra«r cvr operntod toy 
Glc"-'trioity. to ^vcrt a nollinion vith a wxi^on that was 
RUfMenly turn-d in front or" it tli -^ molor.rrpin fippliert tho 
reverse power thus3 cauftinf; tho car to stop and run bnck- 
vard prohahly ah ut one hundred fe»?t to the point whnrn th« 
oolllaion occurred, 

Whntir^ver view nay bo t&kan of thji wifficirTncy of 
plaintiff proof when he rested to phftw the jipfoif*c 


/ .v. 

21" ^,18,61 ^ 

'{j'iw t>«ftii:Xc« tima»v6tn {viJwoCouc "i'^j I'^niMn v.I*rro^-,JtIr:^v?n -'"rr." vX-^T-ntorr* , -'X.C *>*:-. rro- 
,f i,.,t. -, r,/, Tna tf».mmtf« i'^giX ,n«no fr« row Tt.po «'«''' 

negligence ooraplHinwd of, and whether the ca. o can be anid 
to come within the rulo of rea ipge l o.^uitur , we think the 
evit^.cnce aubmitti-d to the jiiry wnrrantad a finding of the 
negligence complained of. fhatever w^h lockinr in plt^in- 
tiff'o proof -yaB supplied toy thn teotimony of the Tiotormnn, 
who, ;atlioii,,jh h«: claimed as th-? renaon i«hy ho «!f>ul'i not 
atop the o.'tr in it^. backward movf»!nQnt that the reverse lever 
beooae stuck »o thvt he c^uld not move it back, failed tooth 
to ;3?iut off t>i9 ole-3tric ,?ov#or and to apply tho brakis aftor 
the car oturtcd backward. Ve thin« hio o\fn ovidoncs was 
such a») to juatify b^li^f that frorr bin mrmifcBt inoxp«rience 
a?id ooafu3ion ho n»?j;l>.^t-!d to rfsort to either of aald rteane 
the exeroifc^i of 'Aiach wr>uld dcubtleRf: hnv«? prevented the 

But i'e think Uu verdict wfe-ib; excesT-lTe. The 
evidence of the extent of plnintiff'i- in jar ion an-i how far 
tliey iHipiiiv-ftd tithir hit p^^rrw^nent health or ability to 
wory, iB not s)u iiivtisf otory rn it ehivjid ba. flis principal 
injury ee»»i»» tr hitve been th*? dislocntion of hia Brm w* ich 

^t»aB imirediataly set. Ife w< ^^ l*<id up in b«d for seven ^^c.ko 

when hi-«? doctor told nirn he coJ.d go to work and/roTjuincd 

If.bor of the same kind in ^^hich ho h.-^d b«^ previounly 

anp;fif;'»d, thjit of s:.uoaf,'e raskinj-;, nn(5 in wislch he remained 

lit imdimininhed tmgea for abi-ut a year, when he laid off 

for four monthjj, claiming tlti^t he hid pains in his arm and 

otiier r>«r tr. of the tody. He conrtuitod no ph/eicinn, but 

actlnf; on hiv ovm ju^^gmsnt tr.^at'.ri him««lf at homo with oteam 

bftth*. He thwn vent bnck to the work of B»U3«pe rrmkinr. for 

thre'J months. -hy ho loft it does not appea^r, unlosa to take 

the easier work of tying pork loino tOrether »t wirich he wae 

employed ..t the time of trial. He then ffot $12 p^^ week. 

prior to the accident be received n&. J'or » ye»*' ^^^^'®^ *^« 


Hdi ^nliif sw t rojjrjtt jr poi; aeqjt bst: Id oXwi oifi niiiiif/ suioo oi 

-ntitlq ni n"Wp<;X w'jw levodarft . 1o iiriu-ilqasoo oonaslXRsn 
,n«tnto^ow ©)(* lo >tnr>«i*o»* atii ^d bolXqqi/a ouw Tioo-iq ami^ 

T0V9I 98TJVP1 »f{;r Si'.tii snfiiK^vom ftrtjstrato i.c !>xti qoia 

£tfotf beXXxj'J ,>toj;cf ii 9Vom ion hXiioo (»Jl ^TmHj r,:, Aouia •ntuioiid 

SiMF sonsMv© rwo ulH 2?nicfi dY .biiww;{»«d boj^ujja a«o ©xli 

•>fft b3J'fTS)V«>T[0 ^T/u( :!0©X.trf^;ob fcXii'^y' 

'Xis'i wor( b.if:^ 0!)iix/t«t .•■.■♦l^iinZiiXq lo irt--.t:ci nsii lo eon»iii:v.> 

oc» Y.-JiXicfjr3 to fi3tnin{ ^nonrj-.n' ja^iwqial y;sili 

Xnqlnnliq »!> -rfo *i . -. lov, 

OJ[^^ow noTOR 7ol bi»tf fiJt qu bi«X 'U**' «»H .*«» \:X©*«lb9onmi ni^w 


yX !>rf rfolifw nJk bniaC Muit «rf;r "to io<f^X 

'^lo bXx<'l mi aC'ilv.- , *iv«!-i x; ^:jccf^ lo'.t aajSii.;- iiDrinini^tibrnJ .t-s 

fam? ro^cB Biri nl anXiiq bt«ri eri #«ii* ^fliaiieXo .wfinooa xtfot lol 

;>i;cr «n;-tni:nv/n art b«;JXimrtoo »H .v;I)ff-f -^K* "to ai^-Xijq teilto 

ffuj»ifQ /t.ti: !(ild btyiaett tnmv lt( no ^riti>» 

lo'f -■jiiAtm •3««ii : '.t-Brt 

-Aat Oi attiMyw »1;;3i;,Qf. ion i'-iol .U -•'ivi nil '^|)\ .viJirOt^ r^«»Trti 

yjw Off rinirf#W« t»tli»-^ot litttol iLtoq, :gatxi "^o -^^f'^.- ti-ilHisy ©rii 

.sCeow "^P^ !fiCijt to« nfttii oil .X«lrt* tc •mi f i)!^XoXqai«» 

oM teJ"' ixi'i . vXa t'iU'ioooa »rt ^ftwfcino/! oiU o* loXtv 


uocid'^ni hi-i waget. wuro from |30 to t'^sJ How much harder 
sausage -■aking it, thun tying ioina the reoor-l 'io-eo not din- 
elot.e, nor \fhy plain^.iff is^.y not Htill foliow hio forraer 
occupation, for hn aoerau to a:ipcrience th«j Knaae pains in 
•&ch kin;! ol" vfox'i:. 

H»^»ever, ho ovi.lcntly exp ritricod ao.-ne limiLritinn 
in UiO iioo ui' hii ri,<ii5. urja ur\:i bodily painy iwid uhivuid have 
eomp^r.aation Ui«iral"or, ,sut uay other ctisubilities Llint re- 
Bulted froai the iiccidanl avij aoaewhat conjuc vUii*l, >;i wiy 
rate very isea^erAy tuia;>f ;iOtorily aiiO«n, 

TJio accivicnt occux-rod --ugujt riC, HaM.. . ua ceaued 
to hfjvc medical uttyniaijco an i rc-uuiucfl work ' ctob;,r Scith, 
The tr--i.itifle,nt ht, rr-ir.wivsU Trora his physician awido fvop. 
nhB«4fin»/ the bandafje on riio urm coneieted of rubbing hie back 
slth medicine w}iie}-i hia i»ift> coiitinucd to do for four months, 
He haw noL B .u^htnor rccoivof'. rr^idicai care jinj;a, Hio 
pbysiieiHri die. J b-i-roro t]ic crini. ; e Ik appartmtly arx ii^orwii 
mon with iittl« iaiowledge oi" thi- haimtn anatomy or Uie CMUsea 
of bodily illh. Thts verdict siis basad on his ratlj»ij' unintclli. 
gible dsBcriptioii of Uitm., -.itJi ut the aid of f^^xxy m«}aical 
toatiiaon/ as to l:iH phyaioal comJi ■,ion, or tii'j B^riouftness 
or ^fumG of th • oeendriKly J^^inor troubie^i, Kaiio froni iJio 
condition of his ttnn, of nhit^h ;ic corjpl.iinod, if tiiey wore 
nf tx aorions of p«rifian«nt natur<i and rojanoaably attributable 
to thr; Huci'jent and auch aa to iwpair hin iianHrai h^jaith or 
<;~.paci%y for -irk, It is difficult to \ir.dorstnni vrhy .-aedicnl 
testimony r'^l^tinfj; to hio condilion ttnn noz produc4»d. The 
esidence Is by no in^nne convincing n,:' to thu extcuT; cf cither 
his pJivaictil iBapnirTTfint or sufferings, or whether ho may not 
atill do the work he haa done in the paat f>v^n oin.t the 
accident, or whether th*? difference in wages between thooe 
received forn:thref» months prior to tho trial and thOBe re- 

HiSJ it i\ il>.m V;'U1!. *dS<^ 0t 0?-'4 IHQt't &'l\)-'-> ■.^•J^i..>J1 i'i.H Ju:«'.'. 

-Git) :^ou oi'Ob bioo'j'x adi «rtioX ^ni\i nttsiJ ei ^jaiai* v o::, 
imirol ciif \foXXn't XXidfi Jon X'*w lliJ^iUiiid X^er '- 

•wail bluoiiu bcm wniflq \iXiborf bn^ avxii Jiii,X-i fcifi 1o tiia/i ©riJ ni 

.n(5'z1 t>5i«Fi« njiiaia%riq axil mot't ii»vit>r>s«"s; »ri[ ixncwJ***-** »rff 

aCotiCf Bill aaitfJiTX lo LioJulonoo raxo lUu iic »^biie«f »dS ^nXjanarfn 

. ^rftnom 'xyol lo'i ob o3r bQuaJiSuco 'H>li«r hX£{ dnidw »tiiriib»m r*ihf 

aiU ,»oniK otuo X«jolb&.T! {)yvi(>ar..i •j;on;rxIi^W5a Jon »eif 9V 

."<j8ifK0 ^■/iU TO \;mo^i$fba timm^ii iilJ 1;o s^ts^XwoiiX aXJ^Jli di iv nam 

4XX«if«lm/ ^jiiWivj. eXr{ no baaiicf e*w ioXMeiv »ff'' .rtXXl ^Xifjocf lo 

Xaaliiom x^-h to hla atli 3u dSL'n ,au*df lo <ioi;iqiii>B»l> 9ldi^ 

oil! moil r.i.iu>4 ,b»Xdufi^ lonlin xX%inX(At»iie ?ti^ To oist'fjn to 

&10V \siiJ tl ,bi.»nl*iXqiiioD oiv rioiHr Ic ,m"!t^ nid lo noiJ-ibnoo 

aXcTjjjd-ucfiij^t;! xlrimiOP.ssMt bn» e^uiAn ^n»rt«nn«(f tm eifoiioe a Itn 

XnoXbi!»m xrftv Xnij;^»7obmi o;^ iXnolttlfo al *i ,iiO',7 lol Vi='-^«'^- 

wrfr- .btjouboiq ^oix a»w aoiJibnoa nkd oi ^atfj&leii \iiomiSr»i 

'aoix» «£tJ oJ- sfl snlorXvnoo afw»ai on \d el «on9bJt»» 

>'j.t oK -icrf^Qriw 10 .ajjiiXiPtTrwiB to J mjitriloqiiil X«oJt«v,xlq «irf> n-vii cTsjaq onJ ni: onob ifui 9d Jfiew rjrft o^ Liiis. 

. . ..y»w^o<f 8«3j«w nJt 9f>n»>'io'n,ib f}di rfgrf^wrfw to ,;rnPbJtoaiT 

-»*I A80rfJ bn-n Xjxlii »rii^ ni tattn mrt.intun ^••irf.'t:nrrn'> haittant**t 

■ 4- 

ivtri i;rior to thf* ..ccid^ut racisuro* tha degree of physical 
iMipRlrment. If there: or« appciiet will enter « raniittitur 
r-f tjlCOC v.itiiin tfn ftr.ys tbe Judgmwnt ^ili. be cffirmed, 
Qthc/'wlto it will b< revt-rttad cud thf* oaUBe i«Kymcied, 


356 - ?1341 



/a^TOK J, C':iRMAK, 
Bailiff of the Wunicipay 
Court, i' 





193 I.A. 418 





Thln^wnnrttii reyLgyJn teult i tried Ijefore the c^urt 
without a Jury, "Fhe court found the defendant Cermak 
guilty and the right of possession of the pro,)erty in 
question in plaintif f,.fiala^ff»&»^-. 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 M otherwise presented in the record. The 

Oo-v-4,-cU,-a.i( W ''- 1^ '^i''^- i>. ^i^ ^. (••■ ■•! '■■■■' ^ wv"t^ V 

ly question prxiiierly b<t#ore «»' for con^ideratiojo-jji^the 


sufficiency of the evidence as to the ownership of the 

The property levied on consisted of a soda .vater 
fountain, a show c.', a safe nnd cash register in a drug 
store that hod been owned and conducted by Vincent for some 
years. Being indebtf-d to Gennaro he executed a bill of 
sale to hira of the drug stock and fixtures including seid 
property so levied on, on ..eptenber 19, 1915. Gennaro took 
possession on th:t date and sought to evidence the trwnsnction 
by recording his bill of sale Jepten,ber 22nd, }!e hirod a 
pp.rty to conduct the store ond gave Vincent desk room thnrein 
for rinother line of buoinesc. His possession seemt^to have 
been an open onc^. nd t'h. e.T^nm9~~BVtfiici^nt evidence from whicli 



x^eis - aa. 

»?iti>!ffAJ/iO OHACliia: 


saw MOfi^ JA.'<i^IA 

,Tia/oq Hoifi «iu£: 

, av 

^V1^ *'"M'. -y-^'■^'^ 




'*^Bqi i rtt{!| edi lo ' 1 a . . 

« -r ry f\ r 


811^ .A.I 861 

iiBmnaO ^ccBbnslsr ariJ bni.rol ^txuco eifiC .xxut e iuociiiv 

Jbfjxvsl e>iw y;;Jn9cjo'iq ©r£T ^^•AaacfsXaa.^lHinlisiq ni noxd-asu; 

XOJsqmoO oenoS nornmoO sxtt lo lovsl nx ;>n*>(nalbut « laiinju m 

to enoi^ieoqciq oK ,;tmioniV isxi^oicf e'saeicfjoIeO ^tBnxBj;^ 

on bns rioixe da blerf ©cf o^ J^ni/ro orii o^ boij imu'ija sisw wpI 

9iiT .b-xooBi erij- ni beinsastq eaJtwieriio m wal to nniiosvi 

9ri;t ^aJt=-»cht-^vs»»iii-hno{> «ot-«« •»o'K«f-^Xa«£|.cwMi no 1 J setrp yXnr 

9xfc^ to qlriaiom/o 9rfJ o* q« oonsbxvo 9ri:i to y,oneioi'i'iij'. 


I9icw BbcB a "io bedexanoo no bsivui x^ujcioiq srtT 

3i/ib B at TtalaiaBi rlaao bm.^ gljsa a .oucso woilo « .nioinuo • 

snoB tot ^i'nsDniV ^cf bo^toubnoo bnn bsowo ae&d bjjrf Jsxli aio-? 

'to IXi'-f J9 bf)^u;)9xe 9rf oicnnsD o* b:-;fcf9bni s^-lo^i^ , btb^y 

bJtsa s^^^-Coni BOii/i^xit brta jLooie :^u'ib Btii to (ni/i oj- oXfsa 

jfoOiJ^ oijBnnoO .t.XCX ,CX ladu-.o^qei; no ,no boxv»X oe x.iiaqoii: 

ciotiOi^Btuiii 9dS oonoblvw o^ cfiljjuou ban a'ab irdi no noxHaoseo;, 

a battd bU ,bnSS torfinsi^qe - oIbd to lild" olri jinibnoofli \,d 

(lo7ir(:f moci inab ^fnsonlV ovjEjg bno eioia «?riJ ;foijbnoo oJ x^i-' 

ovtirf oJi^(H99a noJteaoBBoq aXK .aesnioud to enXX isiliom; io 


to find that tha transaction wr^s ▼alid ojid^ free from f^^ 
unieae it cdntraycned the 7^ulk Hales Act^Tlt waa conceded 

^ that no notice of the sale was previously given to the 

Conmion Bense Company. ^-~^Bjjt_jthe court properly found that 4t 

. »ea'-n»*^ creditor at the date of th?"aa.^T^Y ^flhUe^^hnd^/ 

received an order from Vincent for gocda prior to said sale 
it did not deliver them until oubsequent thereto, and there iat^^j 
-«ft«e^othing Ift—tha-t clr<mHj43t«nce or nny otherl evidence that 
estHbliahed either in law or fact the rolationship of creditor 
and debtor between said company and Vincent prior to said Bale. 
We-ifind no occasion for dloturbing the judgment. 

bwciTt mort^ ©art hws btLsr row noiitoi\sc\js^i f»ri^ iJMiS bail Qt ^ 

• -- - r 

QrfJ' oJ- nsTJg Y-fswoiv3tq naw sXfse f^riJ' lo ^ol&on on d'arit t! 

sXaa f>j:/!0 oj- rtoliq Bhrsoig lol .+ n;jonXV moil Tibic rua boviaosi 
O«jrvo aierfi^ l)nB ,oJeT©rid' *n©upescfi;a XUmi msrf^ lavxXsh :fon Lib ;tj: 

io;til5eio "to qirienoiJiiXm sri^ Jotsl 10 ?reX nJ: isrf^is I>sri6iXef,'?oe0 ; 
, oXbc bt^a Gi loi-sq iAfivr.tV bne \naqaoo blan naevi&d loidsb baa 

• *noai8i)Ut s^* nvdc'tuSotb toI nolaeooc on bnil eW / 

367 - 21352 

PRjaLlCH, Deceased. 

ii'VA FHISILICH, individually 

and aa executrix of the I ) aPP^.^at vnniit inrw 

estate of "fOLF FRKILICH F ^^^'-^ *HOM TlIK 

deceased, * ^ i 

Appellant. / i CIHCUIT COtmT. 







^•^i^!5^ ^'^^^ DELlVIiRliD THIS CfPlNIQH 07 THE COURT. 

«»" /Appeal i» from an order^^aJTirming in effect 
an order of the Probate Curt directingfa^gS^^ ^ 
executrix of the laet will and testament of Wolf Freilich, 
^.^^ deceased, to pay out of funds in her hands^to two legatees 
I under the will^$1500 each, on account of their legacies 
\j thereunder. 

In *he condition of the estate we think the order 
of.^tlLe probate Court war, pren"ature^,ftnd nhould not have been 
u^ld. .lien -^tr was made /IT appeari^f that the executrix had 
in her hands #14,459,70, that the uncollected accounts of 
the eotate were deemed worthless and that were pending 
Claims Hgain^t the estate amounting to $4,495.10. It also 
appeared that ^^^^^^^^ not been allowed any compensation 
for her services as^^executrix, nor fees for her counsel. The 
Circuit Judge, on the proof before him, estimated that the 
latter might equal ■;17CP, and from the showing of record her 
compensation as executrix might aggregate, on a full statutory 
^lowance^f7560. .^iven if, h« contended by appellees, the 

Probate Court may have taken into conoideration what amount 
^ was properly allowable for her compensation and her counsel's 

GflCIS - VS€ 

V YllGiTbivihni .HOIJISfH AVa 

. irr MOfll JAJ^<J^ ^ \ (idi to xiT^wo^xa aa bum 

.HOIJIim^ ".MOV lo 9*a*a« 
,THIT00 TIUORIO ' ,bd8ja»09b 

t aRria. 

.yrmjoo >iooo 



;t03l"i© nJt gniionlTTjB^ nobio na oxoiTi «* Xoocq^eitflf 

-aA«"*<i»:t£*«t<^\:ynl*05tllb iij/oo e^acToi? srf^f to is bio m? 
,rioiIJ:9n'5 llo^ lo ^nsm^^esJ^ fcne Iliwr i bbI odi to xJ:n;tuo9> 

aeloca©! il&jrii to JniL/coo.;^ no^rioxis OOSXI ^Iliw 9iii -labr 

i0b:io orfJ- Ti.nlrli' sw oJ^iiiss ori.^ lo nvliitnoo &ri# nl 

noacf avisrf ;ton biworin bna 9'«iJ^;5xrt9'xq a/w JiixoD a if ado nU ©if* - 

bnd xlisuoQXQ odi .t«f(* VI.'X»*Qq«n^ ebiw fi!«w 3T- «ftrft .bi»l$^ 


to aSmJoooH bBiooLLootw i>d3 icdS (Or,!?8N^M^. abnari 'isxi ni 
Snxbnaq 9iow ein.nrfo .1p,di basi sstaLdiio^ bemcjab snaw QSc^ina orf.l 
oeXb ;M .OI.flG*^,*'! o;t sni^ntoma ojfiR^oa arfJ .t&ninS'O amlaj 
noicfoonsqpnon ^ns bowolla neod ion bjarf : ^srli baiaoq . 

orlT .loanuoo lari lot aost ion ^xlri uo&xdr^tia a&oiriaB isd to' 
9dS iadi beiiiTiiiao ttnid eiotsd tcoiq ©rfcf no .sabi/T^ iluoii: 
lori biooei to gniworfa odi moit boo ,OOVIy Ijaups Jrisiai ioi;t. 
Xioiuinist ilut s no o.tfi^\9i:^3a irfj^lm xiiiui^sxs aa noii'-anaqinc. 
arli ,898ll9qqa x/ff i>^bnattto , . odT$.9onsweIJ. 

;tn{iorri« J-^rfw noiinigblonoo oiai n«)iHj eveii \«m SiuoD 9fadoi 


fbaB when the order was entered, yet the fact regains that 
neither h^ad been fixe^, nor properly could be /'with cbt tho 
order of that court, wiUch presuinalSly would'tiot be entered 
wl4hout a proper hearing^ and showing,/ ^dw tJie record before 
^ttr indi cat eat that her aervices f.s executrix extt^nded over a 
considerable period and involved handling numerous transactions 
and large suits of mnney, aggregating over :;^125,00r, incident 
to closing out a merchandise business, collecting the accounts 
and paying the creditors;^ and ao the court might in the exercis* 
•f a vise disqxetion allow for the executrix's /d^omp^nsntid^il 
aiid counsel's fees a su'i; vr}<ich witli the unsettled liabilities 
miight, wlien deducted from the amount in her hands, leave in- 
sufficient to pay spiy legacies whatever, we think the order 
was iurenature and should not have been entered* 

Qdi iuk)dilv ^9(s/bluoo ^LrLiXiOiq ton .hexil Koacf bail leiWian 

enoiiOBi<r:xiti auoismyn snilbftBii bPvXovni fcriB boiisq •Xtfxsts bianco 

*nobioni ,O0O,fiSie i»vo ani*3aoT:>i3o ,>£9nr)m 'xo amwa ©3x0! b«u 

ccrnoooD« ori* Bni*03lIoo ,a88HliiJjd ftoibnarfoisffl b ;fuo s«iaoXo o;^ 

ni')i£X9 9ri* ni c^risJttn :^'xi;oo »rfi gs bno' xe'o^i^s'^o »^* snixecr bna 

-i*n8n©qmoo e'xiituo9X9 ari^ 101 if;oXI« noiiouoBib saiw « ^0 

aei^iXJtrfiaX bsXdJoanu btH .iiiw rioi'iw otwb a «f»l B.'XBamioo bjtB 

-nx ©vasX ,8bn«rf larl nx ^nuoras axW monl be;^Oi/bsl) nerCw .cTrfsitffl 

•xobio siH 2lnlrf* aw .lats^Bxlir aoio.aas>-t Xne. X^q oi ineioit'^ira 

.beis^ns need STBri ^on bXuoxf* brua siu^amsiui- MW 

388 - 21375 


Appellee, / } APPEAL FROM 


OF Cj!IC''.GO, 

13'5I.A. 4 25 


COJJPAMY, (CorA.) , / 



Aaid out~-itt.^e last ft 

Ap^AiUra^, plaintiff " boi ^ mg- ^ waa a nifmuf .-jcturer of 
cas tings /V'^A^w^sigWipU defendant •Ig'WiiHi^ wu-S ongaged in sell- 
ing "little ho.Jbeaold aavinge banks", Co.lled safes, Und^r 
arrangementii betwisen them the foi^inor wanufuctured the parts 
and assembled them, and sent monthly bills for the oanie 
which appear to have been paid regularly for over two years. A^ 
▼alnr-Uf -MeFfiTrnMnTSS aellT\Br«d -a»d fiaaJti 
ew montha of their dealings. Plaintiff 
claimed as due on ac5c'0Tan^-4ji,6^,195.92. Defend;mt clcimed a' 
set-off of over .'13,000, The c our t*'lff finding and judGment 
tf^^tn i'avor of plaintif i for 4-i, ril9 . 92 , 

This appeal brjJftjSfe^up for review the refusal of the 
couTL to aa.low three iterne of L.ct-off, (1) one for .■300, the 
coot of "fillers" inade by pltiintiff, find doliviired ;vnd charged 
to defendant againso its protest; (2) one for i5'J8,67, the 
aggregate of an increaayd price of one half cent ch.irged on 
safes rnado and furnished between October 1, 19in and January 
1, 1914; Uiid (J) one for :;^lO,28o.92 being for vhat dfifendant 
called an overcnarge :'or material delivered between pril 
1910 and oepterer-er 1913. 

ilaintiff ut defendant's request made a written 
proposition in 1909 to manufacture the perta of the? nnfe at 


aTfilS* - 085 


.d i'cU r±}:-'n DIT- 

.TRiJOo SHT TO HOI MI TO SHT aamivuaa iiffiHHAa iioiTciUi; •«« 

'xr>JbnU .i?oTu30 bell.tso ,"B3im5cr agnxvaa i»Xo»lad) or£ QLSSil" sni 

^ ©mi?a «f{J 101 eXIiu TilrlJ-nom Jnaa brie (Hisii;;} bsXcfmaaaa firui 

.BiBS-v; owi levo lol xXialuaw'i tljscj nasd ©vjBxi oi iBQqqm iloinv 

'ili^niBX V .a^^iitX^iSl) tlarf^f lo an';faom wo'i cfajtX arii, jai--;? iio biaq 
r, bQiiiix-ilo i tif^bnotoCi .SG.C&X^p^i; itmrob'ba no aui) sb JbaoilaXol 

, .0.cxa,£4,. wl "md-ni-exa to lovat nl e^V^/ 

odi 1.0 Xnauloi oxW w©lv9'i -xot qu ^»^:Jirt X^isfiqs eXrfi"^- 

&!i;i ,O0C;^ lol s>«0 (X) ,'tX:>'iou lo aat©Ji ooixi^J woXlw o3 Jijjoo 

fi'^ai^srio fwiu faaiC'jYiX;)!^ bn.n ^"L'ls:Jnlnlq y,d oSjsan. "anyXXi'l" lo i^aoo 

erf* ,V8.aj*ai lol sno (G) ;ieecfO'cq aj'i Janxiis^ inubtx'jlab oS 

no /3O3it;rf0 *nuo IXarf ano lo jtui-xq boBiiyxoni rw lo diB:|}8i:v,;[jfi 

y;T3tm«T. bxus r;XGX ,X -xsdoiioO nosw^Tacf i-bxlfsinijjl Jbrui ebam aetlsa 

^tttabnalob JjcrC/i 'lOl jjniecf 2G.S8S,0X^ •xol ©no (e) binj j^XGX ,X 

rf'r,. :.-£..,«•; ..rr ..-/^.-ii ,1 T . I; .v , ^ ;t -..^ ^Q'^ osiijxioiavo fia baXXao 

.£X&X iscfoisiqou bna OXeX 

*« sino sriS lo ej'iiaq erfj- siu*o#luitBra oi QOQl ai. noilxaoqo-iq 


certain specified prices which does not appear to have been 
acted on, defendant's secretary testifying that when it .ga***"*^ 
ready ta arrange with plaintiff to do its business, the 
latter raised its price. There was a futile effort to hold 
I^aintiff to its original proposition, put -whether it had 
Ojie-en^ accepted or not, plaintiff could withdraw it at any \ 
;ime ani def endan^^waa obl4g«tred-"tni^ -to -the extent of goods 
tctually„nrder«d( The subject of changed prices became a 
matter of discussion and correspondence but jfche„„r-e.COrd shows 
-Hmt- the goods were billed and accepted at the changed 
prices up to the close of the parti 3S' dealings, andfao^ttaHy 


paid for without protest up to the accruing of the account 
suod on. It is the difference between the prices contained 

J^ ^ in the proposition of 1909 and said changed prices for the 

material furnished that constitutes the so-called overcharges 

I inlaid third item. 

The basis of defenaant's contention with regetrd to 
said overcharges, - that it wp.s 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 right to do. Defendant 
may have been embarrassed tliereby 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, arid defendant was not obliged to accept 
plaintiff's new terms. If plaintiff drove a hard bargain and 
either took advantage of defendamt's necessities or even 
misrepresented the cost of manufacture, defendant having 
given plaintiff orders on the basis of the new prices without 

oGscf evsrf Oa Toaqqs cfo« eaob xtoiriw eeoiiq Jbsiliosqs nisJ-iso 

*ft^ d-i nsriw cfjBriJ- ^nix'ii^asJ' yxjeJ-sioea a^iasbnetsb ,rto bs^fo^-. 

9n\t .easniajJcT eii oJb o;^ "illi-nijelq rij-iw a^cm'xtB cs xb&ot 

blod o.t *^:o'>?:f) 9li;tjj'i js saw eisriT .aoiiq aSi bsntsi iqUbL 

bad ;tJ: isridsxiw *if£J . no ictieoqoiq iBnigxio ats. oi "I'tiS ai&i':', 

\ciB is .ti v/Bibiitlw bluoo fitSniBlq ,*on ao iis;tq9Q.0B usee 

ebooa lo ctns^xs erlt of X^t^ b9i&h.iJido asw itisbtis'lot tan ©oiXj 

£ suteosd' esoi.'xq hsgnarfD lo ^ooccTua 9rfT .*©i»i>aQ.„x-tJJBUtx>->« 

Bwoxie JbxOQ^tiL axLt. ;ti/cr sonsi/rtoqeeiioo £>xi8 KolGeuoaib "io iDJj^sm 

Jbegnaffo axiJ- is bsJ-qsoos bnis i)9llxcf eisw aJboog exfJ- -J^ttri:^ 

\;i.£«w#oJB J i)nB .Bgnxlasi) 'stiiisiq stii 1o auoXo aricf o^ qu aaoiiq 

j-nuoooB edi 'ic snxtrioojB sxiJ oi- qir iafiio'tq iundiivi 'iol LXisq 

Jbanx.ed'noo aaoxiq eriJ ns;&wd'Oor eonsia'ilxJb acH ei il ,iiO bGua 

Qrii lo'l Bsoiaq tsaiiario biaa bns GOCX lo itoiolaoqcvxq SilJ" ni 

89sisxfoi3VO bejliiso-oa ox{:l- uecTuJ x^enoo sadi badaicnul IfiiisJiii^ 

.ras^i biiri;^ blse"^ til 


0^ isiisssi ri^iw tioii noitioo u^ iasi^nu'lub to axa^d erfi' 

bssftsiio edi iqeooii oi Lsouinx a.^w ii iadi - , ao^-i^oiyvo bitih 

noi^tBct-nQseiqeieim briB noxctj3t;*xa ei^i. lo v^-t^tje^s^^ 3rf«^ moil asox-nq 

-■\csq Bii i&di boo ,9ii;cfoi.;lxja8m Ic Jeoo srfd" oJ e*. tlUnijaXq \;cf 

"X^q be^tuiiiBtioo eso rui& aoiuoiio doua ii>bmj eejj'ijsiioiavo lo Jnom 

SBW tl .alcfsns^rtu ^Xxoriw ax - iiosl 'io ©iiijJ-aXfli isbnx/ j-nscrt 

Bd-x bsxTrxboni 'i'iijnial*! .d-oeiinoo "io rtc.iid.euc s \;Xei9m 

^nsbnsleQ ,ob od" driaii £ barf ii. sb no bsJ-on 9iol:-ja' noiilsoqciq 

oi XbB^t BBW ^x es ieu'i \,dai9iW baaaaiiBcfma nsed svBif ^sin 

d-i/ff ,J-9:i'ij5m 9x1;^ no eeXoid^ia sit "io ^^qJi/o ©xf* •Dot ssxxbi-Xjs 

Jneniooio'tns lo aXcTaqBo .tnsJiwaigB on aaw 9:i9Xtt staii iadi Jb 

JqsooB oi bsaxXdo ion asv iacbaslmb boo ,v;J'XBq •xyiiJ'is daaiasa 

bOB nXBaiBtf biad a evoib ItiiaiBlq II . anijjj' wan a '"iiiJfllBXq 

nsvs 10 eeiileaQoea. a'driBbnalgb to sgBJnBVbB alood" t&diio 

^aiVBd inf\bn&'i&b ^^1uioatiJC^S!a Io isoo 9di be%fn9a«'xq©iBlnx 

iiforfixw asniia wan sili lo aXaBcf eiiJ- no aisbio lliJnlBXa nevia 

any binding conditions, and hs^vinf?; paidi for th ■ goods billed 
pccording to such prices, it vas in no position to question 
the validity of the contract cr the renf!cred accounts so 
paid which by its acquiescence therein becaine f.tated accounts. 
The terms cf the arrangement did not hold plaintiff to any 
specified cost of mtrrial, Tience, even though' it induced 
defendant to accept pricea on exa(;;,:;erated statements of sjch 
cost so that it might realize a greater profit, in view of the 
fact that the actual arrangement between the parties was f'^r 
specified prices to defend;ant, end not based on the coat of 
manufacture or of materials, there ia no rooT; for contention 
that there ^-aa a mistake of fact or for the applic.ition of 
the doctrine of the ri^'jht to recover back money when paid 
under a mistake of fact, hence the item for overcharcos was 
properly disr^llowed, and evidence relating to tho cout of 
niaterial an J manufacture wos properly rejected. 

As to the second item nontioncf], th.-it of increasing 
the price of each safe one half cent, ouch increase wt.s re- 
quired by plaintiff's letter of fctober 2, 1912 and accepted 
two days later by defendant, and i-f ondnnt' s occuetary so 
admitted, saying "I accepted it because I had to." :-^ut 
neither pnrty was obliged to continue the arrangement. The 
occasion for this raise wao the incre;.sed cout of metal, and 
defendant had reason to believe that if there was a reduction 
of cost of T.etal forner 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 he d manufactured 
ahead in anticipation of orders, we find nothing in the 
contractual relations of the parties T?'<ich obligated defendant 
to take or pay for them. There waa no mutual obligation with 


b'3lLid 3i)oo.^ ■:d} 101 tiaq anlrart has ,onoi.11l>mo 3nlhflxcf xns 

nniisaup o) aoliisoq on ni B£W il .ssoxtct rfoue o* gnUbioiDs 

03 ocfmjo:.njR Jbsicibnei sriJ- to ioi^iirtGo ndf "io -^i^flfcil^v &iii 

.8irruooo3 jba;J'a;^<2 ©mflOccf nloieiU sonooaoiupos aJ-J: ycT rioiilw bi.Bq 

XtiH of y.11fnlsi£q fclorf ^on bib f nema'^njatts erfi lo Bra'io;^ sifT 

beotjbni ^1 "ri^jjori^ novs ,9onsH ^lei'X'-jiBm to ifeor bsilioaqa 

'J', a Ic a^nacfia^l-i'.^a tsJBieBa-Bxa no esoiiq ^qaoos oj ^fuibnalsb 

srfj to waiv jii ,:fitoiq lo^oa-x;, s esilcen irioiui .tl ^rricf oa cfeno 

■ml e.GVi Bsi^tiisq aii n'3'!)wJyc' JnemsaneTis iojuioje ariJ- i adi ;toal: 

to ieoD erii no bsead toa bits .imbnctab oJ asoiiq b*ltlooqa 

rroi^riycfnoo "lot tnoo'i on «i aiorfi ,8XBi7.o;?jB»n to to sitr^OEtJunetn 

lo noil! oiXqqs ©jrfd lo't io ^oat to ojioiBiai & eav 9i9il.t ifiil;f 

Jblsq nariw ysnom /[Dccf levoori ol iilj^^i ?Tf.l to sjnliJ^oob 'jxil 

aj3w atigiflrfDnavo lot msJ^i orfl sonsrl .10F,t to ©jfaJexai b letau 

to ;f;;oo oxU oJ ■onlf^loi soasbirv btXG ,t»woll/:¥it'o \Lii>qotq 

thsioolot iLiaqoiCi eiw f)tuioiyiun&M baa IbIiqJb.t^ 

Sniejse'ioni to iydi , bGnojc;trioiii Tieii hnooos ■: di oi a.\ 

-91 SoW ssij^ioni rfouB eJ^nso tlHrl sno alse rfoi'.a to eoxiq sciS 

■stqQooe bnjs SUPI ,S i&doion lo;X e'tti^nifllq ^cf bQTXUp 

oe x^tJ'^QttO'JO a'^mrbnot- {• bm? ftnnbnutxih y,d mvSi^L sx^b ow;f 

iisli *' .oi br.d I oai/aoecf ft bsiqaooa 1* ^tiixsB ,!i 

arC" . i n&ciGr\n£i'irB odi 9i/nJt>.inoo o.t Jba^lldo esw y^'^^-I lori^xsn 

.)«« ,-L-:-,.t .5<n lo ;-ubo bst isioni ©rl* Qisr 9&ip.n eltlJ Tot noxsijooo 

noiinwbet a acw aiprfj tx iacii ev&tladi oi noD«ei b.i\d im^bnstsc 

oir3n;t J-wH .boiocfagi ecf ;txl3im sooiiq latnot X.Gi-»>" to ;taon to 

asw nafJ; bi^o ,oon9n .i^ootto lisxtf oJ ^onalnoo anibnlcf on saw 

,b9woIXj3alb Y-tii5QoiQ 
ipv^n sJ^iaq bsiu^OBtunam aot 00e$ to nali 3iU ol aA 

boiwJoBtXfOsni bs5fl ttXiJ niaXq rioxriw brw Jru-.Jbnotob ^cf b»iobio 

ortr nl aniiWon bnlt 9w .atebtto to rtoLieqlolina nX biJsrCs 

in/3bn9tnb beiBsiX'^io siointr Gotiiriq ori^ to znoiliiXoi lauSojRiSnoti 

riiiv nolif&nlLdo lauium on v.sw aiarfr .mari^t TOt \:iiq no ealja.^ o:f 


reapect thcroto, jsfoiicimit could not compel their dalivsry 
tint plaintiff tlicir ac leptancs. In the absence of mxy 
arrangement expr^^sy or iinplied au to a ourplua of manufactured 
articles or for defondtint to take u certain quantity or more 
articles tiian it ordered, plaintiff to^k tJ^e risk of making 
rcoro tiim (l«fendi,nt u^'-v fit to order, 

e iihould ranter the Judgment iJiat should have been 
entered below - the trial being withcjut a jury • which re- 
quir^>3 a. ravorsal of the judgment «ind entry of one here for the 
came p?.rty for an amount .')30C less, each party to pay hio 
o-wn costs, 

HEV.i;RS3D Ml]) J'JJOM'ST 1?0:\ APP?,LLK'-] FOH :p219.95. 


\isxilBb tl^Ad Xaqinoo ion tLuoo inahaa'ifii .oJ-sisriJ ifasqasa 
-"^n^ "lo sonoacT^ orii al ,toaniq..^ o£ -li-nii 'ittitdf.lQ rca 

9ionT lo ^d-ivtncup rtJtij;fi©o js 95li=i4 oi icmbno'iQt noli -xo coioit'^ti 
Sac:l£f:i to AiiX-i. a;iJ jfcoJ llli ai&Lq ,iio-isb'ic ;ti aeitf tiaXoiJ-is 

liOOJ 9V*?il t^;f- ae .r..jn.; itnofltgbiL' t, 9Ji.J" -la^^no tXi-oifc e^ 

-u'l rioiriw - Y'Xi^t J» ^uc^rf^fiw gnratf Xiaiii »fi;r - woXadf b9iQin& 

airi Xisq oi ^clTaq rto£53 ,88oX ''0£C' i^««.'CflT;3 rrs -lo'i xi'ir^q ©maa 

.ajooo rnv'O 

229 - 21624 


Defendant in /.rror. 

!<;rror to 
municipal co-rt 


193 I.A. 431 

thoh^al; LYON a. 

Plaintiff In /ror, 


MR. JO:aTiGS BA'ijfisa Drxiv?a'';7> tn^a opinicn o? Tim cn!!RT. 

BXalttiif^f— ift-«rr«r waa ohar^-ied on inform. tion with 


larceny of "on.: United otates of America Treasury Uote of the 
dencminKtion of five dollars of the value of five dollBro," 
On tricl bpfore a Jury het vnxs found guilty as oharj^ed in the 
inf orni <t ! on , on the vldenco of the prosecutin^T witnoBs that 
the property taken from hia was '♦a five ciollnr till," without 
further evidence specifying its kind or character, or even 
whether the bill of that denomination was money of the United 
States or some othor country. fc.uoh evidence preeente itx)*^ a 

re^^queetion of va^rience, as contended by counsel for th^ 
People, but~-«--fa±lijre to prove an esaential averna^mt of ihe 
declaration. The lsTf-»n this auh.ject adrnita of no diRcusa 
It is funda^mertial. ( Pc-onle v. Hunt , 2^1 llx. 446; Vale v 
ipaeul€' . 161 id. 309; ■> i U 1 ama v , P ^o pie . ICl id. 3fi2i Lory-^ 


''The jtadgfflont will he reioraed and naae remanded fo^ 
in overruliiif?: the motion fo^ a new trial. 

)t^Vj;Haij:D and nKMAKDJSD. 


.THrno snrr vo mi who I'^ht 


S.0 siTATii sorr in 


■i: iU:\L'{ 

,«IWYJ SAWriy 

IT ui .m 

stiJ lo 9tQ]l xiuaaat'l jBOiiumA to •©^«#i- be^lnU ^no" lo xnoo'X*' 

".aTBlIob srXI to fti/Xar sil^ lo «t«IXof) oW^ to noiJ^i-jniwcvh' 

ori* ni bojvifirfo a£ YtXlif>n bnuo'i nam eri X'^^t. » siot 'cf Lil-it n 

inrli eeonikw ^ntiuo»BO-(Oi »di lo oon»l>iv. aiU no ,no fji^mio'/i. 

.ijoii^lw ",IIirf ■xf.Xlo)^ ovil a" ttnw nltl moil n»afi^* X^i»Qonq sr. > 

n?»V9 'xo .•xod^o-BiflXln -so bnW ai^Jt anlxHodqa «on»blv» "xexUii 

betJiaU 9[iS le x^nom ft/iw nolis^nlnionub Syti:i 'to Xlicf orij loiii^s' 

B /hHt-n&nBH^iq aonsi>Xv9 rioud ,xt;tniioo •itnit(> omos •xo a»;^«.i 

^di lol Xesmroo boi>r!M^noo a*-. ,son>«i^t«v lo nrl^aaur •5© 

gpi lo in^miftriR Xal^noftao, n» svotq oi &iiJLl.uX b Sud ,©igot 

.itoiJBewoaib on lo etlmba t.ti&X;dU9 9 1 ttS rm frnl ttfT .efoliati\lo»b 

],r 9ia^ i^^^ .1X1 XtiK , iim\] .v oXgooS ) .XaJftiNfljibnul h1 J 

'^SaSbl J*^ '^^ XOI .elgf-H ,T tmtg tillJA ;«0C .M Xai ^gos 

.iiw ^fK'fliabtft »ifr / 

> niNtoiio 

.XoiiJ won i8 tol wttem 9di '^allvttnro 


556 - 20890 



ILLIAK. 0. Hl-TUILIN et al . , 

193 I.A. 432 

, This iB an apjpeal from 
a j^dfTxnent f or ,4'426,50, ei\tered in the County Court of Cook 
Coiinty, figaijiist 'Jilli&ia C.N^.egelin a^^d William Jenson.^ ap- 
pelllanta, in favor of Duane i^;^-JMt!6cocic and Grace -^abcock, 

rd3\wi,jp'ei^_ap|)c),le««, •'— — ""^ " 

Regelin, Jenwon &. Coiux-any, engaged in the real 
estate buainesB in the city of Chicago, h.oar o i ni*f ^-er—r^^v^ ed 
ta^.-«f«-4t«frel4n ajad^J-*n«Offtv> through R. 1, icCl.ituion, a aaleeaan 
effiployed by the:i, sold to a certain rfallquiat, a janitor in 
their eaiploy, a farsi situated m Kent County, tic^afean, owned 
\ by a j^ e ll eeOT^" -Kegel in and Jenson represented '/allquiat and 
* no corfimisaions or o Lher compensation for services therein 
^ rendered by He^;elin and Jenson vma paid by either of aji> p tt lT ee |f // 
Wallquist, as a part of the purchase price, gave to aj ^ e tT e y f^ 
his promissory note for .|75c, dated January id3, 191<c, bearing 
interest at 6o per annum, secured by a Uiortt^age upon the said 
farm. The negotiations in relation to the sale in question 
were concluded in tne office of liegelin and Jenaon, juane 
J, Babcockfc^,.« «c of t 4Te-~»preIl'Tg»jP^ testified that at that 
tirae he was introduced by lOinrion, to Lr. jenson^-etttrTnTTWr" 
^arr<iJ lnttl|jr{ thai, tne latter said to tiie witness, "it^ you have 
any j..ore dealinj^ s. we woula be glad to tiave /ou c -iiiO in , any 
1 e^ a ] trafi:iactions , cotuc into our of fxce y *^ • "« 

About a year later, ^ifullquist having defaulted 


Tau....' ;'T ;lio:; 

/> rt w r 1' r.. , • r» i,. 

S8=^ .A.I £ 

L ffltttilXJlV 




' tityi"iLl- 


1 ■ 

iii9i ail* nl Ijesaaa© 

, v;noq[fflo 

, ,nJt.£s39M 



, c;«R»4* -a::-; 

ai •; 

lOJia'.-t, IS »j4ij.i;pi 

),\ i;jt>J-I- 

■)',! y 

oj i>Ioa .icai 


\i) jja^o 1. i-- 


,rtJ3ai*vOli» ,v , ... 

■^ rx9A nx 

btt^auJitu snat a 

t '" 

•.>l.a;,:> ii;>j. 


JstffpiraVf i 

.-r fioftrt^t. 

^RB njtX«39:, 


[»rtJo. «o 

8' • 

; ■ .-J J V n-j , . > Q IT. .V <=} a.F$^i 1 ) 

J:l ■ 

v.i,; JO ^ir.r ;.2 


: , J ,^ i i jp i i f^ 

. ,i»Xei ,£ii ^t;u. 

vci. bjinb 


Sr^ lol £>:to 


}n-ill:.1;l C J. 

i>anisc .noanal. itaa ai,iaa»H lo ' bttbuianim »-x:^> 

in his interest payaents, Irs. imucoGK^-«iwr af- -the flki7pel-t«e*> 
called at the office of liegelin and Jciison» r>ict jr. kcKinnon 
and aaked hiia to direct aer to a good lawyer and testified 
that LicKinnon replied* "y/hat do you want a lawyer for, we 
do timt kind of buaineaa rit;ht hereV In February, iyi2, 
Uuano J. ijabcock callfc^d at tiiC oifice of jet-, el in and Jenaon, 
relative to the collectioii of the interest on the .vallquist 
niorti.;R4.^,e and testified that he then and there said to JiCKinnon 
that Jenson had told him thnt if he "had BLtif trouble or wanted 
any le^ol advice, to comf; to that office"; that kc' innon told 
him that Vallquist was still working for j?egclin and Jenaon; 
and tnat they could ^^rraniie to collect the iMtei^e^t froa v-rill- 
quist. Later and during the sajuke ruonth, Duane Baucook fur- 
ther testified that in response to a telephone call fro^ ]„c~ 
Kinnon, he went to Kegel in and Jenson* 8 office and was there 
infont;ed by c; innon, tiiat } egeiin and Jenaon Lad obtained a 
loan from wullquiat of ^IbLL on the fax;;. In question, and would 

pay ■ afrpcll ee P the at.ount due theo; on the mortgage if the 
witness would come to Hegelin and Jenson* 3 office witn hla 
wife, ^and endorse the uiort^agc and note for collection, v^-.ich 
V j JtJell ' KT s did on the aucceedin{.:. day, 'jn iida acciision ncitiier 
of i^TCllcffli aaw or talked with any one except kcKmnon, _. 

while in said office, nor had talked with either of j^p (|fe llan ta 
relative to collecting, throuj:h them, the' note and mortf^age 
in qu«*ation. 

KcKinnon teatified thr. he told nypqllant , Jensen, 
he had a r-iortga^ve on the farm in Mci.ictan and aaked .lenson if 
he:, r.c/> innon, could put it through Jensen's b.'^mk for collec- 
tion, but did not mcntxon the name of the parties to the 
mortgage. Having obtained Jenson 'a consent, the mortgage and 
note in question were jl-iced by ;. cKinnon with Kore.iian Bros, 
Bafiking Co., Chicago, for colioction, r.ciinnon testified he 

,i,.nMii .;-• ,,^oi.-,« .... ..^-i,,.- ,r, ,, la aoillto »ri* ta b^ll 

t-siT. ■ 7:f>\;v/n[ '^rj--; r: c.t idd iosiJcb oi mid b^-ABa L. 

i:\. " .coii.iOT npfiniHori Jxs. 

.aoonsL btm nlXasoH Iw ajii.. 3 lino sfoosdjRd .T. oaci 

*«Jtjupri«W dxii no JBSTtdtfnl du- iu > aJo»IIoo •sriJ oi 3Vi;f>iX 

'oafil;io.rf oi bins ataaJ t.ui .;' iJ bA iadi b9itii*9i baA saAaJ-t 

boJadw YO •XcTuotJ tn^ t Jnxi^ sdA b£o) bad aoea^T, )s 

bloS aoaai'Ur. iR^ii ;"9oi*i1o Jb.U oi smoy o^ ^aol^vbn Xaa^I y 

;aosa9X, l>nii niXs^sfl lol i^nlsliow Xliia saw ^elupIXAV ^itrfi itr 

-ilov xaoTil J^sa-jaJ;; *• ■ ■ •■ o o^ ajjn-o'S'i'^ JbXi/oo xtnii incii t)4.r. 

-01 Aotl XXbo oaoilqsXsi a o^ »«aoqa»'x al ixuli i)9ilXJttsi tto. 

9is>tli a««r ban sollto e'nGansL baa alXft^sH oS in»v ait ,nonni 

s b^alBido b&xi noanAL ba& aiXs^ft.f SbiU .aonni i xd baano'l 

bli)0\" ban «nox/esi/p ni axel ©xl^ no 00<JX8 to itiivp'^-- ■ -^1 njs..* 

9i:iJ "^i r5i-!:;^rora sdJ no iti»iii awh Inuoiius or..: ->*?• ^ccc? 

t noanoL baa nll^S'H 0/ 9Kca bluovt aaenj^ 

tol »ioa bna ^^fls^moei *iii 9«io/)(i9 bnn^ ,9liw 

Tt.-ji-,-: iiuxuiitiucj eXiiJ nu .)c«lj anXJousooue aAi no i)ib eailrftw^Ji 

.^^^finiXoil iq9aX9 9no vine diiw b93tXB^ xo mna iwalXwityi lo 

t - I0 icoittls iiilw bsiIXfl^ l)«xl ion ,9oi1to 51«b nX aXirfw 

a^ii ;J-iom bna 9loa ^Ai ^laatU A^uoxiii .aniioaXXoo oi 9vii«f 

ti noensi, b«>>iai} Lna naijiaox i nl mtal oriJ no »:^jbjj*iom m bnA 
-09XX00 lol 3ffv(J e'noenst xlai/oiiiJ *1 J^q i^Xwoo ,aorinl::\oa , 
9ili oJ ajjiJxeq axU 'to 9uu»n »rii aox;fnafli ion bib iud ,nc 
btiA •liB-si'iota •Ai ,ia9«no9 e<no«n»L bnnXJiJ-cfo i^bItaH ^sgisaia 
.tso-xa njeuo9ToM Aitv vrf bao^Xq gtavr noliasup al 9i^ 

did not remember whether he instructed the benic to credit 
the personal account of Jenoon, or the firm account of Hegelin 
and Jonaori, witi; the proce-edB of isuch note and mortgage, when 
collected. Jenson toatified that McKinnon informed him that 
the mortf^afje in question belonged to fccKinnon's wife and 
family, AsoKinnon, Jiowever, stated that he did not tell Jenson 
that it was a family ftiort^^^ge. i^cKinnon Ams connr:Cted, re- 
motely, by marriage with kra, Babcook, who testified that sh« 
had not previously seen kcKinnon since ahe vma a cialu. and 
did not reco<^,nize hi:u when ahe saw hiru m ti.ichij,an, at the 
time of Uie negotiationo for the sale of their farw. Jenson 
testified tiiat -.iht^n the bank called him up and infortued him 
mat they hnd coll eo led a ;uortgagfc and wanted to knov/ v/}^at 
to do v.ith it, Jenoon informed the bank that he would refer 
the matter to Kcliinnon, He atated that the mortgage was 
credited to his personal account, and tliat he drew checks 
o^^ainst it, payable to the order of Oinnon and the latter^s 
wife, respectively, which checks were delivered to j cLinnon 
and cashed by Hegelin and Jenson, ana the money paid to i^c- 
Kinnon thtrefor, in tiieir office. The checks referred to, 
Uiree in nuoiber, were in the agn rebate suui of $73b.<;b. 
Regelin and Jenson had no other collection at the bank at 
that time, Jcnaon testified that Lchinnon was then indebted 
to the firm in a sum rangin^^ from ^Zbo^OU to $'6i^u,CU, on i.ay 
24, 1913, i^cKinnon paid to Duane J. Babcock, 2S£J^i>^'-'-i'Eie'''&^"*' 'V 
Igt^iMBttBt <[^4U0.0Ci on account of Uie prooeeds of the note and 
fflortgage in questior;, and, tliereupon, i^abcook fr.ave him n. 
receipt as follows; 

iib^to oi Ajoadi 9iii fa^dowiienl oti t9iU9tix t9fir,\9mt ton fell 

n-kX9s»>1 lo SnaoQOA arcl't 9di to ,«oiiio«t, 1o inwoooje Ijeaoa7r»q -^riJ 

-3tfon iiojjfc 10 abooootq; axli lUiw ,!io8hoX, bnn 

Jo-iJ -.ix..i b2...'i<i1ai noftnl.iPii JuiiJ b9ili.tBv?l noan»L ,i)9;ro»fIoD 

i>n« olivr a'aonnlMOjl ol iJsanoXocf noiluwi/p «i •sj83-*to« oxIj 

no»n9l, XIsJ^ Joa bit oti J»».i bs^t^J'u ,-x«»v»woit ,iton«iXOiii .xXlm^'i 

-dT ,Jb3io?nnoo «flw nofinDJOAi .aaA^^'iom >cXimnt * ^t"^ Ji md3 

bofl ,i>Xlilo A aim siCe 9311X8 nonniXoM n«»B yXaifoXvsiq ;}on bjiii 

»il^ J°ii ,u£i;jXtioi:j ai uiiA «/«« 9no nsiivr miii ssXni^ooa-x Jon bxL 

iioafi»U .iiii-cl iXsiU lo aX«a »iiJ lol •aoXJ^«ll:tos-»fi fJi:^J I0 sinXi 

miil bsanolnx baa qu inirf bsXX^o Tiand 9tii n jailxiae;! 

i«£[w won^i oi bsinKMt boa 998311001 m b9Joolioo bsix x9tit s»dj 

tst^i bluov 0d iBtiS -Anad 9tii bAxniotnl noen»T. ,iX iUX^v ob 0;) 

dfrv i)3Ba.tT0« 9di JHfU bdJe^B •){ .nonnlJioii ol lajTlAm 9tL^ 

asiosria wdib 9ri JfulJ baa ,i(iuoo'9fi XAnoa-xsq aXii oi b9itb9ti. 

'xoiiAl 9At bna aonalAaii. lo t»Mo 9C(i oi aXifa^Aq «fX ^anlAs^^ 

nonnlylou o^^ bsusvXXsb »i9v a^99Uo doliin •Y.X9Tii09q«9'X «9txv- 

"O'A oi blBq x^nom oiii bits ,rto«iT9L. biui nXl9S9^^ X,^ b9ii8«o bn>. 

toi bdiTslai aiosrio aii'l .9oillo tX?>aj ai .tolat^ju nonnX 

.SS..(!£V^ lo iioiia 9.»e»9Ta3A oiii nl ti9w .Yacfiajjn ni aaixi:' 

d^a itnAtf 9ili .^js noXd09XXo9 tf^iUo on barl noanaL bo« aXX9^; 

bdi(f9bni nsili asv aonni'doii tmai box'tiimai no«n9l, •9«li iaiiJ 

•Ji, oi uo.ud^^ moil ;{alAnax mi& a nX anil 9iii oj 

JO .AOoodaa .L 9fl««a oi biaq noaaX.>jOii »fiXi?X ,*i. 

l^aa •4'on 9^^ to ttb9900'xq aili lo inuosOA no 00. Ou^ ,a««&i$^' 

.;u , .ocfAd «noq4i»i9iii ,bnfl ,noiJa3wp «i ajjsjjiiioo 

:a«roXXol •« iqx909-i 

/ »;^400,(:i Chicago, any 24, 1913, 

' ] er. "ived from t' , 1. ucXinrion 

Four iiunJred dollars 
to be deducted froai collection of note for 
;;750.0C beint? Eiortgage on fur-i in ! ent Co. r.ici'i, 
. iXiJtne J, jiabcock," 

i ci inrjon iMforraed sifpj^eirirevw at that tiimi, according to ap- 

l>-s-l4^e<^s testiriony, tnait such payrncnt waa in the nature of an 

advancp, and that i/allquiot hf<d not at tiiyt tijue paid the 

riOrtt:fij;c and note in question. Jo furtiior p-irt of the monsy 

collected on 3aidj.ncte and iiiortgage has ever been received by 

cither of/ ^'i- 1 11 <iH| , who wade repeated deiaands upon 2 cJ.innon, 

nnd later upon Jonson, for the unpaid balance of the moneya 


During the aunmier of lyio, i rs, if.nbcock called 
nt tne office of Hegelin and Jeneon, v/here lihe a^ct Jenson and 
testified tnnt ahe informed hiwi that she was there to learn if 
the money upon the mortgage had been receiyed, and tjtat Jenaon 
aaked * v/hat mortgage?* that irs. J«abcoak rejlicd, "Vhe wall- 
quist ;.iortgnti;e you are collecting, for us," th-t .Jenson upon art 
exaniination of the firoi books told h<3r that the aiorti^^age had 
been collected during; tae syring and that JtcKinnon received 
the money throui?h tiie office of Refeelin snd Jenaon. A short 
time trjereafter, iMane J, .nabcock, her husband, cs'lled nt the 
office of hRK-'lin 'inJ Jenaon, an there saw Jeniion, and tes- 
tified thPt he told Jetiaon that he wanted tlie money on the 
Wallquiat raortgn^^e; ti.nt Jenaon said he knew nothing about the 
joortgage «nd tnen, upon looking at the firn books, jenaon 
further aaid, ".Veil, h<:re la " ♦ '^ the deal of the fara on 
the bookB, but I don't see nothing else," and ha, Labcock, 
reilied, "That is funny. I brought it in here to deal ti^rough 
you people becauae you said you could transact ?ixiy buainess 
of that kind," 

licKinnon continued in the enipioy of iietjelin and 
Jenson until April, i914, Jvi^en, according to the testiiaoriy of 


tot !»ioii to aoiso-. 

cui lo BTuSnn fjriJ nl B«w . 

Y-)fioLti 9ti3 10 Jtaq •xoiUiul Oil .aoiJTaeup nl ©ion brw a^ajsi';.: 
xcf tovisotJi naotf "xara sAri OHa.'^J-xom bna erf:; / boJaoiJ 

,nonnx:io I noqu abrtAuob bsiasqai afa^aw oxivr ,- .'. ^pXlo tarfJ 
^X9aoia 9sU lo aoriflXstf blnqnu »xli lol ,ao«rt?)L noqu laifll i 

ball^o siooodAU .ai:! ^i^lQl to idmau/a OilJ ^nlix/a 
i>ne nottr.aL J'sut 9iid sinrltv ^no^nSu ban ail^nfifl lo 9oil^o sjiJ 
U niaal oi atoxli amr axle iJBxIi raiii iȣ>iirzolni aria ^ari/ bdlliifj 
aocnal, JCiiJ bna ^borioo^x aaad b«ii aj^Ajjiioffl rndJ noqu xonom ' 
-II^w axiT* (bsiXaoi ;iloootfa& .a7!i< iAdi "fasA^i^OM ^«xiV. 
!« noiu noeitffX. Jr.di ".aw lol aniioaXXoo 9t« uvx 9^^Sx6m ihi'-- 
bsui &-^i5y.\iT0m eiii iatiJ iBii bloi a^ood anlt 9iU lo noX^fsniiiusxs 
berXaooi aonaUSaU iisrii boa anXiqa Oii^ ^aitub beJaaXioo noi'^ 
iT:oile A .nocaal, baa alXdaoH lo -^olllo '>eii ifr««otri* X*"'^'^ " 
Oilif Sb bdXXiso .fcoadeud lajd ,;. . -ts^lflato 

^cifiS bae ,no«a9L wiB« ot^^ , ioeuai, on/s niX»aafl Ic 

3iii no v.etnoin <9xiJ b^Jai/.- ,., i rsLi neonate bXoJ ini JBsii box 
9dJ iuodss aniiUon wawsl »xl h; -g n...:n;. J'biIJ jas«3*'xom rfeiwpXi 
aoenal, ,a:(ood mtll o. -^cqi.' ^cniii bns 9^3 Jv 

no moAl ini) lo X«»l> ©x.. , Ui^'T:** ,bl«« i:!»il;r-xi/l 

; aaa i*aob X J'l/tT ,it;£oocf -^ 
;!;;'; .■ ;.fv.:.' (.,; ot^^', as 'i J ..:/.; o-xd I .\rnnul ul **riT» ,i>nlX'l!5*t 
a8«nlt;«;d Y'l'" iOB»:i';vii fciijca v.ov Lli;c xitv mnuiiOQii aXqooq ucv 

•,bat-d iutU 'J«. 
jbn.B ni .T nl b^unLJnoo aontitioA 

Jenson, iicKinnon voluntarily ter.iiinated ala eitploy/Jicnt. Upon 

oross-exaKiination, Jenson was naked the following questions and 

made the following ans.vers: 

"ifc. Isn't it a fact that you in fuiswer to my qucation as to 
miotuev or not you had collected the money on this mort- 
Kage said you had not? It. that ri^ht or .vron^;? 

A, 1 don't recollect juut tiie conreracition at tuat point, 

^., And after I told you that the bank Iresiaent had informed 
lae tiiat you and oclli\cted that iuoney then you ad;^iit 
tnat you had oolleoted itv 

A, ^ell, you knew it then if you-- 

(^ Yes, I Jcnew it. And you did not tell me until after 

I told you th.v.v. the- brink presi^Jent informed lae that 
you had col]octed it, 

A, I don't just recollect the conversation." 



The errors assigned by tne appsllants.^nd relleil 
on for u reversal of the Judgment are, - tiie adiriisaion, by tjie 
court, of testiiiiony in behalf of the appellees over the objec- 
tion of appellants; iatproper conduct of counsel for appelleeji; 
improper and prejudicial rei-'-arks of the court, in the presence 
of the Jury; the overruling of raotion to fina the iHsues for 
the appellants at the close of appellees' evidence, and again 
at the cl06e of all of the eviifince; the overrulint: of motio^ 
for a new trial, sjid thf-t the verdict and juufinent arc ex- 

The main question nriaing out of the action of 
the trial court relntes to the authority of a ualesman of j 
njpellants to collect the proceeds of the note and laortRagc of 

Appellees never sustained any business relations 
with hegfclin and jenson, prior to thp. sale of the real estate 
in question, kciClnnon and Jenson both testified tixat Icisinnon 

unr, Bnoid&iii.:: v.ntnoi lo'X snJ ii;«.:ic.»-. k •:^w aoan»'. ,noi:iBnl.'!iox»-«>i' in 

:si:»Y.iia« gnxwoliol etlJ 
oJ a« aoiicuui) Xfo. oJ iidweiia ni uo^c iAdi iant n ii i'n«I ..." 

.inioq Jb^.- j<-; nou . isirnoo aiU Jbi;^ io»lXoo&t i'nofc I 

f)9cnolni b&ii inoi^ltBtl iLaMd mtL$ ituii uqx bio J 1 tniX* bsiA 
ilixiba bik' uo\ ii»iiJ Y^nom tMdi bsJo XIoo bix. uox Jfi/U 1' 

ftl fco.1o©Xlot> i>fiii «ox *5^ i 

--jjo^ Ijt a»tLi Si vsnx uo\ ,1'. 

1B3J.H liittu »xn IX»* *on bib vox ^aA .:fi w»n>l I .e^Y 

,tl &• 3^3'* I loo ftnxl i/oY. 

".noiJ.«ct3vnoo raij ^o.^Ho09-i Jftuc, i ' ftcfc I 

-yji tcd" ,noiB8ltnbj8 9ili - , ana ;fns>m!)bijj^ »xi* lo Ii80i»v»'X a "xo't n 
-^t<'o mii lavo a^IXsqqA 9iii to iranvd ai xnoioliltsi lo .iii/c. 
;69aXl9qqA rot iBaauoa to <ioubaoo tt^qoiq^X :sJru3lX0qqB lo noi. 
90in989-x<i 9iiJ nl ^iruoo ojii to saLxs.'is'x XaioIbuC^-xq bos isquiq 
lot esuoal 9iU tn-ilt 0* noi^fom lo ^nlLuixnre *il^ ;>Ci«l ^^ "^ 
:iX£|)B bas ,9on9<..tY3 *B09XI.<>qq« lo 99019 oai iM aiiuallsqqfi 9i] 
.olioifi lo ;^niIuii9vo 9ri^ ;99n»bilrft sili lo llr. lo »aoIo ^xii J 
-X3 31.8 ^a9flr3but, biifl ^3Xb'X»T 9tii ^sMii btiH ^lAlti van s %<.:' 
I • . ,. , , 

lo aoiioa osU lo iijo .vjiiiva^. . ....x^ja:,^,' 4*0.^..; ja, 

lo ciSBilislAt: « lo ^^iiouiuA »xiJ oi B9ial9r''^i(Xuo9 iMiri 9ii 
lo 93^^^1001 bait Bioa 9iii lo obogoolq sri;^ ioaXIoo W t^niiXXAqi 

^aoitfisl<»7 aasnieutf x^^ bsnljitiai/tt t9T9a a^aXXoqqA 
t».^fi^a9 Xaai odi lo 7X«a ?>cii oi xoXiq ,noanat. bfts nXl939H xiti 

had no express aut^iority to buy or sell niorti' or collect 
money for P.egelin and Jenaon, Xt may he stated as a general 
rule that v/henever a person iiaa held out anotiier aa his agent 
nutnorized to act for nitc in ii f.;iven cr-^iacity; or has know- 
in^'ily and v/ithout ditjsent permitted such other to act aa hia 
agent in capacity, iiia authority to aucn 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 tnird persons v/ho have 
relied ti.ereon in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable 
prudence; and he will not be periuitted to deny that Buch 
other was i^is agent auti^orized to oo the ((,ct he tissiimed to do, 
provided that sucn act was v/itiiin the real or apparent scope 
of the presuiaed autaority, (iiechem on Agency, vol, 1, ^.ind ed. , 
section 246; ijtock Yard Co. v. Aallory , etc . , Co. 157 111, 
5534, 56b.) By permitting another to hold himself out to the 
v/orld as his {<f:ent, the principal adopts his acts, and will 
be held bound to the person wiio gives credit thereafter to 
the other, in tne capacity of hia agent, ( Thurb er 5^ C£, v. 
Anderson , 86 111. 167, 169.) 

Wc are of the opinion that appellees, under all 
the facts and ci re v./a stances in this crse, were juetifitd in 
presuming that Iv:ci;innon was autiiorized to act as tne agent 
for Regelin and Jenson in the matter of collecting the pro- 
ceeds of the note and nortt;K!.ge in question. It was also for 
the jury to determine iron) all "the f^cts and circuuistances in 
evidence, whetiier appellant, v.ensoii, had knowledge txiat the 
proceeds of the note and mortgage in question belonged to ap- 
pellees, before he paid ^^735. 25 of such proceeds to LcKinnon. 
Ko reason has been given Wiiy tiie resxiiue of tne principal sui-., 
and the ii.tereat t;. reon, were retain'sd by Jenaon, 

It is urged by appellants that it joea not appear 
tliat ^;7illiam C. Pegelin was jointly liable with Williajsi jenson, 

X.6asn.i-i s ejB i)9Js«'a »d \aui iX .noartali bos axl^asil :io1 -^c^o- 
^n^.v:. eiri &R iscvJoaxx li/o bl9ii ssrl noantsq a •xsv.maxivs' :J«xi;t sX^ 
-won3i BJOii 10 ;Y.J-tofl'i^'0 navia b ni. xaJtxl lot Jo.n os baslaorirf. 
Bin aj8 J-ojB o^ i&^io dous fjoi-Jiai-xsi *n«8all> iuodti* hns Yl^ji 
;tOA. oe o* iBiiio iioua oi \iLio:iiim aiii .i^^iOEiiJQo Jsuu ni Jas 
\'/jm ^i fis aal oe ,n&TX3 aozd exad oi i)9Hu;a9*£q arf iXlw ailil it 
9V£il oiiw anoa^caq Jbiiii^t to s^iiaxa ddi ioeiotq oj vxsescoerr ^vf 
9Xc/anoa.a9i I0 aexoiaxa «ii;^ ai bns dilBl tiooa ni noaasilJ beiXoi 
dojja ^«/Ii \;a9b o;^ Jjsliiiiiiaq ad ion XXiw sii ta& -.aonobirtq 
,00 ocf &9muea« ari *o^ axlJ ob OJ besiiOiioua ^n^^B aixi asvr 
dtjooe ;ta9i6fi4« lo Xboi 9ii,l niuJxv; aaw ;foi» noija ^Brii bsiivoiq- 
.09 ban ,i .lov ,xon.»a;!L no aisiiooii) ,y,iiiOi\iuja bsmuBBxq, siW • 
,.lil VOX ,0; ,.a£9 « YiQXXaii ,v . oO bxeV :iooiii ;d*S noiJoae 
9.iij ci iuo TtXoeniixl bXoii oi •xsxictona gni J-^iraifljq xi£ (.dda ,^' 
XXxw unn ,8^ois airi 8c^q[o5>8 Xaqionxiq eiit .Jna^jn aid aa bXT< 
03 teilsis-mis iibsio aavig oxiw noai^ii 9di oS bnijotf bXari 
•^ '^x ^ jcacfiiJjdT ) .^aagje aid lo '{:ifioBq«o aa^ ni .•X9il;Jo } 

i.eax ,vax ,XXI OS . noeiabnA 
Xia i9bnw ,8 39XX3qq« Sadi noiniqo 9di l:o 91J8 aW 
ni baiixd^aut. «i9w , aidi nx eaaat^^ffiituroirio b«.« eio^.- ^ 
.tns^s snj ail iot^ oi basiioaJuu saw aotunitoW Ifiiii anim^^m- 
-oaq sild 5inxi09XXoo 10 i^iieaxi 9iii ni noanaL bna niXs^ 
tot oai.t3 eijv/ Jl ,«ox;f89x/p ai o^js^^ioa bna adon sriJ lo abs 
ni eaoufiJemjjOTxo bnfi eJod siW XXa ffloi"i saimnniob oi \^ij{, »iii 
*)di :itiiU 9^b9Xv/ofl3{ b&d «noaa0L t^aaXXoqqa tsxidsiiw ,eon»bivH 
-qj} oJ b3;^noXs(i uoiJ«9ijp at •sjB^J'aoia bOB ad^on 9iX;t lo eb9^oc^ 
.nonniJioii oJ" abssooaq xioi/e lo flS.eCV;; bi«q erX siolac^^aaXX 
i;a XBqioniiq 9u: w a«vis naatf aaxl aoa«ea u 

.noang!^ iw ivutjujai .^-tsw ,no9T3ii^ *e9a9.*ai od3 br 
Tcnoii^fj Jon asoo Ji JjsrlJ a^naXXaqqA xd bsgiw ei JI 
. oanAt. /aaiXXiVl rfiiv sldAxI vXiniof ntlnnnH D mHiri^U' .tn 

arid that, thtrefore, the verdict and judiraent a£;ain&t tne 
appellant, h'illiaiu C. Hetelin, were not supi-orttd by any evi- 
dence, >;o affidavit denying Joint liability *a6 filed by 
nrpellanta; but it is urged that there ia nc evidence tend- 
ing to show that ffilliaxa C. Regclln was onp of the xeiribem of 
the firm of Kegelin and J«neon. Chapter lie, v>ec, 54, iiurd'a 
Revised Sitatutes, 1913, is as follows: 

•In p-ctiona upon contracts, exjreaB or implied, efainst 
two or core, defendants, r8 pTtricra or joint obligors or 
payors, v."iettier so alletsCd or not, prccf of the joint 
liability or partnership of the defendant a, or their 
Christian or aurnai/iea, ahnll nftt, ija the f iret in 3 tone e , 
be required to entitle the plaintiif to jua. raeiit, unlesu 
such proof ahall be rendered necessary by pleading in 
abatement, or unless the defersdant erall file a plea in 
bar, denying the partnership, or joint liability, or the 
execution of tiie inHtruaicnt sued upon, verified by affi- 

There was no eviaence offered by appellants to disprove joint 

liability. This caurt has held that the proper construction 

of the statute in question in that it relieves the jiL-iintiff 

froiTi tJic burden of provint; joint liability, "iin the first 

ino'caiicc ," nucx leaves the deferAuanta at liberty to diufrove 

it, Y/itiiOut first denying it by plea, lijenaley et n l . v, 

Brock way , 27 111. App. 4lc, 415; I art in v. ?'el3on , 5;^ 111, 

App. 517, 52C, 

It is ur^-ed by uppfllants that tu« court erred 
in ad'iiittinr in evi. onco certair: letters :iif,n«d "Rcfelin, 
Jenson f. Corapany, per P.. J, JiOinnon," because sucii letters 
were written more tiian a year prior to the time .fher oppelle»» 
gave the note and i.iort{vO,t^e to T cKinnon for collection, and ;':i 
tiia:. such letters relate to the sale of the tp.rm {which trans- 
action waa concludGu in January, 19ia}, and therefore could 
not by any possibility be rej.arded aa any evidence of J. cisinnon' 
authority to act aa a collector for appellants or to rei^resent 
tneni in any other capacity t^an that of salesi^ian. 

Ho question of i>cl innon*s autiiorxty to negotiate 

-iva x^^ ^L^ i>^txoq.q,iiS ion •xaw ,all«ij9a ,D iaalXIifi' ,in«XX3<i*i-6 
Xcf h»[i1 urn ^;tiIJtd8lX *«Xo{. anA^nab iivj&bltJn on ,»on»Jb 

1r^ ; nil9jj»H .0 cuslXXiW i«iU woxit 

a'bnw: , frcJ . -^ilD .noantX, ba* nlif»'v»'> "io mixl : 

iyoXXot ac ai ,5X9 C ,a«Jw;fB;f3 bdilr*^ 

■ 10 etoyiido ^nict, io t . 

;Jniot. 9di 1- " ■ t • , ■ . 

,9 ;or.'.;?uni d-ij.,. ,i6fl XXiirfe ,a9au5aiu8 io tiPAialidO 

8 83X.T,U ' ,icl'3>Jl -..T.j 1 '• • * ' ' ■ ' * ■■ ■ ■■" ■•■' 

ai a9li s oLi'x Xi . 

-ilia ^<i b^^lli'DV ,ner(ju b^wa in^jauUfinX *iiJ lo noiJijo.>x.:» 


iniot STOiqeXb o3 ainsXXdqqii \:tf beaallo •oaoMvo nrt ao,-' ot 
noiJouiienoo iscjokj oiii iaAt bXsrt aerl J'lwoo 

iaiM^ j .ij _ u^" , icJ'iXidelX Iniol, anxroiq lo naX>ixitf axiJ *.'; 
svoiqext o;f v^iodiX Sa ec^nabn^lab srfJ B3va9 X toaB *, aoaaj^> i v. 
•''' '^ iJL X.Q , -fa"»g ,«©Xq v.rf ii 8alx«»ij ieifi iuodiiv. ^Si 
•^^' ^'^ *E3£lSll. '^ nliTJid ;£X^ ,0X1^ ,qqA .XXI TU . ^.mv jlooij^ 

.jsa .vxa .. 

b»TTO t-rjjoo fHlJ .t«i'iJ 8inaxrv*<t<i.n Y^ b»nia el *I 

,niX9;:i:'»n* bsn^ie «if>J^i«X i\lsiX9o dstifl .trs nX nnX*-- .. - .*> 
BisJi^l :\oua s'^ut\09<S * , nofi«i'(oii ,{ .!1 isq «yff«qmo:) ;• rroanr^r 
••QlXaqqa n»[iv ©miJ &rU oi toiiq la^y « njaxii sioio it«J'*iiw e^. 
ttirt ^noiJosXroo lol florcniXo'lf o o-.i bn.« •^o« erij' ov 

•'»aB':ii doiiivf) annj oAi lo oX^a &di oi 'ioHist atsii»l ttoue j 
bXi/oo diolsiaiiJ btifi «(SX(?X ,\;<XAUitjiL flX I>abj;/Xonoo ii«w aoi.' 
e'nouix.j. lo ooitdblTo Yf»« •* bebiajiei »cf x^XXirfiaaoq ^n« y<^ - 
^u«8»iq[»i 01 10 fi^nnXXaqqA lol loioaXXoo M mm ion oi v;Ji7 0xij 
.(uunioXJiti lo JAiii aBLii \i ioskimo •imtUo \fiA al ui 

such sale was rBlsed on the trial and vrhil« such letters uay 
not have been relevant or material to the Issues, Rjii><?Ilant« 
could not have been prajudiced by their introduction as evi- 

Appellants also urge that there fisa no con.petent 
evidence tlint the note and L:ortfi:tige in question had been given 
to ^c};innon, nor that he hnd collected the rr.oney on srune. 
fcOinnon adji.itted upon ti.e trial that he received sucii note 
and morti':a^e from sppellecB, sent aane to the Grand liapids 
Truet Company for collectiun, and u{-on the f&xlure of the lat- 
ter coinp».ny so to do, ] laced aeune wii-h KoreLiUii ijroi», Ranking 
Coapany of Chicago, foi collection, 

Ariellants' counsel ast^ign p.b error ir.proper re- 
marks iKade by tue court and appellees' counsel in tne presence 
of the jury. There were no objections tiade by counuel to the 
reii-nrks of the court cocjplained of. In any event, the lan^^uage 
of the court referred to did not constitute rovrrsible error, 
ooffie of the remnrka of appellees' counsel m»y be properly suk*- 
jcct to criticiat;;, but tuey nre not of auch n ciinracLer as 
would vrarrfint Lais court in reversing: the case on that, ground. 

Appellants also complain that the verdict and 
judfD;ent are excessive. The note and inorti',af;e securing same 
v<ere executed January ii3, 1912, Appellees received v4C0.C>0 
thereon on fay 2, 1912i. The Jury were entitled to coiupute 
Interest (a^ uj-on the principal su*;., up to i.ay Si, lylo, and 
(b) upon the a:i.ou<.t re.i^aining due :ind unpaid, fruui that date, 
Tnere was duo appellees on i ay -iS, li:>14, when the verdict was 
returned, a auii. in excess of v426,bO, and, therefore, tiie ver- 
dict and judrjaent for aucn suw are not cxceasive. 

Xaw BiBiif^l sioiiR ».fif(w btm L»l-xi sdi no baoin't saw »!«« .-.i^^ 
BiniJlI^qja ,8ai;e8,t ani o;» I^iiaJjRm 10 inavoloi noocf 9rRd ion 
-ivo u« noiiojjl)0'i;tnl il^sii xrf l)»olfoirt«'XiX nesrf ovarf Jon fcXw 

;n«J:>q[.noo on saw aitiiJ Ja.ii ^jjiii oaXsi alnallsqq 

.siruia no yano-^ arii ii?)ito^.CIoo Jba.i »ri J«rii io« ,nonniXotf f 

Jisi oiiJ lo aiuiial aiU no^M I)n« .noi.toslloo lol x'lo^^iy^ ^auT. 
gnixnufi . f- . .»".ni< iijiv- aaiao bsosiLi ,o£> o# oa icnsqinoo l*t 

,aoi.toalloo tot .o^jfioi;!') lo ^rnnqm. 
-oi isqotqj;)! lo'ixs afl n^Xaan Issnuno '■.tnjBf 
oonoeeiki aiti ai loBitifOo ♦esoIX^qqa boa i'xyc.-. no/jm a2t"x 

»ili od X»ua«oo \co' »biiia anoiio^ldo on aisw ai . . . :iwt 9tiS 
•ajBiJan-BX aili .j.^-^- i .. - ai .to isniiiXqraoo iiuoo azii lo a^iTAXi 
.toits sXcfXe linnoo toa bkh at baits Ifii iiwoo nAi J 

-«iwa xXisqotq "td x^f^ Xaaniroo 'eddXidqqA lo e^nna^^t 9dS lo sac.- 
as XQJoHtnao a xloi/a lo i^on atH ^aiii ;fjid .wfiioxJiio oi io- 
,t)ai»oT?.j iBxiJ no aaoo oxU ^inia'rovei nx d*ciio» alrU inuiiaxr blu 
bna ioxjb'XDV eiiJ iBiit nieXqutoo oalu ai^^nl£H:{qK 
aowfii ^niiKo^a A^s^Jiom bam *ion oilT «»viea30xa aia ^naiOH^^ 
OU.OO^^ b©vi909t BddXXaqqA .SXSX .fiS; v;ai»uii«I, fiad^uaaxa ^nn 
aiuquxoo oi ijf>XJXiaa a^aw y.tul axlT .5XQX ,S xAi!< no noatsi 
jbn^ ,e;Xv;X ;4il \:flti oJ qw ,au« X«qIo»Uict laiU noqw («) *a9i9;J 
.9JaI> iRdi mual ,bXHqm/ Jbar ex/b ^ninxBaidi ^nuoaus ail^ noqu i 
aiBW Joibittv dii,t nsiiw ,>xyx ,£ij. >i« a no aasXXaqqo awb cav a-xo.i 
^iOT axl^ ,8"iol»Ttoiili ,£>nu .Od.dii^;;^ lo aaooxa nl *nx/« b ,bemu*- 
.sviuH'^uxo ;ton aia rnx/a liojja 10I inaai;>ibi/t bnt\ iox 

'»• are of tnc opinion, upon a rcTlew oi" tae en- 
tire record of L/;is case, tiiat no prejudjcinl errox* »/ao coni- 
xnitted, tast siito^tRntiRl Justice has oeen done, wnd Uiat the 
Judf::;flent of the County Court ahould be affinaed. 

-119 'jiH lo w3iT3i « no'^iu .noJtniqo 9A3 "Jo aiw a-i 

-iiioo oja«. uo'X'xo Xaxo.Li)«t.»^<I «" J«a^ ,f»8«o Qlai lo biooai 3t 

edJ vfiuut baa ,»noi) n*9d eari •ol;t8jjt X«iJnH4arfjJe i»iii ,boJJ- 

68 - 21449 


Defendant in iiiyor, 




Plaintiff/ Error. ! J 9 Q J .A. 434 


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 '/olf , 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. 

The child was born on December 23, 1914, The 
relatrix testified that she became pregnant during April, 
1914, that she h d sexual intercourse with defendant on the 
first Sunday Of that month, amd 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 , 40 111, 30) and it is only 
necessary to establish such case by a preponderance of the 


^8i^ sex 


,( 10119 ni I'ixcfai.Blq) drj-ofjxislsJb erf* ,sniS xidoX 

(Ogaox:!"' "io J-iuoO IsqioinuM srii nx x'^irt JB x(S ^J-Iiug JbHi/cl asw 

Sri* ^11o\: silliT 1o fjixrio ^ib^sbcT eri* to -xscii&J. arf* anlscf to 

,*oxbiev eriJ- no bsio^ns ebw J-nomsi)i/t ^^JS ,xxi*6lei 

Isenueo x^ bsxfaia loiie lo aJnamngxeBij \Lno erPT 

J-ojjJbnof) lBX0xi)i/t9i? ^ns isqoiqini (s) - .qib ^rusLnslsb lol 

gniIi.'ii?vo nx Jbsiia *ii;oo edi :^sd& (cf) ,9sl)JLit, Xsii* sdi "io 

d"8nissB ai JoJtinsv eri* *efW- (o) bne ,IbxiJ wen jb io'i noxJ-om £ 

,©onsi)iv9 9xU- to Jrigisw *astxnjaai axl* 

srfT ,i'lQ£ ,es i9cf!ii909G no mocf esw blirfo 9xlT i 

,IiiqA gnxitrb J-nenseiq smfioecf axle *Bri* Lsxtid-as* xIi^bIsi 

©ii* no >tnjsbn9l9b ritiw se'iuooie^nx iBJjxsa b.ti eria tinii ,^IQL 

loliq B^BQvf liiol itJOdB Jbne ,x{*nora tsiii to ^sbnuS J-etit 

9mx* to jboxisq s lot *j.-.rf* b9xtJ:*39* ^nsbnatsG .oi'eisriJ' 

anox^Hlei iiolLli benlsd-aua ©ri ,SIGI ,6£ lecfmsJqsc: o* loliq 

liiau isj-tx-aisxid- led 998 *on bib iisd ,xxi*jbI91 qA& ri&iw 

,iQd rij-xw saijjooisjni iBincee bsd nta-gB 9xf nsxlw , MSI ,d \;jbM 

grf* scfsiocToiioo o* ^nlhnsi bioosi sxi* nl gonebivg at eisrlT 

r' ■ 

[ ,xIiSb1qi to \;nornii89cJ- 
-oiq Xsnxraxio jb ion aJt YbisJescf lot nol*uo9BOiq A 

Xino B± ii biiB (or. ,1X1 Oi' , noxoTI .v eXgoaq grtT ) anlb99o 
9ri* to eonijisbnoqsiq s ycf qsao rioira rialXtfa^ee o* xueeagosn 



Upon a careful considcrjition of the entire record, 
we are unable to say thot the verdict is against the manifeat 
weight of the evideiice, or that the conduct of the trial 
judge congjlained of vma such as to arouse the passion or 
prejudice of the jury. 

It is also argued by defendant's counsel that the 
court erred in oyerruling a motion for a new trial on the 
ground of newly discovered evidence, liuch evidence was known 
to the defendant "before the trial, and no explrmntion given 
by him to explain his failure to offer ouch evidence during 
the trial, 

'Ve are unable to say that substantial justice hfis 
not been done, and are of the orjinion that the judgment of 
the Llunicipal Court should be affirmed, 

, BO neblra 
,ttoos)i QiliKs edi lo noiJ^iofcianoo LuIbijp.o & «oqU 
^aslxaam &di isnis-^ al SotbnsY ©rii ii^di y^na of aXcTaniJ exs 9w 

rto noiaajsq 9xl;f sat'OiB Oo e^ xloua «/iw to fcsniiiXtpHOo es^wt 

Qd& isvii loaavoo a',Jn«i)nol9t' \d bou:g'XB obLb eJt *I 

sdi no ialTtcf wen b lol noiiom jb snili/inavo ni betie J-iuoo 

nwonsi a/>w oonoblro rioi/ci .sonsJbivG barte* vooalb yXwaw to bm/oas 

nevis noi^BanXqxD on has ,Ij3li;f oriJ- eiolsef ^fusbnotsfc ©ricf o;r 

aniiub eonr>bxv9 riouw lel'io oi riiuli.'st airi nislqxs oi mid \6 

.XsJti^ 9rfct 
eari 9oid-siit Xjsld-rus^tacfue J^jbiI^ \;Ba tt eXcfAnu ertjs eV. 
to ;tn3rn3b0t edi »p~dS nolnicio ori* to 9ia bmi ,enoJb neecf foa 
.bemiltta ©d" bXi/orie ^frcuoO XaqloinuM sdS 
^d'iMm'^'U. THI'lIOCIUX 



PK0FLI5 ex rel. AMli JORCZII 

Defendant in .jrror, 

mnoR TO 

0? CHIC GO. 

198 I.A. 435 


f In this casC'ithe jury found tha^ the relatrix, 

Anni Jorczik (unniarriei^) , wae on January 51, 191fj, delivered 
of a bastard child, ajid thfjt George Garl^es, defendant 
(plaintiff in error), waa ita father, A motion for o new 
trial waa overruled, .-md judgment entered on the vordict. 

It is urged hy the defendant the verdict is 
against the manifeBt weight of the evidence. 

The relatrix testified on direct examination that 
ahe had coition with def end.-.nt, on several occasions, 
commencing June 11, 1914, while employed in a Chinese 
restaura.' t conducted by a certain Moy 'Jing, The defendftnt 
WiS employed r« a cook in another restaurant on the first 
floor of the sajne building in which Woy i:>ing'a restaurant 
was situated rmd continued in ouch employment during the 
remainder of that year, 

Jefenciant teatified that he first suvr cong>lainant 
the last of July, 1914, and commencing Auguct 2, 1914, that 
he accompfinied her on three occuuions to vpriouo places of 
anusement, defendant deni<.'d that he, at any time, had 
illidt relations with relatrix,j;;;,' /^^'M/*^ ^^ -y 

Cytoy Glng testified that he did not pay any 
attention as to whether the relatrix entered his employ in 
June or July, 1914, but, according to his best recolleftion, 
it was during the first tv?o weeks of July, Two of defend- 

or HOJtHil 


. G r 

I)oiF»vi!^8Jb ,aXCX ,Xe;\^iBiim^l, no afiw , (ilel'XTMRntf) atlioioX, fiuiA 

ttmba{)\ab .asxilJtiijO ©aiooO J«fW hks ,fcii/Ir> biaJ-BKcT iS 1© 

wan jtt lol nolJoiB A .•xoiitjol 8*i sjbw •, (tcoiiu nl tllJniaX^) 

.^oJtMov &di no bfiiisino ;^nemafaut fefus i.Jb^iwiTflfro eflw iBut^l 

81 d^olbnov wri* iedd inabntt'iftb ariJ ^d" Jbo^n^ si 

Jijri^ nox^ iffimiixt' to»'xit no bei'tij^wdj- xln^aXoi jjrif 

tUnolssoDO leidVda no «ia.sbn@tsh rl;^lw nolJloo had 9da 
euonlfiw a nt boxolqmo oXlfiv ^^191 ^Ll &asjX, ^nlon&mmo^ 

SttiiJ. -ifii no izmmue^ov^ tori^onn ai jtoco s s« buxoLqmo ■'.- ; 
^mj-im^Jesi e'jjnlw. xtM. riolHw nl TjnibXiucf omjaa orlcT lo nooll 

."iwoY iflri^ lo i8Jbnl«£n»Tt 

^njanlrtXqptoo Wiia ;fEiJ.'t eri iv.Ai hiilllicQi :f natne laC. 

:fraf;f ,MCX ,S *8«3*UA snlonai"^©^ Ijnjs .f^XCX ^\lu\ to JawX arii 

"io S003XQ euol'Xjfiv o.t anolQjtiooo s>»iri^ no "xari faalniiqmoooB eri 

bf-rf ,9iTti5 voir; vi; j-jd imW fc-jlnsb cfnMbnslou ,i^nsi!»^uma 

'r*.xl^^.«Xen ri;Mir «noli£;X9tt dtoiXXl 

yiui Xfl^ ^on bih •!( ^erti bolll^fas^ jjnlS ^OM^ 

ni ^oXqms eirf b'-^isino xlt^aXst ©rf^ rrsff^foriw o;f ria nmiisMiia 

,rtol^'.)9XXoo©'X iesrf alri o;f snlbio'ioxj ,;fwtf .l^^xex ,xX»iL mo anuL 

_F.»«<ik>Ar. 'Vo Mu.n< .. r..-r <^. _.r__. 




ant*o witneBS08, co-employ«eB, one of whon oomrnenced work 
there June 24, 1914, the other July 23, 1914, teatifiod 
that they first aaw complainant during ttie lost days of 
July, 1914. Doctor Leonard o, v'ood, teetifled that he 
attended the relatrix durint; li'-r accouchement, and that the 
child -it birth was a nornatl child, f?eighing seven and one- 
half pounds, who took nourishmont and comr encod gaining 
weight from the time of its birth. The doctor further 
testified that the uuual period of gestation ia 280 days. 
There was no evidence offered tending to prove that the birth 
wau premature, j rt"=^o man if es t , that, "eVon If the teotlmoni 
^at r i* °^» ao«epteti sa true, the child must have been 
i^of premature birth. The burden was upon tho relatrix /to 
|rove\thfj paternity of the child. The case of relatrix rfote 
^ntirel^vupon her unsupjjorted ovidence, 

\ "JNi^e denial of iT"ilt by defendant is corroboratcjt 

iy the foregoii*^ tcBtimony of Doctor vood, wr.ich atrcmglj 
jbonds to show th;/V the pregnancy of the relatrix oocurre« 
Several weeks before »he cltiims she formed the ncitiaintajrice cf 
defendant and hud coitioiK with him. The (Evidence clearliy 
preponderates in favor of tKw defendant ao to the tine lie first 
kf't the relatrix, \ 

In the cuaes of Haines vV The People , 8'^, Illi 430, 
bnd Pcteroon v. The Peop le, 74 111, A^. 178, cited in/ support 
bf relatiE'ix contention, there a conflljpt of evideiice as to 
frhether the birth w;^o premature. There is nd conflict of 
)fldence upon that point in this cane. In the instant case, 
here the testimony of tho relatrix s-howa that the first act 
f int<>rcouroe with defendant wris 233 days before the birth 
f the child, the burrien is ui>on her to eetablinh by a \ 
jprepon'l< ranee of the evidence, that the child begotten of 

2ttow bsortemiHOo moriw lo ©no ,oo»x«-t^w-oo .aeseanctj:* a*tts» 
1© «X«^ *brX »rf;f snlttul- ^ruiniflXqaioo vaa iHill -^ceH^ iart* 

-sno brt« n»voR gnixlaiaw ,ftIlrfo Xsmnon « ajsw rfJ lid .t ; bXlriD 
^nifllita t)oon»inmo:) ^fts itxamcialruon jtf^oS mini ^ahnt/oq llsri 
ie»fLtiul ^o;^oob ©rfT .ri*«icf a;t-t to tteiii Qdi moil ^ffais- 

'Jti.d atiS *jBrf* erptq o* ^nibriGt Jboisllo •Oiwfeivfi on axjw oaorfT 

1 nf«9cf ©vail J-BiOTi blldo vdi ^9Ut& b« bB#q»»pj8 tM 

o.**. xii*«5Xot oris ttoqii bbw nafcij/rf »x<T .ri^aicf eiu^flaiang lo /fci 

Bia^r xli)nlQi lo debo ©ffv .fcXirio cirf;t lo Y^Jlniwiiiij 9if;t/oro': 

I ,a3n8bly9 fao^ioqqi/fim/ isri noqu/^X»7.1^r 

ViX^flOiiB rioi w ,fcool i61,?0C[ lo ^c«omi;^;o* aulojintol atH \ 
^eiTMooo xJti;^«Xo"x oitt \e \;bnanj|'*^q arf^ -<r.ri* Koiia oj abn* 

j.TTj:'t &ti ©"ill yri,:^ o;^ .iB Saabntttitb tll^ Ito Tiovflt nl a»Saiobaoq9r 

,051k ^XXI P8 « »X<iosi'i oxfT /),▼ yffiBli "i© sari. so -rl^ «1 
SiOQcua ni haito , SVX .qfjy. ,1X1 ^T .eX goo'X f ri T .v 00018^91. fan 
o^ BH ooiTObiva to iti-i^llnoo jb anw oiorO ,nolJn©;tnov) xltiijXan 1' 
lo iolXlxioo/On 6l ftiaxiT ,eiw*»m!5iq aaw rfiilrf oriJ idriJeiit? 
,9a«D i-Wiaiti orist fjl ♦oajso BldS al inXoq J-j^rii noqu eonobJtvo 
J^oo *«tiV odi Jorii Eworf« xi-slBXert oriJ^ lo ycRonl)a9i srfi aisif 
rfJ^iicT/flirii oioTtorf H\ab CRS ar.w ^Bflbnslab il*lir oeijjooi.ini "i. 
vtf rfRlXtfaino 0^ Tori noqu ai noinud «rii ,bXlrio »tii "ic. 
;c :jn:; J^or-isif bXlrio otii fcMi .oonohivs ©rii lo oonai^bnoqsicj 

such intercourBe was of prematuro birth. ;.ouch(ik v, Karr, 
(Keb.) Ill ». V. Rep. IftO. 

'9h«n we consider that the relatrix had the burdan 
of entabllshlng the paternity of the child by the greater 
weight of the evidence; that her caae rests solely upon her 
O'wx testimony; that defendant 'a denial se'ias an wocthy 
of belief as her teutimony» and Lhut the modicol tentimony 
makes it very unlikely thf^t thia child was begotten at any 
of the times when defendant h^ i an opportunity to have 
sexual intercourse with the relatrix, '^c are led to the 
conclusion that tne ends of justice rcqiiire another trio.l, 
Iji atteo pn v, The People . 122 Ill« App, 66, 70. 

The judgment io reversed and the cause remanded. 

,Ofli ,qon .iv .K XII (.(fell) 

\d&9vn f!« 8m OB Xelnab B'*nnbn»l<!»b if.Ai iXf^omliaQt nwo 
XnomiiJ no.t Xnribfun 9/1^ ;r«i{j f-ni^ ,>cnoffliJc9i isri bh IsiXotj 1to 

BdS Qi b9l 91JB ©w »xii*«Xon j^ili tii Iv aaiuooio^nl Xijx«c»a 

.XoiTit iBff^orw 9il<spoi tmiiGul to sJ'ns) «>»i^ SxAi nolauXonoo 

.OV ,50 .qrA ,XII SSI . ulgoo'^; fluiT .v noc&iia U 

1 - 20771 


Defendant In 7 rror 

W, J, IKFH, 

ilaintlff in 

) KiiUCK TO Mltiaci:i^AL COUIiT 

198 I.A. 440 


^. } In-intiff , a«eking by an action in forcible" 

I ■ ^ 

detainer to recover posseeasion of a bfirn, had Judgment. iVe 

are^f the opinion timt thia judigssnt should not atand, 

izlnintiff waa the owner of a lot on r«iici» was 

a residence, o, 435ii Calumet avenue, snd a barn. For aome 

yeoors ohe had occupied the erjtire pre.'uiaca na her hofiie, in 

January I 1914, ana made a written leuae to defendant of 

presilsea described therein aa "House knovm aa 4352 caluinent 

Ave.,** the tens to cocujtenoe i.ay 1, 1914, and expire April 

\\ 30, 1916, several weeka before the term began defendant 

V obtained froxa ilaintlff peruiasion to take ixaiEediate po^iis* 

y^ eaoion of the barn, and plaintiff reiaoved her electric car 


^ ti^erefroBi and delivered the barn keya to defendant, who 

\ thereafter occupied it with his iiiotor car. It aloo appear #^ 
that at the requeat of plaintiff's <i^ent the defendant paid 
an additional insurance premium \-ih.ioh wae required on ac- 
count of the occupancy of the bf^rn with a fcuooline car. 
There are also provisiona in the lease which indicate that 
all the buildings on the lot were Included in the de::.iaed 

Jroja thpae «nd other circuuiiat-'ncea, including 
the character of the neighborjiood, we hold that it waa 
clearly shown to hav^ b«en Uie underatarding and intention 

ivrosi - i 

,i{;>'; .Liii' 


( .-x^-xxi ai \1^tniaLL 

•w .*n9fli;^i)iit ibo*l »m«d a lo noi88»«4ioq t»voo»tt oi tsini^^iei 
.baaJa ion bluoxio iaeiBjil)ut>irf* ^«rf* ooinlqo •!!* iWf** 
•aw iiolilw no iol n la isn.^o lii* '.aw lllinijal 

'to iRAbanlsb oi •aiinl n^ivtiiv a 9Dniti fnie. ^^IQi ^xtnucia'. 

inAbaol«i^ aMa»d can^l »xU •tol9d d^totti? Xi»'Z9T»o .dX9X ,j< 

-«aoq 9iaih9saai sjlii^ o^ KoXaoiu-Sdq llxJnxi»Xq asoti bi9ni«.>6. 

lAO oX'x;ronit> Toxi bovomsi llXJ-iiiiUq atiu tamd ^Ai to noise 

Odve ^iciabnalnb oi *\o:ii ntaa 9tu ottt^yHnb baa aoild'XViU 

^v^iiisqqfl oeXii il .rao loSoca Blii xld^iw ii baiquaoo •x»Jlfl»t»iiJ 

ijiflq Jaijinielsb »a* *no;^ o'tll^niaXq lo JseA/poic siW *« J«a> 

-ofl no j>9«xitrpo'X ««w itoXiiw au/inioiq ©oflinwanX Xanoilibba n/. 

.taa sniXooita « ililw ax-^d 9ciJ to xonaquooo sriJ to inuoo 

tadi tiJaalbnl rioirtur 98aoX ndi i\i anoielrotq oaXa arta »i9xl 

i)9el.r.ob sri^ nX. bsfjuf anl flirtaw ioX arU no BjjnXbXXud ^di XXxj 

^nii^uljcYl (aaonKi^aaujoiJio i9£iio bna ••<ui^ uoi'v 

■ il satiS bloil 9w tijooiJioddaiaa 9ri^ lo tvioataxlo siv 
iJoiJawJnX bna ■BtiibixaJBtabnu 9iii n»9'd ^vml ol nwo/i« ^^l'lasio 

of tin? parties tiifit the pre.-uisea deraiaed Bhould inolude the 
entire lot with aXl the buildlnga thereon. in Arruotron|j {; v 
Crllly, 61 111. yVpp. 504, wfterwarde apj^^earing in 152 111. 
646, it is J. eld that the deruiae of a houae by a street number 
carries t)ie premises of vnicii the houstt iu only the mniti or 
principol feature, 

JUefendunt wcib rightfully in loajeaaion of the 
barn, and plaintiff cannot ixiaintain her action. The jud^^ent 
is revftrsed witxiout recrjtnding the cause, 


0rLt 9bulonl bluoiiB b9elm9b B^tlXiBiq, ndi .J«dJ- iiwliT^q ndi 
.ill &&! ni i)ni'iiB9iq.j eb~ -vr-T.:?J'i« ,>0« ,q(t^ .ill Xfl , -ciili'J 

in&axiibul •xlT •noi^oM :i»xt alAiaJLAja ioanfio ltlJni«l<{ baa ,n-t»d 



Defendant in hxi 


03CAR K. HKKDHlCKiiOll* 

LnJfrror. ) 


193 I.A. 442 



Plaintiff, .tKe hold«r of^jk Jud^;H)cnt^.^^€^t« aigned 
toy defendant, ]!iad Jud<;iaent jf or 4;'3i^4.0«. Upon motion the 
dourt opened the judgaent ifind gave leave/ to defendiint to 
make a defense ajid tcstlsioiiy «»•>» Jtieard by tiic court, 

-' "liie making of tne note by defendant, wno was 

/ plaintiff 'a huatonnd, and the delivery to her i-ms not denied. 
1 Defendant contendi<jthat plaintiff was in ill health, and 

upon her eaying *that she wanted eocaething to protect her 
(^ for her funeral expenses," he gave the note to her "to 
'^ pacify her." on the other hand, plaintiff testified that l 
the consideration for the note wa» money Aidch ohe had 
loaned to the defendant, l^.er teetiffiony waa thixt «he re- 
ceived no allowance from her husband for personal expenaes, 
and during tneir raiirried life she had worked for a tiij^e in 
ft laundry, had kept roomers, that, she had received from a 
daughter payment for board and wauhing, and that ahe kept 
an account of her own caoneya in the otate jiank of Caicago; 
Uiat it was from her own money tnus accumulated tuat she 
fliade the advances to her husband, wno borrowed tne money for 
the purpose of uuyint; a lot. it also anpearH^ that, vrnen ahe 
was married she had aoaeti ing over ^iiOO of ner own. ihe 
husband, testifyins, i^ not deny tnat he received tnis 




.:.' A>!:A.ii.t 

§1^1^ .A.I C8I \ 

yjSHj^oM KoiTtuL aHiaicasi N^^ 


.fceXn9i> Jon aaw isii oJ yisvilai) aiiJ b«« ,Jbajstfai/ii « 'lllinifllq 

-OT !>£{« imii e«w Y"Ofiiiia»l i©:: .*nBbn»t«b ^dS oi btaaol 

,a»(<a9iX3 Xitaojjisq "xol bttadawrf i-ni aotl »anfi«oIlA on b9vi»o 

nl 9fflli « ■xqI fcgjftow baxi 9il« »lJtI bsiitsm iloiU sniTxib bnn 

fl ffloil b9vi»o«»-x bsxi 9xifci JwiiJ .••tsuioon iqsA bad ^xtbnunl m 

iq,93L oxia Jadi una ,anliioaw bna biaoii lol ^nofli\;isq •xolii.vjiiAb 

;oi*aoia'J lo ;to*ia aiMJii wriJ ai a\ttnom nwo itxl lo itxuooaa am 

•ilc iciij b9;f.Biuaii/oaA aurfJ x<»*io«i nwo i*!! ooicl umv Ji JaiiJ 

•tol ysnoca mni bawotTOd Oilw .bnadoijxi i«?rt oi asonarbA »rii objam 

9ilfi nariw jAiU ktiiiuii jB ouia il ,iol « jnjt^uo lo aeo^niiq aaJ 

»rfT .n«o a».d lo yjii^ auvo ^ni. .J!>.iios Jbaxi wiia b9i'fiBiii nam 

• Idi b9vU09T. ttil jHd: AC"»b Jon ^«t^ ,jknlvlila9i ,ba»dauii 



iiii.ney from cAe f»ife,Hnii tjiit> evidcno© ci*|MBly aiiOwk| ta»t the 
amount of tne not« reprosentB only a j^ortion of tue advance* 
laade by j.laintiff to defendant, 

Ur^ler theee oircaraetSKcli pTtttntiffyi«^ entitled 
to maintain ner adtion against h«^i: husband. TpLe stjatute en-^ 
IjitXed "Hueband ahd Vife.» ohapte^ 68. Beco, I and fe. hur.i»» 
^llinoio, in forjt July 1. ie74, ;ha» been con»true4 to f\i- 
ihorize n huaband or wife to eue the other on oil contraots 
[xoept for Borri^e* rendered to iiach other, Thoraag v. 
lucn«r , 1C6 Uli 36; h aaiilton v; hagiilton . 69 ill. 349; 
Cxumr, ua^ycr , liZ ill. 443. T&e contention of defendant 
ik tkis court i^ baaed upon the etntute in force prior to 
the enaotwent oA the present otatttte, and la unarailing. 

The X^^S^icnt is affirmed. 

9X1-* ^^aiUwou. yiiiYs »iii txa*i,-?Uvi ai.-i moil x* 

.*n«i>n9le£> oi lllijujalvj y;cf ot 

;<?*« .xii ea ,a o j.u:uii.i .tr nojrfx««ri ;a« hn ©ox .JaXfaHg 

16 - £1&62 

law of Hannah 1^. Conroy, d«- 

Def«nftnr^c8 la enror. 




Error to 

Mwiloli>al Court 
of Chicago. 

\ laittitlff In 01 

T9SI.A. 444 


mhxumti xm Ox'Iuiok oi? thb couht, 

Haimah IS. Coiurt]r« mam Att««afi«(l, maa® a leaoo In ^?7rlting 
to aofend&ntof pr€RBlM« knomi an 4619 Xixdiana nvonuo, far a 
torn ooraraenolng Sopteralaer 1, 1913, and onfllnp April 30, ISl*, 
at a monthly rent^il of '^&0, The hGir» of Mrs* Coaroy brought 
suit olalmlng that raol^r the laat tour moaths of the term 
had not hoeix paldvJlD^p?m=^tal tjyth© eotff 
Jisd- - JuaanoQ t, ... 'Xor #Sb . 

^Dofonaaat argm^fll^ that tho helre aro not the proper 
partloB plaintiff, that auit should hsorc bcoa brought by the 

atolnlBtrator. ^FSglS^t r 

dfe^lJTT^lTBT'vConroy in Decomber, 1913, th« real propji«y 
taattod tOxjKer hoirs, and thoroaftor they wero «^H!tleid to 
jolloot the r<$ttt4 the admlnlBtrator h^ nothing to do with 
this. Thia ie bo eloiRipntary that olta't^^lons of deolEilons rare 
uanecefisary. x^ 

iiomo defon»e it; attemptod'-"'6daa©d upon tho conoosBion 
(Bade at tho trial thnt if the defendant, were present ho would 
teetify to the poor oonaitlon of the heat £^5, apparatus in the 
houeo nnd to other ipittera eet out In hla affidSTlt of defoneo. 
v.hlle concedln^^thiot he would so teatify, counsel -for plaln- 
tlffu obJGOt to hie corapotcnoy as a witness, on tho ground 
that under the statute, chapter 61," seo, 2, on Svldence and 



48 lot ,enri 

Jfirf^ yitlffl/jli; j-jjja 


. tiw oft Qi $nMioa Imii io 
•aft acoialoaA lo 8aojt;fjB<ti:o i^Affvt 

ill JosXXofl 
i.iT .alii*] 


Deposit lona, ho would not bo pormitted to testl:^^. rhla 
obJ«otlon la valid, and the trial oowt no held. It ie 
true thfit &n intoroutefi party may teatlfj' to faots oocurring 
after the death of o jeiraon* The&e ffioto are olalned to be 
tliat defendant removed from the preralaea with the oonsent of 
one Coleman, who had "been the agent of Mr**. Conroy. There le 
no teatimony to thi» effect, and even if we ehoiild coneider 
the affidavit of defense ae teetimoay it dlsoloees no 
authority in Coleman to act on behalf of plaintiffs in any 
way Tviiatever, and certainly no authority to releaee defendant 
from rent. 

The oonieationa made by defendant 'a oounael ?iro uncon- 
vinoing, and the Judgtaeat ie affirmed. 

1;, - . . ...... - ,. ,.^jj ;rariJ' 

m» at aVtXialeltn lo lXaif»<i flo to* o:r ammlcO at xtt's^d^a 
.AcflT-inijs al *£i9nx;:ifcjKrt, oiti;^ ban ^^altmkr 

32 - 21662 


. fcuJilAH, 

;lalntlff in Krror, 



Krror to 

Circuit Court, 
Cook County. 


Dofaudant in ^Mfo 


198 I.A. 447 

vlaintlff brought suit alleglni; that vhllo he va& alight- 
Int' from one oX dofendant'B oars, through nogligenoe it vma sud- 
donly started, throwing him to the ground and Injuring hlin. 
Upon trial the jury ro turned a verdict of not guilty upon wjilch 
judgment v-'at entered. 

rlalntlff oaya th« Tordlct vthb agftlnst the wnlght of the 
C'Vldenoo. ^e do not think bo. The jury reasonably oould 
bell©ve that about ten o'clock In the evening pl&lntlff and his 
son, a young man nineteoa yeyiTB old, v.'ero pa8e©n,;^©re on ri north- 
bound 5orth Clork otreet car; that they lived on the north side 
of Fullerton avenue, jmit weat of Clark; that when the oar 
noared I'ullerton avenue it etoppod nt the south side of the 
street to allow plaintiff and his son to alight; the son alighted 
flrct from the easterly door of the front platform, then turned 
northwesterly aoross the track in front of the oar; plaintiff 
following, ettsrted to turn to follow hi a son diagonally in the 
direction oJ" their horao, and either twloted hie leg and fell aa 
h© made the turn, or slipped on the rail of the tT&ok. There 
waa abundance of tcatimony that the car made only one atop for 
plaintiff to alight, and remained etanding still until some time 
after the accident oociu*rod. ^e would not bo juetifiod in die- 
turbing the verdict of the jury. 


:.ooX^ - ^. 


i li/oo ^Idaaoaao's ^ij(, of!^ ♦on iCulrfi- i^oa t>b oW .»ew(i«&lTo 

-riJi&a B no iBrt«^a«8aflcf oi«wr .' ao«*«flifi aa» a^i»o^ « •n<5fi 

oSta rft-ioa orit nc fjf^vl'X -"''' ;.■•.• *«>^1;^B Jii^',!':) ff;^ioa fifxiiod 

ajJ-rijiiXa ao« u» o* ao» akA ba» tlllflMX<j woIXa o* *0«iJjs 

AojnrtJT* n«rfJ ,ia-i«i4alq tiioia: 9ti<t to lOoB ^rX^^^aa* erfi moit ^a-xlt 

ItJtiTst- ' •-' «»;fi to ^ncTl at iiiMti orf* booioa 'jtnfiJacwriJTOA 

orfj ai. ir fioa uxrt woIXot oJ^ maJ o* b^iiuia ^-^tvoElol 

•rceilT .sCoAxt •r(;f %o Ltat &di AO &»qq[JtXtt to ttexa ^i' 

lo'l qo*» SCO \Ltw 9hMsn iao ©ri.? l^fl* v'loiitliiraa^ 10 &JiUib^i.4So saw 

atriiJ dffioB Il;Jxuj XXI Ja 3«lJ&mi«^a J^oaJtooiat haa ^id^lls otf t^l^ctalo 

•Qjti!) flJt b^nifual ocf loiT &.DJOTr 0%' ,6©i-rrf;>r5C tn^ftlooi) axft ian« 

It 1b sai6 that it was rorerelble error for the court 
to inBtruct the Jury touching contributory neglit:once, as the 

cvidencG ahows there rak; no contributory aogligeuoo in the case. 
The inatruction ia a co;-rGct statement of the law, and we do not 
believe 11 cm to aai d vrf.t'i aocuracy that there it no qi» stion 
whatever of contributory negligence in a oaee of thia kind. By 
inetruction Ilo. 2 ^yinron at plaintiff 'a requeet, the jury wore 
properly told that before plaintiff oouia recover he nuut be in 
the exercise of ordinary care for hits ov.n safety, plaintiff can- 
not r:ow complain of the inatructlofi on the eainti point given at 
the request of defendant. Earnti:y- v. aani tnir:; iJltstriot . 260 
111. £4; V.eet Chioa»ro ::t. H.. Co. v. luokles . 200 111. 1:60. 

There bciat no convincing: reason to act aoide thf: Judg- 
■ent it ia affirmed. 


toa o& ov ban ,*.*;..■ - ..». ..^x^ .. *■. u..,.* ^ 

ig ^jxioq ati«a oJd no a.ol*am:^axiJt OiX** 'to alalq/noo worr ^o 

57 - 21796 

PKOiLE ex rel. HAKKY 

Jjefendant in ; rror,/ ) 


ITY or CillCAGO et !4.» 

llaintiffA in ?:riFor. 

) ERilOR TO iiUi-iiiilOR COURT 

193 I. A. 4 51 


ietitioner filed his petition, ai:.ended» for a 
writ of mgJ3da.'iiU S to compel tne City of Chicago, trie civil 
service cciuixiisaionfirs, the fire ^aarshall and the city co/up- 
troller to place his name on tne roater of the fire depart- 
ment find up'.n the fire departiuent payroll of tiie City of 
Chicago as a pipeman, witn the rigut to enter upon his 
duties 38 pipeiiian and receive the salary therefor as he 
had prioi' to hi a rei^oval from the service on or about 
July 25, 190fc*. To tills ai..£!ided petition a general desiurrer 
was filfd and overruled. I.e3i)ondenta elected to otnnd by 
the den.urrer, and judgment wes rendered that a writ of 
ixiiandan:U8 issue. 

Ietitioner haa not appeared in this court. 

This court htxs had occasion aeveral timea to 
consider pctitionu of tiiis Kina, notably in thf; recent 
cases of People ex rel . i ickland v. yit ;j(, Ko . ciC.69y, opin- y 
inion filed c ctobcr 6, 1915, and Vauf^hn v. City . Ko. 21089,""'%^ 
opinion filed February 15, 1916. vjee, also, opinion of this ^^' 
court in hudniok v. City , i^o. ^o697 , t.iia day filed. The 
form of the prtition before ua ia aiiuilar to the peti'^ions 
considered in these cases, nnd v/hat is said in those opin- 
ions is applicable to the instant cttse. it has been many 

acvii: - ve 

,TKUOy > ' JiOJIHa 

:•- :'■■ o r 

z tQi ,i)-;}bf;-;.i.5 ,no ;.,:.i. J->.:, ax.:. ■>:■> t. i L iDiicUi: J-=- :. 

-q.ico >c^xo 9di bnA fXBdaxera »iil srfi ,a'xonoieBi;itu»ioo eolriflia 

->^:(:«j9iD sax't axiJ lo loiaoi onj no anuan aid sot'I^ oJ "xsXXoai 

Bid. noqjj ttsinoj oJ -xiaii »riJ nixw ,n«ffl&<ilq « es ogBOiilD 

iftiii/ip^iLi X^Bi'jnDa ii aoiil^^q b^bn^uia aixii oT ,50Gf ^dS y.XjuI, 

.31/8 si axrinBbnain 
.^^luoo ainJ nx fasTCJc-.aqtfB Jon Sisd I'jnciilJ**! 

^naoaT silJ nl x.^da3oa .fanxx aiiiJ lo anotsli^n -isftianoo 

-iriio"' ,9ed;ii .o« «Ji£i2 •"*" bmiXatiJxa . Xart xa »Xqo»-r lo asaAO 

.ti^aoXi: .OM . Y^iO .V njrt^jjBV Jba« ,eii?X «3 tocfoJo ) b^Xil noinl 

alnJ Icj iioluiqo ,OBXa ,99o .dX6X ,ex x,taui(i9'^ baXil noinXqo 

»rlT .baXxl \;«b aXa^ , V«a0S. .oil , %Ji S .v >taJ:nbi/H ni liuoo 

anoxJirfaq »iij o;^ iJiXiaixa el aw eiol»tf noX^ilog 9ii;f lo maot 

-uiqo »ao5iJ Kl bisa ox inciv bct> .e-^ oe»tW «x baiobxanoo 

X;««KJ nyaci ecji j I .as^jy Jir.p. i « IdaoiXviqii ax anoX 

timea decided timt a writ of friandanius will not ioaue unleBB 
the party applying for it siiovs a rigiit whicix iu cletir and 
undeniable. } eojle v. jiuase , 2AQ ill, 11, 

in tlift case before ua tue petitioner has failed j ly^ 
to plead any orainance creatine, tiie office of pipeiaan. It is 
alleged that an ordinance was passed creating "an executive 
departruent of the municipal ^overn;:.ent » « -fciaich s^.all be 
known as the fire departiuent and shall include one fire marehall 
* * and auc- number of * « j ipemen » * and employes as the city 
council may by ordinance provide," It is clear that this con- 
teiaplfitee an orrlin^nce by the city establishing the niuT.ber of 
pipeaen in the Tire departv.ent, but petitioner has not pleaded 
any aucn ordin«:jrice, and discloses in no way when or hott the 
city council provided for any Dumber cf pipeisen. This is 
not sufficient. Kenneally v. City , 22.; 111. 485, ana olao 
the nuiTierous caacs cited in the opinions in the cases first 
referrcu to. 

The fact that the civil service commission es- 
tablishes a clasaification of offices and j laces of employ- 
ment does not establish tiie office itoclf. iiullis v. City , 
Z^b ill. 472. 

It also should be noted that under the civil ser- 
vice rules and the Civil .Service Act original appoint:iientB 
aaali be on probation for a period of six months, and that 
if any probcitioncr, upon a fair teat, 3hall be found incoiupetett 
or unqualified to pcrfcr-e the duties of the position, the ap- 
pointing officer aiiall so certify to the cociaiission, and the 
head of the departj.ent may, wit;, the consent of the com.'nis- 
sion, disciiarge hie. upon assigning in writinK his reasons. 
The petitioner alleges his ditjchnrge by Chief boran, but 
fails to allege in what manner the cuief did not cowply with 
these proviiiions of the civil service rules and the Civil 

.ii ..MI 8*S .aeBug .V »;.tuax .oXdainoinu 

.ilo ,,1, « .,^„,,„, ,„, . . „,^^^^^ . , ^^ _^^^_^^^^ ^^^_^ ^^^ ^ ^ 
-nco .1., ,..„ „„,, ., ,j „_,,^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ 

.xi. wo. « „,..., ,.v, on „i .„„x„.i, ,,, .,».o .«„. .„„ 

.*na.,„Xo.,» x.„xai.c ,.,. .oXv„c xirXO «. .„„ „,,, „„,, 

»^ .n. .,.,„„, ,,, ,„ ,,,„^^ ,^ ^_^^ ^^^_,_^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ 

Hi.'aqinooni fcnuot etf rXf-f- tp^t ,i„» 

-.^ ... ..c...»o, .. ,„ .,, „„,„^ ^^ ..xnx«,p„„ „ 

-" ^n. .„oie.x«oo „., „, ^,,,„, „, „,^„^ ^^^^^^^ ^_^^^^^^_ 

-.i«o, ,«. ,„ ,„.,„„ ,,, „,^^ ^^^ ^__^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^_^ ^J^„„ .,„ ,„,„„ „, ^„,„^^,^^ _^^_^^ ^^^^ ^^^^_^^^^ ^^^^^^ 

''■'^ .nn,0H ,..«0 .« „,„,„.,,, ,,, .,,,,,^ „„0i,X,,, ,„, 

iivio ,u. .„. .,x,, „,„„ ,,,^^„ ,^,^ ^^ .„o.a.vo,<, o.„,, 

Service Act, From anything tnat apx>eara to the contrary 
froni tiic petition, the petitioner failed to give aatiafac- 
tion wt.lle on j-robatlon and waa legally diachnrged, 

Foi the reasons above indicated the juu,me;nt 
of the superior v,ourt of yl^ooic i.;ounty is reversed ana the 
cause remanded with instructions to auutain tiie demurrer 
and diisaiaB the petition, 


iiiiici ,biji 3aJ ba^iioibn.1 svouijj aao&aai aitJ lol 

.noiiilsq sxii aeliaeJtl) btim 

424 - 21822 




Appellant, / 


193 I.A. 453 


dki.ivp:red thk opi'lUon op the court. 

plaintiff, employed by defendf:nt, was injured 
through an explosion in a sn^all foundry connected with de- 
fendant's plant. i;e brouf'.ht tniit and had a verdict and 
judgment for ^l,25o. 

The cupola or furnace in the foundry was 
cylindrical in snape, four feet in dieui.eter, routing on 
four legs which were about five feet iiigh, standing on a 
concrete foundation. The upper part of the cupola extended 
throU{;-h the roof. Tne bottom consisted of two aeffli -circular 
strel doors which when closed were kept in place by two steel 
props; 7/hen closed the contents of the cupola were retrined; 
when open the contents dropued out. The cupola was loaded 
with alternate layers of iron rmd. coke from a second floor, 
which waa called the charging platform. Occasionally the 
iron in the cupola did not ir*elt to the proper conaijtency. 
When this happened it was neceaaory to open the bottom doors 
and allow the mass to drop out; otherwise it would grow cold 
and solidify, and then could not be renioved without deatroying 
the cupola. 

Upon this occasion th.e iron waa not aufficiently 
molten, nnd th« foretfian concluded to empty the cupola. As 
the operation ia attended v/ith danger, he first ordered the ^ 

ssjsis - ^^-^ 


K jr.fT8:'rvsAH JAPioiTA^iHa;T;ii 

oX '50 YiiA^iMOO 

Yja/Tuaott aoiToUL owiaieaH^ .hm 

-9b rf;tlw bsJosnnoo YiJbnwol Ilarne « ax noieolqxa ad ii;yi/oin.- 
bns d^oibifjv « bQil bna. *1ub irrtsi/otcf Sii ,taBlii a'iiiflbrffj 

.o5£,I^ lol J-n3msbi., 

8BW x'x^njjol 9ii^ ni »o.ei^.. - .,^ i-ioqtro oiiT 

no an.i^i^o'i ^iQimutiib ni Jasi auol ,oqi?a8 ni iBoiibailx- 

B no jiaibim^B ,iia-tu .faal 3vii Jwoda s'lsw iloiifw ag^I -luol: 

bobn»Jx« «Ioqi;D asii 'io ^xaq laqqi; sriT .noii-Bbnuol e*ettoaot 

'X£lijOTio-ii.u9fc oyv^ 'lo faa^sienoo tnoiiod 9Ci'i' .Ioot: 9iii ' ti^ciii. 

l33iB o'v^^ xd sofilq nl iq9% aasw bseolo nsilv/ rioiriw ■■xoob l99Ji 

;b9nx«tf9a aaaw Bloqi/o sdi lo sJnarfu-.a -3ili bssolo ti'jilv: ;aqoi 

bsbftoX «flw flIo^[iiO 9xii ,Jtfo bsiTqoib a;?n9;tnoo 9rf;t nsqo n^rl" 

«iooI1; bnooae £ iaoi'i ssloo brm aoii Io ais^aC s^tjantscfXa iltlw 

9rii "ijIIiinoiaaDoO .Bnoli&lq :^nl^tBrio -ixi* bsXIoo aaw rioixiw 

.y,ort9Jbianoo laqoiq 9il.J o;t ^flaoi Son btb «Xoquo sil^ ai noti 

a"'iocJLj ai.oS;iod »di naqo oi ^jrteaeoosn bb-./ ii bonaqqArf o lii.t n«»xlW 

bloa woia tluor \ii 9exv7rroa^o lino qoiL o^ eaara ©lii v.oXX/j bna 

Sni\;o'xie9b SuoiiSi.^ btvoxnt 9d ion bluoo a9£ii baa «v^iblXoB fcn 

l> r r> 1 , . ^ . , ,, 

YX-^nsxDllluu dor. aavf noil 9/i* rtoiejaaoo aiiii noq 

BA .fiXoqfO oxiJ vj-quia oi b9bjjXonoo nauraiol ©rfJ hnn .na^Xc.i 
9fl;r bsisbto Jaiit sii .rrsanab iiilw babflsJ-^i) ex nolifBTsqo sxicf 

laborers, including plaintiff, who was on the charr:lng plat- 
form, to leave the building, and then directed a man, called 
the cupola tender, to open the bottom doors. Vhia :aan, with 
a long rod, knocked out the ; ropss, the doors swung open, and 
the mass of iron in varying stagoa of liqujffaction, with 
coke in various stages of combustion, dropped upon the 
foundation under the cupola, v/l:iut is deacribea aa' a terrific 
explosion" enaued. irarts of the brici. walla of the foundry 
were deriiOlianed ana the building prpcticajly wr«;cked. '2)[iX^H 
laen were killed, ilaintiff says that upon receiving orders 
to leave the building he v/ent from the char^iiin^r platform by 
an elevator and had reached the ground floor and "was hardly 
able to take a atep" when the explosion occurred, he was 
bloim through the doors and underneath a freight ccr sstanding 
about fifteen feet front the building, ^ome witnesses placed 
plaintiff Just outaidc the building at the instant of the 

^■^■-1— ^j»BI^?^W««»^^ ilaintiff alleged 

and introduced evidence tending to prove that the hot contents 
of the cupola fell into water or on a daap place present 
around the legs of tho cupola, and v/itnesses testified that 
this contact of .Tiolten iron with water not in sufficient 
quantity to cover it would o.?u3e an explosion, Licfendant 
e3criber"the exDlosion to a rush of gas into a "pocket" 
formed by a partition and the floor of the chargihit: plat- 
form, and the ignition of this i;as by the hot metal and 
tho coke. Defendant arguei^ that its expinnotion i* , 
established by tlie greater vreight of the ovidence, and 
therefore plaintiffs allegations as laid in hi a declaration 
have failed of proof, and hence he o anno -t recover, ine 
conflicting^ testiuiony of the witnessss as to the presence. 

-*«I.I snJt^iaiio oiii no saw odw .Tt^ii-niJiXq aaifci/Ioni ^e-x^iodal 

dJlv ,njBia ttixii .,8no6& taoKrcToJ edi caqo ocf .TBljn^^T jslocfuo exiJ 
ijim tosqo s^uwa eiocb oiii .aqoi; ^iiJ luo i)6?iOonjI «i»on j)f>Ojf ^ 

©jrfl {so'iu boqqoiJb ,floli«tfd£ioo 1o ttsga^a euoitar ai. qiLoc 

osiil': .b9ii03iv xi tJBoi JoR'iq 8nii)/.ijjd aiij tiaa bniiKitoaimb st«w 
eaebio T^nivxnoai noqiJ iadS a^aa t^xJnxjoIX .b9ill}L aiew n»« 
\rtf micliflXq :;jni5jiBJlo oiU nxOil ctnow «rl ^ntbliud »dJ svssX o;t 

v-IoTnd eavr" b«ii -looll isnuoia 9il^ bsrlojaot bati baa lo^avdXd ctb 

^iiibn»Jin rirjo jTri^if/i't s !iiB9r\inbnu ban enoob •rf^ d^ji/oTri* owoXd 

bsoBXq »9CiJ»ntiiv-- emoCi .aniijilijd 9x1* moit *«»9t nuoJlll itjuods 

oxi* lo JoBjoHi oflJ ;t« ^nlbllisd orli nbifiiuo taul Yttialaiq 

■tnaJnoo ito« oa^ Jeni bvoict oi ^nihnd* sonsbivo b»ouboiSai baa 

inaa&iq »&alq (jausfa » no 10 iL»inv oScii. XXst JsXoqx/o £>xiJ lo 

&»ti.:} b9i'tiia9i eoaeets^Jts- JbtiB ,«Xoqu& .»fi* lo agsX 9xlJ bauoia 

■ in9ioil.lu8 ai ioa isiat. iiii.^ noTi ue^^foc; lo ioa^noo nitii 

jHJBbaalad .noiaoXcpcs hjb ss^^uira bXuov^ il i^voo o* y^f i J rjjBjjp 


-iiiXq j»nX£imio aiU lo looll »i{a ban aoxiiJiflq o yd boano^ 

bns X«J«»fa *oii ndi yd ^.n]^ tilaJ lo noi^insjt 9iii bn,^ .aixol 

*vK>, -aii nolJ«nGXqx9 e^i i's^ij ^©jjaie* Jnabnelsa .tjfoo snJtrnXl '»xii 

DoX^BiaXosb axii al bJ:«X aa anoi^fflaoXXa B'ltiScitalq 9iot9rt>di 

MxiT . ."xsyoosi ^■•i-hmh) »tl aonaxl baa ."iooiq lo boXiBl ©Vflxl 

(•ondSAiq acLi oJ aa eedesnilw 9tii lo yi»Quti^e»;f 3nX4'0lXlnoo 

*o:?Iooq'* J5 oir.i ai^B "io xtexn is o^ noxuoX<rx» driJ'niadiaoees 

quantity and exo.ct location of water on tue ground around or 
under the capola, an i the variant vi«wa of witnesses con- 
cerning the r;£}".ective cauaal theories cf the txplooion, 
were properly presented to thf. jury. We are of the opinion 
that the jury reac>onably could find tnnt the plaintiff had 
proved his claiai as to the cause of the explosion. 

It anouia alao be noted that at the defetjdant'a 
requeat the following apocial interrcgatory was given to the 
jury: "./as the explosion in question caused by the dumping 
of the cupola in v/ater whicn waa then unci there under the 
cut-oiav" and to thia tne jury return^o tne ar.s^rer "^es," 
lio motion was umde by defenaant to 3Ct uuide tnia special 
finaing, and tnere is no asiiguiiient of error iu that regard. 
It has been repeatedly held that unacr suca circtuu-tances 
the defendant is tonulusively oound by luia finuin^.5. City 
of rt,urora v. :.ockal;rand , 149 ill. 390; : ennsylvaiiia Coal 
Co . V. ^j^eUj^, 156 ^11. S; Iju pi re i>aundry k achin e Co. v. 
Brady . 164 111. 58; j''arreil v. xllinoia Tunne l Co., 177 
ill. App. 425. 

Did plaintiff receive injuries v/uich vould 
justify a verdict and judgment for ^It^S^"? ilaintiff's ad 
damnufa in uis declaration waa laiu at *ii5,0CC. .Ve are not 
persuaded by the arguaent of counsel to believe that plain- 
tiff received no injury of any kind, it would seeui t^ be 
self evident that a person receiving upon hia body the 
force of an explosion only a few feet :iv;ay , .vi.itai waa suf- 
ficient in violence to v/reck v. brick building, x/juat ni)ve 
recei'/ed con'.iidtrablc sxiocic. ihyaicians testified to the 
presence of dilation of the heart and injury to the kidneys. 
V/hile at times plaintiff may have affected to be in n.ore 
physical distresa than warranted by the facts, yie are not 
disposed , under all the circumstances, to coMsider the vcr- 

-noo eseaaa^XA' lo uwf.'iv inr.i-xny 9Xi.t bas .BlOviUO arlJ t^bais 

bmi lliialsilq sdi ^b;iJ bail bluoo \idanoe.B»i x^i^il ©xiJ J-ci-fiJ 

,noJ:aoIq:X6 ari* 1q sfcu^o sii^ oJ sb jrajclo sin Jasvoiq 

e • Jniibnd'i'^b ail* is JRxld fo«»,:fon od ouI<? Jbli/ont: ii 

exii Oct a9\ i^^ am; v.-icdfly^ciisini Ijeionqu ^niwoXIol ah* itaup^i 

aniq,miji) aili x<^ bs&ufia cioiiajiup ai noltolcpca suJ- aa'i. " r^^i^L 

".asjf" "xsT^anB ancr bsniuiitT yxjjj, oili eirii oj Jjno "I'aloqiio 

Ixiioscxc einJ stisi/i ion oJ injBbaslaii ^^d dbBn a&v noiiota oii 

.JbiBa©*! isaJ ai totlXS lo Jnsuifiyieaa on ai s^SiiJ ban ,^niii'\il 

esof-oJCiJUjoaio ixoua isjjau JfliiJ- fcloii YlibsiBaqsa fi»»cf e/.ui ii 

^;tiC; .h«i^;'>-il ei-ii ^cf jbni/oa ^^^Isviaijiuiicj ai iaiiijnslaii exij 

IboO jai.iBvI^anna X ;UCfi .Hi Q^l t i^nnidnAooii .v gioift /t 'l u 

•""' '£2 Q^J^^tO'Q^ •^T£>nijB..l aiiq iaa ;e .ii^ Diil ,>; IX9.i .v . o 

'^^'•'^ • '£.4 Xgnni/T eionilla. .v ^ojxjxa'i -ae .ill ^31 . ^br.^ta 

.eSLfr .qqA .iii 

blijov. lioxi'.r/ atsi-iiJi,nx eviooe»'i lliJni/ilq LiCI 

jjg e 'lliJuiiJli ?OSi^,I<i# ntol i'nsmaiiij (, L^an JoiJbtsv a \1iicul 

ioa i3ia sV. ,OoO,m<i. ic uUiL hbw nOiiB-ijeicob ein ni cu/nixLei 

-niBiq J^sxlJ 9 vaiiu J oJ XacJijijoa lo JnaiaayiA 9xlJ x<^ bsbBuaisii 

dd oJ ic99a blkiov ii .ttaiA Xixn lo Y' on bi9\'i9-jii-i Ilii 

e>£iJ xbod iiixi iioqi/ aw-i-viaooi noaidc^ ja JciiJ iuabiva liaa 

-lije Sjiw iijXiiv. ,^«vv;^ iual wal b \ noxaoiqxa nn lo *oiol 

©van »ttiJim ,3ni£)iiuJ Jioiid a xoaiw oi soajloiv ni Jnoioxl 

8ili oJ' iosxixJesJ auHioXii^jtl i. .^iooda ^idat obi a no a baviaoai 

.8Y9iibx:i 8iii oi ^ixulai ba& iiesii edi lo noii.dlijb lo aotiscoiq 

9-xor,i ni ^)o' oi b»io'»lla sviui ■^imn lliJnxalq aair.ii ia 9Liaki 

ion 9XO 9wr ,BJo/?l 9ixi \di botnam&v njsriJ eao-tiaib IaoieY>lq 

-19V orfi 'isbiiuoo oi .asoniiianujoiio snJ 1.[b "xebni/, bsaoqaib 

diet of ';l,f^5C to be excessive. 

ihe refusal of the ccuit to ^-ive certain in- 
structiona at tiit reques;. of defondar.t v/ae not hc.rjnful in 
view of tile upecific fmaing b.y the jury o^ tc tlif cnuse of 
the explosion. 

Alleged improper reruarka by counoel are not 
of sufficient aeriousnees to require a revfrsal under the 
facts jf initi ca&e, but even if this -.vere riot true we could 
not cunsiufer ctiis point as defendant has not assigned ae 
error in taiti court any iuprcper nrguiupnt o; conduct of 

.,olain£ as mb do, that the vrraict was tiot con- 
trary tc Uie -v?eifoht of the cviviency, and that the ao^ount 
of the av9ard is not unreaucnabl e, the Judt:.ncnt is affirmed, 


-111 nlBCtlOD 9Vi:j Oj .tlWOO fSiiii "to f '3iJt,"'3'Jt iJl\: 

al lulmisui Jon di5W JajBiiUolsb 'lo Jaovjoai siiJ j/^ taoxJotiTJa 

ion ai^ laenjjoo y^^ e:i'i.fiiaj»'X laqoiifuii b^i^-jLlA 

9sii -isbciu laai-ivoz b 3iiijp9'i oi aaaaajjox'xsa Jnaiol'tlx/e "lc 

bXuoo 8w 9JUUJ Jon sciiv,' sx;lJ "ix riav^ Juo .sbmo axixJ lo aJo*/! 

SB b-sn^isBii Joa auxi Jnab.ia'loij ea Jnxoq aiiiJ aabienoo Jou 

lo iouhnoo :o j:i oijusj'xo lac^o-xfinu \;ai5 Jix/oo exiiJ nx totio 

-noo Jon ejaw Joxbinv srfJ Jf-ilJ , ob 9\7 cc sniuiu.i 

iniiOiVR silJ Jfirij ba.". ..jonebiYo adJ lo Jil:jxow oiU oJ ■v;'Xi5'iJ 
.Ijflfr.iillfi eJ. Jnonab/jj, odJ , ola'^nocijoinu Jou ex i)i.«;vvO aiiJ 'lo 


72 - 21869. 
JQEir I . KKm, 

▼s. 1 J 

Appeal frora 

Superior Court, 

lEDIAEA HARBOli liElT / ) 

HAILSOAC CCBliAEY, \ / ) Gook Coxmtjr 

Appeal njit . ) 

198 I.A. 458 


ilaintll'lf while employed bj' defendant fell from r high 
plat:form end t^e Injured. He brou/?ht suit alleging negligence 
of defendant In leaving crashed or Blush ice on the platform, 
oaoslag him to ellp and fnll. Upon trial by o jury he had a 
verdict upon ^^ilch judgment was cnterod for <-l,000. 

The jUT;? could roaaonably believe from the evidence that 
plain biff -wEis eajploycd in nnd about an ice house nnd icing 
platform unod for icing cars. The platform Is about 760 feet 

long and 16 feet wld©;''lTia ,» double-'dooker \vlth a sheet- 
Iron or tin roof; the upper deck la about 21 feet froni the 
ground; at each end Id a cluater of lights; tmder InBtructiona 
these were lifted only T/hen loing cars. Railroad tracks run 
parallel to this platform on both sides. Crashed ice is pre- 
pared in the ice houae, then Drcu£jhtovor the platform to the 
oaa-s; from the upper deck it is placed in ojitb carrying beof 
and poultry. One crew under a foremim does the work in daytime, 
and 8not?ier crow ot nl^ttlme. Orders are given to each 
crew when the work is finished to clean up all spilt or loose 


e, Xnetructionr froj:; the foreman were, =*whenevor there 
waw any sluah loo or solid Ico spilt on the platform it 
muist be IraaodlE'.tely picked up, placed la a full c«r that 

might bo atandin^; alonj' thero; and if t)iere iias no full 
car fitandiUfj there tiircw it into one empty; If there was 
no oapty car there. shovel it off on t'.e ground, and d on't ■ 
A^ jallow it to lay on the pUitform."" In February, 191i;, vfoen -v 

D r 

•on ififtoti w froB ■ 

: -..- 0^ cilit ; 

inO-E^ HVftiXO' IBOO t^ffi #16'. 

.oX<jir» Mnr l".l 


- . .-■' - ~~ - • ■ :.,-^0l 

la J0orfo el: io»5 tt^ciqix Bit fli^0t Hit to no-it 
oai'iaat %9bau j atrial! to rxottoXo m ^Jt ban A9^0 iM i^fiJiO': 

•r(a M ; -•^r, rjitf cofl-t , wdi exi# xri Asioq 

<^T-»'-'^ "fiV.'^. '>--r"^ ^•rv/^,^!r n«ffl«'xO'> ' ■ "' ^'toi:; ^utJani .aol 

. JXiqe o.' .j'Xa ^ '«^ 

X .rwur-xdil ftl "".Biif \:«X •» *1 ««XXll. 

the accident oooui^red, plaintiff did clerioal mirk around tho 
ie« house, stBslBted the watchman and aseiBtod the n.l<.^hi orew 
in lolng oars. Upon the nipht of iho accident no oare were 
ioed. Plaintiff v;&n a88l»tln^ the watchman, and in the per- 
formance of this duty he vmlkred over the top platform at 
loaat throe tlmoo durlnf: the night to pull the night watch- 
man*o clock; at these timos he vtilked along the south side 
of the platform. On the next trip, v.'Mch was hia la«t, he 
walked alont the north vide, and stepped Into elush or cruahod| 
Ice which had been left there by the day crew, ile did not 
know it waa there, and on acoomit of the darkness did not see 
It. It oauood hlTO to ollp and he fell off the platform down 
to the railro id track, reccivlnf severe InJurleB. Only once 
daring the seven yeare he h/id worked there had he ohaerved 
any slush ice left on the platform by the other orew; the 
InBtructionfc) to remove this ice had been foil o^-ed with only 
one exception for many years. 

It does not eeem unreasonable, in view of the great 
danger to workmen on this high platform, that ordinarily and 
usually great care would be exeroieed in keeping the plutlbrm 
free from loose Ice, and thnt only rarely would there be an 
•xoeption to this rule . 

Did )plaintlff aeoumo the riok incident to the preBonoe p 

on the platform of crushed ice at this timeV ".^e think not. ' 

If the fact waa, as the jury mui,t have believed, that the 

proaonoe of this ice at this time was an unusual and extra- 
ordinary occurrence, thon nlfiintiff did not assume/risk. As 

wo have before indlcatsd, we cannot conclude that the Jury 

JihoiJ^d not h ivo so found. This being true, plaintiff did not 

aasuiTie the risk of that which tee did not know, or of that 

9/At bauota irxtw Xwol^ele bib 1Jitf^k»i^n ^h^'s:'rtttn^^ ff^tbtooe r 

oiEOW at«o Oft ;rn0fti»Ofi orf;) "to •n'^iio ©rti^ noqW .sxao sajtol r; ? 

-1^^- ,i -^X: .5ooi 

- ,:. - - '.■> oocjeffliot 

^8 fltuo^ edit 3ao£« i^e:^X.BEv eri 8«ail# o«9(l# tm iiioolo tt*n v 
ori jJauI Bk[i ajBw rloirfw ,qlid- ;fxac ^di oO .inol 
orfa;iio to jiaitia o\U-il 

iO£i nib On «W070 ^, ^. , .. ......: ,. . . ... . ■ 

008 3*00 lib aatfoAxBb •xii* io 4aaoov» no Bn* ,oao(f^ »«-' ft -ro 
anob snoitr.Iq odi tto Holt ari 6nA qlla ot mid fioa 
•oijo ^InO .aoJtitrt«i o-xoroa inivtaooi ,jrfaspx^ JhettXixrx ortJ o. 

,' mi artiso^ noToa odJ 

~... , ...... . :^ 0f):J no Jlol ooi rf««i.. . 

ijXno rfdriw 6t:"»?oI£o^. adotf fiarf ool iiirfJ ovoiBO:t o* aaoi^rotfa^ur ' 

. .i*xaai\i; }^aum ^ol nollqooxo oao 
'aoi3 9'^^ ^0 woiT ni ,9l{/«noaao'ui;0 ffiooe ifeix aao^b tl 
. :C) i&[if ,0r£ol*Bf<i rfgl. 

■- ...- ::^alc[d03l ai j&'?>k'' -v-aw, _, ^..i........ 

£uo od oiorf- fcloow "^Xo-xja^ . oi oaocl raoil ©o'. 

M>aoaoi(j ori^ oi^ ^fixoAloal %mJtt 9sii oiwaae ¥3:l;taJtaIq J^ICT 

WJ* »w ?e/nl# Blf';^ *a ooi ftorfajjio "io crtot^islq oriJ^ :r 
./.uii^ ,Ji©T«lX0o' iV!v' J- Ufa ^-jj/l; orfi aa ,««w ^oal orfJf r 

-»i*xo Ifur? Jtwisaaru; ; ,iM alif;^ ^j8 ©ol «lrf# Ijo oonoao-x 

a(i, .3{el:*i\£r.';oi:.r, Jar . ulttXq narft , aO-KOi-xxrooo ^lisfilftM! 

Ion SJtft t.ij. ^ :; ;i(i ,-;,;mi .; :Ioc/ aixfT .ficfloT: o» ovi^^'f Jo« l-.r 
JijiJ.t 're 10 .woriri .'orr /ii£j .jef n'oLrfr/ •^flrf;f to iali o^^;^ ;• 


whioh he was not ohargeabl© with knovdnfi. 
The Jiidament is affirmed. 

95 - 22012 


\ Appellee 8, ) 


Q US' COOK County. 


Appellant./ ) 

193 I.A. 47^ 



The isBucB in tide caa*} are practically identical 
with those involved in dum£a^r» v, Hedenberg, ante^.cage 
The land involved in tuis case and that involved in the auu- 
mere case were parts of the same tract, vr-hicii had been orig- 
inally owned by ^jumifiers. In thia case the dcfenuant 
entered into a contract vitii tins coiiiplainanta for the pur- 
Qi chase of the land involved i*»— ^nire~e«*«V^the jurchaae price 
' of the land involved in thia case ^n.a the oasae aa tiiat of the 
land involved in the ouniuers cniiCif the two contracts contain>^ 
the aaae provibion aa to dcpoaits of the contrt-tct and rarneat 
money witi» the Chicago Title tmd Truat Company and the right 
of the oooaplainanta to retain thf; earnest money if defendant 
failed to perform the contract on his part^ } any of the 

i d e J .• X 1 tial" ilnTt w«at ww 


questions involved In the two cases are 

wfcW— tiT "the dunamers coise need not b«—rep*8rt*d here, 

~ ^ Xhe abstract v/aa delivered to defendant, who 

made no objection to tne title. )Vhen the time for the pay- 
ment of ^4,000 arrived defendant, on repeated demands, failed 
to pay the aioney and also failed to pay the ^5,000 when It 
fell due on the tjround that he did not hsve the :.oney. The 
Master fi*«^<^iy from tne eviuetice concluaed tuat tiie only 
reason tiiat defendant did not lufcuke tne payments was tnat he 
waa unable to raiae tne money , aa he never tave any otjrier 

,0]iAi n^moi btt* DHAj mien. 

/ ."• 


.1 8 

t. ± 

-•-;:i;;.. snJ ^^.2 i^»vIovni ^ad;( bos aciiQ aliti nJt ^•fXovai 

-H^'xo (]»9d iijsfi uoJtnv ,^oaYJ- sousa »Ai lo ai^'XAq alav s&ao aiii^ 

iambn^tttb exW •aao olrii al ♦aaamauja ^jd bsm^o y;XX«ni 

-ijuq axli lol e^nflrtiBlqaioo aiii diix^ taMtiaoa « ;• .tr-t bs-t'sin'? 

•.3 to i«dj^ a« OSL8S 9sii aum ea«a uidj aX JbaTlovf; 
j^^niBjnoo a^OjBiJrnoo owi exlF j|d(s«o a-xaturuiiC adS al iiisvlovai i>aijl 
t^snifi^i boja SOAiiaoo ajii le aiJtaoqai) oS aa nolalToiq (»flmfi 9ilJ 
xjilsii 9tii bau y,njiqrri'> fstrtt ttiA •aliif o^olAO »iU dilMi xsaocv 

. •/-•,. • i ■ 


.eicj* - ...-._ ■... ... . -.. 

ciiw ..tnAbnolsb ol t>»-X9vlXo^ eaw io» .. "" 

-"^jaq %sii lo'i soiii eiiJ noiiiV ,«itlt 9dJ oi aoiiot^^^do on ebam 

i>«iXijR't ,abii«aiat> beinaqa^ nc u^vXtiw 000«H '^o inom 

*X naiiw 000,*^ ext* ynq; oJ Jt • u^n oeia dau xanoa-. arli Y;«q oj 

«xiT ,)(9no.r: axi4 »v«ii *oa i^ii» -^ -r'^;W bnuo^ »iW «o aub XXal 

% \Xno »iU .tiitur b»bulr<R<>'> ajclJ aiotl x^^^^^^l*^ v«^a«K 

•xl iACti BJnv a^nt ]>XA iiMtnalab ^oxil aoa«n 

;vji.) "xoyna axi aja ,)ctBoai aa4 asXjt^i oJ aXUaau a«« 


reason /lor i;ia<i« any objection to tne title ol' afp'-^^^'B. A 
notiott similar to that given in the aummers case was giyen 
by complainants to defendant April 15, ai^ci, defendant having 
failed to make any payaenta, complainants caused defendant 
to be served with another notice that on account of his 
failure to perforsu tne proviaiona of the contract, make the 
paypients necessary and comply with said first notice, they 
had elected to declare the contract null and void ixjnd to 
retain trie purchase money. iiRy 29, 1j14, deferidant filed 
in the Recorder's office an affidavit 8ifi>ilar to the affi- 
davit filed in the iuummere case, he never made payment of 
either the |j4,000 or the ^5,0C0 to the Chicago Title and 
Trust Company nor offered to do so. No argiiurient was xaade 
before the Master of any defect in ooraplainnnts' title and 
no arfjcument on this question was fliade before the Court on 
excertions to the taster's report. It ^«*lir^-,ued for the 
\jfirst time in this Court. The grounds of reversal urged 

^Irst, x.aat coiapJ ainunts were in default at the time 

of the aervice of the notice of ApriJ 13, l'ail4, and were 
not entitled to forfeit and retain the earnest money, b«- 
oause there vas no proof tiiat at the time of the service of 
the notice they had perfect title to the property, occond, 
that complainants did not, trnder a deed nor prescribe the 
foria of trust aeed. Third, tnat the notice diu not give a 
reasonable time for perf on:.ance. i^ourth, that a court of 
equity \iill not aid the coxcplainants, 

^Jy baaing his ref^AffA^ tiie contract,/ 

on! 1^1 i Inability to ao so, defendant waived all othe^l|roundB 
of ^i>bjection, Johnson v. Johnson , 45 llinn. 5^;.>t'he cofitenttoi 
e^/ defendant that complainants agreed to-t;ive iilxn addiitional 

i I - 

tlcJH» for the payment of th^^ piur$^se price is not supported 

aniVAil lnj9i)n»l«b , \ *n«!>nol9b o^ airtunialqEa , 

Bid \i> inuooon no i»sii Aoxion laaJonx xiiiv bftrfa 9cf c;* 

Xaxii ,ooJ.Jo« ^s-xil blma xWxw yXqiaoo brni \rtie&BOf>n Jiinoiw.ii'. 

o^ tofi i)lov bn& ilun iomiiaoo •dJ •Y«Io»b 0/ bsJodXd be, 

b9lit 3afibci9t»b ,fX9X ,9S ^Ati .xvocx^i oaniioii/^ fidi nlRt^^i 

-illA 9£i4 0^ xaiiexlB iXfMktVtm a* •oillo a'aabioodH oxii cii 

Ip ^n!>t!tx«q aljaKi i:»v<»a »U .tsoo •t»ou*u<c. a^W nx jb^iXl Jtlri^ 

bttB aUfi oaaoxriD »rii 0* 000,54 9il4 10 000, >* »iii taiitis 

•b^ai s«w indoufaiA oK .o« ob oi b«»T9ll6 ton yn/tqcooO ^stn 

bits dUsi 'aiaaflX0lqmQo c(l iostlsii xn^^ '^o id^a.tiM adJ aao^Ss 

no d^ijyo;; snii aiolffcf ab^j^u sjrwr nolJasup ai.ii «o insmwjtiB on 

i»ii;) Oiol b^u.Ht^a^ iX .#to'48'x s'laJajiMt sAi ot unoii :9^X9 

i)*»ax« X«Bi97»a "Xo abtTMots ailT ,;tijjol) alriJ ni ami J inTl' 

tuaXJ !$iSJ Ja Slijatsb ni anew ainJuaxjaXcfxaoa iuiii .^taiil ' ^i(«' 

; . bnfi ,/Mt'X ,6X XirtiA lo o.oJ.,Joa fiiiJ lo ;>»iva9a erf;!- lo 

-dd ,',:'^noai ^Bonauo »iii nifiia? hnjn tiotioi oJ b-iXJilno Jon 

lo aoivicaa sxli lo axai^ ami ia ismi I0014 on bkw a'xsrt^ aaxfao 

,4M3oo»ii ,x*i!><roiq '■ii-ii oi aXJiJ ^oaliaq b«ii yntii aoiJon axU 

flitJ adiioaa-xq ton b«att « -xafimiJ Jon bib aJnaniaXqmoo ^rarij 

» »vx,'i Jon ijio aoiiiton ari,r JaaJ ,x>'xiaT ,b»9i) Jaxrii lo m-xo' 

lo iiuoo B Juiii ^titiuo\ .eoasoTiQlaaq xol 9ai;r 9Xdx-)noeao^ 

.B^nAniAXqiaoo axl^ blu *o" M^ ^r. , 

.^or-Ttriot! oitJ^ ;nao1WM>q:;;o<^-f«5juria_^^^ 

abnui ;.;9Ti«w inAbnalab ,oa ob o4 x<^ilicfjini is i 

noiJaa^if«ii» wxi'i 6'^ •Xi2£il^2i '^ nocnrto^ .noiio-^too to 

laaoti^J.bbM cix.. ; v i , oj b«aih« aia|^^i/lXqalOo JarW inAbn^lal) 1« 

beirioqque *on ei eoii'j «k -^ < ■' -7 -♦i^^t to ^n9jaiy:jtq aiil tol »ixiii 

by the eTidanoe aad therefore otrmnot be made the basis of a 

cloim of hia right to a deed uyon payHient of tne purchaaa 

price. The evidence axiovta thnt his refusal to p«rfor«» vTas 

upon the aole ground that he did not have the inoney to r^^e 

the payaentB within the prescribed time. In Aahb 'xuph v. 

t. urphjr , 90 111, lR;i, it waa held that v^here a defective 

title is tendered »na the conveyance is refused on the 

ground thnt the purchacer did not hnve the monpy, he could 

not obji^ct to tiie title, and the Court aaid: 

"Had he himself been ready to perform the con- 
trnct and objected to the deed beoaut;e tne property waa en- 
cumbered, the plaintiff ffiii.;ht have been able to auow that 
t>ie property waa freed fi^uOi all eriOu:jbrajrice ana tli<? title 
perfect; but defftnount isakea no pretenae tiiat he waa ready 
and able and wxliint; to perform the contract. •• 

To aame effect ia Hunkle v. Johnaon » 5i.; I11.3ii8. 
In a aim a on v. y ouMsp n , 45 y.inri. 5, it waa hpild that it was 
not if&portant that taere wao a cloud on the title vrhich could 
have been reiaoved wiien the vendee stated the. he could net 
get the Money to p&rfor.ii. It was not neceaoary that coraplain- 
ante have title until the time they had agreed to deposit the 
deed in escrow, and before txiat time defendant had made default 
and could not require coniplainants to obtain title. The tnater 
properly found fron the evidence tuat Hedenberg rwridc no objec- 
tion to the title, but failed to carry out the at-reeaent by 
reason only of his inability to provide the necessary money. 

In Kissack v. Ppurk e, 224 111. 352, Bourke mad« 
a contract to sell to Kiaaack certain land provided Kisaack 
deposited in a muaed taiik tne purohaae price, 7/nicii aiiould 
be delivered to ijoarke uj'on receipt of e. deed from hiua. An 
abstract was delivered wAcu suowed a defective tiT,le. The 
time in whicu the transaction waa to be closed wa^ extended 
thirty day a. hiasack offered to pay the balance and take a 

9-A»is. &i ysnocu i»dJ^ oTi^d ioa bib sxi >tAiii bnuo-xs «Xoo »tl;^ noqjLj 

• viiostab « »l»it •-'i.ri B«r .♦! ,SflX ,111 QQ .y.-' 

tsx-ic^ no Jt»o«ul*i bX •oa«x«vnoo b»-xt!9i)n.'».; 

DXuoo 9sL ,^9noia sxli •risjl ^or ioiuq mii SntLS hauoi . 

ibL»H iiuoO aiU mi, ^'ditit atii oi id'^t^o Jm. 

<(b«9T 8JIW - 

SAW iX ;^Ait^ Mod SAV ti . no&iu-iu':, .v noa^xio);^ rtl 

:uoo dolilvr »1. o^ftAiioqiUi ; .' 

9iii ixicio.ob oi i>»«i»A I jmi^ sjli IXiau «X»X1 dYAii aJtir 

JXiJstsb 9bftm bmA loabrtalvl) sAJti Jhjtiii ftrcolsd unn ,wo-xo8n ni £>99h 
tit^- '-iSamalmlqmbo 9'ilupat ioa btuoo bae 

.X' i!0.; yaa««(»09n ».^* •hlroiq o* \;*lXitfiinX Aid To >tXno CToauea 

JbXuoiis Jioiiw ,»ol'xq saAiloiuq 9iii aLuacf fcsuu i .'. .ijl u9ilBoq,9b 

aA . i.J i :t1 ti^aij JB lo ^qi909'x noqu »jiijjoa o;t I»»i©vil9b »cf 

9i^ ■ il::>i:) ■» b«W0iitt libiiiv t9rt»rlX»i) ««w iOMtia^n 

b9bciOJX: >*Xd •«( of ajnr aoiioMt^ ?miJ 

a sitA* bn ■ L>i:i.^. sxii x«q oi 6»ic»tlo iaja: "iliij 

warranty deed, or to deposit the money in tiie bank if iourke 

V70uld mftlre the deed, which he refuQCd to do unlesa he was 

psld a larfccr sum, '(he Court said: 

" Ve of the opinion tnat tne depoait of tiie 
balance of said purchase price in aaid bank was a conaition 
precedent to appellant's right to a deed to aaid preniiaes.** 

The tender of a deed was not neceasary. All 
that was necessary was an offer by complainnnta to make the 
deed and depoait it provided defendant would deioait the 
payment a and perforii; hia contract, and tUey made this offer. 
Hy the proviaions of the contract in oacrow, coiaplainants 
vere 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 iuoncy bs 
provided in the contract. 

The law does not require a nec'dless formality, 
and an actual tender is unnecessary -ahart the seller is 
ready, able and willing to perform on his part, and a tender 
would be ft luere UBcleas forni. If before or at the tiaie of 
pcrforrannce the purchaser has declared his intention not to 
perform, or refuses to do ao, the seller need only prove 
that he was ready and willing to perforiji on his part, 
Osgood V, -ikinner , 211 111. 21^9; Cohen v. ^iegal , 253 ill. 54, 

And if tender by the vendor would prove ineffec* 
tu»l, the law does not require a vain act, and auch tenaer i« 
unnecessary. Thus refusal of the purchaser to perform, or 
his notification of the vendor that he is unable to pprform, 
relieves the vendor of the necessity of tendering a deed. 
39 Cyc, 1377. To the same effect are: Uix v. yeaoh , 46 111, 
311; leok v. Bri^^ht ^ Co., 69 111. 2u0; Clark v, Weiss , fo? 
Ill, 438. 

■)efendant»a objection to the decree on the 

ground that the notice given was not reasonable is not sus- 
tained by the evidence. 

vseXnu OJb cri bssuls'i a j^ ^ ,ft«»«l> 9tU »:iima blue 
:bio« ittstat 5ri7 ,ihu« 7?T,T<«f r hi- 
<9c^ t« ^iAO^sD 9iU SasiS apJLnJtqo fHii to ftti sV^" 
".o«ei.j.diq biiui oJ bsiot m oi Siiiiii a ♦i?cfaXI»qqe oi in»b«D«"j 
^99«c tfoa cjnr b«»b « !• iisbns^ tfti > 
. wj uinanlaXqaoo x^ "xslto oafr- Bur ytaee^- m; .--v. ^i,. 
.;i('!,isb tluon injobnalet t.a'clvrtv Ji ^leoqeb t■nr^ bsfi 
,19'j bstt '^•dl tarn tto^ 'lt9q bun 

i; anolaivo 

;»^««iT b0« aX;riT oaaoiiiO 9Ai n^xc woioas ni il tlsoq^b 0. 

...faii-xiaoo •:- 
.1 8«»lb9»a Ji •ttupv-^ 
„i -xiiL^HH »:ii %fstff x^Ave9os;Uiu di ::3i)a9:f i& an bum 
:"■ , ' '^q mid no -^ •^''"' fl^ jinliXitrr iats »Xd« ,y.b»«r 

«-ro1t9> > !309X»«« afjia a »d blacA 

b9'ZMlQit> 'cioxuq, 9sa eaiuMKotiA^ 

o A9«a xeXXo. ,1^ aasu'^r- 

..olxaci iJ tilling tarn xPmn &mv- a:^ Jm-u 

-^ • ■ ;■' . Ul XXS «t»nr?-/- •'" '"^":7""'. 

t.9bxffti li ija 

>iXii(paY ^on •••b v«X 94i , X«iiJ 

10 ,tc~. xaajJiiotW':. laeulai .: laasoami* 

piaiolETt-^q Qj .)Xw \aw 6X an Jjanj loLxtay arii lo uoijiiyi'ti^oa ai- 

.b9db B rjrti-xojna* lo Y^XfWHoaa ©x(j|; >' -^.' -<>y ^^ut aaT»XX« r 

^*^ •12i££ •'^ >^»«X0 ;00& 

■«ij8 ioti at »Xrf«ndttn«T ion aav rt»vi^J aoXion »<ii i«rf.t bnwoT>^ 

DefencUint'B objection to the decree on the ground 
that a court of equity will not decree a forfeiture ahould be 
overruled. The decree lioes not declare or decree a forfeiture, 
but rucrely decreee tiait defeuAarit has* by his own .ucts prior 
to the filing, of tiuc uili rescinded tne cuncr»ot or caused 
a forfeiture, and tiuat the title to the e&rneat money waa 
in coiapiainanta at tiie time the; "oill vaa filed. liirnest 
aoney in tae hand a of a trustee b?lo/i,sini;: to the aclier 
bt.'caude of the doft^.uit of the purchacer cat^not be returned 
to the purchfiaer, but a-.&y be decreed to be paid by the 
traotee to thf5 seller. 

In i^ucklen v. •.Rdtarlilc , 155 ill. 425, it wa0 

urt^ed that the Court wsia lending its nld to a forfeiture. 

The Court aaid: 

"if the deerep of the Circuit Court in its na« 
ture enforces a penalty, or forfeiture, it cannot be sus- 
tained, rue contract bet-veen these p.-^rtirs recites that 
'said purchase has pnld #1,000 earnest money, to be applied 
on said purciiase whe.) oonsuiiKaated ,* ;And aiiould the vendor not 
coniply with the t^rtae in furniauing title, etc., 'the said 
earnest money sh'^ll ba refunded,' „y tne ter-ua of thia contract 
the earnest money becti/ne tiie property of the appellee, of which 
he could be divcafced only in the event of his failure to per- 
form hiia contract. Cho ciieck waa, «t thf: tiae it was drawn, 
delivered to «:.ppe3. let, and j^hile it is true it wjis nftarward 
deposited, together with the contract, v?itii the international 
bank, txj© evident purpose thrreof w?i3 to guarantse that riaater- 
lik would, within the time prescribed, furrash evidence of a 
good title, in v/ixich tverjt he urould be cntitlf?d to the oneck 
or the j&oney.* 

The Court cites the following, passajse froni Kry on 

bpecific ierforiuance: 

"Wlaere the purchaser, after making the payment 
by wy of lepoeit, unjustifiably repudiates the contract, or 
in any other way gop.s off through hia default, the vendor 
is, it: the abaence of stipulr-.tion on the point, entitled to 
retain the money, treating; it as ^wivin^i been paid to him aa 
a Jtuaranty for the purciiaser* s prTf om'^nce of the contract." 

The Court also cites i)e;)ree v. iiedboroup^h , 4 

Giff,, 479, <.niGT9 the Court said: 

"Then how the person who is in default can, 

•Av t»«<>2» #«9«TWi« 9di Qi *UU arm .oxw^iatiol 

1©IX»« »rli OJ an i ..!..; L-J'; oe.;.'./. ■ ; 'j *o B5n«il »xl# Ml ^.^ 

. t •' X i ft c 
•iiw it .fii.*' .Ill ddl t atiiie^sfla ,t ^9l:iQUfl al 

no \T%. morsl B2t«as£q gniwoiXol oil.? ii»Jlo ixua'^- oiiT 

•i.-: , ■::9i- to Y..''vr \ 

,1 loaJo Y«JB n. 

^ « ii;^"0'X0tfJb»U ,v t^3.1^. o^^-^o o«Xb iiiroy sriT 

(UJio JXiJ«»l<»b (il ei Oiiw noaifl^ •ifi worl noriT* 

upon that default, ond in consequence of that default, ac- 
quire any rit^x^t t«. the uouey, wnic^^ waa purted ,.'itn its a 
aecurity that thrre ahould be no default, it la difficult 
to cunceive,* 

After citinj^^ these caaes, the opitiiOM ol the 

Court xn tue i.^nsitKrlik ctiae proceeds a» folluwa: 

"it is clear fi-oiv Uie contract Uuat the only 
contitiKency which conteaiplated the return of the money to 
hucklen wua a default on the part of liaateriiJc," 

the Court deoidea that the objccticna tc tne 
title v/tre not good, «tnd, therefore, Imcklen had failea to 
ptrform hia contract, and hence hnsterlik (who hnd not de- 
faulted) had a rigiit to decli-re the. contract forfeited, 
and the eaiuecst Konfey f^as turned ovt-r to hioi, The Court 
also held in tiiib crse that no tender of the deed was nec- 
essary because it was eviaent under the facta in the case 
that the eeller would have refused it. 

jLarnest aioney is a guarantee tuat the contract 
will be prrfornjed. if tne oale goes en, it arplics as part 
payment of the purohuse x&oney, but if there is a default on 
tne part of the purciiaser, he has no right to recover the 
deposit, but it belongs to the seller. 

ftowe V, yjaitn, 27 l. 'A, A,, K, ij. 89; 

Walton V, Bonnett , Ul i., T. (Ca. 3), ) 70; 

i:ell ey v, Thoutpdon , Id i.aBS., 299; 

Euckle n v. ii:.m.nrlik , 155 ill,, A'dZ; 

ne pree v. jjcdbprou^rh , 4 t'iff., 479. 
The conclusion reached by the l<;;arn«d Chancellor 
WIS right and proper and the decree appealed fron is affirmed, 


"Oa tHua^9b JAdi lo •onoupeanoo nl bum ,iluMt9b SmtU noqjj 

a aa Aiiv bitiisnq humi u.iiiw ,\;*'^t^<'' ^^^^-^ ^'^ iii^tx tan ntlup 

i/uoillib tii di ,iLuaJ0b on stf bXnoda «i«fU Saiii -o ttuof** 

9x1^ 'to aoiaxqo otu ,B»iiHSt >i^9£ii ^nilio i9ilA 

lAxtollol. aa abajtuoicj ubaa J tnui 9tii nJ, i"XJtfO0 

xXnc diijr j«xiJi ioi.i'X.inoo »4j MQ'tl 'IA&Iq cii; iX* 
oJ x.'^nom cult to niiiifA-x etdJ buiBtqsatiiaoo liolilw xon^^nJt.^noo 
"«:ii:ii'X9;r8.i};i lo iimq, 9£i4 no Jfl;jutBia a &mt a^l^^isd 

9ni oi anai^^aatcfo ariJ Je.di e,9bi09b i%h\ij .■iiT 

oi b9li&'t b»d a^Xiiouil ,»to'i»'i»tU ,bniii . ,. ?>:i»w tsijxj 

'Sb ion bf!.d oAix) al-tXi»i»i».a •on»xl l>a« ,;foAiJfioo bIxI oMolijq 

tb94in\xo1 .^oAt^aos axii ataiosit o.^ tdali st bAd {b9i iu»\ 

t-iuoo odT .laiii o* i9ro b^ntui «jbw y.9U0iK J«ont«» «£ti^ ixui 

-a-5i! «aw ^936 axii to laisu^J oa i«iii *«i :> lil^iJi ixl blftd o»1b 

^if.i^ a^ aoilqqjB ii ,no a»og ^fflfi 9rii II .l>«fi«o i-i/q .■»« lii-- 

'jxi;^ -xavcos'x oJ ^a^i'x oa 9*d 9d «i:»8j»il0'iuq nd4 Jo ttmti '^^.J 
.'xoXIsQ »xii oi ajiaoX^c; ji i ijtftf t^ivoqsi} 
;e8 ,a .H ,.A .« ,d ?& liUisUii .t »you 
;0V (,« .UD) .T .vl Xfi ,^i»2noa .v aoij-ap 

;SS* ,.X1I sex ,jii. Xi';)Jtt,.:ii .y nfsl'jiau il 
.ev^ 4.1tTtXD Jk , ri?i.uoiocfJb:jt{ ,v mJiaSlSi 
T:oXX»on*fiO bsntaoX 9ri;f yd i)i»rfoij»a noXbwXoROO ©riT 


AiiiEHT W, lUDNICK, Administra- 
tor of the Katate of Jame« F. 
li^csnnell • deceaeed, 

Deten^nt in Error, 

\ fl^ l':'A.UCH TO f.;iHC'jlT COU: T 


0^ n(>OK n;)i;KTY, 

CAOO et al., / i 

ilaintiffa in r.rrojf, ) 

\ / 198 I,A. 



I The r«lutor obtained from the Circuit Court a 
writ of K-andajr.uB reinit^tins him into tht clniwtjd office 
of "meter setter" in the Dcpartxaent of lublic »orlc8 of the 
City of Chicago, Fr©» the '^Tjflgfflriratt" Awarding thoit writ 
re8iiiu4««t«-^mT«r--«u«ff''dut "a error aeelclnr a reveraal. 

;iince the writ w»o raued out rpapondenta itwv* auf.:tje8ted the 
death of relator and nia ad;;:iniatrator hnV-b e l^ aubatituted 
and duly aufamoned, and vmile his ajpearancc ha^boen entered 
he £iA# f&ilt-d to file bticfo or argue the cause, 

Tti.^. cauoe was tried before tht court ui oil» the 
petition aa twice tt::iendcd, the answer of reayonUenta and a 
Stipulation of fact. The relator had before the filing of 
the jjetition been ditjjcaiiised upon a trial t>efore the Civil 
service comriiiasion, in conformity with the requireiaenta of 
the civil dervice lew. I 

\ie do not deem it jieceaaary to our decision to 
notice any rjuestiona jreaented regarding the irregularity or 
the propriety of relator's discharge by the Civil :iervioe 
Cofflmiasion, but »ill decide only the first aseignxnent of 
error, vAiioh is, "The petition as amended did not oet forth 
facta which show the legal exiatence of the office or poai- 
tion of 'meter setter* nor tne leji.Hl rifeht of the petitioner 
to iiold it." 

T«B0Ji - 


\ ..Xfl io OOA'JIiiO '. 

3iU bftjfc.? -' ('» ,«oq»9Tt iiro l)«w« SAW Jitw ©rii »onle 

llri:) «iU siolad X«iii A aoqi; /iseaimaijb nisirf noiJlJs^ s/ti 

Oi Xii^v. ., .^,.,., -i,..;.. ,.,,, .. .;iji««ij^:j'-in jx ;ufl3f) Joe oib »W 

-i«0<X to 9011-10 9iU lO •On94«XX» XJUaet snj y^cm i.Oiuv a^or.l 
.>nol;tXi»q »xii to iA-^ir In^i^l ^lij ion tigjisa i-);r»fl|t ^^ noli 

We have conoluuetl that by no ».ver/;ient of fact in 
the i)©tition &o aait:nded ia it laade to appear tirmt any such 
office ae "meter setter" exiata in tlie ■;cpart::ient of iublic 
^orks of tiifi City of Chicago. | 'Y/ne relator averir ikat the 
".jepurtraenL of ^ublic ./arlca israa cresited hy ordinance pasoed 
April lb, 1681; that therenfter, by the revii-ied code of the 
City of Cnicago, 1L9? , tbe said departsient waa eatabliohed 
as an executive dei:.:irtiiient of the municipa}. gov«rniaont of 
Chicago known nu the Departaient of iuhlic •iiorku, embracing 
the Gonujiiaaioner of iublio iox'KSi and 3uci>. other eiu|.uuyefeo 
us tue city council tuny by orcijLnancf; preaoribe and. establish. 

By no ftveruent of the petition as aiuended *»■ it 
uiiide to uppcar that tn.e city council by ordinance created the . ,. 
office of "aettT aettcrj"/l The civil ,;ervlce Gomtuission h?axl 
no'er to create the oifice. They cculd only c;ao9ify the 
offic<?8 cr«.r't<;d by tht orclinrxncea of the city council. It is 
settled in this jurisdiction that in jiandai^us proceedings 
where the exiauence of '^.n office ia clniined, it «jU3t be tiade 
to appear by s.pproprinte averments tutxl the office waa created 
in tile manner prescribed in cnaea of thiy cnaracti^r by an orai- 
nance of the city. Courts of general juriadiction do not take 
Juaicisl notice of lauinicipni ordinances, but he who rcliee 
upon 3uch an ordinance must allege and prove it as a icatter 
of fact. ieoi:ip V. j>uaae . .i4B ill. 11; Jtott v. city of 
Chicago,, 20b ibid ii«l; Gfcracn v. Git;/ of Cziicafj^p , -<j5iv ibid 
561; Bullia v, city , ii35 ibid 47-c. 

The peti-ion »» aiiiended does not cite any ordi- 
nance of the City of Chicatjo oreatinf: the office of "meter 
setter* and without the citation of aucn an ordinance in 
the petition of relator the court cannot d< ter^ine liiut any 
auch office '■>xi .ta. Thia principle of law ia ao uniformly 
well eettled by ao niany dt^ciaiona of our ^upreiue Court that . 

oildij i 'i . />',, ;v.iJ ui !>.-o.-..;'ca "i«*i9K 'i-ij-3:!i- ■J"-'. 9:)i'rlo 

bodfylXdJi-t^BB afiw ^naiai'zjaqsb i>ia« odi « V9 JX ,osH»oJtd;> lo ^yJLU 

..,: :JiVHJ.;;0 .(tt-XOii OilrfiTi lO ^HSiXlJlfi (SG Ofirf ttiJ DWOHji OJt«Oiii;j 

-jiHo aoua boM fiilioy oiidui lo ^snolaeiauaoO sxfl 
.jJ;ItfAifi» bfiA •(fiao8»'i :' x.»^ iioauoo "i^lQ 9dJ <.>■ 

Jioii i-iiosa" lo aoillc 

.ij^ Yl^wBwCo vjrno bXi»of> v.ari'? .aoil'io 9iiJ oiA^ro oi T:»woq otx 

8i il ittibio 9di y,d i!»o#«eico a»oiHo 

aolJolbaiiJJt «i£U «i J>oXi*9a 

SOC't; fj<; J.. .;>: j. ,.'■»,.. i ., , tjillo fSi' 'I'O »On0j8iX» 9rf^ SlOrfss 

i)»:t«?»io i;'.' V ^jxllo axU JA»*i^ BJiiojunsirjB ©Jjajtaqoiqqii ^d" aeagqa o* 

'ibto K. TCj»iio uidi lo »9efi0 nx batfiioaonq •xonmwi ^liJ ni 

9x ii J i lo uJTi.oJ .■(jiJlo ©ifJ lo oonAD 

Btilia-i Oaitv ,ii JkiM ^ii^^,i^>i\ibio Imiioitiuti lo ooxJoa Xttioibi/L 

TSjisMu. B »A J^i avo-xq i.afi sS'^XIs laiifii fton«niJb'xo nji lioun noqu 

lo \^JiO .V JJ^oJc ;iX ,1X1 0*i» . 3oajJU .t oAio»i .ionl lo 

bitfi ueii. .ojHHiiiii 2£ vjL^ '^ iloercaa ;X»Si! Jbitfl eoii . oaajXiiU 

.iiV> bxdl a«S . Y.#iO .T aXXXAi& ;Xeft 

~ibio '{(la 3^io ion asob babnaom «.^ noiJlrifoq ftdT 

•xodata** lo ooXllo 9xi;t :^aiia9io oj^itsXii^) lo y,JXC. oilJ to domm 

ni DOiianxbto aa lioua lo aoiiniiQ 9di iuoiiiiv baa "veJ^sa 

xn« ;f.fiiij »ni!nt8*ob droaitoo itx/oo sjaU ■xoijRXa'x lo aotili^ti otU 

Xl«notinu c i»iX9 oolllo dou» 

we do not deeci it appropriate to further extend Uiia opinion 
in de.uonatration of ao olear u principle. 

The Judgment of the Jirouit Court ia reverocd 
nnd, »3 the relator .aa not entitled to thp vsrrit of wsindaauo 
pr«iiyed and ia now dead, the Ct^iuse ia not rentmded. 

noiiiiqo eliii baoixo radiiul oS sjfsiTqoiqq^ ^Jt mssb Son oi/ 



v.(;l ,i?iKR;iL, 

D^endant in r:rro 
ilaiikiff in ' r#or. ) 




19S I.A. 483 


Cn a trial before tae court v/itjiout ins it.t«r- 
yeiitlon of a jury ^liuintiff inxd Jud.iKent for ;;16u, and de- 
fendant bringa the record to tnia court for our revA<uw and 

aaka a reveyjial, _^ ^ ,_„ . — ^..«^, 

-^ i-laintiff claimed to imf i|lloaned defendant §160 

witli lidiida. to pay money tuDt defendant lost at fcaj-^bl In^j. 

Tv«f endant inyokaA 3^Hr>riio- n ISfci , Cun^fcn to<J Ji , . .*♦ an a de- (^^ 

fense. It jU> not contended tJaut the iliK) loaned, or any ^ 

part of it, wa« pniJ to plaintiff »» .oney won by him from -3^ 

defendant at Uie pajftblinj; t-amc of poker or any other ^-wabling v> 

i:ame of cards. It •eemAT^Uovyever» that plaintiff and de- 
fendant and five other a.en were playing poker at jlaintiff* 
jr^ouae ana that deferiannt lout 4l9ij, and having only i^AO 
with hiKi, at the conclusion of the gajjie borrowed the ^lt)0 
frotfi plaintiff and paid it, toget/xer with the 940 he had 
vrith hilt, to the persona >fio uad won varioua awovnte of 
uioney frou< alia* 

he aiffioulty with jil«*Jtiff'8 contenlion is, 
tiiat tiia own tc8ti...ony l&oica corroboration by any of tiie 
persona present during that evening #tiO aaaiuueaiy had knowledge 
of the transaction. None of these pf^raonu was called by de- 
fendant to t'^Btifr'in his b»;half. On the other nand, two of 
the partlcijants were called by and testified on behalf of 
filliiintiff, and tneir testi^^iony was oorrobomtlve of plain- 



til Stmitrflha 

85:t.A.I8GI \^ 

--{</^-i , ,1' "IJJ Jii-j 1 :•*. c^ rr>ii i(j.jnXijJq XtU[^ n io r 

• baa *elv9i iwo lol iit<oo aiaJ o^ fjTO0*t ©xl^ ttiirtiiJ J 

'-:!'o ^' - .; , ,...>-■ w " ta ^ qimiO |B^ ■ • -'la j... .■*^:-' to ,l>9ni»9X UOXA 9iii JiiiLi - -^^ li .'^^i;^'! 

Biott mid xd now X9no.i) aa Hiia'liiXct 9i bimq, t^ 
^atXdsm-^ t«4io -^oa to v»;foq to 9003 ;|aiXd'«ia ViU ^« ^Aiibn»l9' 

0^^ XXno j^nXviiii baa ,uttX4 i«oX in< '.n^t»;: jAdJ ban 
..X 9x1^ bowo^TOd •i»«a 9tidl \9 A«ii» ^ ^^ «alii di^iw 

l^^ii »ii 0I>^ 9tLf iiilw «*£U9io^ .#X 6JLAq bsm WUaimlti ao<Xt 
l9 ainuotfut AtioXtitv now bjui o/iw •nosno.i t>ili ol ,aixl xiiXw 

:.X aoXiu«inot> 

bslwoni bJiii \Lh^it<ujiiaa 04v. 

-•b V.(l I. i^m-iJ 9-.^ A.' 

"'^> f-'> f .-,..; ,.. ^,.j;i'>^ o^ tambas^ 

JA9i bwi yji b»i{«a •%99 9iti9tit9lifq f^:'.' 
'^vliciorfortioo «i<w y{fl9(Ai$m93 tXstU bn» ,ltX. 

tiff* 8 account of the trctnaftction in eve-ry ^aaenlial par- 
ticular. Def ondAnt*tt t«Btii!itony waa not «upport<»d by any 
otiicr witnea«. in tnia oonoAit-ion of the* i.roof the court 
could not find tne isauea otherwlce than for tjic plRin'viff. 

At the tiam ?;l&intiff lonne'd def tJuUfsnt the |150 
in uuit, tn« ploying of the poksr gj^uvs© wtnEi concluded nnd 
defendant borrowed the jaontry from plaintiff with which to 
p»y tiie person* who hsd won froaj hiju during the evening, 
plnintitf not u<Kin,' otm of th*?Ui, If ■ inintiff lind received 
any part of the money loi^-ned by hl« bacic wgaio iia money 
that he nad won frura d©f«n<iant at t»« poxnr t:tun«i, th«i>n th© 
statute invoked v/ould be tt cocipletc defense. Jt in tne )aw» 
however, tnoL b p«;raon muO tit the cloae of n tjfw&bjiing trans- 
action loana money to p».y a gtijabling debt Oiay recover th« 
axQii^y in »n action at law, notwitUatanding tht* lender ir^ay 
have knowIt?djt<,€ of the j urjoae for '^^uich the sioviey is bor- 
rowed and thnt it io to be dieburaed in tne pnyiiitint of 
gmubling debt a, 

we taink plaintiff » claim cornea within lk« 
ruling of Arroatronf; v, ^«t<:rlcan 7.xohn.ii£e Kational Jjonk, 

153 U. ii, 43S, in which the court mnde the follo.^ini;;; ob- 
aerv&tiono: '*An obIit;»tion *ill be enforced, taough in« 
directly conrjceted with an ill«tsal trariaaotion, if it is 
supported by an independent conaideration, uo th«t the 
plaintiff does not require the «id of vhc illefinl tr«n.iiRe- 
tion to aittke vut hi a case," Bank of kontreal v, Qriffxn , 

154 ill. App, Cli , ia to a Hie effect. 

The judt.xient of the J.funicip»l Jourt finding 
support in ti.e evidence ia effirtucd. 


.ltlJfti«I« ?iU -ito'i nmii »oX«ri8iUo «»jj8«1 9d* ImiJ ion bluuu 

bna b9buLniioo ^ ~ ' tailoq »Ai to jjni^nXvi ..- ,jj.... ;.* 

.iiftin'fva 9iii 3«iTiwt) «A£i mo'^'i now hmi oriw «noai;©(i »-l* x««l 

Vjnctn ia« nij«:;,ij ^lootf ml A v ; t uriJ lo iTunq y;rt« 

»ri^ invoos^^ Xi^ t^i»b ^aUdsaa^ m <<a<i oi ynaoai easol aol;foiii 

-lod ©i v.» oai iioii::*? lol «»ao,t*yo:T nmS "to is^^i*-* Cv?0it3( ov-iul 
to ^n£>{iax<j«[ adj njt iisaivciotb «d u^ ai il JajAi l>n« bd^ci 

«ilJ jii^JJii'. a^ijioo ssLLmIv e ♦I'UJnialq jfeiidy' 5;.. 

•iiilSii J<««oi.tJB ;t g ;^n.«iioxa ( uis^j:^t*m i j l »\r ;)ny>T[jr)^{yiA *Jo iSiaituTi 
-dfo aniv'ollot Biid^ tth£iii 3TU00 9dS Uoitw ni ,£5^ ,«. ,U £61 

»X ii 11 ^nQliom^imii lagtlll cui xlilw ibs^ooonoo x^^^nikb 

9iiJ iAxij- od •noi^ttt^^lodoo in9ija»q»i>fll ob X'' ixi^^-xoqqi/a 

-aijiusaii lfl.>59lXl Oil.! lo bi/j :^ ,.' i , iLi/jfii ^on e«tii) lllinlalq 

t r i ll'tno ,v X.8»ij^aoa lo a la^- slit ;t«o •](«« a# aoiJ^ 

..irodVia mill a o,:f «t .aid ,«qA ,1X1 *tJX 

saUbtiil ^TiiiOo X/»q[jLOlnjuM i»xil to j»»»i 

.M - ^KJSii 

va, \ 

AUCU3T l.EiiC2f. 

Iwintifl' in xrror, 


j /■>• COOK OOUKT\ 


in fejcror. j / 


V. A-Tt. 

19SI.A. 491 



the, writ Oi" error in i;.ia CHse aee^a to ii«5.v« 
reY«rs«d « Judi^iaent of n il c »|'t» t t and for oouta rendisred in 
3 i.ri»l befor* the court wit/out a jury* ucfendant in 
error uf^u failed to »,pp«sar, 

ihe abatrfltcu ol UiC record, th* aouioc of aur 
seftroh foi wrrore, l.j aa r* v/nole (iu;€inin«.l ftaa, it i.a in- 
cohtvrtnt ana in uu© frafjaciitary cannnfir in Wiiich it is put 
to^etxi«r %^re»^n%» naugi't for juOiicinX oonuiaeration or in- 
tttrpietfttion, /.Tea ti;« cct*tt.'.on Ik-w record ia not, nbatriiCted 
and Uie bill of «rxcei,tion» ia »lii.piy referred to a* sucn by 
nHi::f., but ite contenta ar« not averi aUj^^: matted, v^ere ^€ to 
attciipt froa. tiife Abstract to deter -ine Uip cstuor of nxilion 
or tii« ijiabe of tut r-l^^din^v cur concJuiiions tsiust be bKsed 
aoltrly on cor Jefiture, 

vlt id utatcd in Um abstrjtct tiuit tae deolara- 
tion ia ir. ftn "ootion of ciebt on » foreiiio ju-i me-nt laying 
dmfi&nmu t^7y.b\ ,** it uj j •fwrs Uvnt a jud^/aent by uefa.»lt •*»» 
entered and Uien act »aide; ti;ftt pleaa of ni_l ditbit (» bad 
plea in debt on a Jud^Bent) and of nul ti<f.l record .vcre aub- 
sequcntly filed; txiat a replication to tsit. plea of nul tie! 
record, oonciuuin^. witii a verif ia&tion» as filed, f<nd Uiut 
^'^^ oy y tenue d«&urr< r to th« plea of ni jL debit waa euatained. 
j.en foilowe tx*e jua uent of nil cfti..iat , m^icu reoitee timt 

1 «". 

•>7 V-C - ■ !)> J « ,J "' '^ « f;> » • ' • • 

T.UQ It *■? (fctO : '»:''t TO -'5' 

-fli 4;i J; , .Ma,"* I 

aoxjun to -^nxa-iB jwo o. 

I n:;iJt»'Xol « tJ 

-uuo on A 

t»niB.jeui( saw jLt_ 

oubr.ioslon of the cause for trial by the court was pursuant 

to the stipulation of the pKrties. sul>s«qu<:>nt to the «ntry 

of the jutiKinent defendant filed » by lenrc of court, a jjlea 

®^ I"^ , '* dftrrie n oontinuftnce , V>o Issue w»» joined on this 

pita, iliiintiff Uj,en movffdi to vftcate tii« jud = /u«nt tuiu the 

motion being overruled an appeal was prayeU and allowed, v^ 

While a full transcript of tiie record is before 

u», the abstract is but little more tiimi an Intiex to the 

record. The abatraot ie the ; leading of Uic }.laintlff in 

error and f< court of review will not look beyond it Knd 

search through tiie record in an ntter..rt to find reasonia for 

reversal. The abstract fails to diaclose nnyt. inf, which 

tends to l«speach the Judhiaent found in it. The ;:iuprefne 

Court, in "/ill aye of l>es Haines v. rinkleirtan . ii7c ill, 14«, 

on a petition for a rehearing, polntint-; out siaterial asatter 

in the record not found in the abstract, made tne following 

pertinent observe tiona: 

■C/ur apprehcnaion of the record is derived frow 
the abstract prepared by the f*ppfjllant RnU acce|.ted as cor- 
rect by th<s appellee, 'i'hcit abstract uoes not ahow the ob- 
jection above quoted, and the EipjfJlec dia not ^xyyly t-ne 
omiasicn, if it was an oaauaion. Inder such circuiiiBtunces 
the court (io«o not search the record to ascertain the is- 
sues, but acts entirely ui;on the abotract." 

The abstract of the record failjing to show any 

error of procedure or in the plt-«tdingu, the Judt^ent of the 

Circuit Court la affirrsied, 


sxotad el ibioo*^ tiU tp iq:no«n»tJ Hut a 9lim 

ixl 1111 nit i< >X;f 9ilJ «X <o«"x;rada oiiT .feTHoo^'X 

htt'i .-! : IXXW W*XTt>1 lO tflUOO « feiW 50V1 * 

li: .«i.jii oi ellat tomtitnim na.7 «X«ai»V9t 

. t .[{. V-. . aamaXJi-nX^' .T ««»nli»Xi iia( l, lo w^aXXXV ni .^-xuoO 

" ,1 iuo yniJttioq ,s'^i'Z»<!ii/iat n tol ixoU i.i'*q & no 

iil^oXXol »iii *bam tJojeftStnin 9siS nl itauol Soa bxoonr «dJ it 

«t{0 ' - V,</ i091 

89 Ux ■ ■-'<J 

".ioMtitidA niii ooqi/ \X«niiJfJ» alott 3u<i ,8»i.:'- 
Xu« ,;;v.i« oJ ^ailint ili-xoos's <»iU lo ^oJt^iindA sdT 

^bBiartittM si ^luoJ JiuontlO 

29 - 2163S 


l-laintii\f in Error, 



\ Error, /; 

\^ 193 I. A. 493 


^ Tiie record and abstract in tiiis case are in 
all esaential particulars the same as in the case of 
August Leroy v. defendant in error. General Eumber iil632, 
opinion in which is this day filed, and contain all the 
inf iriidties in that opinion pointed out. For the reasons 
appearing in the Leroy opinion supra , the judgment of the 
Circuit Court is affirmed. \^. 



( /siiOJOTi .H THsaoa 

.Y'LAijO:) XOOO ^lO \ 


X / .TTOOci ,V AVH}niI:.l 

(^ .10112 f^t ^nabnsldG 


nx ftiB £>aao axuJ ni Joaueds bnfi Lioasi siiT \^ 

lo saiso 9xW ni sjs sxaae sifJ- eialuoxJ-iiiq .tai^noBsa XIjb 

.SSoIii iscfmw;! Ifiisnaa ,10119 ai Jn-ebiialsJb .v ^o'^^'-I J'eiraiJA 

ailJ- IIjs nxjs.tiioo bas ,i)«Ii'l lisi) 8J::i;t ai. rioxriw nx aoinxqp 

anoa/191 silJ lo'i .duo jbajrixo-^ noxiixqo d-«xid- ni 89i.tii!:ix"iax 

sri^ lo d-n9flia-buG s-i^J . aique noxnxqo xo'^S'-'I 9^* "i anxissqqB 

/.bcmiilljFs ex :fitfon d^xuoixO 

34 - 21676 

AKTO^' J, C£KliAK, for use of 

\ Defendant in Error, 

\ vs . 


V. A, viTASGK J lAI^C CO., a corp. 

ilaintiffs in T^rrc 



193 I.A. 494 


^^In an action uj on a replevin oond pi win tiff 
in R trial by the Jourt hud jud;jr.ent for v40(; debt,, the 
penalty of tne bond, and ;^264 dai»aEe« in the uisual foriu, 
and defendant brings the record to this Court for review. 

The rtaylcvin bond sued upon mi& given in a 
replevin uuil, under which Uin defendant i iano Coiijpany 
took the piano of plaintiff. The repl»^vin auit resulted 
in a judfjnent in fr-vor of plaintiff and the award of a 
^""^^ ®-^ yptorno habendo for the piano. The i iano wae not 
returnedTnnd the rrrasure of plaintiff 'a danififies in a auit 
on the bond wa» its value together with his coste. 

Defendants tendered in defer; i>e a writing 
claimed to be a contract between plaintiff and the jriano 
CQ«bP''^my for the purchase of the piano in question on the 
so-called *inatala»«nt plan." It was claiitcd that under 
till a contract plaintiff «as behind in nia payaicnts at the 
tiiue of the suing out of the replevin flrit, and that tucreby, 
under the contract, the piano was the jroperty of the iiano 
Cowpany and it had the rig^ht to reduce it to possession. 
;^laintiff dcnir.d that he signed the coritraot, but clalsaed 
that all he oif-ned was a delivery, i^ef en.iAnta' 
witness, iaury, while testifying i.hut i^laintiff signed the 

-IJ OT ^M?'-/> 

^,.iico ft ,.;•..' ^ 

.T.IUOO ilHT «0 HOiai-iO Mt OiUlilVlJiia HiXLJLJH aOXT6U. . 
lliifiljaXti Dnocf «J.v«iq9i « aoqii noi^da am nl^^ 

^dTXol lsu»ii 9rtJ ni a03«ajjb I^CS:.? bo* .baod 'irfi lo \iXnn«q 

s ai asvia a»«r aoqu b»ua bnod aiTftlqvt »ilT 

Xn«q[iaoO onali *n«bn»l»b «ri* rtolihr labnu .liutt aJtY«Xfn 

b»iXua9i Ji«8 nlYaXqM •riTJ ,l"Uifli»Xq lo Ofuilqi td* 3ioo;f 

« to biflw« oiW bn« ItlinlaXq Ito lorr;! nX *n»flcjbut « "^ 

*oa aaw on*!^ axlT ,on«Xi| »tU icl obng^rf-Oii onioJat lo ^iw 

iiuB « ai «©3«aiJib a*ltXlnXaXq to 9iJ/8«ivi ndi bn^bsntuitrt 

'"^•iSQO aXxl dilw idxi^SBO^ 9«I«t 8*1 a«v bno<i .^ri* no 

j^nXiXTw a ^ouetab nJt bs-sabno* a*ni»'.>n«l«a 

onall «j(l* bn« fMininli-i naawtfacf *oj«t*noo » acf oi b»aii«Xo 

aiii CO tiol^fitwp al onni 7 -^itt lo »aarioi«q 9Ai lol x«'"l'«>5 

isbn ".ruiXq, ia^taXA^^nk* bttXXjBO-o* 

•xiJ *o einauix*^ ^-t" "-^ bnlxied a«vr I'tl^nlaXq tonitnQo atiit 

,X«f»"XCiiJ *»iii bflia ,iXiw nlv^XiOi ad* to *wo anii/e oxli to sati* 

onjixx oxii to x*'X«»<I0'Jii Sii-i^ ""O* onaiq arf* .ioailnoo sii* labny 

.noiaoaaaoii o* SI aouboi o* Jilr^it •'rii b?«Jl .tl bna Yn»q«oO 

b3£aX«Xo iu<i ,*Oi»'Xi«oo axli b««:^i(. >b ttX^nXiiX^ 

»«*n«t)«otocl .Joiioii ^arlXai CX« **il» 

axil b9aai« ttiJnl-nXq imia snlytliaoJ . ^jcx..; ,aaan*Xw 

proffered contract, adjiiltted tnat it had been changed In 
several isatorial particulura ami tnat a lorge part of ito 
teriiis nad been aUtied aince plainliff aiijned it. There was 
no proof tiiRL pliiintiff aaBentcd tu any of the chun^^ea 
ffiiulc in the alXe-EeU contract. The Court exclutled the v/riting 
because nuch ru^^tcrial ch».nges and alterations hr<d boon mad* 
without the aeaent of plaintiff .v/Ti^ls ruling of the court 
left defendants without Rny defense, and our conclusion as 
to the correctness of sucIj ruling jsuot be the determining 
fr'.ctor in our decision, 

Thia ruling v<as without error, for, aa aaid 
^" Gardiner v. Harback , 21 111. 12B, *The law will not 
tolerate sucii chniru;os in the evidence the parties have 
provided of tiie tcnna of their contract, and if liu juadw 
annexes aa a penalty the release of the ciiier p^^rty froxa 
all oblig/>tion under the contract," 

The alterations in the contract were luttterial 
wnd were L-iftde --Yitiiout the authority of the plaintiff, 'i'hert 
waa no aubeequent ratification by pLnintiff of such un- 
Ruthorized Ciiangea, either ftxjreaa or by implication, 
flowing fr oja any act of plaintiff suboequent to the waking 
of such alterations. Under the proofs found in the record 
the lefral title to the piano was in plaintiff. The find- 
ing and judRTsent of the l^unicipal Court ore right and its 
judKusent ia affirsied. 


nJL bft^^andfi ({&94 bad ii ie£U b^iSiiobja ^iofttiaoo i>«itl:loTq 

Bii to .tijsix o^icsX A jAiU liaa aialkioiiiAq^ iAtxttjuiai XAidvas 

easnano 9iU 1o %na oi doJ'nsfitia VtiJnlnlq, imtii tooiq on 

'>^jun ao<id baa. siViitBi0il» baa Ria^asuio " aue ••u«o«cf 

inwoo onJ to gJ^'ifi^i elxfT^y.lliinJtwXq ic i ,'. ?: adj ^wodilw 

.ftoJLsipal) two ni •?: 

iO»5 iXivf wJ8i »xiT» ,aSX .XXi, XS «^0£rf3£n .v ;:'^.i.i ■"«../ ni 

ttjbjjdx ou IX baa ^iostiiaop xi&xU to i: lo cd^ivoi i 

aoTt'i Y^is^q iftiAJo s»jcli "to »aA»X»'j. 

XaX-xoJjsjo a'ld.s' i^aiinoo sdi nX anolisrroJTXa oxlT 

•toii'V .l'ix4ni:ii:Xq eclJ lo xJi'to^l*"^ ori-* ^wo^i^iw »b/^-u »it«w brui 

"an xiojja lo lliJaiBXq x* aoitaoiliSiii ivi9upo8<iua o« «»» 

titoi^aoiXqiui \;</ 10 eMair^x'* ladiis .••tnado bBKiiodiuft 

^alAjoiti ndi oi ^nawpaacfuo ItUaL^lq to -iOM \rtjn uioil sjnXwoXl 

Moo»i <»xi;f nX Jbnwol alooiq oAS iBbali ,»nolimtiiSla doua lo 

-biHI fjxiT ,tlXJnl«Xq pX unr- onaXq srft oJ »X1X* lm^9l orfi 

U.JX i)no iJci^X-x a-xjB d-tuoO Ig inaoi^btfl, fcna gnt 

.i^aainlTlA ai ^n^m^biit 

391 - iil789 

CHAHLsa yv Hoyp, i 

Appellee, ) 




193 I. A. 499 


1 Iftintif f reoo-?eped a judj^cnt for ;&-ii916 against 
defendant on a trial before the Court, '^riti^ouL a Jury, and 
defendant appeals, 

N^The defendant, L. Gould & Co., are wholesale 
denier* in wooden and willow ware and house furniaiiing 
good* in Chicago, and until July 6, 1909, owned and operated 
horoes and wai^ons, etc., and used the aaoje in the hauling of 
their goodo, Cn that day defendant discontinued doing its 
own teaming and sold all of its horaea, wn^ono, harness and 
other teaming equii->ment to the plaintiff. On tJrie samt- aay 
the parties entered into a contract t«iioh provided inter 
alia that plaintiff anould do all defendant's teauiin^^ work 
for a period ol five years; that it should for that purpose 
furnish defendant six double and two aintle tesais with wag- 
ons, drivers and otner necessary adjuncts, for w;.ich plain- 
tiff was to receive from defendant as ctxupensation ;j^l,OCo on 
the first day of each month, during the life of the contract. 
There was nlso proviuiun made for tiie supplying of additional 
teams as the exigencies of defendant's business i::ii(^ht require. 
Among the (untcrial conditions of tiie contract plaintiff 
agreed tliat during the teru. of the contract he would keep the 
wagons well painted, have defenuant's nw«c pointed on theit, 
and keep all the wagons, horses, harness, «" to. , in as good 
order and condition as the same were in vhen pousession 
thereof was surrexidered to plaintiff, ana generally to cnrry 


boa «Y^i/t. A ;fuoii;tlw ,itiio3 exii •'X«)«tf Iblis a no ^nohnalsb 

.itX«aqq« inmbnalab 

;iniiirii:a-xul saifoil bnm 9imw veXXxw Doa nebooir al m%9lm^ 
beiRi\, lisau bna ,oj^ohlO ni aboo^ 

aii 3nioi) i^9iiaiinooBil> ^nAbnolsb Y«Jb SMiiJ no .ftbooa 'xXdii^ 

bajQ eeaniBi; ,ano;vfnw (BttBioxl a^fi lo XX« bXca ima ^nlouBd^ mro 

XJ8b yauBi. .lliJnXaiq 9ii^ o;f ia^miilupo gaicaMoi lori^o 

31-xow ^XisusdJ e'^nftbd^lsb XXn ob JbXuoitB llXlniJiXq JhxII axXj> 

90oq-iuq i«iU lol bXyorlB Si imii jcxjiax: otXI: lo belisq s lol 

-j^w iiJXw soiAaJ sl^aia owi bnx Blduob xia Jnabn»lab dalnii/i 

-itXiiXq doixiw aol .a^oniit^a Vtaaaftoan qsilJo tinu aiftylifo «srto 

no UOO|X(^ aoii&za9q,aioo sjb Jaflbastab «et^ •t1»09Y o^ sjcw llli 

.^oii-xJnoo 9iii to 9'tlX dxi^ snlii/b ,iliaom xfOA» lo \.mb J'ciXl 9CiJ 

lAnoiilbba lo anXxXqqua 9 At tot ob«m noieXvotq O".''" - «^.,.i«. 

,0Tlwp9i iilaii- aaoniowcf a'^nAbnalab to aoXon9;»ixo - )j 

ItlinXAlq ^oJiacfnoo 9x1.;^ to •noiJ^lbnoa XaIxoIsbi 9di anonA 

•at q9»it bXi/ow axl ^toa-x^noo »£Uf lo mrt»4 Biil '^ttXtub iatVt i^»«TB« 

.laoiW no b9;rniBq »m«n •4n*t>n»l»b •riul «b9ini«q iX»v aooajaw 

boo,v( a« Hi i,oJ9 ,B89n'xnil .aneioil «anosiaw •xiJf XXfl q»»}{ bn« 

nolaa90uoq n9iiw ai •tc«w amae 9ii^ aa nolitbnco bna fbro 

rino o;» ^Xi*ien»s bn« ,ltl,tnlaXq oi ij«'i9in\9iruu oaw to9'X»ilJ 

on and conduct the teajning business incident to the buslneas 
of defendant in a manner " satiaf actory* to defendant. On 
failure of plaintiff to comply -sritn the foregoing conditions 
in a laenner "aatiufactory* to defcnviant, the defen..urit iuit^t, 
on giving tnirty days written notice to plaintiff, declare 
the contract "forfeited anu of no force or effect." 

It in proven that plaintiff received the teaming 
outfit oold to iiixu by defeniiant in firat clRea condition, und 
under the t«raminj:i contract it was incunsbent upon plaintiff to 
00 aiaintain the teasing outfit at all timeo during his term 
of service thereunder, llaintiff clairaa that he did so, but 
the overwlielming proof is tiint he did not, Ulaintiff's idea 
of maintaining the wagons in good order anU conaition by 
keeping them "well painted* may be gatiiered frow his testi- 
r&ohy that he only painted the wagons once after he took thaa 
0T«f under the bill of sale from defendant - a period of three 
ytara, : The eviaence deiuonatrates that plaintiff kept the 
horses in art ungrooaed con<iiCi.on; tiiat the liarne&s 'sna not 
clean; that txie .sragons were not "well painted" or kept clean, 
but -^ere nabitualiy dirty; that there were many holes In the 
wagon covers, causing rain to percolate throutiii and damage 
goods being transported in sucii ^agona; tiiat, moreover, plain- 
tiff's teattiSters "loafed upon tne job." 

These conditions, viK?n called to the attention 
of plaintiff -vere not denied but excuaed, ilaintiff in effect 
replied on one occasion that he could not afford to live up 
to hi 3 contract. Defendant being dissatlufied with condi- 
tions, avnllcd of the riisht reserved by the contract to ttrrai- 
nate It, ana on jfebruary 15, 1913, gave plaintiff notice tliat 
the contract would be determined ti.irty days from that date, 
Jince karoii 15, 1915, plaintiff has not uone any teaming for 
defendant . 

aa»ni.auti 9di o4 iaabioai Ba^niau^ :^LiaMai 9tii ioubaoo bsxn n 

no ,injabaBt9b oi *x'^oi»a1uliati'* tanoMU a i\i iaMbi^9''t^3^ io 

snoi^icnoo an^oa»iol asii liiltt sJ'Xmoo oi ttitniHlq lo a-xiiXii 

.jjl^vilm itAAuaalab aaJ .injibnaleb o^ "xtoiou'luUma'* raaaAsa a i\ 

«iflIo»Jt. ,lliJniaIq o^ ftolJoa aaiiit^ axjib \itUii snJLvl» r 

".^09ll» 10 ooiol en lo bn* jb»,n«»lTo1* .toa-xinoo su 

.aoiJibnoo naAlo Janll ni ;tnAi}noli»t» x;d ain t .' .[ju cfilti/o 
i iliJnifiXq noqu ^norfnuioni saw il ioaa J3.>;t oxU lobnw 

Aioi sixi an^iui^ ssmlJ iXr. ia ittiuo i^j.. .. - . ..IJ alMiniaax o<» 
ii/d ,oa LiJb ori J«rti omJL«Io lli;fnlflrT .■rr!»*^n{/f>T*>rii oolvx«t •! 
Msbl «'lllJfll«I'T7 .Joa bib Ad iJWi- nidxiwuiro ^ . 

^d noi^ibnoo bn» i9bzo booa nl an ititaiH^aifiiVi lo 

-iJB9* aJLu tuoTtl b9i9ii3a:ii ad xmm *b9inx(i<i LiQtf' aienU ^iqso^i 
axsiii ilooi qH tails oono ano;^'V adS b^ialsui \(Xno ati iaiii xtiwa 
dsiiit lo boit^q a - in«bnol»b moil ttXJia lo XXXtf atU xabnu tare 
adi iq9i lliJniaXq ituU apimtSanoaxab aottablra adT I .via'. 
Jon eow aaenvBci Oiii ^Aii^ ;aoXiXbnoo beacoismi ais nX aoai.. 
,nAt)[3 iqajf 10 "bdinXAq XXow* ion aiew ana;;M*«r »iii i«di ;cua9Xo 
9di ni aalod xntm ai»w aiAiii iA<ii ;\^i'xXb xXXjauiXdaxl aiaw iud 
oaAfflfib bn« dia^otili sijaXooioq o.t n.L«t j^njteujRO ««<x«Teo no^^nr 
iBXq tiavoonoffi ,ii»ili ;ano3«w -.iioqunaii :iai9d aboos 

"^doi ai UoX" •laiaauidii ••llXi 

noi4n9»ti« ^di oJ bdXXao narfw ,i;a;ji ' iL;?oo aaorlT 
Jj9ll9 ai lliinlnf ^ . !.-^ni.'.v«» Jtrd baXnab ion 9i9\- lllinXsiq lo 
qu aril o.t biol H iJidi noXoxaoo aoo no ballqat 

-1 1 - ;> . iv, baXloi.^ .'3cf injabnolaCi .ioisninoo old c 

toAtinoo ^TiaaoY ^d^li 9dt lo bellara ,anoi 

■ iv fiof.toM lliiniM i i . a:^ ,£X&X «£X v^aintfaU no bna ,iX ai*; 
.aijib iflfU moil a^isb x^iliXi boalamaiab ail bluam iojoiinoo &ii. 
lal anXfflJBOi Y'^'B anob ion and llXinlAXq «£XeX ,CX dotMA aoni. 

. Jnabnalab 

Thi8 suit waa brought upon the asaujnption that 
defendant wrongfully tr,rrainRted plaintiff's oontraot und to 
recover damage* reeulting to him frcwa such alleged wrongful 
act, ''''^That plaintiff neglected to perfora^ the contract in 
tiio respects coiuplained about, ia sustained by tue evidence 
in the record. It is, -moreover, cviaent tixat plaintiff did 
not perform his contract in a manntr "satisfactory* to de- 
fendant, iftfhile defendant could not arbitrarily ter;r-inate 
the contract because of dissatisfaction, we tiiink the "rule 
of reaaon** ia the "canon of construe tion" to be invoked and 
applied to the conoition v/i.ich tne record here uisc loses. 

As said in (}ibb v. Irvin^^ ^ lark Jji strict , i;o. 
215t5, not yet reported, "Ahere a contract provides that 
services to be performed lauat be oatiafactory to the em- 
ployer, yuci; clause aieana that tiie services siiould be auch 
that as a Reasonable person the eaiployer ougnt to be satis- 
fied therewith, Kceler v. Clifford, 165 ill, bnA," 

tie txiink that as a reasonable person defendant 
was Justified in concluding that plaintiff did not in ma^ 
terial and essential particulars carry out the contract in «>ccord 
with its conditions and that aucn conduct of plaintiff ^^as not 
"satisfactory" within the meaning of the contract, and that cie- 
fertdant was consequently warranted in ten&inatin^ the con- 
tract in tiic manner designated therein. Where, as in the 
case at bnr, a contract is required to be performed to the 
satisfaction of one of tur- parties, the meaning necessarily 
ia, that it iaust be done in a manner satisfactory to txie mind 
of a reasonable man. The plain construction of the contract 
in the record in regard la, tuat the teauiin^, outfit was 
to be maintained and the teaming; done in accordance with the 
contract in aucii luanncr that defendant, au a reaaonaole man, 
ouji.t to be uatiiified with it. measured by tjuese rults, de- 

^fuiJ floiiqnijjeba osii noqu ixl^juoid a^v ilua Bttit 

ni JoAi^raoo •AJ i b<»Joel3on n:i*ni«I<ji ^«xCTV^,io« 

bib It ii a la In 4ii-j Jii»iiiv;> ,'xavo9ioai ,«! il .b'xood'x »xiJ nj 

•>9ij 0^ "Xi^oioAlei^iB*'' lannMR <t ai i^aiinoo Bid mnolnoq ieu 

nianl^niji \'_T ! xmi tdta ioa bluoo JnAbnelab oLXdM ^inmba^t 

tna b9^orak »if o* "noiiowii^anoo lo nonno*"" vttii ex "noQ-oat Ic 
.aeeoXoaiJb 9i9fl bnooon oui ao^.ttr aoiilijaQO fttii pi bsiXqq^ 
.o;i , iolii&ia ±i»H. ^jciirtl ,v jj cfio ni biAa aA 
ijarli B9bivoiq JoisaJnoo 8 aioxl*" .bocf'Xoqs'X iay ion ,(;3aii: 

iioat. oii bluoiitt eaolvias dili Jmi^ ua».3m «eifaXa aouK ^toxolt 

-Htiea 9d oJ iti^uo %9\ol(iaia 9tLi noaioq oIcianoeAftl « aA JAtiJ 

•.^.^d .XXI (idX .MollJLXO .r ■i9j^#H .lii r-"---' <-- ^ ' 

-J illStilmlq iadi ^Ibuloneu ni beilXieul Bfs.\ 

ooois flX iOAiJ -'ijo yitBa atuiXiroxiTAq XMiiiisaas bnB Laitni 

ton Bitw llJL.:raiu«iiq lo toubaoo aai«a ;f«iU JLi>ni» aaoiiihnoa e^i rl^lw 

-aoo 9xU 3^nj::tBnJ:m'X9J^ nx bnin&^xBw YX^nsiipoarioa «.nw ^nebnal 

9x1;^ al Qn^i «9i9r(V/ .nlonexii X>9uAn^Ia9X> ^onrusm drii ai i^ooii 

djd4 oi b-^catolisq 9d oi Jb8'xlup9'x al iominoo » ,iAd ;fji •««o 

y:IJc'xaea909n snicia9xt: <*il;f ,iii::jXi'X«q adi lo ano lo noiJOBlal^Ba 

baiai i»ai o;t xxc;;^0Klaiifle lonnijai e ai. snoJb ©d Jawci ii ifuU ,8l 

?oaiJ^noo axiJ- Jo ttoiioutiaaoo niflXij; »ilT .aam oXd«aoaji9rx jb To 

■fi iilJuo ^nlEOH&i odi iad4 «ai boji^ort nidi aX btoo^i Bdi 

!.t ri31%- 99aBbioooB aX 9nob Hnlouaoi 9di bun benXmiaXJUA ttd < ^; 

loa 9XdAnoe«»-x a «j» «inAbn9lob iadi lonciAox xloiia ai ioAtc^nou 

fendant had the l<jgal rit^ht to terminate the contract in 
the way it did. 

The Jud^vfaent of tae kunicxpal Court is •.vron^: «Jrwi 
ia tiicrefore reversed, with a finding of fact, 



,bto Si yaw 9ii* 
Jttotv 3ao*x«/ ei iii iftutf »ili to iaoaiQhul exlT 

. TJA'". \ALiW/a.ii 


39X - idl7tt9 yiKlJlilG OF yACT. 

The Court f inda &» a matter of fact that 
plaintiff did not perform hie contract with defendant 
according to its tcriiiO or in a manner "satisfactory* 
to defendant, and that defendant had the right to 
terminate the contract, which it did by giving.' thirty 
days notice to tne plaintiff of auch termination. 

oi iiifsit sriJf bad inAbiidlob *Ari* Jbflui ,*nHtnf»l»I> dJ 
.rioii*mi«rt9l iloju* "to lliinlalq »iiJ oi eolJon ayah 

86 - 21964 

BRADi-ORU & COiilAlIY. Inc., ) 

Appellee, j 

vs. \ )/ 

\ y oy ChlOAGO. 

AWMIJG Cukl'AUY, a coJfj ora- / ) ^ 

Appiitiant. /' ! 193 I«A. 0^0 5 

\ y ■ ) J. »• ^-^ 


V In thia ci>«e the affidavit of iiieritorioua defense 
wns on motion of plRintlff stricXen froni the files, and a 
Judgment, as in cases of default (the damages being assessed 
by a jury under the inatructions of the trial jud^^e) entered 
in fjwor of plaintiff for <,-3, 508.03, ano defendant ai-peals. 
! A8se83:.'ient of damages by a jury is unnecessary 
unless requested. Uann v. Brown, 265 111. 3S»4. 

The aworn atatewent of the claiju -'ms sufficient 
from vviiicii. to assess the dai.mges. veil v. Kt'deral J..if e insurancj 
Co., 18c 111. App. 322. The reading toy defendant of its 
affidavit of defense to the jury while irregulnr was harmless 
error. '<Vh6n defendant's affidavit of defense was stricken 
the csuoe should have proceeded as in cases of^ default. i;e- 
fendant in this situation wao only entiuied to croaa exaiaine 
plaintiff's 'vitneases in dir.inution of damagrs. As aprlied 
to the practice in tne unicipal Court, the motion to strike 
tfee nffidavit of defence is tantamount to a demurrer to 
defendant's pleading, which, being sustained, so far put 
defendant out of court tnnt he could only croaa ex'=^f^ine 
•witnesses for the purpose of miniaiizing dai.ages. ]iinz v. 
Tyler . 79 ill. 246. 

The deterff.inution of tuia controversy r: ats in the 
construction of the contract between the parties.^ . iamtiff 


eOS .A.I t 

i^dw;? '• 


£ haa «e»Xi'} dxiJ ix^oi;! nostpJtl^* t^UatMlq 'to nojLioin no anw 

. *^C ,1X1 £dS «£SL2M '^ ii2*M .o«-:!'e»<jpati aaolau 

aii U rib x*i ai^i'^^u'J »^T .Sufi ..jqA .HI S«X • . ©2 

^ijsnAfi umr iAljj}n9xxi. alldw Yiift »<u qs 9Eixot»b lo iirablllja 

-oa .^Ii^Alofc to aasAO ai aa i)»&»90oaq avail Mifcula aaiiAO exii 
anlsMxv OBO'Xp oi b»I;rX<faa \;Xno shw no i^i^u^ la aiiil nl ^toAbnal 

fcaiXqq« «A .iE-'-",r,r„nh lo nolJ'i/fit-'i*^ ctl s»e«an.flw « »11i*ni;jiXq 

93lXiiB ot noli ,. \J :ii soi^oaiq 9rt.t o^ 

oi le-i'iL. :iauoaj%iaK;i Hi ^crratoJ) lo i Ir Mb i'i'tM 910 

Ijjq 'tal uo tlii;nX>'^su6 ^nl&d ,jloiiiw ,:gaiJ>jE»9Xq a^Jnabnalob 

c»ni<i«xo tittoie ylnp blwoo oxi *«ii;t ;Jt:«oo '•" ■■ tn,«{>n»i66 

.V xnitl ,Bs>3iiai«b anXsImlirlaj lo aaocj-rwr »aaaniir 

^' ♦lain 

9iii ni ajfest >ca<X9vu-x;fabo «14J 

oontends that it in n oontraot of sale aaA defondLUit that It 
la a consigiUQeat oontraet. Ov to pat It another vrny, plain-' 
tiff Inslata that the ^ooda a«at dofend&at under tho contraot 
were sold to it, while defendant ineists that the g^oodiB were 
aeat to it for sale on asuienmcmt, acd that under the contract 
it aeted as. plaintiff's factor tme that the title to the gooda 
remained in ylaintirr. 

Ty\e iraatorial parte of the contract are that defendant 
ie to handle the entire line of pillow tope manufttotured by 
plaintiff "on a coneignraent baais" subject to a five par cent 
return. ricoa ai*e stated which are to be paid by defendant 
to i Iftiiitil'f f.13 eoon ae monoi' le received by defendant from 
purchasers; that "a full settlement iu to be inade irorember 1, 
1914 for all 6 look on hand or in transit in excess of five 
per cent of the total shipments, ©aid five per cent to bo sob- 
ject to *" (plaintiff 'a) "disposition imd to be in first 
class raerohantable condition ati ori^;inall|ty shipped." defen- 
dant bound itsiself not to sell the goods for less than fifteen 
oentid Advance on the prices fixed. Xt i& not in diuputo that 
under this oontmot defendant received from plaintiff pillow 
tOjifl to the value of ?6,S07.6S> or that defendant is entitled 
to a credit of T2»689.66, which includes goods returned of the 
value of !324.60, which ia slifehtly in excess of five^er cent 
of the price of all the goods received by defendant./ By this 
computation, if the contract is one of sale, there ii due 
plaintiff the amoun w of the Judgment. If it ia not a contract 
of sale, but one of consit^nment for sale for account of plain- 
liif, then defendant may discharge its liability by returning 
to plaintiff its goods to the value, under the prioe» fixed by 
the contract, of the aiaount of the Judgneat. 

Ixi oonstruin^r a contract, all of its parts mtu^t be 
considered. It is not what the parties nay designate a contract 

.»a*'stf^noo o.ii •; . ' r.ct H oi IflM 

^£<r b»'xiv^9« ax^^ vroXXlq 'to aaJti •'itfao •ill •lAjiad; ot ^ 

. ,, ktaq od cJ o-ijb .l — - . - - 3iB aoolii .niirirtt 

molt taMba»%0b ^d A6t1»o«i «1 v;«»fio<>f »« n««9 «m} tIeilitlAXf •# 

,1 todirrovo^ a-b«ra td «^ hI torn '-t ; aiDSir.iiox'.' 

oTJtt lo BSdOXd at JtainAii ai ic 3io«i« IXm iBbt ^l 

.„-..', fli od oi few, no.i 'tTtlitilALi) " » oi J<.'. 

noom!t HAxfi 3«»I lol aftooa 9il;r XXav oJ J^oit IX»«iJk 6em«d in.- 

WOlXl'Jt TtlJ; ' "OflTlJflOO airiit -"^ 

boX^tiaa at . , .v;jr.!«v '>;'.' c. 

vn to Mooxa Hi xXit.: olrtw .ofl.J^SUS? lo awX 

ciiAx' iu <& ^tf AoTloa«'x u>>oaj) ««.J XXs to •oJt'zq r^ 

OitJE> >'- I >i^.y J »O.Cjf • -Jj: .tOi\t»flOO »ri^ tJt ,«OiiJ'*'. 

; to ;}jafi(v Lea i;ot .^aonuiaitaisoe. to •cm #ir# «oX«« '. 

aaln-wrin -^d -(^TitXldAXX uti •8"Sfld[ooll> ^« /flJiftflOtoA nari* ,lti; 

J ao&iw ««MiX«v odi e^* ftbooa a»X ttllatnlci *i 

.i-xtOflQfcirt ©d* to ■taaodM od* to ,to/xfJac!> ^■'. 

»d ^turm tfilt'XJftcj ail xo XX« ,:rofii;rfloo a aoijva^raaoo al 

^OA'x^aoo a o^<>ii3lao& van aai^oaq ad^ ^attv laa ■! ^1 .fio^o^Unu 


to bo whloh will warrant the oourt in jTormttlatlng a rul« of 
ooafitruoiion in hamon;^ with »uoh designation, but fron 80.1 
the lan^piAe:* oued in th« oontraot tho oourt will aaoertaln 
the Intention of the jmrtlds and by oonBtructlon doternlno 
the nseoaure and righto of th® roapeotlvo i)Brtlee thereunder. 

We OEUinot oonolude, beoause there wnu used In the 
contract ihe tern "on a consl^^aament baala" that It la & 
"donslgnnent oontraot" ab dletlnguiehed from a **oontraot of 
sale" and thereb;^' Ignoro lt& other matorlal provlulone, whleh 
ole&rljr define the rights and obliriationa of the j.artlea. 
'rhe term on a "oonal^ment boala'* htm relation to the tlrae 
preoedlng tho final date of settlement, Oorembor 1, 1914 » 
When defendant expressly ogreee to pay for all the goods there- 
tofore received by It frora plaintiff, reecrvlng tho right to 
return not more than five per oent of tho total groode rcoeivod. 

'.ve think that the reasoning of the oourt In Loner^ai^ v. 
Stewart . 6C 111. 44, Id a rulf; of Interpretjvtlon applicable to 
the instant case, where tho oo\art eay:- 

"Shen the identical thing delivered ta to be restorod, 
though In an altered forra, the contract ia one of bailment, 
and the title to t-ho property io not chan^-od, but v.-hen thore 
is no oblieatlon to refstoro the ereolflo nrtiolo, Mnfi the 
receiver la at liborty to return another thing of equal 
Vciluo, he bccomos a debtor to make the r€>turn and the title 
to the property/ is ohan^ed - It ia a sale." 

Chlokerinp: v. Baa tress . 150 Ibid 206. 

On liovenber 1, 1914, If plaintiff had demancjcd a return 
of the floods theretofore received by defendant from It and then 
in the possession of defendant unsold, plaintiff would have been 
inipotent to have enforoed auoh demand under the eontraet In tho 
record. ; eorla h'fp- , Co . v. lyons. 163 Ibid 427. 

The contention of defendant In Its affidavit of defense 
that the goods, the price of which w»» denaaded by plaintiff in 
Its statement of claim, were ^toods received on oonslgnrrieni in 

IT'! , A at a© A 

''■h..{^'i.:?.i.:'- iX} I :■ ..iirttaaott ^d ban e-- : r to botfttitii 

B Ht tt it\{i.x "nluad itsi$ ^i^o^iao' 

Tolriv; ^aanl&t^Qiq LnttQijm •i9tiio ail dioasl ^ditftii btm *^al»a 

'■'••'■■■- .- .ij.-'i'i-ialaicoo" « flo mo? ar; 

••itrtd^ 86003 orf^ fX« tot t«9 •* a»tTS« %I«eoi'.>x'.> Jnaftiiotofc aoi.- 
0.1 itf^Siti orii sniYioaoa .Itll^aiAXq mot t »Ttoto 

- ' - . . > iatdi off 

; ,j^* .XXI aa ,iT22:»i 

'ilCJie i^TtJoo or^^ otot^ ,o»oo loA^ftcl OfP 


UOif .. .- AOYiOdO'X OTO'lOlO'SOili^ alkOO^ OUw iv 

aoovi j^I'f .(^lodiui tttaiiatiilob to aotaaaanon 9Ai ai 

tdt at i&Biino9 tuii mab rfona Aoo'tctno oTA/i 0^ ^Aotoqtiil 

08n&'i.''>£:< 1:0 .: fv.-r:i'.n; ^ :. r.J r.i >: ■ - -^^ cplJaoJ-flOO e;i:7 

.^ iiffommlactoe no Aovlosot ai!Oo?> O'i -Jma ait 

virtue of th« oontraot »«t forth In euoh atatemont, presented 
no delesiBO, a& we hol<^ vhnt th<s contract wae one of oalo. 

The :^vmlcli.&l Court die not err in «trllcln|>; def«ndaat»8 
affitevit of fleforiiso c-nd In entering the jmlgr-ont appeal^?* from, 
und the judgrieat 1b therefore affirmed. 

a* J «il mts Jofi 616 ticflo?' 


*">^""-'193I.A. 507 

aR. PRJirSIDIKO JU^JTICS; PAM a^Xiv^r*! th»i of In ion 

of th'is: court. 

By t'-'.i«6 ^r it cf cxTor -J,<'3i:.i2r..j'.rit ( p i x ir, t, i : t in or^or) 
eoijik«i to nav« TttV'jr*>eil a ju.fec»nt «int«r«l e>;g<*it his in favor 
of pl^iintiff (.i«f«nidant In <irrcr) for l4«rjs«a siwjt*lr,«4 a»^ a 
result cT having boen bitt«n by n -iog, oennsd ^>y th4 <i« f «^n i*fi t • 

Tuit *&a brov^ht Juno ♦^^ I9ii *nd the <lec,l&Tation 
f il^i on t>i<ji ij^fisQ lay, Th« «jufiiaM3i-2i wao a«rv«4 on ilef*jn'iant 
on Jyne 3. On Jun«i 19 thift apjxiar^^e© of daf'Snd'iint *a;8 •»«- 
tftrfjd by his rittofney. Ko pl«a ug* filed. Or. J*iiy 1^ i?*- 
faviU of th« vt^fs-ndejst ^a» ori«T»f4 t^tftn ©a jisotion of %hfs 
jlaintiff suid »nt«r«l <af rsowl. On Octo<>«sr 14, 1^1.1- (15 
acRth>* 1.3t«r) a ^ury he-Ari 9yti^no« ai* to 4*©-.i;;«» iaust^lr^'l 
by %h9 plttlntlff, enl r«turn«<l a vtirdllct for -^650. 00 *nd 
ao*;t«, upon wfeich iudgasent *«;» ontore.i by tho court on Oc- 
t<*>«s»r 19, 1912. fjt«outiorH w*a iaau94 «>n «»aid ^wigairit *nd 
d««a:nd a&cLo on Kovoaber 11. Or. Kov9ab«r £0 motior. «&» @&-i9 
by ooucasl for th9 df>f«n.Jleint to ▼icat'O a»ia luijjxesnt and 
quABli the «Tit of execution, <ftjish aotlon *»» cisnial cai 

D«f«>ndAnt, «hll« sottlng^ forth aany %»*igRSi«»ntA 
of j^rror, ^rgudft feut, t«c in hi» larl*f, rl«.: 

(I) That plaintiff did not, in h i» declara- 
tion, eot out that ho «*« in th« «««roio« of duo earn 
Tor ht» o?fr. safety *it th« tic»» h* *•» T»ltton by th*? 
dog ; nnd 



705 .A.I .. ox 



J- HI tmi ;. 

t.SiV t ,*»OTT|^ 

t«Xo«i> «^/Ira x^on li ;i«ifT (X) 

(2) Def^n^'srt's *p|'>«%yy*nc« having b»«n 

©jBto-r«d, th«} oourt ©rr^d in »» spaaing 'iam^^rta 

4ȣain6t diofenaiWit without notion to hiss, 

lith T«f«y«aOQ t& th«s flri*t .sontantl or. , cur Buprtia© 

court in C.& A^»K.R,C£. v. Kuskkuck, 197 111. 504, h<>Xa that 

in th« o-a*e ojf dOffi»stic 4>*iss&l« «hJ6h iir« not n.*tyr"illy iiing^sy- 

unlesB they had 
cw* , tbe pigjlio ure not ^vuml to «x*rcl»c* o^,r« or e -sut icyj/xlx** 

Jeptxnotioa of tho vicious tendenc i«s»s of the p?krticular 5^'ii,r,a'i; 

.5sn>i in arr if ine ^t tnat ocn,Glu^i<a^ 3t^.t^*i, F* -^lO: 'Xt ia n<t% 

n«oeeaary C«sr a pl^ivitttilff to &y«ir ^nd ptov^ th^ "axerciiiej of 

«';.rQ '«-,i oaution for hia o^ pfotect icsn , ?>ut it l" ffiattfsr of 

Witl\ f«f9r«ir)0« to the s«con4 a«nt«jrtior», th© Moord 
aho?si^- tn&t thts Oefault *as tak^n on July X^* 1911, TT'^ftra U 
no olaiffi tb.%t Buch d®f?ittlt iraa impropsrly taken. Tho d.-^isas®o 
»er^ not &s»»sieod tffitil aicro thim fourteen ss^t^ita tli^retftof, 
Th'ord i«- nothing iJi tli« rocoyi to inlicat* to thl»4 somvX th!».t 
th© A»«0ijaiw;nt of d'As^^^ea dli not ocour ^I'i'sn thi^ ©s^« w^ 
rasaheu Tor trial on tho f«gul^vir oall 0'4l<!jR4ar. wrt«>rf> nothini^ 
to th^j ocnttary ai:speara in th* r«>cor:l, it snuet b« prfli»iU5.4^i 
that tlis caitt« »a» triad upon tha T«sttlsir call of tli« Cfiildir;iia.r, 
OnAor s»oah c iy«ttast««a , th*3 c ^'^itisnt icn of the defendant th*t 
r ot io« ia n&c«ja»5ry aftdr iefault ^^fort» tJiO eourt Cftn hold am 
iR<iiiaoat; for aa«»aalng ds^sHigo" , i» ^rithout fores. 

Firidine, no r*iv*T«ible ^rror, the jU';l£<f«nt la i,f- 
f ifstsd. 

.{Birfo^ eiQilon ^woiliiw imjtiteiefc ^..., 

iaili Mfni ,>0« Ail Tei »iott<ioitH .v .oO^,£.A 4,0 aJt t-u/o© 

--,-.5fuU \riii,yJ^rn ton viit i(aJrf» •IiaJtn* tit •mob !to »««a •!$# <a 

bad x^^^ BBS Lnu 
«aouc3c\rc>i iui^o -so ©rtso •«to'X*jre ©^ tfr»vC( toft ©it* OiXctt^t ®Jtft \ w<i 

i'Jtnif 'inlxioltr&q, urit 1© «•! an*Jbn©t iwoiotY ©rft lo ©oitoax«BK 

7 -"©t^^ai «1 »1 ttfcf tnoito*#dT3 fl»o rtri tdl fpltv«o i»ffl» e^«* 
'••'looi j>xU »floit.^©t«>o t»floo0«i •At «t fon^ioldt jfftif 

n^ifse-fti «^lflOa ^fft^tiuiol n»rtt ©70a lltea *>••*•«»• #©« ©»•» 

«i*w »»A0 Offt fli.^ ,--.^ ;^ , — ,^ , -- . - 

Sol/tton PiicfCV ,TfaJbn©i»» IX*0 :rj»£&^<T ©rft fio lAtit i©l fc©ilos©t 

.nt^XttO ©itt iQ XX«o n«Xtf387 ©lit aoqitf I»©t5# ©iiw •««» •<(# t«i(f 

iTiii^ tfltffcfwl©^ ©ift lo fcltn»tn&o ©rft , aeooBteawwjlo iltu^ 7ei«tJ 

-•^^ I>X0ri fltHO two© 9fit (?lOl©tf tl«Al©t tetli- s -r I Cr :>,, T £-i tiQitO.I 

,!.■(♦.;? Til 

12 - 20423 




MINING k kiKi'rI.Ck'lHQ CU 
a corpcratioA. ti.V. P>^Ili»<aiJM, 
J. K. U0HH16 tinu JfH 'J) J#.ri'lSRS. 

Pl«i|ftiff In Rxror.: 



I.A. 508 

Mli. PRruiDIHO JUSTia^f i»AM <leliv«r«<l the opinion 
of th*- court. 

X/«fendtm't in arror ( oomplni nant bolovr) filed a 
bill a£,ain«t plaintiff in error tuui othf re hftieinabove 
mentioned, to d/^clnre cma enforce an exprena trust i»- 
polled on cetrtoin p^srscnal property to secure ths? payroent 
of a loan raaae to t'te Ajuerioan-iiexlco ^.lining a i)evelo})- 
Inif Ooapany (hrrwinafter known hb the oonpany) ; vliich 
fund the bill ftllfligod Q&vm into the h&nda of plaintiff 
in error and V. 0, Smolt, two of the defondants.beloir. 

To thie bill answer* wer«' filed by tiie coaipany 
and plaintiff in error, to which anawero repllcatime 
ver* filed« A plea to the Jurisdiction nan ini<?rp08ed 
by amolt, to frhich plea a replioation was filed dir(?ctly 
traverving the allegations therein est forth, A Qroes* 
bill was filr^d by the eompany against defendant in ^rr^r, 
whloh was afterwards diDmiesed by stipulation* 

Upon a hearin^:. had on t))iB bill th-pi issues 
were found for the oosiplainant and a noney decree was 
entered against the convpany, Unolt timi plaintiff In 




:0 ; 


A Mill (voXetf ;refttnliiI<iffloo) voik* itl ^£ij»e»it^l»U 

»v*t/anxo-inrf ai-ti'fio iH>i» tcrrtA nt JlL It n In Iq tttnii^,iri Slitf 

llilrtifilq 'to abnAt< v»i<* o^nJt •««& tools' X'% iiicf fu>i oiftu'S: 

J »fU t«r bf>Xi:t nnfiw aKewSim ilidl 9Mi o'i 
i^iJ uJiioiXqwt »rt«#r«n» rfoJtrtW o.t ^fo-x'xo ni llilttiJiX^ (mho 

,TCoti«> ill ^ttJ8i»iio'Xf»ft itmtM^m \;n»q.moo siu v 

SAW dy*iO'>lJ vsaw- a »;iiJi ,Jnjwil«X<|i»" iixwol »'i9w 

•rror, for the sun of #7,72&«00, wniult asorse t is 
sought by thlB writ of error to rcveroo, 

Althouiih thf rf» are rumy orrort aasignt^d, 
plftintiff In error rplieo upon but two, viz.: 

!• "The court «rr#<l in not setting 
aside the (Jpcr- e, 

2. •The decree is not supiorted by 
th«» finUinge, nnd is erroneous." 

We will take these up in their inT^rre ord^sr. 

The record in thi» court (whidi «aia prepared by 
the plaintiff in error) contains no certificate of fividPnce. 
It rnuBt be prr'Bum??d, th»:r«»fore, that tht?r was sufficiffnt 
evidonce osASj a aaut to eustAin the finding of fncts recited 
in tho decree. The question ie, th refore, whwth^r or 
not there is a eufiiiient finding of facts to ssuetain the 

T)ie bill of r,'oia?lfiint alleged t>>at th«? oocxpany 
was incorporated unvlor the laws of South Dakota; tliat it 
VSB engaged in operating a mine and saelter at .^an Lor^^nso, 
Duranito* l^exico; that it ^rr in gr«Kt nec*d for ready money 
for the purpose of smelting certain ores vhich had beien 
rained anc, wf re r<»ady forauelting; that F, C, Smolt was t>ien 
superintendent and manager of said atine and smelter of the 
cofl^^any; that Ulrio King iras Q&nhicT of the said cosiparqr and 
was in charge of its financial natterf( that thr? said Smelt 
and the said King (the latter also a defendant below) re- 
prort^nted to cofaplninant that thr ore was of the value 
of upwards of $15, 000* 00; that if the o^upany could obtain 
a loan of not to exceed ^6,000, CO for th« purpone of smelt- 

v,f-r.U*.'f>;il io.*"t f,l i.H»T.*t*> .t' ! ♦■' 

»an9i>iv;t lo •#«olti#i90 on ani/nlcoo (t«tt» 111 t^kStxlMlq •tUt 

Ian lo ts^atflMtt teJi ;tff*b«i» - 

-"T (wvii . ,..n)«.l»l) » onlA T»**«X «;li) ©niJi i^.i* ^ un* 

!tt/lRV «ji^ lo sjnr •to (i^tl ^Aif^ ^naninlqffoo ojT bo^n^n^if 

Ai«i(^o bXuoo \^aq[tioe oiU 11 ««rU {00«000,A1| to aMawfv lo 

-4X»»si lo o>toijtuq turiS 10I OJ,jja,a^ jboooxo o^ #eii lo a/ioi u 

ing the Bald ore. It would r rult in great profit to the 
ooapany; that cuaplalmtnt , togethrr «lth plaintiff in 
error, G. '* Penwell, J. 15, Morria and JYed Jhattere (aIbo 
defonaante bolow) adranoed to the oc mpany the total aum of 
$6,000,00, in o naidrrntion of wttioh th<t' naid ooupany, by 
ito a!'ore«aid of ic rs, Sraolt and King, Agreed to hold ctaid 
©re, th« product of thfi RmeltitVJ thereof, and the prooe«d« 
to be deprived thcr<»frora, an a trusst fund to Bccurc tlve r»» 
pjtynmnt to the Uffentiant in «rror hth. hin afcrr-ftaid aanooia* 
tee, the vi\u^ advanord for o&id inirpooes. The l)iH also set 
forth the aiaountt advanced by th© Tarlou« pereion« wV.o par* 
tloi|>ttted in the loan to the company. It furUier alleged 
that the company entered upon the esielting of said ore, using 
the adranoee made l»y ccwiplainant i^nd his a«Booiate» for caid 
;purpo«ea, and realised th^rftfroai » large ajoount of jiucney, 
to-wit: upvurdB of $li),OOC,CO Uexlee ailver, equivalent 
to ^7,5CC.00 in gold ooin of the ?/nited State* cf Aaerioa; 
tluit the oonpany alee sold outright upvardsof 40 tonp of 
said ore, valued at ^4,000.00; tvmt the Cicipany stil; had 
on hand 6< c tone of said ore of lowrr jyjrade, valued at up* 
"snrds of ♦7,600,00, TTie bll' furth (T set forth that upon 
oeapletion of the first aaaelting operation and t>e sale of 
the product, ocmplalnant applied to the oompany for an 
accounting ef said proc<?ed8 and for payment to him and to 
his aseooifitcB of tive laoney due thea; tioit a similar re» 
quest was made upon the subsequent sale of tVte nald 4C tone 
of ore; that these requests were oiade upon the naid ooiipany 
and its officers, vl«. , the euperintwndent, and plaintiff 
In tixr^T, the pres^ident; that the company, by its said 
•ffieers, Smolt ami 'plaintiff in error, from tiir.e to tiraa 
preraieed such accounting and paywojit of tne noneys bo due, 
but failed to keep Uuee promises • 

■.1 bi»H '••■ to ftoi:*^. ■ ■ , . , ■ 

9;L^ ^T:uo»n o;f bawl ic«t* a oa ,«otc1t»«i9n'* i;i*vinf»!> *«/ oi 

ninx/ ,»'X0 hXnu 1o aniJfX^iaa ^m'# ao^^i/ (Mito^/XR ^^qmon »f{i ^ari.? 

t» ano* 0* lo alntm#qjj ;^jiBJ^^tiro blo'i osXjb \^«qaioo «iW ;f Ariel 
' t^9 Y;naq[ia«o , r h^uLaf .rxo ftX»8 

n^yii JjtijiJ r/: •Itixl iXlrf f»ifr .•.■ > * 

.vH .*i ijiii* ;fla'^</i.T «f{i to 8f>l.*too««« aljri 

y;n*"T;'^'>'-' ;t«f»«ptt •S»lf^ *«!>. 

• lliabfioiiiXasqtfa axl^ , .air ,nnoXrto atl bna 

-tlJ oj aa-.X* ttO^t ,tOTt« fli llUnUili^ Lr *^* -" _.- -.-.-v^ 

J /M OS nvanv.m •.♦iff Ifi i,i .M,i»r>jf; ;)r-'0 -4nlJn; •, 

>* ban<at tud 

The \iill of ooiaplaint furt.>mr all«g«d that one 
pnyiaont of cnid einclting opf»:«it.lonB ^auB collected "by the 
•«UL4 Saolt ami d<^poeiit«d v»tt>i thf> AniArlcwm ani«ltin« k 
R(»fining CJoiapany In hl8 own nj<uii«} tliat thTeaft«»r the oaid 
Sifflolt re;iilttcd a portion of oaid fund to plftintlff in error, 
who WRB at that time prwoident of thr oojapany; tliat the 
sa1c$ ajmolt and i>l«,Anlifi in error converted and dioalpated 
th<? ealfi fundc, or U.o great«sr part th "T*s»f, rmd r»ileti to 
account to eoaplftinflnt tSi'-ifofor. The bill of oxinplaint 
al»o oontjRinrU onrtain interroKutoriea to be answered by 
««id Smolt, plaintiff in error and th" co;?ipajiyj nnu ooiv 
eluded wiXh a prayer for an H«ooi.intin|5 froEs all ef the 
defendants, and that tliey be o« «ipell«d to yay ov^^r to the 
complainant and hir= saeociatOB tlu: aiiwunt equitably fcund 
due th((m* 

To this bill anawere wer?* f ilPd by the company 
and plaintiff in error. For thp purpoee of %Uisr. cft«e% it niay 
be said that th^ir anBTr«»ra controverted all thf'f tutorial alle- 
gatlonfi! cont«in?>d in thr bill of oomplalnt* Eraolt did not 
answer, but r'^nt'^d u:,>on hia pl^a to the jurietSictton, 

Thff (U'Qi-Ge aet lorOi that tli*' f?»tur.»» oan.e or. to be 
heard upon the oricin&l bil' of oomplaint, th« anow r ther'-to 
of plaintiff til terror and t)ie Gti?ipany, the rf^pli catione t© 
aaiti anewpre, ftiid t>»rt plea of imolt and rpplioation thereto, 
ano aleo upon th<» evld^n *«» hi^ard in open court and docuti*?nts 
adduced in support of the ieeuee by the Tarloue parties, and 
upon argunRnts of coanRel. Then followed the finding of facta 
upon Tsrhioh tlie decree was baaed, the fueatlon arises, whether 
or not the finding of facta nuBtainn the aoney decree. 

fi xrf b».to*lXoo ««w «noii;Bx«qo a«i^ ^'>«» bl«« 1« til9iaxa% 

biJM •<(i t9^tAi«)-x<°>ff^ ^Ati.^ {(Mum ZTVO slff nl yifuxnao? |^iiilt«n[ 

-■■■'■'■ tnrfi- ;x««<f'«w '«!:•(.;» lo Stmbi- ' " - ' o 'w 

lib btxjn. h^i-iftraott "ato-ti* tti. .*;ak 

*^•^■^ ...,,.....-.. ^ ..^.,,.-, .J,.., ,i^jCot«8 bli»« 

.if»«{# •Mb 
;.) Oil* X'' ■'* «^«w««a XXlrf / 

A . voiinoo •■SflVaAJB ittl • •"'"! bts« »($ 

Jo'r . . • '^?- rifif »rfi nX .■ . ■ nnaiSst-ji^ 

'lit •tnlAXqr TO fiiU aoqu b^A9tl 

\$n9tmo0h ... ., 4 .K» rt*qo oi btnfui «• Rf»bXr« «»Hi noQw OflX« neui 
na t&mkttfiq (tu<3ltjst ttdi X'^ o^AffaX f*Ai to tic«(;qi/a oX b»OAibb« 
t«l to ]|KXI>nXl >;:.' ;jowoXXot ft&;iT .Xftaiiuoo to •.^nftrnfftTA noqu 


VhlXv plftintlf! in error a»s«rte t^at th« finding 
of fticts e;«n«i»lly ie not Kufriai*»nt, hia «trguf:!»;nt in bas^d 
laalnly upon thr. contention tl^iat th'^r*^' in novrliere tiny finding 
in eaid u< ar«»«, t)iaf; iioiolt and King were authorised by the 
oompany lo enter into tiiif; trupit a^rcerfi'MU. As ye read the 
decree, while tbvrf? ia no expr? »e findijit; to t/iat effect, yet 
it eontaino a ©ufficient finding of fttote fra/j whicii it may lae 
rcaeonabXy inferred that tbo oourt did find ae a fa dt that 
&Baolt ana King had autviority tc snt^r int^' thp rrxiet ngree- 
mont. The decree finUe tliat these men were in direct 

control of thf> company's affaire at .';^n Lorenxo; tb>at they 
h(*d charge of the oati>ut of the -ine and of the reduction 
of the ^tdr*} that the^^e ta«n had reprr^sented that it would 
be to the oa^any*s Interest to amelt Uie ere already isalned 
and th r. f ore, requested defendant in error to adranoo t6,CC0.00, 
The «i< eree further fcuod that cosiplttinant n.nd c«^rtain aaeooi- 
atee, among whom v&b plaintl If in error, did actually advance 
#6,CC;t.0C to th<? cojapany; that the compahy UBed thin .!ion^ 
for the purpoaoa for which it wae adT«.nced, in oonaideration 
of whicsii it -^as a^^;reed tJifet th<? product of th*s smelting and the 
cash prooMte ^hiToof would be held ae a truet fund to aeoure 
the payt;i*5nt of -ycnftye uo advanced. The decrfle further found 
that upon the completion or the first aneltin|$ operation and 
the oale of the product thereof, the ccnplainant applied to the 
coapany for an aceounting of the prooer^e of eaid sale snd for 
the j^ayriifrnt to hi;>-i nnd hie aseociates of th<» vxonayB due then; 
that similar dr5tii«anuB were mac^e upon the uubfiequent sale of 
the 40 tons of ore, for which the company rrccired Ite payment 
la cash; that the dcnands for an accounting nnd for payi^ent 
were toade upcn officprs of the corapany by cosplninant* There 
was a furth«^r finding that the company, Sxoolt and plaintiff 

^ at in?»fj«anua alrf , Jn^ioilltia lo« «Jt \:XIn:*fro-:i nlcji't to 

»£U x*' 6»«.lion;ftf4v t>rtiiw a«i-"*< ^"« ;>Xo«£J in,'.- 
9Ai bm^t tw «A . ^ ■'■■ i^uii «ifij oinl .ij.'i-:? jJ i.:;%q>:.oo 

XJii» • o'xl ttitotfl lo yiibnilt iaviiolt'W* « aiiiA^aoo iJt 

Itifttib ni »t:»w n»fl: •8»ri:^ ^«iU tibnil •»af»«A writ .ixi-sro 

r:'i>J:;to«i»»i a/ii lo 5nja Wtii> 9i1J lo tutiiisa ^rJ-t "^n ^^-jarir baA 
>vov iJt idxii i)•;^a9ar»*(9'»Y b^ti nfun o»d9ci^ vo <)(ii lo 

oJ lOTTTO fll Jn«bfi»l!»b be**fti,'po'i .ji«1'»;;u'U iuxA 

,... I fawn inMfilAXQfiioo *jBf(^ bfiuol ruiuWiwl f>9to*»b orfT 

. x-CXBoi^Oft bib ,1:0 it» nl liiiaiiiXH ajrif ^.horia «8»^a 

[oi^Ai^i&Xsfioo ai « b<!»onATbj!i cam #i rfoXriw ^dl di»flo<jpSii(; •lil t»l 

Utix; ^iJX^iVTfi «tfi^ lo #9iil>otQ »{1;^ iiuit he^ei^ s»v ii jtfoMw lo 

uti%t% oi jjoii^l #atr»r a aa bXoji acf bXuov t«»i*>rft JiAMroonq riaao 

>mjol TorfJf'xwl »5»xo'i!»i> flrfT •b^ortnrftr: <?n »^»n;j;- !;j iHrtn(\«<3 o^i 

o^ Jb«XX(iqa lnaftXaX<(D(Ofi aiy .loftrtoili toxibo-xq »rit lo nXn-i 9^^ 
: brm oXae b^Ma lo ■bf>900'i(]i orii lo jiniiojjoooe n» rtol ^aq/aoo 
;«u>tU »jub axonon 9£Ur lo sa^aXoooaa aixi bnn Aii(..ol^n0o->\;^(4 <*di 

lo t*!**.?? trr-Mr'-^fi'ft'fs ?rf.t ffcf7?j nbaw aiow abrMoatb iiiiiiflr.'s r.frrf.t 
K2XAC. iolrfw 10I ,atO lo anc 

irtowxaq 101 fa;tn ^n^^nwoooa iia ital abn jjsno nl 

:»jfT .InaniioXqAOo \ii \;naq(noo ^iilo nc^i* abj«u »a<»w 

in error, had frora tl n« to tiiae promlo-d an aoeourtting to the 
coraplainant, and tho pa^/iiient of aonoya due hiju, and tlxat they 
put hiai off mith «uoh proRiluee nnU rRpreoontetiona, up to 
and including the tirae oT tho tntry of tlie deor«o hor«in. 
yroMi thcBtt findxngB tho r^ftoonabie inference arioeo, that 
tho oourt ftlBO found ae a fact thut tur ri.ot of nftid ;?aolt 
and King in a peeing to ©otabliBh the trunt fund to 8eour« 
tho payisAnt of moneys ad-vanced "by th« ooaplainantt wae f'ith'^r 
«ut: oriaed or ratified by tne cojapany. 

The court furtho* found that a Bum of |6,000.00, 
realised from the Bale of 8oa« of thf^ products of raid emvlt* 
ing oprfrations, wao col'eotfd by r^iaolt anct "by him dopoeited 
in his own nsuao; t)ini eubaoquently the HRid Kinolt revilttad 
thiR fund to plftintitf in error, Wiio at that tiiae waa prcai- 
dent of the aoiapan>'; that these two rn«n (Staolt and plaintiff 
in error) had dieoipated eaid fuwi or a large portion thera* 
of, and Juid wholly nnj-leof^d and refused to account for the 
flaaae or any portion thoi'eof# tho decr«?e furthor found that 
eaid $6,C<X)«00 oame into tho hands of Umolt anu plaintiff 
in error as a trufit fund for the covaplainant* wlio waa en- 
titl<^d to rsame with int'Tont thr.r<»on at the rate of five 
per cfint, (5;i) from May 51, 1907. Clearly, therf^fore, 
the court was, in our opinion, fully wananted in entering 
the r.ioney deor-^e a^.ln8t the defendants, one of whom wrb the 
plaintiff in error. 

The othor point raised by plaintiff in error is 
the refusal of the? chancellor to net aside the uecree. In 
opening hip argument for reversal (n thlis pdlnt* counsel 
says: "The jiieritB of the case lie in tho affidavits pre* 
8ent*=>d on t>sp motion to vacate tiw deorce.** As far as this 
record iviowe, noith^T the verified petition to set aside the 

ilfrntd bXM 9fi3 \lSa9up9mtlij% < ntr^ aJUf ill 

* '* ^ i .li « 10 imiJi '*nf;Jtaail> J5ja;< C«ot«» rti 

r J>»aiit<f)T Oft m xLlotiv btifi r; > ^lo 

■ ^Kiiili,»\i*s) nt^.^ , <.»««ti &>»M roxt* ttl 

. •'!<* *s nof>*ioKv' J3! '.-.ra ifiiw surfoa oi' b'ttSti 

■ ,Y-f"S««»XC .TCn ,X>5 ^::ii fltofl (^a) .^noo "i»q 

"ma- 'nsv/ ;uo .'fx ,pr;v* .ttucK) •itt 

,^<ytt0 ai YlXialMilq 

i1 «;Ji;volJxtl. f-tl •HAD «it;> It* ttilioa wiff* jax;«« 

ii«>or<»« nor tuf? Affidavits uttnohf'd th rrto , sior tne i&ffidftv» 
i%« preparea aftor the filing of the.' pt^tition, appear in 

th(»' op-rtif laat* cf evidence; bt'^for.T* t>iii! ooui-t G&n oons?icl«r 
•uci. (iff ItJavltK , it. ffiudt a; jri ar t'mt tJ^«? affiCavlte vf^re 
oon8i<i<?rct1 by th« oourt boiow in pnsBitti} upon the .notion 
to visoiat* tho doctee* TMb fact oould only be raisido to Appeal* 
by making th« affidavit a part of t>i.r.' r'^oo rd o«rtif i«>d ."by 
tii<5' judge 7?riO heard t'.he oau««, Th9 r?/3ord in t;iis cas« is 
»i«r«ly t}i« i-;oR»H«?»»lai» record, Th'^r:- Ie no ;«rtit"lcat« or eny 
kind att^ic)i<?<:i to -.-hex? that any affidavits wore coniidored 
by ih'' GO art, anc. In tho absence thircof , it uuBt he pr- nmaed 
that th?> sieti n of tha court in orarruling the .otion to B<?t 
ft8id« nnd YRcat* the of>.lo decree w«.ft corroat, nothifti^ appoa»« 
ing tc thf tS'-ntrary in 'he r'->oort« Thi^ rul« t>r Ihn w6.e 
cl«arly uct fortVi In I ff^.^'^zp j r* >v c^'i^'r , 1®5 1.1 1, A20, '^herein 
the oourt Bftid, p. 4221 

"TSiC- affiaavitft copisd into ti.xs record by 
the ol<rk, and which, it ir. claimed, wcr« read 
on Xi\e -iiotAon to L<:ot aside i^ati vacate t}iedc?cre«» 
ar« not i-^ad' a pwrt of tiie rpoord by a op»rtificate 
of evid rtce, a«<i aro th'^troforc not ln«tfor« ua for 
our oon»id- ration. In Van P,«?lt v, I>ifrtfo,rd. 58 ill. 
141* , it in saiw, p. i4G: "'''Th*' Wi>ii«lTal'it MS^'kK a 
r€fVor»al of the d«ore» in this cnuwe on two grounds: 
Fiiflt, Duit the oourt owj:ht to iiitve airi*rd0d n n«?w 
hearing on tU* affidavits filed in aid of a niotion 
for that purpose, iho affl<JtiVit» to wi>icm reference 
is made form no part of tho rpcord nnd caiuwt he 
eo.rif:iiinr«d hjj,' -Vi«? ;;o.;rt. The auyellant, to ohtain 
th« benefit of t >9 arfidaHita in thlf? court, should 
hfeV^> >iftd tU>" f;aiae BJude & part, of ta.> ronord by the 
eo,tifi:at« of t/.c Judg« who h^ard th- cant e in Uio 
oi.r«mil court.* 'i'h<^ certif icut* of fcVtr Jud^^e at- 
tached to t.'iin record, thnt 'itoontainn all of the 
rooord n«oeis ary to a full una fair prc«entatif'n 
of the «rror« cowplaln«d of,* iu not u o<»rtifioat« 
t>iat the affidavit 8 wor? raud au evid^ noe on t>ie 
Motion to o©t aeide and vacitt* «aid cleor««» fi.n<i 
ifc t*)iPliy inBafft'-icnt to nxkff euia affldnvite a 
■§mx% of th*" reuord," 

T© the^ eff •^r t are: Du .^uain yatrr aorke :v , . v, Jc*arkB , 
2C7 111. 46; al«0 Bellinger v. , Barnoft, 223 111. liii, yfht^re^ 

R130C; ._^..^,.;, »««r Of»'Y09l> i)lj)« 94^ Biopsy tm» 9btm» 



I A ji)l4a «;ii4i£i oi ,. 

y atTtvA ,y _ ^ ^ . .- 7 ^, ; * , -\';; ^ V / , '-„ ' \ ;,- , "■ '•-•'^' ■-:'■ ' * '■' ' '■' '•■•'^■^ '"' ■' ' 

....... .^-^ rv; r rrr wcc ^^^', ^ «-....»> rfj,ii A>r« (A^ f^ f*rAC 

in th court. In pa»pi.nig u? n thin point, enid, p« X24: 

■In our e;.<inion nelth^-T of th<? affldnvltB 
ic a part of t>n^ rf»eror<l proi>er, one tUo af 1 1dav- 
Itii arn th rf^for"" not "bfrorf ufi for coneid' rs'.tion. 
Th«y are not prce«rvod by b c»rtifioftt# of ^^vi- 
fi«n-.r*, un- it iiorf; not Rp,>oar fro<< Kny ord<r or 
u'!Ci"«® ontor«Mi in thf; cftiA»« tliftt tji»^:y were ©itiier or nnrmiC'Teil l>y tJxf^ court Jn paBUlng Ui'Ott 
th« r««Bp*»>-.'tiyc .-".otionc to dinmiJitB, lin<i«?r euoh 
oircumetirncrs' srf flvlfiyite do not beco??)** l>r*rt of 
the r- oord,* (citing IiRn<;.a y» , Heyi?r . tiupr<ii J 

l*leintiff In error urgoe, liowelFor, that inaouuch 
ae tiie petltif.^n \*?it; B?yorn to, it rtHndt* i/> n difforent 
cfi-tn-fejory than affitiuvlto, HowffTttr, tho verlfi*<l petition 
and s.jf fitiKYita attached Ut- retc b<?oofii« no iuora a part of 
the reioord in h proc;et;(Jing ol' thiis kind than an crciimry 
alfidavit* ThiB pr«oiEe point wan paaoffd upon hy this 
court in yojt^d v,, Pcrd j, 0«neral No. 19899 , wherein it mnM 
h«lcl tJiftt a veiliccl petition for n chnnj!:* of rcnue tras 
in tiin nature of an affidnvit ftnd undf-r tj»e rul» announced 
in Lan^e X ... "!e;f/]r . » ui>r , ar . could ot bo tjonsidcrec by thie 
court \in.lrnc. incorporatftJ in thf^ o«l;tifleate of cvid'^nco 
aijincd by th- trial court, 

While plaintiff in error »1bo Allege* tJ^iat the 
<t«or«« i» erroneous for certain et}ior roa0<mii« yIs., that 

thfi i>lea of liinolt wne no ( <liBi.ioo«»«;i of, anu t.Uat ••ing, 
althou, h a pnrty defendant, wao noi e.rvod, yf?t aftrr vrn- 
ful coneideration of tii-? nrgui?;'^nt io Pupi>ort th**reof, ve 
are of th» opinion t;iat hie contontionr. art without merit. 

yimling no roverciblo error, th«=' arorr© of the 
Circuit eoux-t of )Qok County will bf affirmed. 

w ^(].> (i)A(J rI t^-* 

. Kio Jl , Ov' mown ai»w Aoiiiio^ #iU a« 
Ito J:..v o« •i900t>tf oi»n?nli tM»rfo«4^« »ilrnht\\M. bctu 

aJtri,* ^icf b?*iJi>i.iaoo o<J iTOfr feluod ,a2Jiii£ »332Ju. jX. o^"0^^f "^ 

fmii « .sJtT ,Bitotia9'x -xiix^^^o niaiiso tot muo^noi*t9 rI 9«-xDe>b 
«aai^ it^t^i baa ,lo i»«iftot{«JLl> loix atm $lo»B lo ji«I(i ftili 

i lo •Jt'xooi) «xU ftot^cs oXtflateroi oa ^ibaiX 


69 - 21C35 



mm:WM. court 

a»aj*''aiiJ caj;sualt|c ctaapAsnf. ." 

C©riiQration» .:' ) OF QlllCAQQ* 

\/ 198I.A. 5ll 

im* 3?8*mXi)I,sa immm l^m d^aiy^rs^i th?.- opinio a of 
th''t OG.,rt« 

By this writ of ftrror it is aou^jht to r«^V5?rB« a 
Ju>ig.:*;nt fer #ij4,00 &na cowta eater^A in tt»» ^unieiFuPL Geurt 
of Jhica^o An tavor of Uet^nUunt in »rror (plaintiff below), 
a^jainst th<? pl«ii.ntifi' in f?rror (<i'-'fe»<i,JAiJi b«lcjw)« 

/ ^^lainUff»& ttt'rtejncnit Of olaiM was foy 090, C€ due 
&a wages fcr tiifl noath of August » 1914 whi ih i^readu-nt ire» 
fua«d to -lay althou£^li oft«n r«qu«»t«dl to do eo by ijlaintlff* 
I« the afiiofivitof uerita It waw donlod toy th® aef»jadant thftt 
tliaro waa any uionoy <iu« tiie >>lalntlff as m> »«rvio«t» imd \i9tin 
rfjnoorocl during tiiat ;«o»U* and \»ecf»us;® plaintiff wwo die- 
chfii.s-jged frca tho as^aploy of th« def«rtii«ant for good 08>uft«l during 
the taoiath of July. 

l>l«&iniiff*Gi Qloiia ^ bAf}<!d upon Da^ tiioory thiat bi»» 
oau8« he wan paid hie nolary on tij« lJ>th and 3Cth of »ach 
month* hlQ eriployne'nt \mti by iht? ^loath; th?i.t h9 -mm not din* 
QjijaT^cd itnt-il Au^^uflt Int, hernao def9iidunt booa&ae liablo for 
th» wii0l« E»nth of /.Ujgust !©»« auoh vun« as vlaintiff wao able 
to «arn el»«^<i>hero« 

Plaintiff t««tifi«d timt h« «rbat to wrJe for th«j 
dsfonottitt ooa^any About Deo«tab«r» 19X3 uMd oontinued in its 

dcoifi • eo 



'-ii ;!-■• j.">Vi 1>j1: iLkS: ,,.; iT.ii 


ii94»f» le - • '■•■ '•'■- '■*•'-'' '■'•(.♦ no x^c''-- ••••• ..,.'. '■ . *, ■., « 

-aib ion ' > ««ii^ Sifi ^ 9lji tilJnoA 

tfXtfjet ofi-iv 11 wftuin <(oit|» «««X #avaw>< to iUnou oXalir mCJ^ 

.M9i1W»(lX!» Ota* 04 

oi(# -sol :i(90ir 0^ #fTjMr Ml ' 

espjfoy «i) to August 1, 1914; X^mX h* waa pwid twic« per 
eumth ( on the 15tii un<i lost d»^») )»t th«» rate of H&«CO 
for •aOi cno*hAlf cathj tuat en Auguj«t Xet (Taturday) alsout 
10:3C in th« -jtctroiog J»« r"o.-iv«ti aotivjis ef hie diJixWmrge, 
in ft vrltt<»n ooi^.uniaatxon ttiicirosMtto to lijUa and o leaned by 
Thonftn B. Bo»t>; that h(? »Xso» aiton th&t d^Jty at one o*<ilook 
F«2^* turned eY«r pap«rfs etlll in hia«tt«<iei<^8 eind belong* 
iRji to the" {J«^fenUttnt, for whtoh h« receiyed a reooipt from 
thfi* said Boutin Oft liohttXf of thta df^,t9ivX&a% oompiLtxy« Antothfj^r 
witne>8B Gtt b^'hftlf of the plfiiAntiff teotlfied that ho uaw 
th<» plaintiff appttrtntly at work in the offioft on tlie ajom- 

ing of AU£^6t lot* 

On l»«iiiilf of Xi^m ^efdiidi^nt one 0<i»or<s«i B* Jons^B te^* 
tified tlmt jie «as Bup<^ririt«naent of tae axe* outive tiepartiKi^nt 
of th« (ir>f«£id«nt oot&p&ny nnd that ho w«,£s tV.e is^r^^diixte euperior 
of t)«e plaintiff; that during thfi Ijnat *e«lt An July hw called 
plaintif ♦» attt^ntion to th^ fact t>mt ii« had not hi*nd»d in 
hie rtjpcrte i guliurly} tixat plaintiff «apla,in«'i to hia timt he 
had bt3«n in uourt on otMer omttera} tHat he (Jont^e) then aade 
hie report, tc Mr* Boes wiii« had eontrol of payroll audi tore; 
thai t)K> letter fros:; Kr, B0«8 diBOlmrging tiic> pliilntiff tt«»t 
into hie hjinde on Friday iisorning, July 3Xei mx*X w«m» i.lve" to 
the plaintiff; tiiat about 4:3C i*,«5, on UiHt dfisy, plaintiff 
talked witu ilia «« to t .« authority of »o»« to dieoJiarge hi»; 
teiat he (Jones) told :)lftiritiff he h«d nc control over that 
queetion una odiriaed IiIjm to take the natter up with I4r« Boea; 
that at nine o*olock the neait fjwrniiitj ple^ntiff v^eeontod 
hiaoelf for work; t^iat be also did so on \.\\n .^nday oaorning 
following. Jon»?» further te»tlfi«?d tli*t he paid plaintiff 
on July Slot tin<X tha^ th^ r.'c^^ipt wfts sltjn<»d by laaintiff ob 
ttiat aay» 

Oj.aM 10 •isn. «ti« im (•^nb itiaX la «o ) Otmm 

,6 -vi actoi 

liU . - - i'iw a oA 

^0X0*0 ttlfO .t» V^^ iMll notlfl «0«I« »^< . ..Oii'. 

*Aa v ) i^-;- - - _ - . ' - 

-- -'- - ' '■ ' -r • - ■• ;- ' -/.I 1Q 

-'^'■- ' ....... - . ...... ^^« «. ..- .. . -,j^ ^^^ 

.ill 9$ni 

xaii^nJtb o& 3 ,f ajs 004 liilv l^diCXiM 

r 'V9TO Xox;)tfc;.a ^a i^^i ^u 'mUtUi^l^ i>X«i (voiioit) od #jui4 

' «MLBi 9i mXd AvaAirlMi j>nxi RoXia#up 

&nu aX« Ml tjtftf l±i9w I9l lX«aiBlxl 

i-SalAl^ \d »>a)iilii mtnt suXf. xXj/1> no 

1^. M»u, aX«© {SflaiwU -yi behtdf of the <i':f«mUmt, 
t' »%Xti9d %h»t at ^t30 A,^« 0n July 51»t h*- h«tnU«U « letfew 
to Jtm^'•B, <«ia.;:^ letter inforKio<i i>laJi»tilf »f lai» di«oiiarg«t 
that plftintifi' aai4« to hitt on thf n'ext <tay (Au^ct fir«t) a 
f«3W ialnut<»fe aft'^r nin<^ ©•cloak, am aiskeci him for 'sork to do, 
nmi he tola yiaintiff h^s baa no work for Uiia but at ihstt tiJfaia 
pX&intlff diti turn ever psipera for »Mv:jVi Jin (Bows) ^ravft r«» 
c«ij>t tf th® plaintiff. H« also t'-*etiri«a tii»t »n July 89th 
he t«ok up with plftlntiff, in th» pr«B«tto« of Joa«iB, th« faot 
thsit itlaintiff lw«,d noij;! «»oi««ii hie l>uaia<»»e i^itui that h« informud 
iiiia he is^oulii iiava to oOi>»iaEtiij*it© ti>l8 f«tct to the prwfilds'^nt 
of th& a^fentiant ooiu|mny» B«f«fBdant <snd«»»iTOr«d to introdu»« 
A l«tt<?* fro:a the s».r»»l<l<mt, <ilir«flted tv Bcee, orar-Tlng th# 
ai8<5la«irg« of the pliaintiffj tiiie, ho««Vs-'r, wass r*©! adsdtt«?d 
In «fviti«nc©, 

n&rry 5v, K«Conn«ll, a»*tii«r nfiinwea en ^ushsilf 
of t/*fii';if«ndJintg t®8tlli<«i tJiat h« «sapl«y«Mj plaintiff 'Sfitfooui 
any <ierinit« «^;r«tK;i«snt a» to Ui*> tiit-c or oi-jploytoijfttj tJmt ti»« 
first mxc^loynrnt vvAtt Ba«r»ly tea£»orftiyt ^"^ ****** ^^^s* *^^**' *®"** 
ooittpl<?t«»<l, pittintiff eiBkeu hia to f.rrajaa« 'ao^« w«^^ ^"»'' ^*^» 
and h» inform«4 plaintiff tliat tli ye %■»» nothiat; of a penaanant 
ah»raot«r to offer, but Umt th i'4> were thre» er four audita 
ttmt ho ttliiht go out ca, ^ml tiw&t in ttet «ay h© aontinu«d in 
tli« eessploy of the aefondimt oomp&ayj tiiat at firat h« w»« paid 
^1S»C0 par mk aao later on H<^ ypceivod em advsinc© pf «cm« 
#6 or $6 por weak, 

Tli«r« wnii no d«nlal V the plaintiff «• to th^ «ir« 
ouaBtanecs under wHiah h« wtB Oi&ployftd, nor of thn faot timt 
fault Ixad \>««a found with hisa for IjJLp fa.ilur« to «tt«nd to 
hi» busin' :e» during the l^at wook in J ly, nor a»iy denial of 
tke olmr«» 0' noglifioooe. On t^a etate of th<? re^jord tb« sour 

iU t» ii '(i«a «%M 


aiflV-. -^r. .. ..,t.^,.. „., ,,. ^,,^„ _,^ ^.. 

,rfft«nr "Sft^l d# to d^ 

oi iMTOjTtik 0^ ttiuXijit <iJtif tol atJuA Mix : lustt 


entered judgment for $54 and- costs in favor of the plaintiff. 

thin being on^ wnth** salary !•«• wimt plftintiff had eiucnod 
in oLiucr eaployaent Uwrlttif Au^u«t« { 

In view ol* tlu' forogoing •vidian o«. It lauct l>e oonisid- 
•r«(i tlMfct th' rf? wasno )iiring froi;t assnth tc ;ionth, ft«<} nvon imd 
therv: be«tn, tJi?t.t the , Inintiff ww» rtlnoJwrgod for ^ood cau?!e» 
Furth* ntyor**, th« ?i?vldffn -^ Rho c tlirat ?l«intlff w«u a etuttlly 
dinoharg^d on Kriday , July 31ftt, Th rrro:»«, if }s<* rffi>crt«d 
th<»rr^ August iat aru. old ?rcrk thiv v/«r pur-^ly volimts-rir on hie 
P'jiX't, under ftH then© f&ctu R.n'i airfjumetnnct^s, we ftr? o,learly 
Of the opinion that the court «rr«d in finding for th*? plaintiff 
and that jud^»Ji(9nt givDuld huvt been for t!:)« 4tjfenUant, The 
jttdijtaont will ^a rii«if©r8«d» 

Findinij of factst Wc find as a f»ot that th' re 
ima no hiring by tha d€i''Qnmm% ooe^any from month to nonthj 
that plaintiff vaa dieoltar^rwd en »Tuly SI, 1914 for eo"«i cauoe; 

Bnti that th«! fi«ff«n-xant io not intii^'bt^d tc th<- pl«i»*'i^"^ «» "Ot 
forth in t e Btateia«at of alaiau 

.lIxcfniBlq 9x1^ "io iovbI nx a^faoo Jjhjb ^6$ lol cfnemsbui. bSTeins 

XXl-Oi'-Jc .'-5 •«»«« TttJL ■— -^-^ f>'<J ,'♦ 

i3r«iH')<i«'S »s£ II ,. . .. ..i. ,.- , \;fii)ti': no > .,. 

"iMttttalq 9iii tat axtXbirll ni l>«nci» ;fiuuc» •*!! * 

;f' lot M9X ,X?J \cX^."f' 60 ^.v niift-UXs^ ,t»iU 

j?' ^ i'txM: ^'.iJ of b->fi-f"':'(ii ''tn:- :»•<../ ;<^i!i bfls 


liwfemifimt in KrrorJ 

a ^rporftti<f.^nili ana 
U^id^kMi TiSA^.(il|S CCMi?A.!JTf, 
a Goryc ration, \ 

jui5GSi.uH xKAii.iua ctS|2iAjnr, 


Plaintiff ia jKrror, 

98I.A. 512 

MR» WlKSXiJlHO JUSTiaK PAM d«ilT»r©u tijw opiiucn af 

t)ie ocurt- 

In an aotifc.n IjroUi^ut by d«f«iit<laat in etyror &;v:aiii»t 
th« Ohlcfii-::© Sall'w&yg aoi«j»ariy tfeoreiEiafter r«ferr*ru to wib the 
rallii»^« ooiii^any} »i»td .jiXaintiff i^. (S-ri'or, for i!Ji«ijsasi^<-tiisi Buctalnod 
in a QoXlitstUmt thn dourly twitting «rithout u Jury <iliUQisst»d tha 
unit «iB tt) tiin railwayg «0Ki|>ai5y but faund tiiw pXaintift in error 

of 4^78«&C» \iyon »hi3h finding the judg!&«nt ««.» ®nt«reU to r-i'tvers* 
whioii t.'.itj writ of orrur ii«,«i Ijecjn ;>r«eeout«<i» 

The tsvltienoo introctuet^d on beimlf of tl iio-dgif k'udp wt 


i**-«Tr«Hr o}»owed Xinx% a li©< r wigon havirig on it a load oi' 20 
l»<^irr<»l8 9f heevt belonging tQ it wac etunUingp on th' «e«!t Sid* 
of ?«Rtori» av«itiua, faciufi aouUii, about 2& faaj; Bouth of a 
•alooa with whi.oh t^ ta gfargndnnt in mtrot ' did bu9ino«»; t^mt 
directly b«titind tiii& "i^ai.on, «^nd in f r mt of said aaloon, wao 
a tNMSOB beltoiijing to ***« yliii'Httff An uj'iwn, ciloo fuoing south* 
Thifk wa^on pullod out and proo««d«d in u eouthsasteriy diefotion 

t vioivt ai .■ 



In orU*'^' t© pavft tji.> wanton of tr i e tftfftiiuaia in vuigg anti a ter 
g« ting on to Wi» oajr traok» df ti^<9 railwaytt weigiany, was 
fftruok by « cwur OMmed by thi^ rsulwctj-c ot'wpi«i.r»y« T3;!» «vid<moe 

eiiowetf that Uio: w*u,ou of t.-r. aj'TtifuJamO iu i nirrar wao entruck ii,t 

Uw rmht wh«t?l, suju t.U*» foro** of th*» Isapaot ia»cke4 off sovorel 

l»arr«lis of u<?©r, th«» o mte^nto of five of vfi.ioh leaki^u out. It 

furtJt^«ur ttpp«ftr<»d from thff eviuf^nae iti«it th@ oar etrucsk th« Wttigoa 

of j JlftiHtiif )i" in Mf(i!4. ut aUOit tiic front vh«ei6* hjuj that tho 

oar, ja»l jproviouiiiy to hittiiJg th« xn^^oa, ws4« jiO^ng rapidly; 

Uifit at Ui' tit^«! of tii« aolS.iision the lior»©« nttaciied to tii«r 

TW&tjow of ^la^j'rei /"^^ in im i MU! ' wore ftt th'> rc^ar of rtfufronrfiiiiit in 

•jrw»l> «84£oa, wiaoh, during tsilu «ntir« ti£%e» wko stnndlniE 

otilX* STldenc« nmn ul£o introciuo«(i &@ to th>9 tf«eaK« aon« to 

th« WBi^jon, to t>itr barrels and &p to tht; viau* of th# W«r tiint 
hRa leaked out of ihrmm Tbo eyia^noe sUowea iiml tit© total 
ttiaount «i dAi!a»4j«?« p,u«it«in-«'<i wao $7Q«6C»] 

At th<v' closw or thft? «i<!f«if3i<:iant in erior»» oaeio» both 
the i-^Jtlwfttjrft oonpaay an<4 the plaintiff i^ error iisovt^d th« oourt 
to ^ir^taiec ti>p o«u8«* ?lie oiturt gr»i»t9ti t)»o r>otiori u« to th« 
ravJoways «ioia9p«XQr but d«nie4 th^ mG%ii>n of tho plaintiff la 

^ I ^t^* tcBtiiMStniy offorcu on be^inlf of "' t 'TiTi irtf ^•'*' tjj 
#rroi ' corroborated tiiat off «r<»fd on behalf of % i m A tf i'« , Ti4 , u > ut ^n 
errtNe. wit i r- ui^ect t© the position of ttu^ ^va^ons at th<^^^ tisa** 
the w«,£on of tttitu- r H tiili r tiff j it i o >r <» j puliftd cut to go south and 
ptkmu tiK- «*^on of tKw AuffmMnt tr errMT* 7h«r« was otlier 
t^etlwony on bohalf of t nfi firlatt i lii i Tf in ifTftir that th«» r«iur 
of Ittt w«4ion waA »truak ana not Ui« front} nlao thai when its 
WNCOn stairt«ii to pull out, one wltn»Q£ Kt><t«<t t)xut Uu; oar 
«Naisiae tt)« ttooid«nt v»s i^euft 2CC fnnM aimy« whila another 

» f»«»nv{j rtisr « '^tf 

ta 3CoirxJ» «« 

f'lft tfiSiU bn« .eXooiJv 

.» \(iji4J0XTiyi<| i«jb' 

')T*flJ; Oft 

U9 tt1»>U 

a^aw-i" ■ f!ft 

bn*» nj/ 

I waaw -*iii* e,ijk i^rmI •dl Jon i^a jfpireln «aw nuam/ »SX to 

witnestt «taV«u it wcoi ICC fern ^.irajy; thui it ■ avmiix^^ f&st) 
tisal it ui'J net ftXftoken itM »i>»?e<l until it wae j*it,;,in ten l>e?t 

(::::t>"^ii5.^.<-*U*..i,.otr ^ 

of thf' tmgon of ttnn ia w tfttArr A n m um r, J 

'I '^ 

<te %i\itt stilt© of tlio r«!00rd, tn« «iourt ont< rect the 
Jucl£:»!itt«u ■'«iiaplAiB«tl,cf.i''i&intiff in ©rror urtj«t aa grountls for 
r<-Vorw«l, th*:^ ©rr r of thi- tK)art In failing to difoniioe It at 
th«* oloo© of d(st ndnnt in «rror*« Ci;i««j auvi furth^r^i that th# 
»via«no<t a}iew©4 tJuit ih« a<5oidr>nt *«» «©t ^t*e to any n^iiligjwBise 
en ivfe part but «fte duf. tc t)i»? n«^Iig«»ocii of the?- r«ili/s^tt ciomperor; 
an'i uri>:«?» i-urth*^r» ths.-;i. cfven if it htid be<*n guilty ©f ««ir;lig«t»o« 
in having ite w^^on on Uic. crtr tiiaioic, y«t thit <iia uot r<flleve 
the raxlwii^e oocaparjy of liability, fiino© tii-^ ruilw*y.'« ooHipany 
had tix<R *laBi ciftitr ciuanoe to «voia it.* 

As far &» this ireiwiict is <xtno?:^rn<5d, atll that thi? 
defendant in error w&8 .r«quir«<l to u;;ow 'sn.& tbtit eoa* laot of 
n«slig«jno«? ©f tise piaiatiff in err'aj" ooiatyibut«?d to th® 
eollieion ■!?ii<sr«»by the drjssa^flijj la qu©f:tion tfftr*? auptas-inwd* ?h«r« 
if} ovideno--:* in ti"t<'? naaord fjr©M wiiien thw :cst>urt 'wan wiurrfinted 
In oonclttiii-iig thtit Um plaiiatiff in «rror mia guilty of Ji«ferli» 
Stvnom wiiioh oonts'^butei to th« &<ieidc»t in question. IfflAilet 
plAintiff in error introclu««Ki •via«»n'!« in the e«kSe» it »m.ei of 
a o))ar«.oti»r rather to nhow timt th«> nqsligeno^ on the pti-ri ef 
th« railways ot>;u;pany aoQ$ril>ut«<i to the e^ooid nt. Suoh «vi<i(»natt« 
how«v<^rB wGuiti not ab«o]hr« i^ of r«>0pon»ibiXity for iti* own 
act of n«gXij^eia-«» B«ixifi; iteelf guilty of n«glig«nc€>, plaintiff 
in error ic. iil no position to ootap^ftiu tiuit tho railwAyn oonq^iu^ 
should alfto tmy Won held liabX«« The rul« of 1&« is ti^tat & 
pertton lac^ raoov^r At^ainst on« or ig>ll Joint tort fwaaors in an 
aotion of tliis kii»i« Th« aofQn<i«jat in error shout^ci not bo callo4 
upon to suffer n. r«'V«rtt«JL in thii^ oaao stf^rfily b«(iuau»« in th«i oiiin* 
ion of th<^ plaintiff in «rror tii« oourt sitould ivArtt fouadi the 


nn itu\30 iiii^i .i**/ 

Oi:: ,.,,„,,, 

nvQ »^l noy M;ixi.t(f^ttiioq«i«>t to jTi trviEMcfA ion itluw ^xnrmn>r, 

''iali<l ,»• 'i« to ft:\ 

«<jr ion Mii/OiKt vivaivtt rxJt ;> .imJiK niul to nol^ost 

th4» Juugia^ni will b« «jrflr<ft«4« 



m^ov. to 

?l.i..tif^l.. Krror. ) 1 9 g I .A. 5 1 4 

MB. PRESIDIKO JUSTICE P4M aeX'ivjr^ii th« opln icn of 
the c->urt. 

By this i^rlt of i^arror it ii* "Oii;::;,it to revoriJ^ & judig- 
atnt for fTl.rjS in f%voT of aoftaniant in <3rror (plaintiff bo- 
low) ftgiRiniii pUlTJtlff Itt «rror (d«f<*nJi*yit b«l©*), for sicw*/ 

by plaintiff to the l^sf-^ndv.t , dur inff, Jur.Q, 190*>j aftssr io- 
iuottofi & payta^nt of |5. 00 BiA4« by d^^ fen -tent to plaintiff on 
Auguat ii*, 1509. The ^iffi.lsvit of aaritjii ftllag'&d by <**/ of 
iltiSn.n-i^, that tho feosount Jr^ ^Ju-i^tlon hnl been wiped o^jt by 
dsf^-R-irarit'a 'iJ»oh'5:T>^© ir. >)ankruptcy s^^~'»t«'* ^"^ t-he aev'snth 
day of Outo'sjor', 1507, pl/^int if f'-J claim havinji be*n itohed- 
uled aj:.ortg .l©f«nd'M-it»» d^bt^ In that rroo«eiine. 

1 Thei ouly qossticn lii th« o^»o -i^, *hoth«r ftt tho 
tisw uf th« fo.CO pa/ffiant (August ii«, 1901^) th«r« w»sl8 Jun 
uncontiticn*! promS3« by tho iof^nl^nt to f^ plaintiff the 
iri.lobt<»»» du« hi« pricr tc the> diaohara© In &«MiiiTttptoy. 
Th»r«i Tr«r« but t«fv nilna^fi*}^ in th« oa** • t>i« pliiiintlff 
and th« def9nd«r:t, 

Th« tatotloony of th* plaintiff fairly t!srid*d to 
ahow that th« $S, CC paya^nt i»ij.a saad* on ^oco'^.t of th« old 
inlsbt-sdnfiafi «uid th^it def«ad?fnt Jiad, -xt t»i^ tiaaw tiJB^i>, m*d<!i 
an ur:oondition6.1 pr<»jii*« to p#iy the remain i'jr of tno in l«&t«d- 
n9>i»i dm i?lor tohia iiachirg* in bancruiiioy. Itofondftnt te^- 

h r ^■''" 


^v KOTtCie 

■ TT'tt'T r-JTrTT »;-;•: 

r ^ 


tifioAl that tha *f>, 00 WJSDS not % p^Y^mnt m ^^ti .^ocour.t but 
to invoke tn© gaoi fill or pliant Iff to a*JSii*it h ia; in ao« 
iloitlng Xiir« insurance frees hi« (plalntLf C»s) t>rothor, and 
that he did not cntor into «ny proauiOQ or ^Q.t9fii&onX to pity 
t^4e inddbt«>in«nB» mat Xiai ^l^o'iiy )5«on 4lMcJi&r£«'l. I 

t^i-s ftndinii of th« court for tho plaintiff fwvji 
%h«» reniition of ^u^lgnssnt th«reciR lauat b*9 taion by tjs &u n 
flndiRg t^.at im unconiitiynail pT<3&ii^^ 'sr«ift sj&d© l>y the 1©- 
f'sndlant at th-s* tlas© In au««ti<m. M%r<aha,ll v, Ty»,Qy < 74 
III, 379. f© G^jnncit aiay that «u«3h flndJr^ i** ol<j&rIy an.l 
;.,anifo4tly M;uir.)«t th<; ^r^ l^ht of th?? «jvidyr.oe, honco th<9 
;|a-leHi»5nt of tl^-.? MiKi«lp-=l Court ot C>si«-'js£0 r^uist b^ 'iff It»^.1, 


-OS nj ; XXlv l»00| d/fl oiovnl •# 

it. v/ X«* wtsanao #1 ,©T6 •III 

bl2 • :U91G 

i^KCi'LS Oy'-fHt tJTAYK Of 





198 I.A. 537 

•f th«i ufturi* 

Xni« i» » pro»«9uta.Cin for bastardy (>n oompXnmt of 
Katti>-f i;lj.m«3pj;ma, the rdtlAtrlx iifir^-iin* Tlsle coi»« wan tried 
twie«» * first toy tH« «30urt ana Jnury, ami tu** ae«ond tijue 
Vofore tii« <50urt isaon»» Both ter?aiwat«<i in & firttUs^^j ©f 

th« «i<9f9»di*At is^e px>c»«<nitttd t^ti» ai^p^ftX* In urgi:ig a r«v9r»al, 
«l»f«auiuit conteiwlB titut tite juilgtaoat ie olnarXy antt ia&nifPRtly 
a^ainet tu*? weijihi ol' tf.e eyi(i(»no«>» 

11»<jrff ore two qu«etioni» in t)i<; <:ji»«, vi»*} (1) ru« 
date of tisic- firet »ot ef •«xu>a int«rctiyr»« b«tw««»i» t)i«» particts; 
&»vi (2) Wae ta« o)iiId prcinatur«ly bomV 

I Sel&trix t»9tifi«>d that on » iJaturdtty nl^^ht, i»obi« 
tim* during Wi« taootn of Ootolse'r, 1914, eh© una on* i:ii»ab«th 
Xai««r att»adecl a d«nQ« h«Xd at a pittce known a« tlitt Linooln 
Turner Hall, in U»a Oity of Chiaw^-o, where timy ia«t defcnUant 
a.nd on« Muehlka; that «ow<? tija* I&t«r the fOvT, !• •• th« 
rftlKtrix, Mi»« Xttiacr, the d. fondant and Ifti^iaka, want directly 



T8S .A.I 

. ■.?T^,.rJk4.-J%i 


it»lal^,9 9iit htn^riUb UA% 

.i^Y«r««tf tot <;. 

•'«.*i,Xi'lvw*iy'i. wild' ,*i*.. 

■, '■ •■u'jr.Mw-.ffr ftjrsjy*^ -♦f^j «ji*r (8) htu'^ 
viii •• «i . . r,. -;.,,;: ^oo beu 

for uiOK,t tir:;j, .lurln,?, #>jiah r.ysirlocl si?A9 (the rftltitrtx) «n,i 
d©f9ni>iit h&4 a©.«»jal int<>rscur*«, ?i«i ^i T«j»iult of «hloh cho 

visitor to Ji«r tienw, ani thnt Illicit «l4.tion« «ontinu«d 
int^raittentlf wntil % »?iort tit;;* bofoi"« th^j child ma ooyn 
(June a?, 3 £2 5). ?:he further testified that aftor her ,fir«t 
intoraourac *lth i^ fan lint, >i«r r^rlodl of aor.Btrint ion 
oc.-iKie-4 ufttn after th€» child ^in bom, i^nJ th^^t th« cnild 
»&<» & full tgra ohlM, 

Uefondant teatlfU-1 ths.t h« mn the r^jipctrix for tha 

/^ o^^-^v^^<«wrr-mr4i. nu te..tir.or.y e« thifc poi^.t confl ict^A^ith 
thftt of t>i«j rei^trw only r,0 to the l«Jt© on whloh th®/ flrut 
a}*u J It iu iKiioTtar-.t to fix Xho Jat'i of th-s Cirot m©«itinv 
between t>.o r«l«.trlx ^^.i 'iofond^nt , In^.a^r^uch &e it 13 «ont«nd©.j 
by the reUtrix th^.t it if^ ni th-ir fir^it Metin. t!ot sexual 
intercourtio tools pl^io*. 

Th« only to^tit;oriy, ^,th^.'r th«R th.'it of th«j rcl-strix, 
offered on h^r b©h«2f, -»&« th it of .hor aioth^jr, ^)\o testified 
that «h-» a^^ d«fond%nt in h^r hoao iurlng Hove^er, 3914 and 
that «he «ftw hl« fro^u*>r^tl7 in h^r hce« sft^r th^:it %im. Cor- 
ffotjoratlng th® .l«fsn4«nt m to the tij!^« of the firwt Koctir.e, 
»«r« four »itriea4«e, Arthur rTaaa, rri;s5.both K'^^^iiT, Harry 
l£«ahU«, and a^orgo Throno, 

Arthur Hms ani Q«crg» "mrori^ ^icth te^tlflsji thfjt th«y 
J8«t th« rel«trix ani J«fflndant en Deouafeer 5, a«14 at a .l«inco 
held unicjr th** %uspic«s of tn^ Ete t.u,, Athlctis 4 B«n«volent JUun., 

'tc? xi.'rf''!^'T 'sr'f -^t^fiv. tec' 

O/ftO tti 

.affile Jfl ''♦ ■'• ^"' 

X».1J i^-'^if bf»lUttt9^ 

«i si '^ii^ -■ .-'• J " u'lXlL' LiO 

«.l tho Turner Hall, m^l lienti.ri*»d t?^? .I%a0f> prograB 

t)^<& Llntfcln Turner H&ll tht^t fxrat Hritu^i^isy in n§o<5sb©T, 10I4j 
th&t uhe ani th« rolattix h-5'.i t$«n^ tj.-^re tos«t!l'4«r unacooBir-nn ladLj 
ttiat the/ wore intTMye<^4 by H%rfy Muehlkc to th$ 'i^f^swd^nt, and 
th^t th«sy d&nco4 ^ith thftiaj th-tt tho four, 1.*?j. the rolatrix, 

^,M. -in-i ro-a<! on % atr^i'iit q^t to Bt'l.KiCQt .a^.i Linooln wonu^w , 
%'h^r>Ts th<» four btopp^d off for ch«>p au»?y, aftssr jfVji ich they .'ill 
■^cnt to bar Jiork*, arriyln?;. thar« abcut ose o»ttXoo]k in tha jsaorn- 
l53£ cr th9roa>:jout», ^>;^r« th«sy- ap^nt a one M«'T-'abl«» t'iio«:> In th^ 

the rcosa in ^^rk.nw'.i'G. Mi«i;j Jl«).i<;4»?r»« t^mi^^or^f w%a oorrcborated 
\sy Harty Muefelk^ r4iO al^c i4«*ntifi©d the j.TograK> an-l .u-iffiia^jAan 
t iskct uiissd p.t that 

Th« Tiil^ttit did not ?i«ny th^t oh® ^ttftn'iod th^ lanoe 
glv«iri und«r th© &Ui*plo*jiS of ttio 13© Luxe Clubi in fact, h<sr to*- 
tiB:ony le in full accsorvi ^ith that off«r©i on behalf of tlie dd- 
f®raant estc^pt a^ to th-a lat-o on .¥hlo>i t^o ausetlnf*, tcok pl»s.oi5. 
Ths r'^latrix, aoreoVQr, Ino iiit«s4 th5;t th9 <i&nO0 At •«fiioh ah© 
ml a«ferid-ant ^»st« t>i.«9 only on* iiM (^v<j? att«ndei..l with nim, and 
tfc»*t it »&f* on th» earn night thi»t th9 firat aot of in t-* re ours* e 
took plauee. J W« 5r« ^atiofif>d, fro© all tbft tsetJtcCwy in the ' 
oa.*t«, that th« 43ac<> at ■vhich this. r&X«itrix rc^t th«t .i<3 fondant 
w&a tho cn« held on T>^C9 oj^-sr 5, 1914, and thv.t tho ri^latrix 
f irut B^t th« -iaf'^ndant ^r. Vki^-a^^v 5, 1914 «.i not during Oc- 
to6«r of th-it y9P.T, It is fair to pr^bxrsfi , in vi««f of th« 
fact«> 'A-^d circu«©8 iin «vider*oo, th&t th^ court in finding 

def«ndwTt awilty* procstdtd u^on th« theory th;.it th« f Irut 
Kjjtino ,^3 in ©•o«,BS,«r, but th*t tho ohlU »4fi a a«y«n morth.i 

las 1. 
til iuocy 


*£iJ[t ;ra»rf# 


-: ^•iisiwui 

sj imtil^B 0^ irxjo *•«-. 

-■j.:^ tX 

r,":, —0 

^»«ii»x Acav 

• ww*.£ii4l'aj*Af 



•* j^" r lo. i 

!-r;r-: f rt ?io saw ti r»d# 


-•* »<« «>■ 


,X*X1»S itiAbMl^tf 

— 4— 

THfl ^fU^sticn then !vr4»*to wh*)th«r, uni«r tho <i»id«noo 
ir- %:\o c^-^o, this riilatrix i-u«t'tln<.4 Xhtt bur.i«n of proof or. tno 
^liict^tiaQ whothor or R*^t the chtl-i sraii 'i wevan laonthu* cniM, 
Ir: 4«tftr»ininj^, that ^uoi^tloR, t« «u*t aottulJer not or.]/ the 
©tp-srt te^^tiaony tn th* 0':\&5 »3ut 'ilso nw.y other facta sini 
c irouBWit^•ino9« 'ipp^tir in.s In «5Vi=l«r,c«9 on Xhx* trial ^©lo^^'. 


On th* «.u'j.:tion -^jatn^jr or not th if* ^v^ % Tj^n t<«ra} 
child, two Jtoyaici5ir.4 t«ytlfl»5.l for thfl dof^ndant an% on© (Dr. 
Do to«) Twas «->ll*»d by th«& court. Qn !>fjhvlf of th*> ifttfon-l^rft , 
Pr. BeiOiRcr t«^tlfi«di th?tt h# ^^^ Iri attona^flca «tt t>*« tUs» tho 
rni;.trix ^^a c-nfin«-i .^ni th^it th* child In ■'?>af<;>tian ^m vi^Al 
4«7<jlop>jti nHsi pofi»if^-^G<i4 overy ftrp'^Jir^»c«t of » full tera child, 
i.«. 8ih€tr» tn*5 j^DriO'-J of 5©3ts>ti<»i C0Y#y«i nino acfnthif j ^and 
tii^t it wt-iH iTi f'iot 5. full tors child. TJr, aoj«», who «?.« the 
otUid ?fithln a sacntJi &ft«r birth, ?&lac t-^stitif l»s4 Vxil it I-to- 
«S'5r,t»;i •sv'jrf aj*p<^«9 cf <% nsrfiiO, full t<?r& 3)) Hi, ^sxc^ptioi- 
all>- ?«sH d<?v«lop^l, «in1 ir; f40t frfe4 a full ter?£ o'iill; "ooth 
iootortt acttifig forth tho f??ata upm -sfeich th«y baited thair 
ooROl'^a lor.s, Tir, T>9 Tj<5« , ^;C ^r^ eallol by th<? oourt, stated 
tn^it WTusn h'S s«* t^,« clilll (•#. Ich wsis about taro j'^ontha %ftf>r 
ita birth) h<s C';ul<i not toll th«th<sr it ^^& a full tarw or a 
i>-'V5n ffiOnt^!«» <3h 11 i| thtt, hc-trtV'ifr, * (3hill born »?ithin 
^fi^^n GontUa aight l\&v«% thn ftortti?il 4ctvelopsv?>nt of a full t*?r» 
Ob. il.i. Ho, ho«6t^r, ^lid titftt-?? th'Stt ti^^t -^^a ynvwu''';! 4n J tho 
»js.copt i<^. 


Itejf«^i5ii3ir.t iRiiiiSt" t>i«s.t n--^ only .k><6« th* «jrp6rt te«iti- 
«i>ny ehoir th'jit the ehUd w** not pr^js^aturoly born, but th'it thor« 
&re other faott* anl o iroumatsnOftO lo Jirid^r.o© lidtich idho« ol-^srly, 
or *t l«i»t walco iBirr'i'b')-)!^ th« fact th%t thi«i ▼*« & «ovon aosntha* 
chiluj that on the c y, thn ovi4«»'iC'9 ol«irsrly aho-^« that th« 

-n^ ^ft^ * full t^r« chil^i. m thU oantenticr. »• „««t 


r i -1 r f 


9<r'; i, «»» aid ' .' '' 

It 'ireul'S Bj-pysj nc ati^ful. puypoao tt-r mk^ to A<5t out in a^Ktail 
ht>T« th«i f&atfe in the ?«co?l ufcn «Thlch wo 0';t»<5i cur ccncl\*s icwi. 
This r&ccra a>;c-iite th«.«^i?? r-i<lAarl« i^'^t ':;fth«f aj^fj ^itJ; iiliSS 
K«i5><5r 4urijns£ the monthu of i5^ptembf?r, Ootobor ^r-vl Kovemoor, 
1914, ^4sr tho os»e oircuRittt v»n«9iJ , «>ind roFsilrod to th« hots© of 
Miaa K.ii«.?r, oocuj-ylng tJta seaw foo« in the 4J;s.r» a(i.nn?!f %^ ^ihc 
dia ^it^4 ths d^sfeniatnt ^xt t^.«? tibia's iJh* claiaol th« fiyiJt ^iCt 
of int*;rc>i»jT4» tcck PX3C<>. Tier's it^filao <»Yili?nc« in tbo r«i- 
cora th^.t ^hd aat ollv;r e^)n iurinw -■(8j:>t<!ii5^»5r, '>5tobeir ssinJ No-- 
v-sci^ef ^it othisr FlttC^te, «h c ftcaaar'.ini'J^ ^»<'t toh'ir hojac, xmi^r 
c Ir UEi? t un3«i. which lndlc*it(? ah© tr-ii* not j«irtlt3ul%r *is tc tho 
aann^r in ■shiob ah^ met t^i-jii^*) wn cr the oh-:;;i'»iCt«T cf th^ K^n 
th©)s3«tv«®. J ^a ikf: S4ti*fl'5d, frcifi an ■^K'ttain^^i.t im of th© re- 
c'OT-i iff this Qfi^i^f Xh^-X thfi fifKlfrig of the court 1*^ cl««riy 
fefii ssftnlfft^t Jy .'Sfjfiinst th^f? weight of the ©viieno©. In oij^ ivin^ 
*t our ««sRolUiil<m» m ^t^ nc't uruslnirul ot tho fact th«kt the 
court aittSng ss o ourt ft-n-i ^ur/ s***? -scni h<9ssyi the titnessgs 
t«iitifjr »ni ?fai* th*>refOTf«s in a it ore ai?<int4g«»ov»» x'ioaltior. tc 
jua^c of th»5ir cr<iiibilit/ ^ml w<3(ieh th«lr t®stiB:<my. Hcwfovor, 
«re -jro aonntrat'^^d to »irriv« it ow? cotiolunicn by tho tediaorty 
of the relAtrlis; feoraolf, «itj<? in4Ut*>d thtt tho oh ild yst».ii a full 
t^rrs child a^l that it was o qio«> iT«'.i luring Ootobor 1S14, and 
th4t »h>' n.-jy«r fit m^ tiir.«> notified 4«f«G4ant of h^r pr«=»|fn5int 
cwiditic^ n;jr oh;i.ri;«i hiw a'ith the p«it«rnity of th«> chill urtl! 
•vft«r itii oirth, 3e ins *♦ at iaf is«l th>it th«5 finiin;^ of the cour' 
U cloirly md 3i«nif<»«tly sigainut th-s v* ight of th«s «vi>;nc«, 
thd ^uOiftiBayst auat b« r9vera«d anfl th<; o..5us»«i rsin«inl«d. 

UBt»li til tcio i9» oi «i> tol &iioqT, 

VT»» bi- 


•x» lusil itjsq $0R 8£v «/ta o^i^sl,. 

;^ IS T^-- ■ 
. ..:f* ^kc* fioi. . ...-.,.., ,.,..^ . .. ... . ' ,. 

Kdi f»Ai *»ji? ©If* lo X4;1J:AlaR«/ >or 

a* ^oiJlaoq .-. .. v--.,f..^ 

venKoH ♦x<*>«Jt*»t/ tiff At slf^m Ibb 

., ^ , 7»ri lo i'a*j£>af>1 ■■' •■■-■- T. ' 

8rf* It) i\alifll'. 

14r - riJM. 

'"■■198 I.A. 547 

?:.K» JOS^Tim "X^OB^ni «ellv9r«(! the oplnler^ of th.5 letTrt . 

the plalrtlffK Ir error, hereinafter r«f»n»*^d to Us 
tl» '1»f«ndftnto, ir favor of tlit defctidant In fi«rrnr. 

h^relnftftor r«f«rret? te^ a» Tslftlnttff> for '-J^r. '•"hnrc 
^!r»B »urflelont (9vl4»«co to euutaln the pl^^l";tlf*'*» 
olaiB tha.t ohe had loft with tho doftndant r«,iillni» 
r.ohwr^or the ew- of <:scic on^ oriA oooft»l«ti> e,n^ 
•rr a Xat«r ©oc«clor» tMt t^io c»ney so deposited l-ad 
lHi«tt twrmfrfl over tf» the rtofar'iant lo«i« ■ «huW<*r ,?,wd 
unefl for th© ;Jolist lSH»n<?flt e?f bothi ft»H that only 
4. CO of the aeotmt so •Ig'peel t©<l bad V««n rotwmod. 
It v.ue adrrltt»d that 1840 had bo«n Uft hy the pUln- 
tlff tritli th© r^eferfi^nnt Ftttslir^ :«hur<3or post© tl's« 
In -ay, 1913, hut It ira.8 denituS that an' portion of 
thle e«8» lute tht han^^ft or nmdor thcj ©ontrel of th« 
defena«*xt Louis rohtar'Jor. in ro^rfl t« th© Itt^ttor 
point, atid In rei^Ard to tt-« •luoetlon of ^hother it 
v-i-s 't-iO or nuo, tho trial ,1ud.f^« ^^e hosrd the caeo 
vlthout a JUapy* ©vld^ntly founc^ for the plaintiff. 
Tho plaintiff «l«o t«stifi»d th r nem tiam in ?«p* 
toerbor* 1^0©. A little lo»» than flY« y^arfi hofot^ 
colt tra# atartadt eh© loft ??e00 with tha tiefcndant 

Tanllns rofeurdor, and ther«^ ' ' " ' im»! 

ease Itrtr tha T>oectr45len of r 
««od far t?'a ^olnt bonoflt of tho dof ndJvntB. 
dafandant raullm o ur><^' affidavit ai>oaifiaally 
daniod th« loan of tha ^200 in tho nanth of r^^wn^r 

IVfO^ti msd m,i^t. that. '■' v.vy ■■".•liw: :■■ i o^"- .ii'K^n--' nitsT 

'^riwr to /.vtJ'Ust 1, lt>0?5> It vrkB outla-i^rd by thm wtatut© 
ef llisltatiofw-. e think th«* p/irldonoe dltrclC'iiftd that 
the f:??00 w*f oavanoed r-rler t^'^ .ft\:?r«8t 1, 100?^ ♦ ttnl 
t^ 'ru^rfltlcn tlidr^fca'© fivrlsject ac to -^«r H>» eisttuto 
«f liisltatlene b^igar- t'.^ nan. "hi* nlal "tiff ■'/»« the 
mother cf th-^ :''ef*-'irl!%.tTt r»ulino rehar«?er» ■rtio wt.R th® 
wife- «P thft fl^fendart T.-oulc 'oMu^er. 

Tt clearly ftipi^eari: fror- t)i© t®»tSr.crry rf tb© 
plaintiff tfes.t oJt5« left th*j T^^nov wlt^ her ftarrj^t^r 
wltb tte« exprc?i3 ttuderBtftudln?^ tlist sfoff^rsaawta shoeS.'! 
w»$ it f«^r tfcelr <«m lJ«««fit» a?»S thjtt the- -^er^i net to 
r-'-tttm it lanXe^e utm r«--<lc4l it ana arlrera ther- •^'- d'- so* 
Th«( tSS^C loft irlt'K tb» dc-f«md,;-.r/t " !i!,t.!ll'ne :«ihwrder in 
IC'll w-.« left v-rlti; a sl«^llar irndi©'UR4S. A.p"ar^^^*itly 
n© r1«s«m1 T?:u- mw!® for r, retisrr'. of the r,o»«y until 1^14, 
7fhm% f'lalntiff irrote <1©f«f«!Ant«!# isJttlrlTjf^ a foopisml. faisS 
©:«pltelt -(ScssaM for tb© rottir!- of thtj ven^f* it is 
«l©arlv the law of this rtato tlmt irb»re un© <l©rt©elts 
rroney ?r$th ltl1^tJhf r with tho w!>ict«^ «*P^'!lr»|!; thnt tho r-sf* 
«o« re«»ivlr.,c tl'?e- -ftia* slmll ur?*^ It f'*r hie <"am fceisf^fit . 
and roturt; it «n <lMuii^» that th«»r«!i 1» n^ duty or* rb« 
llgrstion rej'tlRp isptm *.lh« -peraorj rocetvlng tM «w?jey 
tc retwrn It until <?> ^eicairsl ?» wade, wnd oe^c "^JUTitly 
the fitsitute ao«B net Vflin to rut^ «rtll th» r«ttarr: of 
thft on«y has ^an tToKartSed* 'Wa baa boin a*old®n by 
etar . ui>r«»e tnirt In i:<i lXe»lr ▼» ' ollegfc , ICT 111. s^??, 
Ir nfeleh th* fmate iT«rf . Ir all r.' tarlal r^vp^mii't «1k1- 
lar to tho»e In the oac^ at bar. In th*- aaae cH<^^f or 
I'lisa ?/©oa -ift-jH)©!!** oertaln b<md£-. vlth pli^lrtlff In -t • 
r^r for whtoh h® c^to a reoclr't Ir wfeloh he J"al^ , "the 
Irrtoreet tf^ b» taaef! by i»!e whll^- in my Ktr,ape»ol©n, tr b» 

-iQlivtsrod t» h«r '?y}i«>ii©v*ijr QsHlnd for." -■'■ftwrvmnlcs, *^lth 

Hi.iO»>v JAR 


f>f t 



b... ■ 

<, ' i- » JT.-' • 

t \Ji 


eourt alec 


u«U.l tJ:., a=>-* C:.f 

i ' 

call -cr U-i:.. :i' i;i./wU.-Si;.-rA;„i, .•Lcul.a -;.i-I;i. 
that ©oi»r»o -tle'eflraM'*^ t'.' h^r.*^ 

v/6 thlr.5- it its ^fiWaJly Qli5>Ar In tho c«ee at 
%ar tte,t t^:# T'3.aii^t4ff -Ud nv^t Int^nS ir- im'ke *t»= ftl«clut» 
rift, but' that thire ?m» fsc duty oaat tsrof. tJi<- a«f®r4ar>te 
t" return the rnn^isr imfcll ofc* i:!c«;j,^~4e<3 it. -H^ no .(Sismanfl 
wac Bade tmtll sisortly before tr--.- ettit wus t^^pm, th» 
otetiute of llu^ttatlor^o ha4 not run* ■ »■ ther* ^fas mxf- 
fleiant ©vldenens in t>K> i^eon! t--: ©uatrdn t'm omirt'e 
flnainr,55# the ^ud;^5»«nt mist b© Bffirv'&d. 

13 - 91101 

^ ^ '^- CI PAT 



IdSI.A. 549 

>.n5 ♦ ."1: ' ^ Vvci-x^a Ui« evlnlon cf the court* 

'The -lalrtlff' It'i error, her^lns.ficr .r^f<»rrc'rt to 
«,8 th« ^''^fon-i^nt. «»ne4 ©ist tbt» '^frlt '--f orrcr to r«v«'rf-<e 
a ^ud.-aor.t nMswercd by tho dsf^n-iant In «rror> lisreln* 
after rtferrn*! t'> ae plaintiff* for .''W.'M, f«P r»iR':«»» 
cllR* c.n4 V:*rniiri9tmi* ttie t&.um wa-,- ba^-ir*. before tl»© cotur' 
wlth©»t a ^Har-y* 

"tse oisly rtOTfve-'-iPaticsri h>^t1 with r«f«r--rv:r-' to t>ie 
eaatrj-et iMjtwee'ri d^feiS'lant atfS anyone r©f3r»2?entlf^.r th<^ 
^lalrtiff ■ waf ti'V'sr th«j tel*phon«. On« cf rlAlrtlff*- 
'frltnssft«& t«st'tfi«*<5 t^'. & 0onir©J^fttlOR ^'Ith «!.«f©ndant, In 
vbloli a«f©n-lant akf^reod th-'t tls«s goodiB In <m«^-tl*w», wh^eh 
"!r«y^ prleri&«5 by a. mint©*** fib.euld l->« chii'r-ist©:''! to hlist h« 
alen t«6tlfl5s<! that tho p*trt?jr imA fren^etttly ^©isptit palrt 
e>f ih® T^lalntlff, and r>o^'^tlse» on opftdlt. I>«f©lndlant die- 
r.i€» tlK^t mmh a Q©wr«rBiatl'"»r fKse.wrrc^, ''^i*t zv.i^ that at 
^ later <Jat<? he h*<^ a eenreraatloft -arlth reference tr- the 
{Toc^le beirsiB; le-ft a.t h1» rl«eo» '^'o t©8tlfl»» furth'sr th«t 
ibeoe gofi'ds WBr<? laet us*--'! In any wsfk ff "htB tmt 1r w<:>i* 
don© for tl^« Jt»^©i*iwrt'1er»i ^enrtiii^ cr'-r^ixrcy, th$ le^^ •«© "f 
tho fr«r48e« eccwrsiv^ by hi»» althouiTih th*:' tsalnter M^ 
done fMT/re ^crk for "HIbe prior tr that tlrj^e. 

Tt appearu th^j.t ih« »atarlal« In <suoRtlor! were 
left with tJ3© ilefimdant ■■'prll '^ a«d iay ^, amd that o« 
Jtsne l»t defendant received n bill f^r tJ5«w» but r>ald no 
attention tc lit thai it wae the only eteteisjertt h- »-*?c0lve^di 
and that he vtie adrlfiw! to pa:^ nc attenticn ^ ult 

Qk^ .AT PMr^' 


•JloR a:»«v-; 

wr.8 brewffht ^cvf-.Kfber 10 of tht •air» y«ar. 

Ceunsol frrv ia«feiwaam, olalw* in e'feot, thai 
ttr. ih«m m-.R en© tsrltnesB tei^tlfylrtg upon rnicj el<3i«, awl 
ftnctbpr wittjcer tf^otlfylnf dlrwutly tc the oontmry, thor© 
W8J8 TW pror^miL.vnxme of tfc« ©rldenoo. hie l?;ht w^li be 
eo If tho qw«i?tlon of t}j« pror^ijudf^rane© cf the «Tid«mdQ 
-lep^tsflftd fe^^leXy ijp<m tbK> nvtrh^r of wi t,ns:' ' oee > Ijut It hae 
Ixen ro|>e t.ftfJIy ^el4 that It doeo not- ■orcnrfsr, ^.tttll© 
tho fact thi.t ^on &, 15111 ■firn. e nt dl«fc?w!laRt fcr th*? pw»<56« 
delivered ut and u»©<3 t-"- d®ocrat« his place cf lH3rlni>f«»« 
ho did m't repudiate any I5aMlity. rlii^^t net in itiself 
b© eufflelert t imrraBit the lnf®r«»50(^ that he adislttcd 
rr loi^onetbllity for th« Hll, yet> that fau>t le « olrciHn* 
etar-oo ^l«li tb^': oo«rt "? ' * '-.■t trr tatfs !■' "-Rrrt- 

tion Ir d«»t©?ialrtrr; tht^ of th*. pr«p<:- •. '^ 

th« ftvS'Sene©. A» tJa^tro "/ne' sufficient «vl??einoi& t<^ !rti|>T>©r'. 
the flnaissg of the court* the 5i4djT«?st ^nspt h© ^'vfflrmsd. 

I lr98I.A. 550 


•H* .^(TICE f»^omfIT^ flellvcrod tl.® opinion of tho court. 

■'''.;© plalntliT Ir. orroPi hGrclrtiyftor rcfciTOfl 
to uK <!of?*n(!lant» proeeoutna tblc -^jrlt of orr<r«" to reverse 
a 5ixd|^!ont aj^tiinat her* entor:?'. in the "■unlolr^l ^■cj?;rt ? 
f«ivrjf (?-' tl» defend nt In error* liorolTOiftcr r«jr©rre<1 to 
aa plaintiff. f>:;r •'j.roMt^ot*© fmm for ^©r^iooa allegtud 
tp hove T5©®n perfonB©d b^' tli© r>laintiff :-t defondant*« 
pe«7U©git. "•%» do-foi^ar-t'fs IrtWbtind, who, under pootion ?i 
of chapter 51 cf t^^e .TlIinol» fevle^d 'ta'utGsif '^rss? a 
©OKIwteiJt- wHnoBB In thie «aiJo©, miB oalled a» a ^itnetfc 
In hsT h^jxlf" Upon ^iw): tlone betrr^; ir.ut t' t3".<* '(!d,tn'50«. 
tb© oetirt maitteilnvd an cbj-votion Imt c-ccyrr'--;!. nir;rci.?T'-,r'n 
I0 rooit^ ir. tho ro©©!^ as fcllo-arist 

•Hi*. ?.!<&»»©! All ri^>t. "® offer t*-' provo 
br tl!Mi irtltnoefi « T&e Ccsurtr 'i^'ou won't «rfor to poror* 
anything by tbo wltno{:iE, r. .'oe©0j - the cubotano© of 
Trtvt hj',» b>e©n toi~tl.f lf;d ♦ "'liO Court* ??o, no. ?>. 'eeosr 
That thcj teetijsoiiijr E3©r,tioned In U-.e yirocf - rh& CoJ