iz.
3s
Soe eo ers ees
Te‘steser serine eset
porate ot
Pre viteree
*
is
ietisinds
Hah
SaRHNE
Bigs:
28
ists
IPE
tf
>t
$
\
ee
ee eae
fab ae bs Gal,
4
aad
it
*E
tet a
‘ 4 : | wee hk WP ngiiten vy vt as, Y i aN ae
ta
a
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois
http://www. archive.org/details/illinoisappellat200illi
sant VT iat
283 « 21271
WILLA 2, HOBBS, doing buginess
an SILLIAG F, MOBHS & oO.,
Appellec,
; APPEAL BRO
Wiha
RUPLRICH COURT,
BCHARCH ARFALGERATING COMPANY,
a serporation, rs SOCK CQUNTY,.
apacllant.
SB f Q fy TO ee]
kes YU WV as othe Il ) af
HR, JULPIC’ GICONSOR delivered the cpinion of
the courte
VV Appellee Piled « bill agsinst the apoehlant
praying for an accounting, *reom a decree awarding the
appellee $4328.70, apgcllant proseeutes this appeal. 4 an
Appellant fireat contends that the proof dees net
sustain the material allegations of the billy that there ;
is a Variance betwoon aliegations of the bill on the one
hand @nd the findings of the sagter and dcexog of the court
on the other, and thmt thie variance violates the el anentary
rule that the allegations of the bi11, the praof, and the
dearee must correspomi, and thorefere constitutes reversible
error. it is argued that the principal mmteriel allegation
of the bill wes the fraudulent representation aade by appelle
ant te the uppellee that his poultry was wheliy destroyed and
that he discevered this after the settlement hereinafter mene
tioned, and that there ig ne preef to sustain thie allegation,
and mo such finding in the master's report or in the deere,
Appellant was engaged im the public warehouse
and cold sterage business, and appellee in the whelesale
produce and eomminwion business, dealing principally in
poultrye Prior to March 19, 1911, sppellee delivered te
t
el
»
JAN 111962
LU cgasecete wjaddveadouss dedaowsweusee gears 12, BARS
{ | gearced geob _ GOR wl Bale
godt: & OEY ki va SMALE Rs
ePOLlange
ROHN LAPRSA f a 3 :
kd
, TRIG ADTRVS fas,
‘ a PRATER) RCS aii apie # “ GAs
eX TaD DAD bo aay gteose Peet OO Bos:
fe dewd Doug, J ae .
; E.ALOOS
- , aire SL. . y
to wolehue ate Bakowd foe SOPMHAUID: + ore i ote.
ae i} re | sdawae utah
tee lisaqge rit Pea binges £4 2 bests “wo sough V
eé aiibtans saxaoh 4 mov't oie Aves “ot ate sits x92 aid yee
Do } efnogtia shy aaduosaore saat: se 4 inp. Sal voLtndgs
yi
tet: anab ooze ans Smal? alsan smo gone eee:
dreosta! dat gtitd galt te @natis (he bibkedmu dae “ehekaues
Lo ige ett no STed enld Lo andidege ste wsertad somtdaay os of
‘
oss Mt tO HOteo OMe TSduM aid tn vaiyea door £2, aad BR omar
wan: fe ad3 antodeiv ‘hing be. ce wadket y feiey os gtuire ote ao
eit ee . towns ade Giehe ott to aspidagults ale smig> kere
@idianever exiys iganse veto nyhe Bald es. hi a 4o0 Yam Oegiol
noteapnriis Lubqudna. Lanioking of? yarty ‘Seance ee FR oho
elias: Wl arom miftagasa ees dio kehinet’ mitt ene Lite odd te
bin Seyassand Yoko alg ions Biod ohe- tare: ein EL eae ty ms pha ‘Sr Se
ener. tod tondssek SeoowsDaes uit) wos he gius apawvone hb eet * Sound
gtatP ayo fio adil Htetawo' ot Lowa on wa Homadd kd ees COME?
eriael 965 ak tH teaged li Sa ‘edt th auiendt dean eer Sens
{ Siworntaw +k iets ots as wo ginger sna tsahlng eye
} einerloiw «Ad at on ddngas rer a 80 daa onmcaau bien ee
‘ ord whiay Los ty wits Bane ‘ PMS A Stel oy Sas LENG, ‘ise onwtinag
OF cowrilol vaddognn ALOs es alive ad nota yt Luge
x See
the mpyellant for atorage morchundive gonsieting chiefly
of poultsy, of the value cf more than $22,000, Uhen the
poultey wae dekiwered te apoeklan$ it deeued dis warree
hewned Fee@igte to appellee, alao oan’ insurance cortifie
cate wherein the ap ellant agreed te impurc the poultry
fer tbe full aowunt of such dneurence eortificate, the
poligy WW Ye payable to appellant o8 trustee fer apyellee:
am in giae af cea by fire, agpelilsnt wan t¢ aot as agent
fer appalled im ti collegtion of the ineurancea, On said
Gate avoullas® Rad Jovuaed to agpellee ineauranes cortificates
amunting to $18,500. Agoellaw= paid tie sreniuas aud dee
Ried apvellge 2ath She sean, Appa lew waa indebted te
B~Peliant Of Various ioe paoured by the poultry stored
An tae warehouse, the moses osurecating 612293, and there
wes &@ further tadebtednede of 21L%ie4h, ( Siurch 19, 1911,
m Firs otarted on the Sth PTloow of the warehouit, which was a
7 story and basesent Duilisay, A the $ime theres eae etored
An the werehoune 2,250,410 ouunda of batter and 1,035,966
powniu of poultry, telenging to different persons inaluding
appeligg, Ali oF the poultry oni tatter wac dugtroyed or
damaged by fire and water, asd sss¢llant proceaded to adjues
the lose with the aneuraccee sompahdes. Apocllee wae dine
satiafied with the proposed adjustuent and eaployed on ine
guranos adjucterg spotllant alee employed an adjucter. The
adjustaent “ae carried on and an agreement reached with the
imeurnance genpanien by the appellant alone. Zhe insurance
sollested on apgpellee*s« property acacounted to $11,251,563.
Appellee objected to the aucunt of the settlencnt, but ems
tafornand by appellant that « settlement hug been mace, and
on Auguet 1G, 1911, after duducting the sacunt cue and owing
from apycllea, appetilent peid appellee thebalance amounting
‘sae bal xt . ae:
| een +S at dil
ee
C een... | ti: Neri 7 he
ot be @ os Mee,
yaito dri yratasanoe menhasitstinn oyetnae at sna oen tt
ott rots “$y £08, mane pratt ke abel vl ta. anced tives, 2 ‘he
Lhe ‘
q
oan aed poaaet $k anadteyws | Sat “bhewirtey: eae wad
aitatuce wenarteonest ma out Sa von boat oe ha tawws yal
a? foe wis nase ig Rome y tal Fits! nh ie: aa wale ALorivate bites
ods Odeo Rieran ean sha he bev Eke aa age
renifeaus x02 engoaree ae tani ug We ng eye Jee a along
emery ne g08 Si Rew sae E Log an | eRRee yg gat i att “ad Ata
abet oe smonsraneh! aay ke svbdg yt ces duh a? ‘sbibeeyn a
etenxiloce fae estas: % ni ous 4 atone me Bit a x
‘oe ies par baeens @: ie ae “phil fe ra Hee i sissies
(BF dept hee erty ELE B Na, mie ALE adie ‘ood bowie Bodh
poxeas ‘ee Laney ei0F- ce Roe. S00 ‘eas A: ahh Caneel
Sheslt ate ghOSALG wrk: “aneeaiohs eRe sigh cay HOE ge A athe:
PLE ih Aomats 190 AaB: “ee abecin ip iiate lat ghia a Ce
D APs cae: .omeredionae, was FO WORE NE eto ih Mae a MBE at
Bemeral many wradt, ewe YES oe. MRR FQN. bam Santo:
_ PARE, Tt aeatiad Lo aheme, HA hyo eeeKasar at ie
PRABRAE ARR iste ess ARIE) REI 8 Behind yO, 6S, CREM:
_ we Boyersach ssw? ‘nag duet satin YON Bsaeg Sek: De hs Sale cha 4
Miiibe at anewrmesy teinkiagne cs CARON ome WEL Gh BaBEAR
"seh Gu tak loa, eadnagiave Sa Mc neaw gawd sit
ek tas moyeiqny biaes Ee) homegya, ee Btr peeked
- smoeneies fis isergs, ‘gen “edie Smad Prod cmb uaa oy d
w49 sé bw batosot eenemereie. is fa, ae boderie habe {eee anette
epiwhasen edit ence ks sane ui ld a ‘Wadagiom oaariuens bi
| «ft iia, Li ad io tet us 9%; rs ataectonds: i ‘witen tsa Me
. ad Sunt eteoree tt 0 ‘eae be oes: ey ae B saab kee ‘solieagh
a hae “where nome ot dnndorises: w tots wlicn od bamecotos
F ea
oe hee
to $2110.53, ani took a receipt which wee "im full ef all
Ghaime and cawandea agsinet the vonaroh Hefrigerating
Company growing out of the fire ef March 19, 1911." after
the fire ,appollee received from avpellant certain of the
damaged poultry but wae umable te diapese ef all of it and
returned the balance. <Appellant then digposed of ahi of
the salvage, selling 497,861 pcunds of damaged poultry
for $45,809.26, or an average of 0,2 events per sound.
So regerd wae kept by appelluent from which com be asegre
tained the prices ani aseount reevived fer esppelleets
dasaged peultry, 91,693 peunds of which war ineluded in the
ABOVE PL VAgwe
ne waster found that apgellant was liable for
appellee's poultry umaceounted for at tee average price
ef e282 cente per pound, or $9435,57. This amount added
te the ingurance eatioxtn made n total auount due and
owing from appellant te appelee OF O49,067,.20. Appullee
hag rocedved 925,415.94, which left m balance of 4248.26,
with interest from Auguet 16, 1911, for which amount the
aeeree war aniawed.
Appellant contends that as appellee waa experienced
in handling poultry and wos represented by en able fire
insurance adjuster, the settlesent made Auguet 16, 1°12,
ie sonelusive and binding. The master found that at tke
time of the execution of the recoipt by appelice, sa above
mentioned, he knew that ali of his proserty had not veen
destroyed by firey that appellant had been nelling dna
aged poultry ami had sold acme of appelleeta ¢ that appeliee
did not knew the amount ef money received by appellant
from the insurance compackes on sppeliee*e property, and
an,
tie te $4sc% ak® eae da: ew jotias oe 2 tor es 220 EARS oe
pak exoy St a! Howero4 en gaa lnge wsdl ingeee nse de .
wedta “.cc02 8s sore Le one tat ba dao gadirde, emg
one ta ekedens tmat tensa is Hoesen ey ok ietay wat sais
enw at to fie ta emo ot cease teh Sas wn di dngserg
to Lis te besoge ds uct ion pL) ee a 2 vee doah wid saerseot
ry de yauab Pe abswog Soe, POR poh! Fes ssaaivinn: etd
sbaarag ~s¢ mies, Ket ¥8 SyHIeKs a <2 D BRIO LAd 0
| ious ad sao che tate wnt fan ttoige | a dyed Sone riieae ol
ates sésiqe 10? Deytow: % adooma ite sweat, wie goto’
ald ma Boca tons ste ate tale “Ee eames, Kids £0 swisieog bagecab
. reniw fad even
as.. silent Bee. Pts Awe 404 lt bho! peoRar wet
RSStG: CRETE SYP oy LAT SOPRU CRRA Yue teoy atin. thea
Boba trast aii sO EMERG oO pureng ave edtas Sy Yo.
Dia eab dmuome Ester 6 teen nesnkhien WOMANS a OF
POLEOQUA OGNCURYTEE 20 aedagars mt dELegs ode QuaNe:
eOheGM Te sensing 2 Tiel Elo ~hLI,SLS Bordon peat
« BD tress Josie cot ,hSG2 . 3S, Fey yOA wel Peersense td
‘alin Pte aa ow eget
boradeec co wae ee Limnne wes dncid sopritnay saint lows: |
out elds va ve bo tane ose airy inekas wast Log, ue che aad nu
kee +08 Peusyiid sepia done 2408 aunty Sb Peatisbie sno ain
| "ony ta’ Gait bn291 aednom ott snaibendy an ev bawdomoy Gh
ovade he Pal Louge “ agiswes ocf- 49 nok? wo 990 ond to Raed
noes #9 bet yPtowesg Li 0" Lhe 5 att canner at sonvedrage
met Petites gaed dott tuakiovgs Pacts pees et boyrntaeb
fads 3 ePnes Latige te wen Spe bee bey Wve hey
as abi: 8 Oa¥hsooe yoadel *0 dees ah 4or mt
4 ae svrecon arent Soage ao wera ephamannl
ote
did not know the prieor at which appellant was selling
the demaged poultry nor the emount of somey it realized
from the sale of the samez that appellant never rendered
te appellee any statement showing the amcunt ef ineurance
or the swount of money reaeived froma the oale ef the damaged
poultry. [Taio finding de coneurred in by the chancellor ang
de supported by the evidences)
The alivgations ef the bili, #o fer as material
te the point umdier conuideration, were that appellant ree
presented thet all of uppelleeta peultry had been destroyed
by the fire and thic wee discovered only after the settlenents
that 4% adjusted the Loss with the insurance ccmpanias fer
wore than $15,000 and deducted frem thie cum the amount due
appellant and paid apoellee the balance; that these repree
eentations wore faloe anc fraudulent and thet appellant ecld
and dispoeed af appellee's gerchandive fer sere than $24, 00%
and retained the procesds thereof, ee
The allegation that appellant falsely represented
thet appeliee*s property was wholly destroyed and that appele
lee discovered this was untrue only after the gettlement, is
not gustaimed by the evidenee; on the guntrary, the undisputed
evidcense is prs @pellee knew long before the settilewent that
his poultry hed/been totally destroyed. However, we are
Glearly ef the cpimion that this vardance ic not ef such a
‘Substantial nature an to warrant a revergal of the decree.
Appellant does not contend that there was no allegation in
the bill to suport the finding that appellee did ast know
the anount of insurance collested by appellant or the ancunt
which appellant reecived fer the salvage, it is conoeded that
appellant eoted as trustee for appellee,and asp such must shew
the utmost geod faith in the settlement “Transactions between a pery
whe
gaiifes aay dualisywge coldw $a wenlig od? wend Jon OSb
boatiaes = Yemen 20 Imooas wit “Leas Wie frag Regenad on?
hevehges seven taatisnge sue jeune oct te wSan ont weet
oonetveri te i lasansel oad Btiwodke: See F He 6 whore apstonge oe
Regemab edt to oige oe mort beyiecod yomen Iy Prveme ade YO
bas welivounin otis wi mt poste ae grtbatt mee | outs inag
[seaneitwe exit yd bessoqsne. ok
fabioten as unt os ,itid elt ty anohinges fe age
eet taaifeags tone ais tohteeob dana “eRe sakes asi oe
Seyoisasb seud bot ere Li 34 ateot Soqgqa Re iia + eat3 bennesoeg
senna ltces eee torte yloo Loyevens 26 adel has bre wad eats
703 anixaqase semmivani st si kor wok. Sala he gaw tbe oe fae
S26 Sevens off mic eit} moth gegeuneb wea wo, £8 nadg ere
eotgest Seed? fads gunKetiod ons welinags bina te tuaktecse
bice tnaiieqgn feds bus shodsiuett tuo ee ist ouew ood ternes
06, S38 wate owen 10% aribmunoes one tiengs Be Resotjakh tan
OND reeoais cinomerty att hoatered Sam
botusaoiqes yloulat tneltoggn Gadd notsnyetia set
efeeqs Sake bas Sryorsass yYiledw age yerouoey a tee Lindha foskd
ed gintacitgsn vit volta ylits eaniau Baw ots Bowsyoesth ont
bedugation od) ywurrtnce otf we yoorehhre adr We Semtadage das
fous SuomeLiivs oct otek aeot word eo Liege aot aft oermbives
Fis Ow ATeYeWwell ,hoxortach Wasos cool ‘“etiuon vfs
a in te fea 2 somber senate pans ine Las day mee Yo yttusts
sSoTOM ems Yo Laevoren a sare os ae Shaheen iatvausadua
at molgayetis ax gow ones Swat ast anor fe sonk tna iioggs
Went sen bis oolieqga tags gaienit eae Peagus oy tithe adhd
@Rucese O42 19 Sralisuqge ww heson ius vena serei RO Pie Gem ole
tads Sekernce a2 $2 .ogrvion ane <0 bovdvo an fuss kage ses er
“wade save sous G5 biaeeiivean «ek os and ae botoe Jeni foqge
Pigs sanded snottosanwet” sna melsioa vat mt mb icamiie:
* a" 4
: r by ~ 5 ‘ SPN es
yee 4 “> 7 ; i ' cee TY eT sa
‘ ‘ \. ‘ +e
‘
A , 9 ya
ee Le
and one bearing a fiduelary relation to him ere upon his
motion prima facke veidable upon grounds of publie pelicy,
aud the wurthen of proof, the fiduciary relation being
eetvblighed, de upon the one reeciving the benefit te show
an absence of undue influences, by establishing the fact
that the party ached upon competent and independent advieer
of another, or gach other fact» ae will eatiefy the court
that the dewling was at aru’s Length, or he must show that
the trangaction was had in the wast perfect good faith on
his part aud wae equitable and just between the parties.”
Thowes ve Bobiney, 286 112. 826,
Waere o Sidugiary ewlation exiate, 44 is not nec
eetery to cetablioh intentions] oractual freud in order te
eet aside « contracts Beno ve Giltonm, 244 Ill. #15.
Appellant appwmre to have conecived that at had
the right to eettie with appellee by paying him the value
of the selvage as sgrecd between the insurance companies
and appellant, ond thut appellant could them dispose ef the
gulvage and retain any prevag it mbt be able to ian kt.
in the ase at bar, tae fi¢uatary being adadtiei i was the
duty of the appellant to advise apocllee of tue amount of
insurance 2t had obtaimed from tho lbeurenee conpanies,
and the amount it wae recelvying for the galvage, It having
failed in thio regard, the court preperly set aside the
bettlement of Auguet 16, 1911.
A4gvellant alec contende that the ewurt erred in
sonputing the amount which agpellent was deareed te poy
in the price per pound allowed fer the salwage and the
number of pounds thrreef. Unicr the facts in thia case,
WAM oe ode ea, Bey dete
BAK abide oes at 03 ‘nathan Yeoadiont's Gis vf ea | _
“yypdiad sAldliq Yo Mhavony aoqu ofdabeov gtuge gukan no
“Yeted woldator quadinablt ote tion, “he preelapeit idl bas
etae OF FEicwdT oft gaivdenes oe odd nog we ded Hepes
fowt oft guisel dages e! yvonnasttad ovbay te vouneds wn
MBkys SHOdTEGEDRA tae Pamtoquae wos beswe “iva ‘oats sents
Pawao ote wieaian hike nut anton? woitte. doen 08 ators OR te
faelt wari Daum ad xo sites atare ta ame quiteod uke taslt
mo ble’ beag footaog feax oad nk bat enw aokiaanen’ ould
® — oxid sewbedient daikon aldnd bega See bas aiag os
lat o hse oat SLRS J
SOM. 30%, sf 34, gwtodns oudtados eoadem hse he ORR
Of sebue af. buart dastor sp dytoltnatad, Gel AGN. a2 Coeeae
eh dD .LSh OOS pO hs ok Wee agaist 6 ehhae Joe
bad fh sadd dovdwonen oan ay ata Cr) tation
sufey ong mid onkyan ut oe tng egw eobdow oe Sidghs asa
nalnegids esanriesk ot aeawted dean ae myovdan ons 2©
ati IS Seoeald wot} bina ‘dnad lenge Huis iviw snl Longe bins
eWiak of elle od Fixitw be tito: pa mtv bam oyev Eom
ot tow Sf dese ioe spied genkambst ais «ait de ommy ocle ind
to teuronia add %o ont ivuan ealvba ox date bk eer wey ‘te geist
gaoliagues asetorcennsts ante ‘sien’ babadele Bul xh numetwons
gakvext #1 .egevise sud x93 go mhwoin ray dance, ‘ould bie
ont sbieg Me yLsaubry gusae ‘outta ylrsiag0% east wk bet tot
thar at sleet be srsein 3200
pea Sao O09 Jedd wieosaga Sido iinet
vert 9 MS RS. poasoap was send Lose cis diia ati anes
m e@aae wldd at asont weld oo tert Sone ss
"
ole
the burden of establishing the nuaber of pounde cf salvage
wold by appellant anc tie prices received therefor was upon
the appellants homag We Widtney. gugres SO Syce 476,
Having failed im thin regard it cunnet now be heard t cOtie
plain.
PinGing MO feverwibie errer in the reeord, the
degree of the Superior Court of Cock Gounty is affirmed.
APETV,
ede ,bveeer ant HA Yond niveeoen on “saa i ae
soph Tha ah bird weight tay ‘ewe )
Ye.
. : ‘ 7
~ eet by .
s te 4 oy ' 7 ¥ 7 ,
oS : rey Tesey Pa dnt yt? oJ we.
: s ae ae ee ‘
"i f
i
¥
: :
ag fs
/ i a
,
= + .
; ‘ . ;
Ne es ‘ F
Rae + ia
aX ne } Vet
t b, a
; 7
2 7 4 ‘
‘ uP
» +
: 7
ee = tt ee ee aa 8 oe ae * » wee ho te hae o 2) a eo ae aera
4 ee a S hea Me. abe ae Oe ~ ‘
ied ie A IMM I a et
et Se ee Sty
ie =p) ¢ Thee: 5 uf < ith nee em ih ts Oh tad
5 SR eae Sy vesting
329 = 21315. /
\ ;
BOTHER Vy FALAHAU,
, Appellee,
. APPRAL FROK
¥Ge \ MUSLOIPAL COURT
\ /
/
BR. HH. J, SUEDLEY f
\ Appellant.
f,
: 0
£ >) 4 {
Ne ab va ks VS
‘
\.
OF Sil CAGe,
TA. 6 |
BR. AUCTION o* connor aelivered the cpinion of
the courte
This appeal jz progecuted to reverse a judgaent of the
Sunicipal Ceurt of Chienge for $531.02, in favor af appellee
(plaintiff) and againet the appellant (defordant). The
parties will hereinafter be designated plaintiff and dew
fendant ag in the court belew.
\Pleineare was the owner ef a sericea of notes agree
gating $8,800.00, whish were seourcd by ® mortgage on cere
tein lande in the State ef cichigan. The statement ef claim
set up a written contract between the parties whereby the
defendant, in consiceration of the extension ef the tiae
of payment of one of the notes, aseumed anc agresd to pay
said notes the interest on all of the notes cutetanding
anu tne taxes for the year 1913 on the mertgazed lands,
Defendant having os cantar in the payment ef the Saxon and
the interest on ss aoten’ vesnining unpaid, this nude ap |
rated,
prou; SnBe
The defendant filed an affidavit of mcrits, and
@ etatenent of set of f for 81110,06, The plaintiff then
filed an afficavit of merite te the defendant's statement
of set off. Afterwards, on action of the olaintiff, the
defendant's affidavit of merite and ctatenent of set off
\ amet o baie
4
“Agee: ° ; pea ay Pe
\ wanes « eae
ae Rr ‘4 got aegy of
ge eaea, , / |
paueD GAs ite B a { i re
eden FE ok! : a,
8 obs. I 00 s : vt a sate
niga yee
he ectuiae ia aageor £a8 . sonora op aa MO
atten eee
ong “to giemtabel, a exrever of Segdomeeny ef deemge alaT -
wslieugs Yo vovet ch , 2) cas 4G% Oyo awh to repel fang Le dapat
any, .(dnnderlad) taniiangs oll tenlage aoe (3titeiatg)
wah one. YEewialy ‘boesiayanon oa! ana Yonkorest Lille eodtumg
: wroded rime at a oa soobai’®
SBys aso. “te aGites a. ‘e mee Wd Baw yutetage\ V
#2eD, #9 easy ere: BYE BOREBIG wahK Zee Letor (OO TE, gabom:
wkedo Yo temittecs af sagktaia Wo mbutd aus md ote, Mand
od Yois woddisy NM ue peRT Fretdneo mo a dake % gu See
PES WKS Lo Rolamngam mals he HokinTAD Laned, ad | stanbogton
Yay oF Modi DE Lee Daatingn gmedey Hy te mie To Faenaoy Be
Biiboderie anion sie to ste 0. dawgoend ase jotwe bane
hast hegantion add oe BEE. gaoy eg sak mead oat Bete
iyesas mene? Odes TH taorrywy ots ws hae Snuitad grin 2 ebislasee Rae
MAE 23m, Br ih Mega goxctivihee "angi ato ko Peountnn ott
. pibeigerined
ins eethinm ta Jivabstte we Smtit smapnd nn ast 7
Madd Wesntels oft WO WSiLe wee Ko ape pry wt
iegunigds al taakno tos vse Od wt kre: Ke atone Mi fi
pile J Parekels 048 Yo Waban me Lennon TA, sth
Me Me F40 Ye amesate naw usinen Io HTORATE «Me
oe
were atricken from the files, and the defendant was given
leave to file an amended affidevit of merits and etatenent
ef seteoff within 10 days, The defendant afterwards filed
en maended affidavit of merits, which was sleo stricken
from the files ¢n meticn of the slaintiff, At the same
time the eourt denied the motion of the defendant for
leave to file an amended stetement of seteoff, and judgment
by default wae entered against the defendant fer the amount
of plaintiff's claim. °
| The defendant contends that the court erred in
striking hic atatement of seteeff from the files,
it in a suffisiont answer to this contention to
Quy that the motion to strike defendant's statement of
set-off from the files, and the order of court entored
thereen, are net contained in the bill of exceptions,
The point is mot, therefore, preserved fer review. Hann Vp
Brown, £263 ili. 304. Furthermore, defendant did not elect
to stand by his etatement of setecff but asked far and was
given leave t@ file an amended statewent of seteoff. Any
errer coswitted was woived and he cannot now be heard te
complain. Seoond Betional sank ve Elaney, 17S fli. App.
427; Slien v. Houhgn, 175 lll, Apu. 380.
The defendant next centendse that the court abused
dts disoretion in denying defendant'a motion for leave to
file an amended statement of seteoff., The order of the seurt
granting the defendant leave to file an auwended statement of
eeteoff witiiin 10 days was entered Getuber 10, 1914, and
there is no claim that any further extemeion of time was
eVer asked for or granted by the court. On the 16th day
wie
S6Tig ere Panboo kes ons Sua coed St eae aon sedorase EOE
taeemtata bas arden hs savabatte fienioras ne Slsh af onnaed
hellt goterwedts frohye leh are oye Oe madi he Weate te
Bsavaxse vote sow isha yagken: to tiewber ie bebamage mp
eras ef YA .Thhiniat: aff To aoiden ge wae ode aent
GaY akabne ten ox? Yo Koiseer os pedeeh fawyR od ombe
Samengbat ive sResiee ke deworsratn feshovaone te wilt of qipad
Sewomm so VOT feohiustek ane se eis bootie tay bluster we
Nk atti ta wT ES EREERS: “ae
#i beves fives wit face abmeduee Shiahine Deb all
2eoret oX8 woe? Vonten t Feber aire em _aeetaibern
OF MOKINOIAM BLT OF wei ds 2p eo oe ;
YO sunsew sade a gaahne tol HAMS Oo gti OAs RG wa
SeReeMS FANG Io LOG wah Rete gwoE Lt ade stow Viaeg ee
eRadg weer Sy (itd dott ex Sots kaso ‘hoe wea ew cosh
s% Mig weber rot heviaioig youstetedd Stewed amhog at
$eem gn Shh fradew'ios ,ommedeewt ea 0 Bao awe
ver ben aot btdead ted Moddes to tainweate Bit wt baa Oe
WA Mentnd To taekietntd Rome Moy MELT Oe overs wee iy
o¢ @eael of wor sordies wi Daw bev Lew dew bode an saarae
ah 00 SUE ented alt BARR AeMdlt Baus sma tgnen
: a8 .agr — ave at 8
Seawin siwao end Sevid atieainon Si Snaamaron Ca
OF event te wold om a! drabun'tob yobenen ak ce Leomade een
tue. ons Yo sobve of? ,.Vionfes to yunustaa Oona we BLED
te sSitswuvesa bodierie ay BLit svned ‘Hibben tnt suis ga kinsey
Boia PEEL (OL *0dst09 Sonntne aow anh OX alii ne ‘Vromtex
Bite Weld Yo oolerm sxe “orl gia old mialte oe wn sunatt
- Aab sei8 oat eo henmediage hw nina “o ae meek 100
SNAG arr | } oid Ne re ines ow ws
ase
thereafter, November &, 1914, the defendant presented
Ais amended statement of seteeff and uoved the court
fer leave to Tile the sane instanter, Uo excuse is
effered for the feilure to fiie the amended statement
Within the time allowed, #@e are therefore claerly of
the opinion that there wae no abuse of discretion in
the wourt'e refusing to grant defendsnt's motion. —
Reoreover, we are of the cpinien that the amended
etutement of seteeff did nut present a cleim preper to te
urged by way of seteoft, | The iteme set ferth therein are
as follows: Keep, care anid feed of ome horse on farm 6
MOGs, $36 per mo,, M80; care and feed of one collie dog
on farm 6 mos., $15 per mow, 963 storage of wine, 8 mon.,
30 per se,, 0240; use of part of house and storage of
furniture, 6 mog,, $106 per mo., $60C3 total, 92200.
[ Prom this it clearly appears that tho claim did not arise
eut ef the cantract amg sued upon by the plaintiff, and
unless it is for Liquidated dawages, it cannet be urged
by way of weteoff. be vorragh vy Gder, 42 (11, 5005
Highbie Ye Hust, 212 111, 333; Clouse v, Bullock Bringing
Se. 118 Ill. 612. It ie alleged that the plaintiff aceepted
the services performed by the dcfendant, but if is not ale
leged that the plaintiff agreed te pay the prices set forth
in the statement of seteaf!. danifestly, the defendant
was seeking to recever on an implied contract ana could
MBX recover only for the reasonstle value of the services
rendered, which was a question to be determined frem the
evidence. ‘he claim was for unliquidated damages, (Igenh
Seated Paper So, y, Supphea Envelope G9., 169 Lill 454;
Eelley Hous & Ge. ¥s Uaffrey, 79 ili. App. 2765 Robison Ye
aha
Baseresse Sea TO MES 4, AEM, r Lewy oF cedars
Sie std bever btm Sigetee ae ieoboare doineme wae
ok eRsEND oh stabngsont sx@a oe 4fPt a9 eveel cot
Siemntate setusaan sai shi oo winite’l iid 16% Loretto
te whane ih steteten? ata ot shone in oka ot maakt Sw
at Hottorxe ks 45 enuds oe seaie wirate pede geo image eat
Fa gclies 6' fobs teh teen ee otanton ‘heswer 88
drebatus. wit Sete soigige a¢% tease or . severe 7
ai og Feety ménic # fteneng fax bie Bigedea- ta. resend ate
-9%4 nietweas deaet ten avers edie | + Temtys to yaw 4S Dogxm
3 serial ao. geren sino Le bast Mie SEEe. ,get javei lek am
Ete ebifos ane to beet ban evan pode , te pee use 1 OR
ssP ORS patie Uo syatare g9e¢ _ ee gag.8lh .esam & eevek ao
Re GAs n cue sared HS. Prog pO sem. porns wet Boy OBS
WwetRths a ftted ,Q98h. ,.o5 «Hg PONE | mow & yeutdhdgae
onkta ton 8b. ateio od? seus wapecnme yinemds ah, odeld mare |
pe odRdiniole tent Oe nage hee Bey coanisgae wee To de
hemes ad saxnee J: , seqauad Setonm es 482 34 84 omediew
pOUS <iae BD <a 2X, donase, 26 sietos te. yew yd
BHARES Anal oe Onan: OE OO OR tees oe elle
patqnooe ILisminig ode Aamd boyetin ak el MO afi BEE gap
whe dou ah ek tod ytumimiatos ngs ae jomielgen seoireme ay
MgtG2 §o0 geoing ett yon of bersyx Lbidmagte ohh gas, hoped
emabaanted off 4 ¢finet dent +Tigedes te guomotwda ake amt
“huce bas Son<tneo bokignk na ce kava: wd Pew gaat
Gostviee edt ‘to sefav eicnaeress sid Ql Cine te¥ouoT Kee
one ort bomdsrsedoe od Gt moitocu> #« yew Anke ,benokkes
sank) emuyonne bodabiuphing 10 sew winks odv saenebive
F dha ea +R unde apRoth oF 08 sud dotoal
ak sons 7082 sqHA 6650 OF weet ae -st 8 mk etal
woh
Bibbe, 48 Ill. 409; Gharnhey ve Gibley, 20 U. C. As, 157.)
and leave to file it was, therefore, properly refused. |
ees
Defendant next contends that hic amended affie
davit of merite alleged facta whien constituted a dafense to
Plaintiff's gluim. It set up that defendant wan a mere guare
anter of the payment ef the several oumy epecified in the
contract sued on, end that the claintiff had made ne effart
to colleat frem the principal debters, or realise the asounts
Gue out of the security, which was core than sufficient to pay
the amcunt rewaining unpeid. The contract «expressly states
that "Dr. HB. Jd. Smedley hereby assumes and agroepe te pay®
the several sume thorcin mentioned. \ nis loaueuage is clear
ami unaa@biguous, ond in not guseeptible of the interpretue
tion put upon it by the defendant. The defendant wae
primarily liable anc the amended afficavit of ucrite was there-~
fore properly otvricken from the Piles,
Finding neo reversible error in the record, the
judguent of the Hunieipeal Court of CGhieage will be affirmed.
aah
(Pas ,.A 0 60 OR ~yHMeAs ae Medes) 7008 4 Cer Sb apa
DB seaae Blrwedan yorelecdy ~aaw HP eae of artasw t bets
ah) te badass ali sat? rheandwon tp snbero Vest
of eaneieb @ begudigana sictiw aoet bagedia a2 tien ye $hyab
May NTO @ Say dawbnwteh godt qv teu 2 otthete of Thdandeke
ead af bet iiovgy wig Laeaeves eas to Srey YOR oid te Boda
gwotie Gi chem bat Mideiaiq af? fade baw .to boum foetdAoD
puueun oa? exttnet se ,uuvddoh Englowing et awet Joefbeo of
coo seeker tinue awit eroe ane dokdw pytiakeed eso To tee wim
sebats Ylooorgss Jeattnes wil .bkegay wehaiasos Faxon ot
yee oF ihe hice souraan qooxen yedbews 60K ot® Sand
mechs a2 agent ade / shone idamit aiesais onus Lomves ong
eeterqrednt ost Yo eidttqnpaee don ef Cem ,ceON_ldaMN ORE
as grosbaaton ox? .treolatbots ot wh OR noga tug okt
Sit ade ation to tavowit ta beberotes 9 Ae sce: aidert ylisamteg
gah ey ode. aot pose keg e tsi PLOT -
ents gbres0% oxi ik sorte ofdierowos Ont gmat ear
ehomittia sf Iklw eyav inh te amet tendo hn bbe to rows
Py & ‘ !
ALVRED PARKER,
Aesel Lae ,
Vie Fj APPRAL PRCA
3} exnourr cour,
GQHEGAGG RAILWAYG CGUWANY af
VHICAGVO SITY &F SUWAY COMPANY OOK CCuwTKe
(impleaded wtih si ttenioyse
& Babree Compar #
spel lags» re.
f © a (i i E
f Ka L.A. 3
BA, JUCTiCN GtCOHNOR delivered the opinion ef
the ourte
V thie Wee en action om the ease brought by the
appeliag against the aprellanta and Hittenhouge & Babree
On, to recover for pereonnl injurdiega., A judgment was
entered for $3000 in faver ef tne appellee againet the
appellente. The jury returned a verdict ef not guilty
as to the defendant HaAttenhouse & Rahree Oo. For SOUVete
dence, the partdew will be designated plaintiff anc dee
fendants ag in the court below.
June Lf, 1912, the plaintiff was a passenger on
ene of dofendante’ cars which was preemoeding north in
Wentworth avenue, Goigago. As the ear wan Grossing 57th
etreet it collided with a wagon leaded with lumber belohge
ing to the defendant Rittenhouse & Webree Co., which was
geing ant in S7th etrecte The plaintiff was etanding on
the front platform of the car and claing that he was thrown
with great feree and violence against parte of the car and
was thoerehy auverciy injured.
fhe defendants firet contend that the verdict is
against theaanifewt weight of the evidence; that the clear
@. AL0OS:
te aciaice ond bopevidas. oe aU a,
ieee vais
)
| eat wf dlywoud aude wild is laa ea Ra a O
words & envi tats heen Lenerernien wits eninge we | i
daw savagbusl, A .avikitn ren tot waveond of |, 08
” quilt Sendaye seh Teage oat to creas te obey ¢o® “bereans
Wis Som Te Sodivey o beoradex yink Gat sweet ewgge
<nvenve 0% a6 HHL h AawoMROTIEH semdag ied we ad we
(Ato See WERRdd detente oF Lhe spbesen colt seamme
eeoted Judy. old 4a en admabast
Bo woinegay 6 mew KiAtnty ode S108 Bh onal
ae ade ant bvop om wane ste Ret ese ad mabaew ton 0. aus
S98 guincoss ane gan Bee ah Megan Ly) a oustows srnomtae’
wwieled <evaul dtiw hebond Bogue ites tovahinds LS $2- dowsda
war Hotei 420 ese eine & ounsoisind 43 fenasbera te ow wa west
KS wtibaade aor Tiktmiadg sty sdoeuge ate 4 See ga doy
ImpenAt moe Hi asl aleso haw <o wth Lo mmOTiakG SHON walt
hive tas ous 19 BING FauiaBe OoRUtOtY Ye soe tawem Meiw
advareas bpd veeevon Woroste ae
ak sodivey nts ine Ometnor tetkt adronhac'toh wae.
momo wid sosta sieht Ans sinlilcismeag adil
wiles
weight of the evidenae shevs tit the oeliigion of the say
ami regen wae se crnduct that it arested ap dinturbanue of
any sonetquence on the Gury, that the . slainti?? was sot ine
dured we bo Gledeods tant this aspoare from plaintarr'e oorme
duet ismedintely fellewinge the oollisionna in that he search
ei fer bis gheaees in three 4ifferent cara, wont home wi the
fut agrietones, wert fo hie shep for ithe ¢even days follewe
tng, ond did net 22] in « deeter uitil July 28th: that
plaintiff's aotione were wholly indenniwtent with hie hoving
redawived any infury os oledned by hims
The evidence tends t« whey that the gar in gueie
tion was a Large poyenteytuecntoy types that ehenm 2% oume in
centect with the wagon one of the frent wheels of the sagen
wee broken and the Load of Lumbex slit or cas threwn frem
the wagon; that the driver of the tenn was thrown oy feli
from the wagon by reason ef the jaws; that some ef the glass
im the front of the car waa ehattered, and that part of the
frame of cox wae bent or broken. The ear wan being operated
by a student motorman, with the regular notoroan standing
wt hie aide giving instructione. Gomi of the witnesses
teutified that there were about four persona on the front
Plofferm, while others placed the muaber at from twelve te
fifteen, The force with which the car struck the wngon wae
variously deseribed by the witnesses ae "terrific force,"
"erent impact,” “merely puched* or “sheved"” the wagons
‘Wevely slid" againet the wagon. 4 nusber of witnesses testie
fied that iguediately after the wallision they aaw plaintiff
_etardhing for hin ghasges, and acne of them aaw any thing
that would duddeate tit he was injured. Pisiatiff teatle
faced tuat the car sane iw contact with the wagon with great
ferce; that he was violently shaken and thrown against the
wha
Sep Suit To eotatifen ory Ad ewes Vieeblve wht Be omyeee
te nonedindats on Sateote 24 duc? Leven ot eae aopew fee
ati gon sur Ttiteieds vit Jods yee wel we pomeREeAeON gam
woo at Tibiadn ig xo SMesKia AIG Sad ghOMadD exam bout
wiegare ot gait at enoiak toon ASH: PLTOLEST,, Rotations toub
~Yiy omen dete ,eeey seogee nl somite ake aon Ags eae as A
e@alio® auab mevog any, 298 gone abe at fam 496 seed, ae
Gai? AFSL yiak Sides ‘gaged i ik Aden fon Sih. bam yomd
geived ahd atin duetuiamnak yiigdy wow atte at Uiaekedg
with Ye bosetede aw speahed yin bor bao
eee elias erat
py
eusyp ai tab ent Fatt wade of ‘abe’ ‘ines eit
mt unto #2 dele oie. paws. oasis gaming ayes” © eae woke
nog bad ts. shane enest ede Wo ore sogan oat tow Cended
ork ioRd wee LO SIE Meslay! 0 OE aid am maeNe dni
LiaY We proedd mre mone ett yo towed oie” tae “qtoguier its
arity edt 20 aisos dane stat OMe. ty eae oe eager wid wort
Odd RD dada Fae See .biosekAndn dew een nod YO TaOLE oale RR
paderego gained ew ane acl shold odes axe com omaha
wiriiinte nusenot oat takege ‘a ah rn a saonsde od
Reaewitiy wit Td Cee seuiokgoeendamk Anite wees wkd te
daont oi ae annawes edo? rd atten srxeele rate beanhgune
OF eviswd nox? Ys stoves ents abner eras ad kein among,
Raw Hoyer writ dumad ND att so bate a peta ott “oneagte
Vesonet otaenes* 2a nomannes Be ote oe bodikwoue ‘eiswateor
“pregas ‘edd “pavonia® x0 “ymateats swladon® * dng sang"
wlitiiin Wanmiad ta te Wott A” cients wits Sct be chore
PR tact)
Whiglsig wen «ons note at ton ‘erie tosh ‘wiotsahcout sats ad
oe A
“gndde yan ees mete te aptiad: bre numa, wad oe an '
iss) Syed iy aay " mi te ‘ast
ekdans Trsenensi sbownteid wns oot toni? Stankint bh on
Sees na neh se Seana hse ons
we
side OF the Gary that he felt neusentae and went inte the
Gay, bat down are neid bis head in bis humiea fer « few
momente, that he give mie name te the somductory that he
hed & pei kn bau wpdnes that he teld the conductor he
war infureds tist be searched around in two or three sare
fer bis glasses, Lodking Yor 4 man who whe aaid to have
found theng that he then went home, wae around several
daya fecling weak, sani wae comphuining of bie backs that
he weet te nis place of Wamkness ond O24 sone work every
Gayj t4at ne wess$ to tha @untey fer aoout « week; thet
on duly 2&th he woe coatied te ale bed and rewained there
fox about vax waeka guffering great palm, that he afterte
wards wae able to go ehout on erutehes whieh he whe come
vehied te use for two or three mente when he wae able te
Walk with & oume,; that be hao suffered more or lees pein
in bie back wince the aacicent; and that prie® to the sothe
dent be woe im gocd health, ‘The plaintiff wae still carrye
ims a tan@ at the tine ef the trial, which was more than
two yours after the accident. The family physician wag
firet culled about July 18th. Ue found the plaintiff in
ved oomplaining of gain in one of his Limbe ond back, anc the
Pledatif? bud wm Blight temperature. During the rouainder
of culy the piyclcian culled tes or three tines « day and
ehweye found plaintare complaining areal suifering, There
were ne Wisible auske of injury on plaintartte bodys his
Weck agecared te be slachtiy reidemed. The physicisn
teetified that hes ot fiset Glagnesed the trouble as sciatica
rheuuetiams that there were no tern suncles or ruptured ligae
MENS, HO bones breken; that he treated plhadntif? the last
tise about Novembey, LYLE; that plaintiff was alee suffering
from neuritis; that in hie cpinion, the conditions faand
Uupen @Eesination eof the slhuintiff eight oceur witheut any
“Get wank tine dirs Setyeusn Viet od dale gua ST TS abies
@ot 6 46% atmo! GR ak Basi oder Boa date wen dele gated
a ae ee a ee
aw *ednsteds 240 Shi ad Fir pwakGe wa ae ey Be
" Btad Horst se 65 mF Rhian Feces sii ee ee
wali oF Wikee ew dite’ Nee dt’ LT ae ois iy ote ve?
Getnten Autidtes baw yrused tmvw aeete! aet! o eee qin beele
Fad yieay chu to yatetetiquen aa Goo lew yrateet web
ee ee ee ee
tori qilooe & Swedg Yor Wires oad of Cane oe cade PED
Mtede WaLawes oes Bod wk. G2 BOLTS. ee ee
wtatts ot Sat jakas, Ria alan Tie basinal ete dace Ride
MR, eRe Sd ee oop ere ke Bye oy ae, wikia gus _ Ree
Mt Bide, Bae OR HERE. $sstiace aeTss Sow es eee as 09 LOX
ROR 494 V8 PU Roane Yak Ox FOOL. ge « Pre saga
meee 982 .tAROie tell dps (saehdnss Wwe pam de ssc. Saah ah
mere AAI Roe VURIN RAT NSN Dow m5 aoe Oak treo
heals pee eae doLite ykehet ot Le emt wl doce Je gee
eo
Wh Daeniods wat Pavel oi .HeR Qkes guads Detie seuss
9 De «ond bes. wick, utd Xo oe td, my te weet eCHD. dom
Sebmtages O62 arial ranges Miiyhta a sect ee, | ian
See abs oem? owult 29 ond bytes mawwdngdg oct ; ith 2
+ WEE ymino tina one, ginal Tareeady tena " mes
aid ;ybed e tifsaniady a9 preva Ae BRE atistake os 0
hones Abe aa yee, az bucsotiven pron eo oe won 8, eee
pe ne Pidagered wis jnntNAb GLAD So th Seeht Reve
GAL Soetaus 2e nedomee oO? ym stow y ted Joxle quemeee |
Beek 18d Vdtadate tmawess ve. tac ane pe, gas
ee ee Bf, stein
ohne
violence, but thet the neuritis from which plaintiff was
euffering, in his opinion, was caused by an injury, Several
witnesnese taotified that priser te the accident plaintiff
a8 & Btrong henithy san; that after the aceident they saw
him uting crutches, = wheel chair and a gene, The sleintiftf
weG avout G2 yeare Old at the time of the triut.) ve are
impresetd by the Lact thatplaintifyY apyeurad te be perfectly
frank in i:ke wtatemente on the witness etand. ie entire
testicony oppenrts otrbichtferward emi ommdid, and we feed,
thet the Jury wre verronted in accepting hie vereion of
the matter, Ue have curefully excmined all ef the evidence
in the record, and eannet sey that the verdict is clearly
and sandfeathy aguinet the weight ef the evidence.
The deTenionte next sontend thet the daaages are
saevsesive., #a have heretefera diacunsed the evidence as te the
mature aod extent of plaintiff's injuries. At the time ef
the accident ba was about 66 vaars of age, eas healthy and
avtive; he wen engaged im the tusiness of etadr building
and had been in suths veudnewes Tor about 40 yenra and maine
fained a shop. The avidence tends te shew that be was unable
to attend to hia business on account of hie injuries, and
waa oompclled to ompley additicnal help, Feliowing the
asegident he suffered great pais and gontinued te sufler
more Ox lege pain from the tiwe of the accident until tne
date of the triel, and the jury sight Bave reasonably ite
ferred that his injuries were permanente in view of #11
the ovidenae in the case, we cannot say that the anount
of the verdict dn excessive. |
The defeminntsnext sentend thet the arcunent
ef gouneel (or plaintiff te the jury was improper. in his
opening arguacnt te the jury counsel for plaémtiff enids
emeyee cuted oe wy fees waw ensmiyo O.be 2 gBndao thee
whhanieig RSIS els of BeeRG cad ek shoe BAAN RA
8B staal saoniove aate wae he, saeie hee ate ane HARBIN @
Tégaiotg set «wwe & bane wiswte Levee x santotoren wows ses
ote mi ehadns axle Sw eels oe tn as woe, a) 2vOGe Baw,
fevetaeg od oF deuwegyn THOnbalg ded? goat ont ot bommengmll
erigae atl slmade eunadiw oe ne sttomaredy a36 sh teat
fae? oe Bae .SRhowo bos Bree eeE pac YOR TAOT
| ¢s Reisway ess eal ia ‘fa. Sateen AGH ogi. mate halt
venonive ame te Lin bres anaet wf uterine avout at? whet san ald
eres to es / tm ikonww aids saci ‘ait Sos a treo esky we
sopasintive ets te ighew outa Pumas vltue tines be
ote. angemab sad Daels seeker greene ee ae
QF Ae HOMEDETH 282 DowoweEth wutaronl aemt wR alain
te Sek ont BA neoteoiak oY aeehely to deve finie ota
ban yttiont aor pogn Yo wieey OO fuwa aa on dxbtonR eh
_ Beads sil tists to Shopénad. the ‘wt begeues Soe ad jeviens
oniam bi: whaey 2) dodo x snes ane Ghieh at nod iad enw
sees sam ve Jedd wetie do mined oomeRo ene yyade iw Bomba
bes ,abawtst ohio srnieode no Bunmad aek ad RemIeS Oe
ends gabwathtt sade fonrok eeAtne yo teu a petiegan Gav.
wertse of Bemigauy vee wbag deat seen’ mast demote kevoay
oda Litas roves vit Yo sade one mod kay uMOk qe otee
ach Ehdamatet Bro suet Kuh Oe bine 4 hated wilt Yo wallet”
hie te wads wl sdokananng woe aodeniak dd dose Gemned
oes iio sabaraliss decision nina aut wa ain
FOP NOOR wie ge De al al pale oats
De Ma hs
1 (ARON
a See ,
"Of gcurse, I cannot prove, and there is ne
evidence in here, of what he lest in his business, and i
gannet give you that, for At would be improper.
Ry. Rosenthal; Lf ebject.
The Court: Objection sustained; if it is met here
don't argue about ite
My. Ranes; it is not here and 1 am not arguing
about ot.
fhe Couyvt: ‘Then don't argue, dem’t mention ite®
And seontinuing, counsel argued that the jury hed a right te
asoume that simee the plaintiff was eti1i wuffering, wore than
two yours ufter the sesident, he would continue te euffer,
amd that while slaintiff teatified that he hoped and believed
he would ultimately recover, such statesent by plaintiff was
not fined or sonelusive, but that the jury head a right te
take the evidence in the came inte consideration in éetermine
ang the queation whether the plaintiff would ultimately
reoover. ounsel then stated; “But I don't believe he will
reoover.” The esurt overruled an objection to this sgguucnt
and weid: “Qounsel bas a right te dyaw reasonable conelusicne
from the evidence; but the jury know what the evidence ise” >
| From the foregoing it apoears that the caurt properly sustaine
ed an objection to the arguuent ae to possible less of plaine
taff's business, and told counsel not to mantion the subject.
As to the exprespion of the belief of aounsel that the plaine
tiff would ultimately recover, there was no intimetion that
this was based on anything except the evidence in the ease,and
the errer, if any, wae huraless., Stute ys Bricker, 155 fa+545.
Furthersore the enly i11 effeet of argument touching plaine
tiftf's less of business ox the improbavility of hie ultie
mate recover, would be to unduly increase the acount of
wil w
On Bt oxi? Sra geverq tauren % ,esmreo 30"
“bai yeoman eid wk MOL Kel Colter Ve ewe ma eeNE.AID
© yMomoaaE Ber AR FRR ites way wary almtin®
-teegte eg plssothine we PAE ees
erent Hoe aE PA TE phatetatings vrodbaw yee Heewod aR 6 Ore
aha fae ee
ee ee ee ee
B
Pad mo hioen iia {oagta ook eae “ees at
a pitas & Rak yet ey cache seuges tense <aectumagevee ben
mle one ,yiiie ies LLige sow 2kinte ka nit oagae Saat aureus
steTine of sumtimes Blaiw est snd isoe oils seeks wean wet
pevedied bua Sagat oxi fui boknieeeg Tihda tne, ektatw sna bes
gas Thivaiei yi taeware Muse tevoowy phone ambs Ly bivew oat
° eg FRY A wat Gewl ade Gadd Jud \wetenionen ne Lamk? vom
ectretet «2 cokgenebiieco Gbnd wend oe) Hk cone bdvy odd onled
Be ee ee
tite ad eeekted Pc: ¢ seO* shedare nett soar) eventos -
smamanggs WEED ot KOtdo~L MY on bo LrrteTO. giana * toreoms
stlestvnds stidaceaiy woud 2 7HaRi <8 last’ foodsot fWes bia
+ Sek eodenave edt torte weal ot wth Bei jnanabive uh? seen
ahabaws Yiveqiin Sten att tk? wuideone F4 nngibiarnana
onlals te Boel tivjeuey oF Gn. oer oe oe enese tal
etontdue bid woken os fen teanies Uked Gane adie, reat anya
eminic G8 todd feariiwe a Fekien ad ta coleeowye wee 2) ma
Smid Acheaekiat ea saw georts ynovoors orede@ss in ot Ws
aa,teee Bil at concbive edi dgonme tml ye vio hive’ sara nl bets
PG.0k Ud .yedoded at Dente Ce a
wuiniy yatdoue? srocugzs ve poets 162 “ht uke ere erimeuta aut
ebtbn whi Ta wWssttodoramk wis 19 sa0aiuat Re amak oF YAe
rer re wear 94.11 nae :
ae Bits BN cen
Wp Naas MS aaa
fee
the verdict. We have heretofers held that the verdict
Was not excessive andthe deufendante were, thersfore, not
harmed by theese statements of counsel. Dgeh ys Ueiligenstein,
ad4 iM, 2394 \
in his aletipg argument councel for plaintirf
euid: "Sow there io nome exouse for the man they ran inte
on the Lwaber wagon not being here, and we are not surprised
after hearing thie evidence to know that he ie whore he ite
By. Hoventhak: yet 2 momentos
. Wore Renes; You are not surprised at that inte rume
$1.0 rine
Ree Roventhal; Jyet a somentee
iz. Hemest The force of that eellieton umder the
evidence here would explain very Likely why he ia where he is.
Se. Rosenthal; Theat statexuntee i¢ can mean but
one thingee that the san died ag a reault of the injury, and
3 @bject to ite
iy. Hames; - didn't say anything of the kind.
The Courts Wait until the objection get inte
the record.
Ny, Rowenthal; That statesent and the inference
resulting therefrom not being based on the evidence in this
gaee, i xvenpeotfully objeet te.
The Court; Objection sustained, amd the jury will
disregard ite®* va
{seo axygument of counsel os aoove wet forth wes
Gheaphy duproper, omithe court gromptiy custained un ebjece
tion te it and told the jury te disregard ite Usuer these
Gireumptances, *6 canret say thet the judgment ehould be
Sodieoy of? dust Dios weuradeansl east OF ota aie mitt ‘
foe jotalecend ya26W asonbay ek Bf bn SyLaneOND Fou wae
eSaneRthivl a Joni + tomuwen te aenenetate eee? yw beamed
= LE Att oR Oe
Be OE MR a es
VWrstHiaky 19% deaanes aia atisale wt at
Oo .
adek Ree “ec! gau ond “n't mM ais ed oquets wot Readers
wahegsye 396 o%a ow bite SU Beko. eae aad ‘geste $ ‘ects n
ek on stecw at wa tid word. 02 osnebive shat ebuaed setts
PSO Jee “ieee. paA aise
feneiet taci jn beaieqive jon etn ee tapne at
antrmaan & sik steele 3a
oni Xohuis wakes Sion sak Yo were? wT tenet yee ©
ed srcaity ak oily ents Koy thm dye aSicoe ous vomebive
ee eee
wir a UtubS acid 20 Shwaoy co aa nekh seme oie gant emp idd ao -
«#2 of susie z
ematsé ond Io gutdryse yas otante 2 taonatl: sat
ead og Adhientye vA Aivag @haw peteed axl
Sones ted st nue wamomPeds $uAT shactinooes aw -
Rise a2 somebive eds uo Sewn grhed gor mouTeusd gettivars
ai es (eat doe Bie YLT eMgw eT. wkiA
ibe. Gaul, ett bys ,seuinsous pearoe tae ee
ey a bauecianat :
lll ater s00 ovece aa tomo x0 smecwyte ot bak
seobte ms biwistaivs Yate fueron 9 48 hms rs) overeat ato
ergs THis 92 Wingowsah oF ei ould bios tne Gh OF mORE
Sh vies A
ad ? Kioate dreeneaiar its awa Saal Souza we suo ARO TAG
ss Bay Pe ean ae
* + ‘ ¥ f Pi 4
¢ a it nee Pee, os Pl
wn Pon
reversed. Jiky Of Ghisseo We Leweten, 142 ili, 6623
Sehset Liew Gen Ve GALL, 143 11l. 177; Zommouth Binding
& Bie So Me Ethane, 145 (11. Bh; 2s Se Ge i blke kee Bee Ge
¥, Kinare, 265 111, 83a...
The defemdomts maxt contend that the court come
mitted reversible errar in giving to the jury inutruction
No. 12 on behalf of plaintiff, ond inetruction “o. 14 on
vehnlf ef the dd endant Hittenhouse & Tabree Co,
imetruction So. LX teld the jury that the pree
ponderance of the evidence ie not te be determined alone by
the mumber of witneuues testifying; that in determining the
question of the prependerance, the Jury may take into com
gidieration the maudber of wituessos, their aniduct und demeanor
While teptifying, theiy apomrent intelligence or Llaak of
intelligence, their imtereet or lack of interest in the
result ef the suit, if any, theirs oppertunities for kucwing
the matters about woleh they testify, “and from all these
cireunmstunees gdetermine on which side the preponderance of
the evidence Lien.®
Instruction Ho. 14 enumerated certuin things thet
the jury should take into consideration im detormining upon
whieh side the preponderance or greater weight of the evie
denve lies and told the jury thet they should consider these,
*in view of all the other evhdence, facte and siroumstances
preven on the trial."
fae gperticular objection urged to instruction
Bee 26 26 that it "see mieleading in thet, Shile it advised
the jury tht in ditermining the prepemieranse of the evie
dance they sight take into consideration the saumber of
SR 2M sah wales Ask ak ae i488 eh Sh BOE pepeed, ” ak ae 22k a
0 ka ree) sh eels ay
eee Poke wo talk Setietaat tren eanbae tok agh F
wokPowtsenk yal eis ot giiydy ws gover elddayorss betita
ine DE so watdowntund daa ,TUatedg to Rade wo Bh 4 on
+a ei “A someon eh emaben is ee ee
ree ari tants “ea ast peat aa oot sosauoetank
ad eretc doviows Nig of ae aN me HOO R eve wale ve sonernonog
a3 wataleot as wu saris soabytisees ao venrand de ‘to ponent avit
2 MOO, SORE RT. NR want, ai sonoRUheONoR anid he sok Sudsy
toes bial souneos shows savau ond tee te susie we nebsanob de
: _™, Souk te venue (Baber. pune shes “peri ‘ o 9
—") ak fensn sn te visa “8 fuewoasik “aheats 130m bi ton
wedwons at subd anos xaKe0 het oe ee tive site ‘te ‘a tinen
ones Lae sow? ima +¥iisanr ona se it trade aeegd an ont
Ye somexskavyese ety woke ee ket ey oninneah esoitd amo O
eeokt onan bee ons
Sods oyeiee niedioo butammone Mi ook matiometark |
How gIkaiatsed ab HOddorAkMIe GIHR wR dhaceia, ee
oive ott Ye telyhee cebanim, wo aIesdeateKy ont ohke daddy
Sails MHhieweo bivumin yodt tat yn) oad BOO doe eaat comb
sovastansenio Une aden’ pennies dential wit Ihe te wade wk.
: * tans Aon te devariaes
hodpewetent oo dmgue mulvoulso tadowkrnem a. i a
bee dvin: 24 AES bode ah yeti kode Bae” 33. elt ak af a9
ebve silt 16 sommenbmoqirg wid gadelanes o> eh ee aT
ng a ae ee ee eee eee ee, ee Me ey © ane te ne
sa ay
witnegues, they were not told that it was the number of
witmesuee teatifying in fever of either party am te g
Particular fact or ginte of Zusts thxt might be considered,”
amc teat it Limited the jury in cetermining the question of
the propomderance of the evidence te 2 comsideration omkgy
ef the glments mentiened in the inwtruction. The ebjection
urged to imatrauctisn We. 14 te that 4t eoee wot sentain
"the apparent consistency, Tairners ani sengrudty <f the
evidense,* and that it omitted the element ef the maber
of witueseces, Imatrucsticn Me, 12 is subject to the ebjece
tion weed that it aimited the fury in deteraining the
quection ef tie presiaderznce of the eridence te a coneidere
ation of the eleseuts smaenerated, The jury should have been
left free te cempidcer o11 the evidence and 221 the fxete and
Gircuuetances in evidence in determining where the preyondite
amce or graonter weight of the evidence lies, ff. Ts Ze tos
Na, ASSES, BSB Cli. B48; Srdech Ys Cbs Site Gen See 276 Th.
Apps S41; Syere Be TuLLix cosa, 267 LLl. App. 495 LaReem Ye
Wardelorby Gog, Ho. 26985, Appellate Court, Firet Dist.
instruction Ho. 14 is subjest te the chjection thet the
¢lement ef the manbey of witnesees cas omitted. Tks
glenent, bewever, ceunsel for the deferncante concede was
included in inetruation Se. la. By inetructian Yo, ld,
the jury were told thet in determining the question on
#hich side the prepemdercnce ef the evidence Lies, ther
should take into comeidcration "all the other facts and
cireumstances proved om the trial, if any." We are, thervite
fers, of the opinion that these two instructions, while
not strictly accurate when read together, are not #0 mise
leading as to warront a revereal of the judgment.
ae
do wedeau. sit eur Jf judd Bhat tom oro yest seaventie
@ of Re YG hie WaeveY wh gonetieset snnieette
those ef Fis Jot? ages? Qe wean ae dee gale kinee
Re seigeeds oi yadaiersdoh at yeh snie espe. Fh ORM Gx:
Cite maifaussiones « wf nomebivs wi Bs voreveowodewy ems.
pekzaeids etl swoateumdvn: self na heneidcoe atawmde a3 Bo
adagtaws fen geet $2 fatt ad Me saa Aa ssosradegd oF Pega
od? Io wWawtges: ss ostiied .qosktedonee Aataqge e287
wsdeun ef3 to faomels oft Ledtioe Bh 2add bee "semen bee
euetss ety a? toricpe ab SL at aabporsdend .eeenurie Be
ado gnimictrerss at wet, os Sethae te G2 tend Sepey so Le
sbtinds 0 69 erarbive add v8 astateheoedy eas “Te aediverp
mesd eved Disows vii OT sbatetour Stet tds TO Reads
bun a@oat ads Eda Sue stansive wit Efe ceuhanes os cect sted
eeeaSqeny Gt camty gaitiwrseey of eeebise wl evometemmetio’
488 shad aS wedi sondctve unt 16 Sagiew were wy 49 seme
SEL OPE 22 ah GAEL 2AUS ae Meadasl (BOT 1102 OR \agaal at
ai gectek iS? -oeh «140 Sod. RA ok AR GARD aA
ee Farkt ,IFrLG slike ,ESPOR sak .o0 Qirehedeee
ONY Sas aotineye> any ey footie wl HY 228 aogpeeseaat
abate S307 te@. cer weawontiw Is aedeext att te Pao de
Sar apeasw goto owisd at? 18h Lond gravorad .taumbds
o*h 0% medtousdaat YS AL +o auddogetans mh Debs fond.
_ Me Bodsengp odd Qnseloivdeh of dass Bead oaOW IgREt, ott
yest ,anks SHA sie wit le enmerhiasyeny nth wha eke
bee afewt teste aia Eda” Rod seio diame aeag wid diworte
wrieds .o1e a “swim Yd , takes off mo bowery apemad , ond
elide ,nacivourteni oes scott ¢ tt Nothin ai aicmak
o-rhebiaodpenstanal publenipmemnes csstanier
abte 1h)
by ey bo ar a | 3 a . ee sank tA Bee Sn, 7 “ ee
—.
eG
Finding ne yeyersible exror in the record, the
judgment of the @irowit Court of Cock County will be of firmede
APF INGOND»
216
PEOPLE OF THE ny oF
ILLINOIS,
Defendant in srror, / ERROR TO
‘ 3
‘ j MUNICIPAL COURT
vs. \ j
\ / OF CHICAGO.
LOUIS ROSENBERG, ‘, j
Plaintif’ im lrfor.
? Pa U (* { [.A. is
Maus wits
MR. PRESIDING JUCTICH MeSURCLY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Py
ree
J
aS}
~/ Defendant, Louis Rosenberg, cherged with the
crime of obtaining money by false pretenses, was found
guilty and sentenced to imprisonment and fined. By this
writ of error he secks to have the judgment of the court
reversed.
\ rt is argued that the information is whelly ime
sufficient. Under the statute + chepter 38, sec. AOE,
Hurd's Tl1. Stat. = the accusation will be sufficient if
it states the offense in the language of the statute, "or
sO piainly that the nature of the offense may be easily
understood by thd jury." ] the information charges that the
defendant on a certain day, in Chisago, "did with intent
to cheat and defraud and to obtuin money by false pretenses,
did obtain from the affitant the sum of one hundred and fifty
doliars (3150) by falsely representing to this affiant that,"
- followed by averments in detail of a number of representations
made by the defendmmt as to services performed by him and
expenses incurred, and correlative averments dmving that
defendant had done each one of the things whieh he repree-
sented to have been done by him. ‘the omission of the
statutory word "designedly” is not fatal where the infore
OF FORNS
THIOO TAMOL HUM pice di
7 : ¥ es
eOOADING FO. Ve j
7 \. -
: sore a snitadid
ve ta
Se
por
rE
daa
S&S
es
| waite MOLTO pITeTEATe wae
| | MUD ANY 9] MOLMERO AAT GRRAVTMG
ants hy Se eieadt pradn@non “stuod tesa :
-
re ott wisest as note, bez ent Salt bourse ab re
= .808 +988 ef Bh tod gate odds ‘onl aebedt “ae!
ti SrebokYite. od fiw megs angond onto “ tees L,
Ne,
a zo0* ootiiade ont eo emus cine aul mak nes tte anit as
*
:
:
7 ant toms aogiado kd ats “bee at ire wet, batt ‘ef noobs
7 teetek shiv bib" ape ttt asc vwenh Abed top is eee
mation avers with perticulcerity representations of things
done, with a negstive averment as te their performance; the
existence of such facts would be impossible without knowe
ledge and design on the part of the defendent; therefore
knowledge and design will be implied.
The information was sworn to by Anna Myrtle Moss,
and the averment that the money was obtained "from this
_affiant" is sufficient. It will be presumed that the money
was in genuine money of the United States unless the infore
mation is challenged by motion to quash, which was not done
in this case. This observation is also applicable to the
ebiection that the informatio fails to specify the kind
end value of money. We think it sufficiently appears that
the person defrauded by the false representations wes the
person filing the information, and it elso sufficiently
appears that she relied upon the representations made to
her, If the defendant made representations es to the things
done by him, while the fact was that he did not do them,
it would follow that he mew such representations were
false, It will be presumed that the person filing the in-
formation owned the money which wes obtainedfrom her. None
of these objections <0 to the substance of the information,
and as there was no motion to quash, the motion in arrest
of judgment would not reach such defects in an information,
for, as it was held in People v,. Veber, 152 fll. App. 102,
whatever is included in or is necessarily implied from an
express allegation necd not be otherwise averred., See
Maynard v. People, 155 Ili. 416.
Other points are presented which ge to the pro=
ceedings before the court. None of the evidence has been
preserved by a bill of exceptions, and it does not appear
from the record that all of the proceedin:s in the trial
agwint to anoite tno serge ytinteinoisiag ciiw ateave aoktam Nore
amy joonunie reg wisi} of ae trsarre ve evbgogen s dydw .enb
eworw fuprtd bw eidises i od ‘pEnow atond doe. ” soma eixn
erotareis tasbaetes eat ‘6. daa. all AO. agtado bees onbed
soi fLomt ad i Lkw nation beste cade Lwona
hh ie eft ayi Bask vel ef scrowe Baha no tteumeo tne ‘ant
gist moxt” benkatde sow weeten ott tan? taemsove ath bas
venom aft dostd benueer of LLlw FT dnote vine et "te 21% ;
=to tai ont 2eoLsn netedé bed ket ong th Yenos eatuaey ni enw
enmcb ton sow rics i.ctyr | Masue at fo Liter ws bearie t Lasko ak noi tem
ent of afcias Rugs eels ‘ab aolinereene essit “yooss akdd nt
baid odt eh as aitet micaprotat esd seele noktoe tde
tam atasqan widiits iv Yie FE Anka av ye moet to okay ‘ban.
exe ayw: enoited ae ueaeert ‘ented edt ved he bisa eb evewog odd
ylieo fof tiewe seis Sh hes . eet Fasttetss ett gnksit nonreq
Oo sbam amitcinsestdet ods moray hodler ata gett pap eet sss
eguind erie ot of anoiitet asses “qe haw taba toh out ti =, ten
met? ob Yor BED ed dxdt caw gost ent oLbnw abl ys omob
etsy aeitedmbetge:s Aoso wend od fads weiiet hianw $i
Mk oS aekitt notes ens f ng harweovea ad Lfiw #3 au iet
enmok .2or soTteeaiaidoa ecw do inte wenem off Berra soktamro%
,WiGemrotng ots to oonatedue eiit OF of enoOlsoo ide eavsdd 10
teetta al mitcnc act isan of Ho kf wa Of S22" anedt an poe ;
stelitenrotnt ms mk adicteb tien cloner sox bistow TOOMRERS we
SOE Jug .fL2 BAL yaedtoy wv aiodsy ni bind ome 3k ne tot
ie mort bolLqmi yliemoaroso at eo wh batodond ab xevesesie
sof ,be1ie Vs ondwrerse eo. ton been no kt eye Lig wre TaRs ;
Bib £15 OBE 249004 ” "Bagong ;
<exG edd of op doccw bednonotd bis adnhog sonkeo eA er
"I scat
MOC Gai sonedkvo sit Io snot “04100 oct s1oted Pelee ol a.
Ow s ef Ga Bs
faevqgs jon voot ti feo cok ¢quDR to iked a xe genet 1 oa
EE, ee RTT” EE TT) ks Lene yo” GAR ae eo ee ad 11h a
court are before us. Under such circumstances it will be
presumed that there were proceedings before the court
sufficient to sustain the judgment. The record shows that
the defendant signed a waiver of trial by jury, and it is
Claimed that subsequently there was an attempt to withdraw
this which was denied by the court. However this may be,
in the absence of a complete bill of exceptions showing all
the proceedings before the trial court, every presumption
will be in favor of the regularity of the procecdings,.
Other sug:mestions are made but are not of
sufficient importance to require that the judgment be
reversed. It is therefore affirmed.
APPIRMED.
ed ifLiw oes aoonad emo tia moan teoal! .Bu eTeted ois trues
gusaa es one tod digikbssoete stow wread gust bones 49
tewts ewote bearer oa? of sharaiyart odd mistews of Saatoittus
at gt bee ,ytnt ed fedsd Po waviw 5 hoo te tna me bob esta
worbddiw o¢ dq@moite me aaw otoay Ydineupeaine Sams osmieso
sed Yam elie covewedl ron ais “et beineh ese ‘ded siw wkeld
ff2 padwoda shoitgeoxs to bEkd ade Lenee a to eonoeds ot mt
naitgmaser¢ yrove Samo Laisd asl avoted agit boooorg add
sagntkesvorg edt to ytitotages wales to “ors ok oo Like
Th) TOs 85s tad Goo OEE exo itusngee sod
ot S reani yh bf, pris Sasi axiupes: oc sonegiogmd tno} bE o%ae
honk Tis oxereron? ad $I be eteren
» CAMILA
An information under see. 498, chan. 33, Hurdts Ill. Stet. whish omits the werd
esisnedly" used in said ssetion is not fatalla defective where the information
ers with particularity representations of things Jone, with » nesetive sverment
to their verformanes; knowlsiss and desisn will be imolied,
An information under sec. 493, chan. 38, Hurd's 11]. Stat., is suffitient which
ers the toney was obtained "from this affiaent", or which feils to allege the
ney was: Senuine money of the United States, or the kind and velue of noney, or
at the oerson jJefraujed was the verson filing the information, or that he relied
ths information given him, or that the defendant knew the falsity of his repre-
ntations as to things done by him which he had not done, or that the oerson
ling the informetion owned the money obtained from him: and & motion in arrest
judgment will not reach such defects in the absence of & motion to cuash.:
Where none of the evidence is preserved by bill of exceptions, ani the resord
ils to show all the orocsedings in the trisI court are before the sooellete court,
will be presume3 there were proceedings before the lewer 2ourt suffisient to
stain the judgment; and every oresumption will be in favor of the regularity of
> proceedinss.
.
yon odd gtimo Teite wfese CLT abbot (6% .oede ,8Ch Jeee setae oot decd’
aothsriolai sid sxygde gvideogteb effete? Joa ef ncitoee tige at heen “yh
taerrsve eviteven 8 idfw yenck ataitd Io exotieddeeevees yitveluotived de,
etationt ed Lliw nt teak fase ettelwoadt secnewiol tee Die
doidw aneicttins ef pated? WLLL ethast (88 jrasito -cCh yoe2e vekny Hoi daria
edd eteffe ot altel dcide ao ,"iosi tte atid eovt" banistdo gew venor 8
ao ,vsdot to eulev Ene Enid eft so pestede tadind efJ Yo venom eatumen &
tsifer ad tsd3 ac pmoidsriolui edd snifid seated of d eaw Cokuetteh aeaneg
-stusi eff to ydiele? od weay doebretst ef% dadd ao ,wid sevit aeidentetn
foaysa edd teft yo ,onek dom Esd ed doidw wid yd enok 2tnidd of a8 am
Jasize ot aoidor 2 bas writ wos) bentstdo venom eds heawa dotdango Ini ed
-deeuo cd dotdom @¢ Yo gonesda edd ni .adsetek doua doseq Jon [hia Ine
fyoee1 ofd Ene ,atcituscxe to [fid yd tavieaey9 ef gonskive edt Ye eden:
jdauos edallecas ej¢ excled eta Jipoo faias oft mf eamitesoorg odd [fe wotte
ed dneisilive drvoe tewol od? etoled stuitesoorg ever over’ bemuaera ed
Yo ydtteiuse eff Yeo tous? af ed lin soiignesta yieve kas ,tnsnskut ong
,2taibhes
slp iy
288 - 22245
f
i
THE UNITED STATES LETHOGRAYE COs
a corporation,
Plaintift’ an Error,
4
a
ERRUR TCO KBUKRICIFPAL COURT
vs.
OF CHICAGG,
AKERICAN IRONING maces CO.
a corporation,
Defendant in Error.
UR. PRESIDING JUSTICE NeSURELY
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Sia taieee by its statement of claim sought to
recover a balance due for goods, wares ond merchandise sold
to defendant under a certain contract, befendant by its af-
fidavit of defense denies the making of the contract as ale
leged by plaintiff, alleges the meking of another contract
covering the same subject matter, in which plaintiff is in de
fault and consequently indebted to defendant, for which it
makes a claim of set-off for the amount of 9190.10, Upon
trial by the court the issues were found for the defendant as
to plaintiff's statement of claim and for the plaintiff as to
defendant's seteoff, ilaintiff by this writ of error brings
in review the record and judgment of the court, and defendant
has filed crcoss-errors pertinent to its claim of set-off,
| There is no serious dispute as to the facts
giving rise to the controversy, | blaintiff is engsged in the
lithogravhing business at Norwood, Ohio; the defendant is
located in Chicago, In the fall of 1913 Mr, F, L. Wilke, a
Uhicago salesman for tie plaintiff, called several times
upon the defendant and solicited an order for a quantity of
lithograph displays or, what are called in the trade,
"sutouts," After negotiations defendant placed with kr,
Wilke an order written on one of the printed forms of the de-
i ; oe '
4200 meARvouth BATATS GUTTA awn <2
soites e199 &
TORE aa) “Ytpsaielt
THUOD UALTOIMUM OT HORE |
1b¥ wee
sOdanlHO TO ( : 5
700. BEE HOAM aurHORL saya <a
{ COTTE ut fnabise tod Rp?
gL ALO0S _ eh.
YAsAMUeK TOLREUL ORTELORAS yA
-THUOO AMT WO KQLMIGO ENT GuanvarEE
od Siguca misis to sdaorasate etk ad tindatest V
hies esibuadotem bis se%ny .ab003 20% aM sonalad s zevovst
-te att xd Jashas ted -tomtjaco alates # tebry doebaeted at
«fe s& Jentinoe odd ‘to gnidaa ond asiitsh eens tab te tively
sostsnos tasilone to yaivas ent espetis sttitsialg yd boned
@b gai ai tlidgnielg wtnw Wk (baa tee tdue omaa on? aniveves
$i dodiw tot ,dusbaoted of betdebat yLinoupegnes bas $fuar |
ogi ,0f,00i¢ Yo Jusame ade tot Tie-tee to mials a soxea
6a gnabsusieb sii tot bauot ecaw sone t gif tuweo oid w Kara
Of ag ttisaieig sds tol bas mialo to jnsmatate a'tiivalesg ot
egciad torre to siaw aidd vd thidgaiali .tte~Jses at 3mebas%eb
_tnabns ted bas .Itw0D eit To smemeacut, base broset silt waivot ak
etto-teax to misio ati of gnsalsteg exorte-asota sel Sea
@Joet odd of es atugqelb avelktos on al arent |
eds mi hogegne at Widnieli [,yatovexaco odd s eett yarky
el snspneteb edd poids ,hoowrek ts seaniaud stiicaxaadhel
@ ,exLiW .. 6a ,tM SIOL to {iat od ci euesido ai bedavel
semis Lfe1eveq feligo ,ttisdnialg oid +63 apmestae ogan tad
lo Ylitnesp 8B 10% tobic om betioifoe bas Junbne teb ead aogu
s95att ott oi Oal{so ote ianw ,7r6 syniquil dyargesde te
+t diiw beowlg dnabastod enoisnivogrn twostA = *,etuoduo®
9b edt Yo awiot boteirg odd Yo om av agddiaw tebr0 aw exttw
fendant, This order was not accepted by plaintiff, which
made out an order on one of its own printed blanks and through
its salesman, Mr, Wilke, this latter order was presented to
defendant and signed by it, This order, which is quite long,
contsining a number of specifications and details, was for
2,000 cutouts at a price of 65 cents each, totaling $1,860,
At the bottom of the order, which was printed in psrt and
partly typewritten, was this clause: "Subject to acceptance
in City of Norwood, Ohio, by the United States rrinting &
Lighograph Co,, sole sales ayent." (The difference between
tis name and the nme of the plaintiff is immaterisl,}) in
reply to this order plaintiff sent to defendant a purported
acceptance, whicii in several particulars was not in accord
with the terms of the order, Tfumediately upon receipt of
this defendant wrote to plaintiff noting the variances and ashing
plaintiff to acknowledge receipt of the letter, "as the order
is somewhat at variance with your acknowledgment,” ‘'o this
plaintiff replied, saying, “We did not reply to yours of Jame
ary ord, having referred same to our Chicago office to take
up with you.” Subsequently Mr, Wilke of the Cnicago office of
the plaintiff called upon defendant to settle the matters
raised in the above correspondence, At this and a subsequent
interview the defendant, acting through its president, ir,
Grosse, ond Mir, Wilke, representing the plaintiff, entered
into an oral contract as follows: The defendant agreed to
purchase from plaintiff 1,000 cutouts, defendant to pay
Plaintiff g900 therefor, the whole 1,00G cutouts to be billed
and paid for immediately, the cutouts tc be kept in storage
by the plaintiff and shipped to the defendant in lots of
about 250 at sucn times as the defendant should call for
them, Subsequently 5ll of these cutouts were shipped to and
dipiiw ,Viisaisla yd Ratreaoe ton asw zebro aidt ones
aguends bus atsald bedabur nwe ett to ono no Tebte Be a ‘gue: ‘otal
et boinesstq ase tebto astial atig wourty hte ance e feed ack
gaol sting si. doinw ,tebio aid? .,¢f yd doagte bas Sasbore teh
aot sew ,alistod bas enodtagitionqe Ao ts diuete he nabubaaos.
ove fg anitatos ,dose etnse a Yo egirae ‘ate stuotnus Ge0.8
bes Jaeq of bedaiid saw ito kiw .tebte aay ‘lo sodiod odd SA
sonetqeoos gt JaojeweY ieauato elds sew ,wetdiqweqyd yhbsad
@ guiiniti astete betiod sat, yd. adda .boowitel to. GeO
asewded goneretlion ef) “,dooye evtee efow .,00 dgetgomgny
ai (,fattodammi si YWisddielg od? to ean add bre soca whale
besieqiwy = vashneteb of ings Ttitnisls repro efde oF wee
Brosoa ai son saw aratue td cacy. tatavou. ak Hodale .9ons2 49008
to tqissst OGM, iota ibosust , tobte arid to nated out dtiw
gn ides bs seunaitey oud gaison . Thidaielg of stouw taabioteb eat
febro edd as“ tedte £ ait te teleost aubstwontos oi Tismlelg
eins of * tromgbe iverson iS OY adiw aonsiter ts sara moe ‘ek
aitiot to eryoy of vfaps dow bib o¥® cgalyne adoLlaes Peisutalg
gums of aaltte ogaoin” EUU oe sane Derte tet anived > wbx ees
10 seitto agssidd ade Bo eallty V1 yiecoupoudus # MOY rit bn on
axedsam adi alsttee of Insbuoteb og be Lien Tidaiatg oi
snounpeedva s hun ains tA -Sonehtisqasetoo evade ent ink beater
tH ,inehiaota adi Keuornd autdan: sdasine ten ‘ead weeunaee
botedns ,Tridgcialg ods aditaecengox | oathy ee Servs aaah
Od beetga tnshnoetep art't rowel lot ao toartnos feso ay ‘oduk”
yeq oo snabneteb ,styotue oooyL Wisointe aout pesuorug
beilid od ot esuorue O00,4 ofodw gilt »toterveds GORE vebsnialy
egetose oi sqexv ad of atuctuod add ,yledakboumt xo? bisq bas
: to atel ni Jnsbucteh sid ov, heaglde baie Vigin tg ote ey
yh ee ky ae ee
get [Leo bhuote tuabvetod ois adn asks wou te ves Poros
Bf ane “hy ng ®
ban od saint otew ngvodwe pebsdd Diss ue “edmeupe 4 )
‘ [Mae Pai ae oe bal yore AM oe om
accepted by the defendant, and a bill for 1,000 cuhouts was
rendered the defendant in Karch, 1914, for $650, which was
paid, Under the oral contract for 1,000 cutouts 489 more
were duc to the defendant, Flaintiff did not ship this nue
ber but shipped 1,600 cutouts in a single shipment and in-
sisted upon the defendant accepting the same, No opportunity
was given defendant to accept the palanes due on its contract
for 1,000 cutouts, that is, 489, ‘The defendant refused to
accept this shipment from the railroad company.
Plaintiff claims the existence of a contract of
purchase for 2,000 cutouts, Defendant maintains that the
only contract made between the parties was the oral contract
for 1,000 cutouts, and that as it has advanced payment for
cutouts not delivered, it is entitled te recover on its set-
off.
We are of the opinion thet the writings between
the plaintiff and the defendant did not amount to a contract,
Plaintiff argues snd predicates its claim upon the assumption
that the writing dated December 19, 1913, wich is the order
for 2,0C6 cutouts, was the contract of the parties. This
however is error, as it appears clearly from the languege of
this order that it was merely en offer made by the defendant,
and in terms it is made subject to the acceptance in Sorwood,
Ohio, by the United States Printing 4 Lithograph Co, Whether
or not thie order would be accepted was uncertain, #nd until
it was definitely and without wodification accepted it was not
avelid contract, This would seem toc clear to require argue
ment, A case directly in point is Holder v. Aultmwan, 169
U. & 82, fhe purported acceptance by the plaintiff in reply
a ies
@aw e¥ectes 000.4 to% Tite & bine dapbe eral aiid ye bsdqeooe
sev Softw ,OUGY tot ,dfel , docs ak fupbusttos ext: Come haar.
ST6a 25) eivostvo GO0,f ‘cok sostangs fexo exis: reba a beer
oma efit gide ven bib Vilbdii pl Smabaaten: ere ‘ad uh wee
vaai Son fageine atgnte woos ediodio ooa, f heggide duet 298
deli id ait Sma ed BiiPyes oe: dambeoted piid cogs. bodeke
SCetdIToH ast wag panel and Japoos at insbatad novia sam
ot byavtert ora ea tab edt. 862° abd pad ed woe, Ode rot
+ Yregms 5 heotl Lar % oft Bre sooeg bee ae iis. dapao8
ie ‘sOBTERGD sg "ts sonedaixe itd amieto wthintels a ae
ome Yond aniadatnn sashes tod “yagwodse 200.8 =ef auadoang
sostinos isto edd saw’ aetereg ont soowdnd er bad toantacs yikes
463 dnemreg Ssanatbs ace $2 aa dad’ Bos ssisodun 000, £ se%
eSsa eti as teveoobr ot Belvisgep af Fi .dotowilns toa eed
“ —
agewsed eanitive ad¢ fads doinlgo werd: to saa ay sorte ie
ae
.Jtenines 2 oF Ityoms Fon bib dabdae hed say bye Thideiedq oad :
neitqmness eas crags pital re 4 esdeolbong bate BBUB EN Phigmieadd
285 To ad” 42 Sokiw fai o£ te casooe Bovab Quid haw eld. eat
ai37 ,esitzac atid to toattaco aiid: aay pateotoe 004% sen
tT speegnsf add monk Ae Secale Gi enap eae: a ee vxeEN at sevewod
susbistes sat yd ahs a al ae. qletom | Sige ws sacks webie, abit
Hoortet at senatysoos ode ov foetus sin ak ax. ates, bs bos.
asiiset® 159 Menno Ls ginttated Bou sie Berane echt a “soit
fisuu bay ,Aiedtascu egw haduoods ed Pkwow xobto thet Jon. 10
Con aow ti hotyenss noisworTibes Juontive fas yLadint deb. sew £2
eNG%s Sitesot sv teaio oa3 fea Houow adele «fowsdoo aLisy a
eal pian) fun -¥ ta a dasog ai qstouskh sane h.. fase
yiget nl Pthemissa ot Yd PSone) yooRR bore] cee, eat iA on
+
r
os
rarer Ame
Fa
to this order varied from the terms of the offer, and there-
fore created nme contract but amounted to a rejection and left
the offer no longer open, In vol. 9 Cyc., p. 267, is a long
list of decisions supporting the proposition that an accepe
tance to be effectual must be identical with the offer and
unconditional, where one offers to do a definite thing and
another accepts it conditionally or introduces a new term into
the acceptance, his anawer is either a mere expression of
willingness to negotiate further or it is a counter proposal,
but in neither case is there a contract, Yunis rule is supe
ported by such an abundance of autnority as to make further
comment unnecessary, This is alse the rule even if the dife
ferences mzy not be of great importance in the mind of one
of the parties, The test as to the fact of a contratt does
not depend upon the greater or less degree of difference be-
tween the parties; the acceptance must be in the identical
terms contained in the offer,
The situation, therefore, was, when ir, Wilke
called upon the defendant pursuant to instruction from the
plaintiff's home office and its letter to defendant, that
the matter was entirely open, and the parties through their
representatives were competent to make such agreement or
contract for the purchase of cutouts as might be mutually
agreeable, That the contract was then made between these
parties for the purchase of 1,000 cutouts is not sericusly
disnuted, Hy its letter of January ¢, 1914, stating that
the Chicago office would take up the matter with defendant,
plaintiff is estopped to deny the authority of ir. Wilke
of its Chicago office to make the contract, by this letter
defendant is informed tiat the matter had been referred to
the Chicage office for settlement, It cannot repudiate this
“Ofeds Sue ,totte ant to ewes sit wort be btew tebL9 w hid pl
fief bas aoitoaist 4 of bedusonn Jud saetiicg of potsens oxot
i |
anoi g@ ei ,Tas .¢ ..940 @ flow at OGG togrol Bit astto oat
aR
~qaces ne iandt spidieosarg galt ga idrogque anoieised te tate
“ipo yas
bres tatic add dtiw Leoidag hi ad teum Sea? 90'tts eg od soand
bae golud ediulted a ob ag wena ONG ated sfsnoizioaooum
ofni ered wen & seovbotyal xo yYilanoitibsos 7h etqeone todtoms
tO ROLES a gKy Sieh #6 Spdvio ak towers aid “ssonedqooos oaip
ory
Aseoget, tetas a ai oh av ep alah tart eta cabo od aovngeh tbe
wqxe Bi sly a isx!) Jontdnes « st toské ad oeao aaaid Lor ord. ery
wedaxe) azjan et @s. Va sede to eouabauds Ga ASG ret nar.
otip ous ti aaye slur gis oafs ok aint ,es saaasoe ney deo:
a0 Le bain ons mi sonadtoewe) tao to od gon Kenn epouerst,
e9oh ddetices cg to tast os of aa teed ant (ae tateg aud
-2d @oneTe%Lib To 991394 ssel te tsisety edt sequ baguab son
feoisasbi oid mi ad Fass Sshatgeose gat peas tet ang nogwe:
<taTta ott oi hentasaco race
SALit .46 neice , eer guste teat Z$Wolieatke oddt +
; : Hk 3k
eas nox? ao isourdani as irene tue Jandas ted ase aque "be khaw:
vad? stospne tab ag toddo agit ban waits sand eT eteg,
aisas dgsords esicisg end bag age yiervizae Base ted tie add
cy
ZO Jemest ys dose saan of ec hm nae sovitadnoear gen.
Yldeustne od IHygicd be atuatss To Ssegnone? silt r9% Jontinag
Sesus meawted shan nont sax Jomtia0o yas JuAat .oidasexge,,
WAseuoites tou ai etuotuo O60,L to eaasskory 8s wot a0 laaee
“Hadd gnidease ,bL8L .@ viawnal to angtel adi ts -baduqe tb
JoshistsS dtiw todzan odd ay adet bisiw oottto opmalda ot
eullW .au Yo yeiusdiue edd yiel ot bagqedas at Mitaielg
Were Le
fetiel ait ¥& of BaF AOD out aXen ot onitto emma tay ath hdl
ik
03 Setwitet ased ban. aeitun odd said wontee hes ad Fabaeten
akg etatbygex toanae ti ,inoselitec «ot oehtto o opnotdd ont Pp
authority, In Hearx et al. v. King, 162 vicn, “55, it is said;
"that if one party refers another to a tnird person for ine
formation, es authorised to aet or answer for him, He will
be bound by the actions and statements of the person wo re-
ferred to," Filaintiff's argument as to the sutiority of br.
Wilke proceeds upon the assumption that on the date of the
letter of Jamusry 9th there was a controct oetween the pare
ties, and upon this assumption it argues that parol avi-
dence cennet be permitted te vary tne terms of a written
contract; but as we have atove stated, at this time taere
WAS no contract between the parties, and kr, tilke had au-
thority to make such contract as might be agreed upon,
The court was oesked to hold as a@ yroposition of
law, substantially, that when s principal permits a person to
appear eye agent, either generally or for a particular
purpose, ne will be estopped to deny sucu agency tc the
injury of third persons who have in good faith and in the
exercise of reasonable prudence dealt with the agent on the
face of such appearances, This proposition correctly stated
the law and should have been given vy the court.
fe mold that when plaintiff shipped 1,60 of
these cutouts, insisting tuat the written decuments were the
real contract and that the purchase was Tor 2,010 cutouts, it
repudiated the contract for 1,000 cutouts, Defendant, there-
fore, was entitled te treat the contract as breached and to
gue for damages. Its contract was for 1,GC0 cutouts, Tor
waich it was to pay ¢9U0G. it received S11 of thesc, which
the evidence shaws were worth $459,90, Lt has paid plaintiff
650, and is therefore entitled to recover the difference be-
tween these amounts, which is 190,10, ‘The judgment of the
trial court was correct as to plaintiff's statexent of clain,
ae
:hise si gi ,862 .Holi COL .ymhs .v fe Jo Rage ot ee iodo
ent %O% Houteg buts a oF todroke austet Voteg sho TE Sene*
Ifiw ed youn Tot tewsas ro Joe oc bestvondss as ,Holtheeet
“9% 08 MasIsg Ot to ssoomevado beic-sudiies sxe vd based oe
ta to YWliteitus eft coi ae taganare e' Thitotary “od bowret
acid Ye stab ant oo sant noltquidké odd’ thew sheehel edit¥
“t8Y ead nsewiso Joatiggo s saw overs HO Yreaial te sediee
-ive ots iuit sougts si neidquyesa eli) opt bite >| meee
nestiww «© to eaad oct Yrev od Sovshwrey od Seanes wend
@Yeul Smis aiat is ,baiste sveve svat sw es tud ptoseenee
“BS bad Ssaity ,xu Baus ,asfie¢sy oss negvded isexinos Gy saw
mnogu Ssetyea od Idgic es destino Hhue sven O8 Yio
to molitigcdiys a os bfod oF Hedes naw “etre ast - cae
et neateg s aviaxey feytoniaug so agente Jedd »vifelinadacwe wat
{sivoiitag @ 102 to yitatones vor ie [droge natvet “a0 qqs
edd of Yousge nuove yaeb of beygagtvee ad ffi» eA (eHequbg
edd ai ous déiei boos ni svad cife osoeteq htety te etwieas
eid ao Siisge sid Ati¢ $108 psuiebuag sldanesss1 te ne teens
bedgaice YLsosti0s notiieogerq eid? ,eavonstsedqes dose t6 seat
S29 act wd nevig oped sven biuods boe wal oat
to 606,i SeGqide Trisaiely ustiw ted bicn $¥
eis gYaw asnemuoob uslvtinw esis tent naitekextr ,eésoeuo eeoms
$l ,@dodgus G55,8 tet enw sentowug oHt feds bee toeeténes’ fear
eorsdtd ,teshuetod ,etwotuo UOu,L tat dosituen add Retelhnget
of bRe betoasid es sonilnies sAl cuets oF dSolsidte saw, STst
Tol ,evuoino OOO ,L ist bay gopittnoo efi .e@gnmed tof ome
figliiw ,seots to Lf beviovos sk LOUGk Yay of eaw Fd. dO Bi
Wridnialy bisq aati 73 00, Wahy ndvow orer ewiiis powebtve: bis
ood SulleteTtib ot TWrooax of heli ldne exoTtetehF @2 daw ,08ds
ans to dihemabut say 701, 02f% al Acinw \adewonn obede nibevd
vtéato to Faswsdese ot Ytisniaig of ao tpertos caw Fxuoo Letee
al
but a Tinding should have been nmde for defendant for the
@mount cleimed in its seteoif, The judgment of the trial
court will be sevinuad and judgment will be entered in this
court for the defendant against the plaintiff for $190.16
with costs,
REVERSED AND JUDGMENT HERE.
edt cot Faabasteh 102 ebaw aved svat Ell gathe,
teins ed! To dnawgbay oat Pesdes wae” ab soma: e ‘
shat ni veietua od ifiw Iromabs baw bessover od the! igo
OL, 088% sot Prigniely oid damcbagasaioo tab ext): 08h erw69 ,
i Sr chatealll By
STA SWaMOCUE GHA CaeRN tea i has oS pis
Rok ae?
ape
yh sy Woy 3 OR othe a oe
a *
jobs te Day
, ‘ ens . ety
' *' ik
pes all ; 4 | fey eo
. | ; . be tt : mre Layee a
a Po ~ Yo ke a ES
te of 1) atonal aaigtgt ay
: ’ keh }
/ ES Se
te gc wale
sts) kbseiy
ee So,
> ai
7 : aa es iH tee
i rj F 45,3 Pt 4 P. : Mey bigs!
Het Rena ET eS re 4! ~ owt END ihe
Wl Rb Sei ph BR ee 9 He at Shh ROR
aitbe be Wes | thease BRR. PTR SE ha OR owen dunk: '
262 - 22237
SALVATORE DE SALVO,
Defendant in irror, 4
% WBROM TO THR RUWICTPAL
Wa, ‘ ‘
X GOURT GF CHICAGO,
AHTHUR E, ANDERSON, §.
Wlaintiff in frrer.
2001.4. 29
Wei, JUUTICK BOLDOM DELIVERED THE OF ANION OF THE COURT.
Pa ee Se Gree Se eee See”
Vpefendant and plaintiff entered into a contract
for the sale by defendant to plaintiff of certain real ese
tate designated as number 1117 West Ghio btreet, Chicago,
fhe gonsideration recited in the contract to be paid by
plaintiff is $7,250, The contract also recites that (Sco
was paid ae earnest money, and that on tie passing of the
conveyance and closing of the transaction the remaining sum
due on the purchase price should be liquidated by the pay-
ment by plaintiff to defendant of 31,000 in money and the
giving of a firat mortvagze for $4,000 and & second mortgage
for $1,75¢, secured upon the premises sold, The contract
and earnest money were to be held by Havigato Gavings Bank
in ewserow for the benefit of both parties to the contract,
James RK, Havigato, of the wank bearing bis name, was the
agent whe negotiated the sale and procured the contract to
be signed by the parties to it,
Plaintiff has failed to join in error or argue
the cause,
On a trial before the court plaintiff had jJudg-
ment Tor 50G, which defendant asks this Court to reverse,
Plaintiff refused to carry out the contract and dewanded tie
return of the enrnest money on the contention that ne had
been induced to sign the contract to purchase thy property
by false and fraudulent revresentations unde to mia by
}
4. WERE - Sas
‘ us, " OVE ey ae > eee
? ( OVA mit seevPa vas
ain AE MORE ah deebaeteG cy
Tieroruyn Mar oY : ‘abi
ro » «AOE. Bietaipd
-GBADIMD Th NOD ia i <i
as | sowed al Thadndals
t S At 0 © @ : é ilk ae us
sTRUOD ART TO MOLI ABT SRACVIG BKLIOR aOLTaUS Ae
dosssaen © ofsk Satedns Piidmiotg baa FanbnokodY
-a9 inet ciadgeo ko Tuiduialy od duabaytes yd adew add aah:
~TgeviddS ,depash ola teoe VILL ea ouser ae batecniae® ead
e hee oa ef Foatsago was 4 bod ene? solserebisnon any
GUGy suds ansioert vals Joatiaoy vit 98K, RG ai Thisakalg
Oat te gniseasy eft He dacs bre ,ONoR Peeataa as i LE oor
Mee giininwct and neliessaayd add Go galeedo haw soneyavnge.
“Yee odd Ud bosebiupii od biueie eoing seanorng odd an eu
ect bas yanen ak Ga0,4h Te Shine Tow od Ril¢nial¢ od Fa
egegtion LAG2Om & bee (IG, PS us sgaydtom sexsT 2 To aniwip
deatsaoo git .blew seeionsq oad sogu beavoea ,et tg Tek
Hasek agaivas Sib yy Siar yw bien od ot ase Youom seanrse Bom
.Foetd aso wus oF goiduag aet io titaged add wot worses me
eng easy ,owen wid gaiteaed dosed ead to ,otagival .f soa
OF fostines ond botwootg bae aine oat hedaid ogo ose Soman
atk of sehanen estt ud bangin od
Sugita “6 TotIs al alley oF basfiesS cud PTidmialy . ;
-oaue0 pad
poet bad Tilinialig 2cuoo os sugied fwind a ad re
.Outevet of S1u0l) wid sdee taabioteh dohdr , O08 rot dav
edt bebmowod hag soexduoa vid duo vInO9 of Homer Wivaialy
bad od Sons wolinetnoe gat no yYenom tones at te ee ae
| Mteqot aris oandoty ot #oardaco and maa ot “beoubad 09
a
iia o
Jaaes KH, Havigeto and the defendant, The representaticns ale
leged to have been false concerned taxes for the year 1913,
which plaiatiff claims should have been proratecd from Jaruory
1, 1913, to the date of the closing of the transaction, and
which would amount to about G80 in favor of plaintiff; and
the further representation that there would be no extra
charge for a mortgage of 325,750, wherens, it is claimed, an
expense in this regard asounting to @150 was to be made, The
amount of 95,750 referred to in the statement of claim evie
dently covers the wortgages of $4,000 and §1,750 recited in
the contract, (jie think the finding and judument are contrary
te the evidence and the law applicable thereto, |
It seems that plaintiff is ty birth an italian
and hed at the time of thia transaction lived in this country
ten years, He claims that ke did net understand the Englisn
language, Navigate, woo precured plaintiff's signature to
the contract, spexe the Italian languege, and it is in evi-
dence that at the time the contract was gigned the parties
present spoke in Italian and net in Dnglish. flaintiff paid
the earnest money to Kavigate and not to defendant, and ne
paid it at the instance of Navigato at the time ne signed the
contract,
[Neither in the evidence nor in the statement of
Claim does it appear that any subterfuge was resorted to
to prevent plaintiff from fully understanding the terms of
the contract which he signed, / Defendant did not speak
Italian at tie signing of the contract and it dees not appear
that ne could speak that language, Nor is it claimed in the
evidence that defendant made any representation to plaintiff
which induced him to sign the contract nor any statement in
relation to it or its terms contrary to such terms, Hor dows
y
ie aaclesinsesxqea oui’ | casbae ted wit iki Scbicte tohdaadistctos soma’
oSS08 S88 \, aad roe eoxas bouseoned ae ie'h aged avail eg heyet
(issn mony aoaates w] meed vyed iicrsen emi ale, TWitnials do Siw
bes ,woldoncuwts ond ko aakeeto aad So edad ent OF eed ‘ys
bax sYieeniale to tavel mt o8G guede et tame ofvow Haba
BtIxs oa sd bivow eteds decls me idede :9aesgo teaetwt ostt
ae ,besmiafs #2 ti ane te te ,Ubt Be to egoatttom @ set ogee
ett ,absm sd oF aay Odfe at settee prayer ect nk Q2neqRe
sive mists Yo fiewsssta ad me 02 Bound tet O8N,8¢ te Jaweme :
ai bestoet CET £5 faa Woo ot te acest bok eas wisyos eitito
Ytewnos aves tiemybok Bite sathak? ott anid of] ooerdwos og
(* -ofeTene oleae kteqa wal itt Devs ooken ave ame os
aaifeds ax aie es es tthsnaety fad aneee 31° .
etimwos eins as bowed we idouanns a bs %o Haid war oOR silat: ‘iin
Seiiges sad banderade ton Hie a Saud cy ait eee ant
ad ervtangie atPEieniese HStwOS IG ante edayiral ssRengasl
wives ai wh fh bas ,oeengmel set iael eae saeye dedaddind alt
waiting ods beayie eee Jonxition sit say sxt oA dade wedeh
biag Wisnies sa bai ak Fea bits auhiary tt odege Siteastg
an ds taahaetab @2 toa tine CIO RLVHe G? Yonom Seertae ads
eas? hongid ect omty ont a% neege ene ¥0 eavarging sat de ak bing
to Smempdate eit #2 so eomehlives end ai toate soit
of hotioset aew oywlietdwe Yoe Sead tao ree th eaed aitats
20 antod vl? yodoandevebay yidut mows TMtetg seovorq of
Waeoga son b2b suebentod \ ,bougta om nie Jomrdines ows
aeedqe Jon anoh +4 baw hiesipites! abe ‘To phingie odd fa aatiag
oad Ws Bowiato ob ei tay agaugaod Sasha ange bititos eal seas
Wiswlalq e8 nelseseeeutgax Yaa sdox sashas ten dang oonpbive |
al #naiesase wie ton Porson nde nate of sit boul ii
sued fol ems uy oF YroteOD Bitat ody HO a2 od w |
it appear that plaintiff interrogated defendant regarding the
terms of the contract. There is nothing in either the statement
ef claim or in the evidence in this record wiich justifies
the inference that fraud or fraudulent conduct was resorted
to by defendant or those representing him in the aatter to
dnduce plaintiff to execute tne contract, Neither fraud
in fact nor fraud in lew is inferable from the proofs in the
record.
The representations claimed to be fraudulent
relate to the taxes and the expense of the two mortéenges
provided for in the contract; we regard thes as being nore
in the nature of promises to be carried out in tne future,
than as representations of any existent fact, Guen repree
sentations, if asde, would not constitute fraud, even
theugh plaintiff was induced te enter into the agreement
relying upon aucih representations, Say v, investment co.,
153 ill, #93,
It ia not sufficient to allege fraud, Fraud
must be proven like any other fact, and the acta er things
done which in law constitute fraud must be proven by @ pre-
ponderance of the evidence, the game as any other material
fact in @ suit et law, Kehennan v, Mickelberry, <42 ill,
117.
Fraud ly never presumed, hen transactions
may be fsirly reconciled witn honesty and when the weight
ef the evidence fovors an konest motive, the conclusion of
integrity should always be adopted, The contract here ine
volved, in the light of the teatimony expresses the nonest
intention of the parties and their sgreement, end cannot
therefore be said to be tainted with fraud,
We nold the plaintiff has neither stated nor
proven a@ cause of action agsinst defendant, and we theree
eas Qa lhanget Sasbselek bedwgotzotal Yhitetetg fade resqaa ti
Raum sate add teadsio at saidden: ei. ead’? VV aantnoe ‘ens te ae
aoitivan( Hobdw Sroaex aiad ni ganehite wits ni to “pinto to
betzessx sav faabaos dap iubuset wo buewt gods pesoTo tak axe
ef AosJam say ms aie gnisubeetaert asaud +6 énnbesteb er) of”
sinrt tousion edge ts ao wast SPsoIne oF Vhidabe fg eowbak
eat ak vipat edd moxc't efdaxotni af wal ai oust son $oa% at
wbx 08eF
Saeiubsst? ed o¢ bSoaiais enobsatagaorqys ad?
aegayiram ows ould te senagie ait iit eon ad os etalon
Oto" geied SO Mead htegut oy <¥ oukeg hie, ail ‘ad 0% ebives
conse | ‘ead ak dao bs iano ed of aoe imeug ‘ke ein aa ould ak
“OLg0% Apue ofan? tiedaixe es ‘te uloitedosaanqes an coat
aeve buat vu isunos tom & bso ores Ts cepebtebics
dneuse-x36 ed? otni tatno of heowbat aay Weddlaty sguoad
+92 Segmtee ves “¥ ss eno Laadusuorgen owe Magu aniyles
| 808 , £47 88E"
busr .buast ogeite of fam ivitiog Jon at £1 ead
sents ro edoe 3de b Lites Jun ‘youido yw obit sever sd sewn
“9% & yo ASYSx od gave buatt ernst itanos wat ai Seutste ‘smb |
fattsing wildo yas ee omse asd yodah ive efit ‘te eoastebnog
if] SBS gyttedéedads .v eannoday wwol da thue » ot dont
tee
avolfoaensss nod |, bomveasta q979K wE HusTs
dagiow eds aeite baa Yeeonon “ad by bo Li OnORS'E ultbst od yon
Yo molewlfsnos silt ov one daca2d ae sieve: goasbive aiid ‘to
“Hi stac gasaitucs edt sbosqobs at scuaw Le piuoda eekeqatak
dawoai » if eseest gto yoontteod od? Yo Sight ond al bowler
touns bine 1 PreeEe THR thos hus aotigag ald te ‘notsasdat 1
| bust sd iw bedutad ed ot bine od oro'ters torodd ;
‘aon hovase tone tom aan tiktatslg ode tox ew a
ats
Se ge pewtetiug Raton : /ic'mt dd Selaeaiilee am
natant
fore reverse the judgment of the Kunicipal Court amd enter a
judgment in this Court of nil capiat and for costs against
plaintiff,
REVERGED WiTh JUOCKENT OF BIL vActAl,
MELINA ALINE!
oe
# War dae sxHOO Taqioiauk edt to tosaybsl odd entowes orot fi
Y i
seninga atseo vol han gatges Lin le duvod glad ik Sean, “W
aededg |
WRARSAS SRK NO TAHRLCUG ATL) SeivEs | PRR, Ae
My
316 - 22271
JGER HB, LAWRENCE ond
EDWARD F, LAWRENCE, doing
business as LAWHENCE
BROTHERS,
Appellants, #
; APPRAL FROM KUNTC LEAL COURT
va, ..
OF CONTCAGG,
WILLIAM WRNDNAGEL and
CHARLES N.E. WENDNAGEL, ;
doing business as WENDNACLI
& COMPARY,
ALP ell ega *
/ 2001.32
¥
4
Fi
YX f/f
BR, JUSTICE HOLDOM DELIVERED THE GERINIGN OF THE COURT.
Re ie te Re te
WV this is an appeal from a judgment of nil capiat
and for costs in # trial before the Municipal Court witout
the intervention of a jury.
Tne facts involved sre, tuat defendants had a
contract with plaintiffs for certain structural steel work
at Sterling, in tnis State, under which plaintiffa were sue
thorized to retain out of any moneys due defendants at any
time sufficient to indewnify plaintifYse eguinst any claim
or lien for which they or tnreir property might be liable, vn
November 24, 1¥11, one David U'Keefe threatened @ sult at law
agninst plaintiffs for personal injuries claimed to have veen
suffered in and about the erection by defendants of the
atructural steel work for plaintiffs, tluintiffs clained
the right to retain about 4,000 due defendants to await the
result of ('tkeefe's threatened suit, Sefendants not only
denied liability, but also the right of planntiffs to retain
the money then due them, The parties to this suit settled
this controversy by defendants giving to plaintiffs a bond
of indemnity in the panalty ef $4,000, conditioned that de-
feniants should hold plaintiffs harmless from and agsinst all /
liability for personal injuries suatained by any and all per-
e
—s
pa > |
‘ \
LYK « ere
Ray Ge
meee
elveaeat ae “aa i
. reer | \ otra ide dys
PROD UAT ONUA MONT Lastice ;
!
(
-dMAaTHd Oo .
\
f
i
ie &.¢ “Bed HM 0 OS 1 i ; A
wee
hale eal © ROTALSS Sa? ‘ecules LOH ROITSut » i
-dmigas Liz to tammonl, # fore’ inno oat eh atat \
suendis samey degiodaun eas siohod feted @ oh eveon <a ews
| | ik & to seldrowredak odd
a bal agasanptod tad .ors beviovad ef6a% edt
uzow Leet Lexudewede nhadtms Ot aTiirniela diiw Joaréaeo -
~“8 9toe #ttisvnialg dolsw wbaw , state ail? sad canicioee +s
eae de aénabre tnd eub wyscun yas lo tue aketen at. bealrode
miedo You fontega aYtidolety vtimsebad of taeloltiue emis
wm ,efdaif ef sagan eeeneots Zhots to yout oo kete uok nell te
wai ga tive a bemesmonit ptoed's bLvad eae Lies AX eedmevon
geed eras of Exoiato aciuwtn danweseteq cot abtiteiadig seniages
ent Yo s9nvboetobd q avidvoauws sod cuods bos ak betes Yton
bewtele atitgaialt watti¢miala wt drow Lootda Larwtowtde
odd fleer of atitabra'tead ouh O5,66 tuoda aindot of date watt
yino ton etuabasied vive benedeetss a'oteed' > te tiunet
Giatet of atbidadaly to tadpix od ovale dud ,ysitidart beined
z heheden sisa eidt of antiiag oft med? owb aed qomons ead
. baod « ¢PMidiniaig oF yalvig Bénadbneleh Ye qutoventues abit
ebb tad Semeivivaes .000.08 to Winneq edt as Ytinmebad To |
te panisge dae moat eas lores “ineilnaen bhod biuoe senaee® bie
14 MR Me * stu Win iin hiv et gee he
$0ns as the recult of the carelessnesa or negligence of
defendants, their agents or exnpleyees, in and avout the
performance by defendants of their contract with plaine
tiffs, agreeing te pay plaintiffs “all damages resulting
or arising from such negligence, which way hereafter be
apsessed agcinat them in any aetion wrought by any such
person or persons, then tiis obligation to te void," cie,
O'Keefe, true to his tareat, sued pleintiffe in tne Cireuit
Court of Yhiteside County fer damnces for the personel ine
jury wiich he clsimed he suffered woile engaged about the
structural eteel eork being erected by defendants under
their contract with plaintiffa, ‘jlaintiffs defended tne
O'Keefe sult successfully and this suit is instituted
in debt upon the indemnity tond hereinbefore referred to,
in an effort to recover from defendants attorney's fees,
witness fees, und other expenses vaid by plaintiffa in
their successful defense of the GC'Kheefe suit, with interest
upon @ll of such disbursexsenta, The attorney of defendanta
assisted in tne defense of the O'Keefe suit by advising
Plaintiffs! attorney regerding the pleadings and, at one
time, as to the advisability of vrecuring a continuance, alwo
as tc the advisability of employing additional eceunsel tea
help in the trinl cf the cage and the propriety of procuring
medical testimony 6n the theory that O'Keefe was malingering,
Defendants" attorney was alao present at the trial, although
he took no active part in it, He had what the Engiian bar
terms a “watching vorief,* It also appears that in a metion
to instruct a verdict for plaintiffe in this suit, defendants
in the O'Keefe suit, the nome of defendants! attorney was
coupled with those of plaintiffse' attorneys, After the vere
diet of the jury in faver of plaintiffs was returned, de-
Ie gous aiigen +o seonsae twine cs ae) dauaen auld. on nos
edd jwoda One ak ,axoRotgao to. bao ge 2igtit esnadne ted
emigig dtiw jpacéncs tiedd Yo adnate top Ye ROKiRETO Daeg
geisiuset asgaua ha” athigniety wed ad atdoonse wits
ed ted iseted Yes do dsw sonnel Gagan, awe, 9 paledne. a
fioue Yaa yd ¢aauord motios yes. ree “atsada ree possnens
.oS9 “,bhov od of aoidapiive aidd seid .eneateg to moateg
Sivotiy ot aF sttidaboty bth sieotad 24h OF ound 19 testo
iti Lancete $US 3GT Bouseee Tet Yeaues ghissdiny To Faeued
ade toads hogayac al) coe hoe tue at bynioto om deecw Seah
tebin agvaban tee xa an dl Bek xs ey fpede Latad ouaee
edt ebaste) attieutalé wrtiantate ei zw sestenos thet
dedusigvent wi fim skas pra vitntecooee thus otewa 9
set Hergs'todt exo8odsietead based Yi insebnd ants noon ‘tek ‘as
Goat e'vantetéa siaabast ak wont wereawy as fxakte a8 Ride
mi ettisasials qe biew saeanaxe sesh oats apo waond is
soetegit id bw tine oten" 0 std te eengtes futeasovue bye
assaiuoteb ts wontod ta out 29900860 L sows re ie ey
sateivin ye dius eteesty ts te eone%sb ood Hh dose eee
ene fm ,o6a egatieaty edd Qaioteget Martadis "atvifaiole
Sola ,tanaunidcoo 3 aiirsnory te Yiididnsivds ane of Be 9 2ahs.
od fosmuos fungidiban goiyvesque to ywillidaaivbs edd od Ge.
BAiinontd Io Weitgerg of bne weno oay to Ladwd) eddiomd qin
Biitoyciiva ane pleas’) Jans yoorns pals no yaomkiasd Laokbem
dguodsin ,fulas ef go tiaseng cede. ase comiotea tadhwhad tems
Beg Geiigts eh sodw buoy .S ad aisg svitow oa Aged am:
aeiseom asi ined wsanegge ovina ti. ©, teded gebdedtiow* a aaeed?!
Beraboelos,thun eid wh a%tisalaty-ro® ‘be ttt Wap,’ ena
APU NeEthsdG MHsnAbhsateb 19 saaMeaeyd Lud whos hy “ipa at + J
© EDV OAd 4M tA: yorantorss ranma te Po'samas soe pensions ce
i WER GR 4 aia
fendants' lawyer wrote plaintiffs' attorney a letter of
congratulation, expressing his wonder whether the verdict
was based on the legal question or on the fact that
U'keefe was * shaming, | /
The contract between tie parties and tne bond
of indemnity were two different transactions, When the
bond was given and accepted and the money due under the
contract to defendants waa poid te then, that contreet and
@ll its conditions were satisfied and the relations of the
parties thereunder settled and ended, ‘The right to retain
the money due under the terms of the contract until the
outcome of the O'Keefe threatened litigation, was waived
and the bond of indemnity in suit substituted in its plece,
Thereafter the righte of the parties must be adseasured by
the conditions of the bond,
Nothing can be read into the bond which does
not actually appear in it or that is net warranted by Lle-
gal interpretation of the language used to express the
intention of the perties, which intention must be gathered
from such language, if plaintiffs had desired to have the
bond cover their coste and expenses in defending the
O'Keefe or any other suit, and defendants had been willing
to yield to sucn desire, a suitable covenant to that effeet
could have been inserted, jiability cannot be extenced
by construction, Hy the covenants of the bond the parties
thereto are bound, Whetner the canon of construction cone
tended for by plaintiffs, - that the conditions of the bond
be construed most favornoly to plaintiffs because the bond
was drawn by defendants and proffered by thes to plaintiffs -
cr the reasonable interpretation of the words found in the
bond be indulged, the result will be the same,
Ye asdiel yeruwsis teatTiitatete elorwe ceyeal ‘e¢mebast
feibsev edd tesocdw teoctow Bhs aniessxgRe G1 Fa Lod GROT
Seas Font ons ca vo) mote nanT fagel wad ne becad exe
ONS ‘i baes” kaw otek es
bued od bia seietag oid nowreed Goetines sat ~~ sib <3
ous Aad! JANGlfosnony) SueteTILb ond exew Yriemebar tw
eid asbau ox Yonda ody bie Hedgeesk baa covig saw Raed
baa footsiteo fads ,weds oY bieq enw ediahasteb oF foatsmag!
euy Yo aneisalex oct bor be lta ives erew emoisthaco, oot ie
Sisson of Sanit on! bebeo baw betd¢ses vebsmeteds soir”
ent Ligay tog4tugy aia lo asred ads aeban oth yetou Se
bovies aaw .WeOlayisis fowydeoetl ¢Taeg'U wit ta emasemee
.*o0lq efi mi betudivedue Jive af etionebat to bade oad Bow
us bervemenbe od Java anidemy oft Yo wiagit ent wifes kant
_ bed ac? to eneisibacs anal
soah Bediw Oso0. sad uti base ed nas yalioy
eal qd befuariay Jou et sant to 0: af tacrga “Yokeut oe fon
Bhi BeOtEXd OF Houe eyaugind 9d? to aoddudetesedad tag,
bettadea +f Suu moitherxd daidw yaeievsy oad to polsesvae>
odd sve 8F Deuleeh Sad SYitinialg TT Jopewed weve BOY
ait gathasted ui anviegke bist etued keds verew Bid
guiiiie seed got eiuebag tos Sha. Kide vette "aa to Staak
Soetto ted? of thenpros olieein«y & .ankesb cage O89 brosy 62
ehaeize of Sowinwy ilidoi sbotrount SSS0 ‘erad Sfuos -
eeitisy edt bred it to egnanyveo ous YH .aeldobsxanee Ye
~806 acisoursuace Ye nonme oad Tone AY oduod ove ofexedd
haed OFS 84 sacks Ebay AT Seeds + wT Ldadaiqg yt vot debned’
‘bned etd sxwouhd BTrivais iy od yidarovet dom Seurdahoo dif”
~ aTiisaialy oF wont yd SoteTictg bus aivadaoted YW owe caw
add ad Dawot abroOw 962 To AULeAtoTy tnt wikdnddunos oid x)
Me GS a ee od bao is
o4=
The covenant is limited to "all damages resulting
or arising from such negligence which may hereafter be
assessed agains’ them in any uction brought by any such
person or persons.” No damages have been assessed against
plaintiffe; on the contrary, in the O'Keefe case the verdict
and judgment exculpate them from damages. e do not find
anything in the conduct of defendants tht would warrant
us in holding that they had put eny other or different
interpretation upon the conditions of the bond than the
law would but for such conduct plsce thercon. It was to
the interest of the defendants to do all legitimately in
their power to defeat the oction of O'Kecfe against
plaintiffs, because if a judgment hud gone against plaintiffs
the defendants wuld have been liable under their hend te
pay the amount of the bond within the limit of its penalty.
To prevent O'Keefe from recevering a judgment against
plaintiffs was the sole purpose of defendants' interest and
efforts. Sy their joint efforts they succecded. That
success satisfies the condition of the bond and absolves
defendants from all liability thereunder.
fhe action of the trial judge in refusing to held
a8 law apolicable to the esse the propositions of law
tendered by plaintiffs was without error. The doctrine of
estopyel was not invokable against defendants. The contract,
as heretofore stated, was out of the case. The oblig:tions
of the contract and bond were dissimilar. tach stood
separate and apart from the other and subserved separate and
distinet purposes.
here is no reversible error in this record, and
the judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.
AP ?IRMED .
NM
uri? fsrast negamab {fa" ef bedismif al Sram veo off
o¢ tos tmexsod ves aofdwisonepiinen cena wet? wateine Re
Hows view Ul fdueowd woksoe Vio WE eet? .eiheee bongonee
feninge bowngess weed ord noigotnt wa A ome xe apa meg |
saidiey odd eaas oteed'd ad ai ~yiowntes ott ao gattedeabate
Sekt tox eh oF. ba gieiiie! ‘hin cat eiwotvexe J pompbah bas
Ssoutow & forded tt aba bneter So ¢erbros ost ne genbeie ges
mows To Te Toxise was fg eet: qed sostt andi ied ahves
ef? nad? Saeed oof te nevis cheee eft aes anki atonqredet
at new YE. aoe taeda ox akg dgubstow Hee 0% dud bivow ‘wal
WE yiuduatelael iis eb of atmehnotes oA? YO denvetel a
femiogs 9608" To aelte:add thetsb af temoq whem
etiitaists dankese encn bod Facial o ls semened 2 ttheeleke
| of hited “here “ohne sides oead avon Daten oe ebee ted edt
eo tivnisiy eek YO FRAEE ons wiritiw bade: sete to ‘Paves gad: yey
sumbege Paenygbit a gkiiorerHtT rere shiek’) daa vetq et
ta door tak Tatmehns teh ‘Ip saayiudg sie oat gaw aYtitatede
dot? .bebpoonue gory sadist te dabag sabes ‘a. etiehts
agwicads bts baed yey MD meas Phitoo wate ah Yergwa: noniene
skebrtrpeoiy ysstideld Lim mort sdasbae eb
biedt of stdecos A Sybil, Letye ae Yo aolvee oat
wat *0 anol?iewnety oss send otk ef eidao figs wel ee
Yo antavoul tar .xerte tvontiw caw eTtivabetg yt Pexebned
etearinos Sif = ,etaebie tol di sab ge vSdutevat Pie aoe Loogod ee
anetiogiive on? eter off te tuo ane ,botede ovetotobod an
heoda toad .takieiveuls vor bao’ bas foetus ale fe
fas otetagse tovseudse bad ‘todo vi mest does bow whexegee
| ~aeeoqrany samheehs
bom ,buodes Chat af sorte ofddavstos om Be weet. 6 0
i’ shomtktis ot dened Legh elma eal ‘Yo “dawingeary sorts
we Marbe O
Ss ee / qe
MIGHAEL J. Hinged ony PeARUPSr
*
g
be
4
z
B
433
=
APPHAL PF
SHOTHRAR PUNT Y COMPARY, NATIOO AL
PURETY GOUPANYg aml USITRD GTAYES
VIDELITY and GUARANTY COMPARY /
Alae Appellees
SEORT OY COOK COUNTY,
TRPESLOCITO
SEDER OF KUPERION
} APPOINTING RECUIVER.
4
mers “STELTAN Go REPLACE. ae feauivar|
of the ia Palle Phreet “Samat
Sewings anh. Josey ; C ie A. 3 § °
Guin MR TTH delivered the eninien of the
Poy call
eourt «
vA ‘hie appeal <ea itnken frem as orfier cf the
tupericr Court, smreinting a receiver of certain soourtticas
held by the ecmmlaingant, “tebsel ¢. "Evra, ghe flied his
vill of gemriaivt ce City Tressurer of the Citr of “hisage.
The eltuntien divaitced te that the comminimeant, as City
‘ropeurer, Bad on depornit with the Gs balle Chreet Trmet
and favines Rawk certain fumis bolerwine ts the Cite of
Chignes, te secure ths repeymernt of ehiech free time t time,
the yasaagt aeet s teilieck, Soeye4 ee a it PEBNY > S ey
Wnitea ee Ran netae TES tye : ¥ Company, mr ihe Ameriean
Midelity Company haé oxmeeuted aertale bemts ac sureties.
Yay ©, 1634, the City dewarnded Murthar scourity to Tneure
the return of the Ol¢jy's tumas denoottiad with the bank,
whieh at thot time amounted te some F480, 990. Tn coorliancs
with this request. the vieo-rresident of the bank teened over
to the compisinant bends enti ether securitf@es azerssntine in
value about ©T66,.000. June 2%, 1934, the bank closed ite
@cors, Jume If, 1924, & BAL] ene Phled in the CLranit Court
for the vurrece of winding up the-bank, oni o receiver war
eppeiuted the following dey. “he treacurer thersuper fe~
manded of the sureties om the bank's tend a return of the
* Ay :
pon tt see ent
Sail iciileal fot
Be PE ine
ie ee Nawal wae a cD
ett to wana ene pene HE HT ee Wit ode ay
ars ‘ re a maa org eae 9 anlage ate K
Wino awi ME RY marty ieee i
_ we, 3 yeh sie ost muta? ae. bencege ante Vv Rae
YM Beth ue gyi. f pers Ba ee ae
ecttteoin, sartoy he, swrheont & pahtatene stowed tobe: |.
wis haere 20 set hs Faas «one actin ant? xa ‘Sad
eqanla’ % . <hIO cue » yernssaee! ate “a “teeta % » ae
oe bay RES wits as at ‘bonatante met taat ie, re
Dente” owas” shiv ai wat aohe Stasanb 8 bat eNO i
oe ur ans at gatgrabies aor rineneo bas gntvat freee ‘
,eutt <8 aes a skete te tomecmae at aad ee °y onesie
ht
| dis
eto hbernwen Ms esi bese badness bad een pehtont
Ce Oe
ray ot gthmass costo Ne besane wo od ter +t <i it
- “ itnind sg eke has! secu ett adh amt te contett a
eanntiqver wf + 90, ODA revo Mt hodemsunn omy este da ele
mers hermit “ines ot? to tunbiceremandy ott .doctuegone wtihe adie
Bt yekinenghe ant Miecn tehin Ame abmod tanks lewd al GO
Gib Beale snad ort MOR WRK ett i Pi
| Pres tthents eat ct Barth iew tba a ve vee it uel:
: : aw Tae,
| full amount of the §°60,900.
“he Southern Surety Company CLlet ite bill
againet the City eof Chisago, the teek, tte receiver, om!
the ether ourctice or ite bends, in whieh 14 set um the
giving of the bends by the bark, ita om lfabliity ae surety.
ang the reseipt of seourities by the elty treasurer: it offered
te pay the City cf Chieare the naxtenm ancont fer whish it wae
roerensible, and seked that 1¢ be euhrogatet to he righte Ons,
the Olty to a proportionate part of the seowritier. te thin ~
bill answers wore fled by the city, the reeeiver far the
bank, emi all sureties on ite bonds exgert the ameartaan Mdel-
ity Comrany. pileh Miled «& 4orurrer. The receiver of the
tant Miled bio orees bill cuhy 17. 101%, end an amended ersne
bLLL Wargh 28, 1015, in whieh he veayed that viehsel 3. Phymn, .
City Treacurer, micht be ragudred te deliver toe his a1] the
seourtties in quewt Lom.
‘aly (8, 1024, Yteheel 3. “Lymm fied an eririral
bill in the cupericor Court, in vhieh be eat up the matters
airends stated im resard te the gevesit of funda with the
bank, the taking of indoenifying bende, the chtatning of
additional eesurities, and the subsequent fellvre of the bank:
alee thet the various surety gompanice eet wn a elent to be
subrogated ¢¢ the CLte'a interest in the peourtites and thet
the benk ord ite reecivear claimed? an Interest in the came.
Ve aeked thet the semrt degree that the bank or ite rasetver
pey whatever cum might be due him ae “Livy “resgurer; that
in default. be he dirested te <e]) the eclisteral, arrly
the proceeds on ihe balancy =f ths imlebietmons “ne the
City of Chics tran the bank, oad mare ALunonition of the
a ewplue, if amy, to eush varties ast th such amounte as
‘ib, mn be datewmined by the gourt. This bill made the : co
a ‘
Ve HG ‘
Syed wilh wh ‘aise ae obey pameen vif + hak vavot 0 a
waetepen att wy sored sit Sait one pe ae hiciiatane - i, A
Siete crate adil cease vaiaintees 90 CoN
ae
Surety Company and the other sureticn en the berk'’s bons
portion deferiast. ag well na the receiver for the bank.
hepwere were Quly tiled. end In this sult alee, the recetver
tile a Greys PIL eenteining the wore allegations: and prayer
fer reliet/ae were set out iv his erase bitd files in ths esee
ot cont hern Sumety Cooramy v- Clts of | Shiease. Yarek If,
7836, hye, by Lesve of acuet, anenfed hie B21] by tineart-~
ing & prayer fer the anpoiniment of a reeciver rendente ite.
To thin amendment woe attached the affidearit of one Toate,
First ageigtant trenourer., in whieh be steted thet Sloan
wae me jengar Oity “resarres, bet hed boon engounded br one
Sereel, Thereafter, on “arek Of. Iie. an exer was ontered
eenseligating the twr cases under the mang of Viehwel 1. Plgem,
Gity Tresesurer vy. Southern Cwsety Comey, #6 ai. April *,
IG, on eetion of sempiainant “Lyn set vortous dovendant
surety companies, en créer vac catered anrpointing a reeciver
Prom thie order, Willem ©. Bildeek, he petebvey of the
ia Mealie “Strest Trust ami cevines Bank, took this nnn ay
in view of the fast that the cerpliairent's term of
office had expired. and that he waa, 2% the time of the ontry
ef the order, in nessesrion of some 6700.00 werth ef secur-
ities in whieh hs had no interest. percennl cr effficial, the
appointment of a reeclver wee necessary for the preper rro-
teotion of the appellant az valli as that of the aereliss
surety companies.
Wo axe unable to sow the fwree of the suggention
as Thhe appointment of the resstyer stiheut recuiring the
moring parsive t¢ give ea bond was esreneeun.” ‘ad the meving _.
ee
oe
parties aitempted te take the custedy from 4 psorty claiming
” tiie o intenwst in the ceousdites, o different question
Der ee Woe ble a Ceaed thie, eee dee eee Ssek ‘chase ween Ot Stee
y
i -
cc;
* at %
of Ci
‘
Meg gle ee o ea ot
whoed «tiles acid an aibtentio. ‘dite: tty Sone qragaa® wou
REPRE BO GoyBaree’ ge we ‘thas ab <diabreattad cers
seviwbiy YE ere tor Stee ce es ‘gaia “aga vim tanto ve
PTS: ete lusartes rele aenew hen se ios sisiek we
ont dal a rs Rake
warss” he ne 408 nied ae te seins ice
“gminibelh wotle Gi! 9 bh hye | tite
te oe ee <stse ah ey Aaa ie sain ia ;
—_ fie ee ‘: ail bel eit Prac 1a + one le
et tiie oe seugcns ie “sgtoreind ‘ross ie ia yi o a ai i
Sache Oy eM ‘et Assert f gee dapeeut yg oe val ane ae ‘ ii
wovioeet & sat. eZee PL SSRD agp “Heine oa Senne rn ene eygs | *
— Be WHLEors iva eae hot weit pieke ez dw A 3
Bp imeage miisedood SME walked tale dae Sowa an ae?
ate
So mted alivanta teens ‘ott nt ‘aia ‘ony e
erine Bed te emis OEY 2% Cube ad et ban torte ‘Maa
mittee Me Bhs BOS ROY Gai RA rest heauae at castes «td
att . Pete itts So Tesseade Unbewide! om Saw oa “oti at soll
ame regen ty HD Seton wat! Kaw eyen ‘s ye rena
wacom a Sete om sido ‘s Soatthpre es oa she
. ary
ou
tS. ‘alt, RE pei
~— wt te. suey ee sin “ , pions eam: wine
re rena a tm, Lepeiponccensbun
aA ai aie
a
Cad
moving parties. Tt ac obvicusly ts the sdvantage of all
the partios alaiming an interest in the ceeurttiers that ther
be taken out of the hands of on unbended gtake-holder and
Plesed in the hamie of a receiver whe would eagure the in-
tereate of the rartice by giving - bond, ard whe would be tn
R32 things eubjeet to the directions of the court. “hose
elrowmtaress Glearly conetitvted “erod® ensure,” within the
mesning of the statute, for the appoimtesnt of « reaciver
without resulrine ths mowing eartties te clive « bends. “or
@o we think the suc¢estion that the Cireuit court, ohieh had
fjeriedistion of the winding us cf the benk. war the proper
trivenel te adjudicate the richts of the parties te the ca=
eurities, has any hearing on the evestion ef whether the
emt shevld ep should mot arecint « reseivyer. “he eontre-
yersy vas ene within the conetitutiona!l jurtedietion of the
fyperior Court, art fie juriadtetion of the sartigvier cer-
troverey was net raleod by the aprellact. tut, on the cen-
trary, he, after anawerine the oriwinal bili, Tlled aia srese
bill in whiek he ceed offirmative relied. ot had the
aspeliant, ty proper pleadings, ralee@ « furiadietienal creme
tion, 1% wowl4 still have boon the duty ef the court te ore-
heel the subject-matter of the Litimation until that avestion
sould be rrereriy decidad.
Sgunes] for apreliant further sontends that the
faete disclosed by the rocerd chow that the accurdticr in
question belong to the tank, and that, therefore, a receiver
mught not to have been arpeinted. “e are wnable to agroe with
this contention for the reason that the snertion ef the rights
of the parties, whether 1+ rresented itself as a question of
fest tr a question cf law, wae ene whieh the shanesllicr sould
net properly detercine until fuliy sdvised by soursel, and
wrtil fully advieed, it vas hie duty te take steps te sresorve
Heer
fis te paatworha ast mo staat sia ae
emit gate watireein cot At Pacendae | ERO
Beer signth Bonini: Seca ne Ua me sale. 3 URS: onsind aa a
enh wis aeanaee BEpoy ay eke: i aan a, fips MN
ME ot Share sas bea ahkneonet a a A aS Set a ry
eae Gee oh! he ada Gunnls ; Silas oe nee
mit REGS | % (ABR mae Rooee Maaman. tmake ;
pep toca 6 Th eras it acres chahict s cilainial ad He
VF
tort. elise y Pea: er tae: fats mt emcee: ae sk ial * =n
PAs aks Seay a ith, ehee Sy, a ait “pea y)
nat eer ‘Sy oii va et, — ‘pri doa: ‘yh: one ve oul oo
ee ee ee
he Fa as Dew ete OE sib eaatiad Banat nianby. ave aer nie
oeeemas ornate Pacadg Gel oD meaehiente aes oie «dren. ae baa
mate ott ae atid: «feather WEE GE Boast oon Ren seal an
ens abt Boon BP oct fet iad ate ante a Denver | Sang'e tne one! iY
ls, Tse dee EGOS fupeaehe ter Suton. ag, tse 8, ~— i
~2oure Anneke ohne est | Hy ate Anise stele ‘sarin oe at ma ¢ |
oyna tikes ae tecoe ot died
ae Atanas Sut Utdew mba NT eh “i ist diandno hans sa) toed
ee eae “abe tone ovemrm sa heaped
tt) nde SDE ¢ Gi ie te bei ae em aa
a8? putt ebeetons yada) sea, Sings opryie Sa meatus -
at qebttysesy wth ect way Benes nh ot aonntenta oka
geriower & .attrtarecns juny) Ae ode’ ard ok adie Cr)
atin Od" “ge eid ene ain atl Radtehomen evel Geant’ aut Set paw ‘ia
= ly hae ante tos hrwees ent doyld snot ode “Ry etideaiied ahi
- on: nett vaty Dm “aha Teepe # i switein vit te
ane
os Bly ah dia ealeie Oak ts dds oe
cones ap tpt
| oma
-
|
CROKE APPIARED ,
2 sith aegont? 7
al na,
1S
oh wile
a : : ee | ce
bh awe na OR Pegs Bee
Pat
> e Ohi - ‘ ? *; é x hf ine © tx! es
) «
\ . 4 .
Fl ‘ - te : * -
ike seh Sat oie me ase
y v ’ , k * we io | ae ed an mi , ¥
Pe ee
yee ea hee * ae ea Se
337 = 21322. /
;
2
7
[APPEAL PROM
ARMIN W. BRAND et ale,
Appellants,
\
\
*
¥
*,
COOK COUNTY.
PAMTA AS
mg WU | se vas ys
JOHN H. ¥. RUSTUN eb al.,
a
wie oe
am “ae
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICK BANNERS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CouRT.
of equity an amended bili of complaint filed in a suit to
Thia appeal is from a decree dismissing for want
foreclose o trust deed executed by fueter and his wife,
Minnie, to secure his four notes dated Sept. 1, 1892, one
for $5000 and three for $1900 each.
the principal questions presented are, wus the
suit bared by the statute of limitations, and was the
transaction usurious? The deeree apvears to have been
entered on an affirmative answer to one or both questions,
whereas we think both should be answered in the negative.
In our opinion the amended bili, filed Dec.
24, 1915, does not state a different cause of action
from that stated in the original bili, filed Jan. 3,
1913, if, therefore, the final payment of interest was
made Feb. 6, 1903, the suit was brought within the
statutory period of ten years, |
\ By extension the notes matured sept. 1, 1900.
The semi-annual interest of $280 was paid regularly up to
Sept. 1, 1899. On March 1, 1900, $80 wes paid and credited.
mn Feb. 2, 1902, 38000 was paid and applied first, to
liquidsete the accrued interest m all the notes to that
date, next, to the payment of the note fer $5000 and
wy
\ et
7
2h de/ aMauet ow EESAA
\ Rens ou
HORT EARS
stoveo THUD .ar
| , is 40 SoPRUe .o a RMS
. @3 db. my Oe te ane dlegqa
oTHRIID BIO
Sc ec nn
Ge
:
By Be Ge ter
eTHUOD GHY WS HOTAIGO ANT COMVIRE CHMRAR BOTTA DBPCTARKY . Ae
=.
teee vOt aatuatmers opitosh @ mext ak Levges abey -
ot Skits @ ak bel’ i nisLqnes te Siad pelos ne yriinne te
tie Sid haa cetosh yd bos uooKs aveh testy s seafoeue?
oho ,888L .f .dost hotal aston tet sid exuoee of ,obankel
-fone S904) tot sett dee GOR set
edo #ew ,o%5 bodreasng enobtaonp Ioqkoning ont cd
eit oem bes ,uNeivadinil to otutate siz yd bowund dive
need evel of atacygs soteob elf Sasixvey aeitoonaest
.enaivesup déod to ene og towane oritastiTia oe no hevstes
9vitesen ot ak botewans st blwode Atod Antes at eaotede
oad felt? iid bobmoms alt wotnige wwe af
neijes to sans trevaTiib & oJats Yor aeob ,6Le£ {8S
.& .mst deft ,ifid fomtgaxe ot ot aovuds Jade mot?
aew teevodal to troming famkd eis TOT teRy »,tt ~SLRE
eat alddiw tcf tnuorcel aoe Shia om? ,c982 ,o .de& ebow
i. “RUNSY aa? to Soitog yuetutaete
-O60@L ,f .tge hanabest neon edt solemetme yx /
o¢ qu yfisiugoy bing caw I8N2 to teers de fannie «tate 9 ont
sbefithets bae Sieg aur O84 GL ,f dota ad =. 9@OL Lf .tqed
ot ,#oxkt beilqqe hee bing saw OOOBS FOOL \S tet a
ast of aoton ext Lie m geouetad bosrwoe salt odebdupht
” a, ARBRE toot bint Ae Mie ee aa | i is Ce ae
aiie
ene note for g1000, and then to the reduction of the other
— ;
two notes to $635 each, Such application was proper,
especially in the absence of any direction by tne debtor,
Nene
i
(Xonzon v. Keyer, 190 111, 105,) a
Being importuned for interest in the fall of
1962, Rueter in Secember or January following gave thie
agent of appellant, Armin W. Brand, holder of the notes,
@ mote for $50 of a third person payable ta the order of,
and endorsed by, Sucter, whieh was colleated on feb, G,
1863, and ercdited of that date, of which Rueter was notified,
fhe recerd discloses no agreesient te accept ine note as
payment of any part of the debt, and no circumetences thet
—
reige @ prepuwaption that it was so taken, ) +t wG@uld there-
fore be deemed cenditional payment only, (Chel tenhen tone
& Gravel Co. v. Getes ron Yorke, 124 id, 623) and az of
the date ween it was collected, Gn the date of Tiling the
omens
original bill, therefore, the atatute had not run, |
—
Rueter borrewed the meney to improve one of the
lets conveyed by the trust deed, Ee applica to one
Blumenthal, @ siorteage broker, for the loan, and agreed
to pay him a commission of 445 and the expensee connected
therewith such as examining abstract, recording, etc, The
letter submitted it to one iohsel rend, whe looked over
the preperty, accepted the security, and gave blusenthal his
check for the amount ef the loan, YeOLG, Blumenthal deducted
therefrom g2uc for bis commission and peid out the balence
tc Hueter's centractor on Rueter's org@ers. iluctor
requested blumehthal to get an extension of time as aforesaid
en the netes, which was done end fox which he paid blumenthal
another commission of yevuuU, No pert cf either Commission was
received by the Lendet, Brand, turing the year 1892
Blumenthal meade citner ioans fer said Srand and he collected
garite odd 26 aoiteuter sit? ot mene, bate ,Q00Lg tet atone
xe ee fh
ae sins GEOG ¢¢ andom omt
sesdeé ett yd aoitsa@xthp Pac to SHaS hs hidsh gi Ni tatea ges,
; re ; i ARN Ea
i “(oe feb: eet Bane +¥ genset)
io iist sat at serosa Fol danitgogms yaier
Teqot” saw nottasd Loge aon
eas swes uitwe.ts ot ¥Ytemtel to Tedmenet mk eeeuut sooet
eaten vii wo tohLos essen. salon. inaihtoue te dtogs
aio. Medre ad 08 Sidsysq sosteg te dns f ‘te. 08% tet oven &
1 ,de% mG Sotagiten say aia baie apie sed bewrobas bas
bebths 0 Sue totgae dadae ‘te peri att ‘Yo otibea one coe
Se atom tod dqease a3 dteopetRe Of neue toast pases ott
tant RP RHAPE: weg eu bash de asd te, tag. (as Le sessyag
sae daw de af sealed ON Bem ddd maa: MobhemeReey. my eaker
aed gigngt land) . vino saveyaq faneds dneoe, boone ed gaat
Geek aeded .v ogo deme
ode, mats iF. te bik: ada or ae .29d90 foo. ion SL moval adab ostd
(reenrset
| 2 ete, DOK we at Pat gielaag whee: abil ia
iw
te oa ai 188s “kta pat 4€ BRD SOR
BBO CF ed lage eh howd soared ode awauue S
—Bestge Wor ~Wsel oat 202 feet OyagiteR es adanioe
bevovaune seamed sit bee, es. Fe ae es hae Le ya of
eat) =p wtd a uitbieess Read eates ERALONNO, BS. dou: f
tere fosgot ode yhuogd. leaded anger ¢b, bare cowie cabiat
cid Lasivapauis vay gas .ydisigoe add badgasoe yi raeqong, edt
dovoubsh Ladvasmals ,WOsy used, odd ko dou od? 407 Aves
podnied elt Tuy bis, DAs gow heaog eked ROR OAR, Hos te keds
Gerouh 4 oo bt} sda edoue MS, SOLOS DTT GS, 4) wedomst as
biueotets. 08 hd to nosanaing ms fay oo Leldaomg sd, bodgoxper
Sadness Sag ah Goice 26% baa otiad yaw sda by, seston ons a9
oe i Ati Bottke Oe ts eas his he it aah a
Seas PAN, RE a _phaets . sebmot Yo bevien
ie)
yy
dicegl i
aliases od hos baer boae to? sneol oie to
STR aie? 4
o3e
the interest on the notes in question while said brand
owned them. They became the property of appellant,
Armin Y. Brand, in 1899, after which the payments thereon
were made to the latter's agent. Neither the lender nor
subsequent cwners of the notes received or agreed to receive
more than the legal rate of intcrest thereon. The com-
pensation paid to Blumenthai for negotiating the loan and
procuring an extension of the time of payment, was «ccording
te contract between him and the borrower, with which the
lender had no connection and of which he had ne kmowledge.
The essential facts of this case sre not different from
these in the case of Hoyt et al. v. Pawtucket Institution
for ~evings et al., 110 id. 590, which were held not to
constitute « usurious trenmsnaction., (See also, Gantzer v.
Schmeltz, 206 id. 560; sanford v. Kane, 133 id. 199.)
Evidence was received tending to show that ~
Blumehthol had not taken out a license as required by the
ordinances of the City of Chiengo,| whieh might be relevant
if Slumenthal was suing fer his commissions, but which is
not relevant to the issues here. _
There was alse evidence that the notes were
signed Sept. 3, 1892 and dated Sept. 1, 1892 and that the
original loan was not paid over to Slumenthal until Nov.
10, 1892, but that the interest was paid thereon from the
date of the note. The record doea not disclose whether the
lender held the money for Rueter's use from the date of the
note. The arrangement between him and the lender in that
respect was not shown, rand agreed to make the loan bcfore
Sept. aoe he held the money for Rueter's use from that
date the transaction vas not tainted with usury by paying
interest from that time. ‘The burden of proving usury was
on the debtor, and was not established. (Cobe v. Guyer,
fest! bise afBity nokinews wi eecom ade xo fbonbdak ang
ead iedys te Yowedod SAE wRkodd veet rors ‘bos
poeredt stimoved aele deka <ethin eel at past iW adoak
TON tebrot aes rostd. kom, hhotle ve an We be seen wee
aviones es Ssexgy xd favisvey aoden otk te eremre dieupendwa
onsen gat nr Saone tak to oxen Dsged iss aad? oem
hie mol off gnbvehfoyon vot iexfaetwid 69 biog sottmame
Babbewodn new jtmoyeg to mks acd ‘to RokeaeIee om aukeune KR
ag} iStde ditiw .xewoteod: wits Bien aia hae oe Hiatt eee oF
sopboiwbial om Bunt 4 rout th ty to bi ROLSSo SAGO wr est ‘wobind
sont Shows TEB gam org pend pkid A adont ‘Tntvaosas ont
nodieg bien doko udvad a da 28 fo, {yoy to au veo ott rd wane
@3 Fon hiod stew aok oe age . She onk 0 £8 4 saaivs® 30%
(Ode. Ht bet ee a? baotaas joie she BOR
pene ance ot giibaad baviason Ree bsisies
eis vd Sesiunss aa pape es os fue froskgd Yor hud Lostd obpeasek er
dnaveloe of Jenin fate /omna isto te qeke aes to ep ss oe Be
®t dati rad vb rn6. keine eit 10% eikue aay tad dome Lie
hy ye aba
| vereat womaek co ot “soaive ten gem
4
aumiw 49¢0n silt art éorebive bata Baw ote Py
oft tua? Ban SEMEL oh bape bazab wip ‘sans ae $90) Rongle
Vow Lisnu Lartd to sierkit ag “879 bing ¢on dar Ress foninise
ons mest oscars Hisoer daw suschawe ait ted Ste uc of
ots saddens oroloeih tor seab REO ay vaste oda wild 8 saab
edt te a¢ah of} mast oasy a endows “<0"t eermoar oils bieet nebnod
tat nk whoel ofs has whe roenied dro ye cre eat com
#Go¢ Aol og oalem oF phe became + aeioat dee’ he fonqnon
fee
ma ons oo) “sod tone tt sare Burs & dt Hanon
237 id. 516.) Besides the interest, if usurious was paid
vefore maturity and before the transfer of the notes to
the present holder. (Culver v. Osborne, 231 id. 104.)
The decree wili be reversed, and the cause is
remanded for entry of a decree on the amended bill in
harmony herewith,
REVERS <D AND REMANDED
a
Stee eow auskewaw tk Paordomk: add sebtaad (, ake cbt VER
od avdon On Yo wo'YeREUe odd exotod Bem ghd etw ote ted
(,B0f .6F £88 jonnade® ov coxtyd) seeded dweeng ome
at sevey off bah phoeteret ee fiw soxeem ea?
we Led Boe moms ead Ms garde hy ci ey eke we). bebe
“Hut eon oe ocaemaa
oTRC RARER Cm CORRE HN | Aaa
a Sy
i 2
Cie, Sx
aay
oe
Bi
r
%
“
ee
ef
fc pt Se
i y vu
yy
tt Wy
a i ii
cys ea
Te ake \ mile * +H hi
_—— ey nie
Mate
at ea
; i
411 -+ 21598
JAMES J. RYAN,
Appellee,
\ APPEAL FROW
vs. COUNTY COURT,
COOK CCUNTY.
CHICAGO FOUNDRY COMPANY, = |
a corporation, 4 ;
Appellant. = / +r PR a Ee
. / 200 1A. 49
é
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE “BARNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
va
County Court, and based upon an award made for appellee
This was a suit in assumpsit, brought in the
against appellant under the Workman's Compensation Act
of 1911, which was signed by only two of the three
arbitrators appointed thereunder.
Invoking the common law Hite: appellant urges
that the award was void because not signed by the three
arbitrators. Section 10 of said act contemplates joint
action by a board of arbitrators appointed thereunder;
and it is provided in paragraph 9, section 1 of chapter
131 R. Se, relating to the construction of statutes,
that
“words purpotting to give a joint authority
to three or more public officers or other persons
shall be construed au giving such authority to a
majority of such officers or persons."
Construing the Compens:tion Act with the aid
of this section, we think the award was authorized,
It is also contended that the case does not
come within the class of cases of which the County Court
has jurisdiction. As that court has jurisdiction in all
actions where assumpsit will lie and the damages do not
= cay Montes y i aa
4} f a
H GS y)
2 on ;
y 2 { { i
:
3 . 2, ny | Ohi
rs ct es
i ’ :
; a
}
| , aan 4 aaMat
EP ty am cena: a
< wonT JAMA of $B li counas sen
THUAD YR MICS \ od cabal WO nae
YTS WOOY Ae a ane, "ads
bia ‘ ei seHOo YHOMUOT ODA0THO
ie har Peedi 5
ih i \ q fh ay tu
ts = ry eal o A U () ae My vf ‘
RAUDD ANT YO WIA KAY CHO TME ORAM MOTTA, oMLaTad AM
BS
a Sf
eft nk tdyvotd Aidmedinn rh thee a Bow pba
eseiieqqs tot sham buewa an noun beesd hag .haven: eo nui
JoA. deli mens qed a" puamal YOu ond tate tratiecgs tenlaga
syst es ‘to owt ylao yd bosgda sev ilo kek ,ALOL Xo
ae vwakevoreds hetileggs sreteitidta
aegty Iasi Lega pe wal seamen ef gadedowat
gest eft yt backia ton owtigood bier aaw diaws oft dudt
tnio;, cbaieasbean: son hikes Yo af moitesh ,avedastdidxe
sumo rortads bod ntoane eros erne dass to bused a vd neitos
setqerio to L nokinee .2 dasvgeteq wi bebiverg wf 22 bas
wtwtate to suligaiiadce em of pottealos ,.8 .f LAL
gadt
ysitodtusa inkejy « avix of natisegrag ehx0u
emoatagy todte to wool tla oifLdey etam to pend? ef
| 6 of yYsitonius ows gouivig on bonitoags ed Llisde |
P,ansateg 19 atool Tito dows Ye yilvwoten
{
Ske off Mkiw SoA noftoaneqnmed ands antuatanod
ehonivorntue saw Siwen ot Amide ow woekdooe ekdt Yo
fon weed eaas att dad? bebaeteos oato wk FE,
\
:
: died yYlaved edt doitw to anacs tw casto edt middiw emo
a): ifn ak moktuibaini, wed tuvoo gadd Ba entice: ean i
fom ob fteyemabh of2 baw ofl Lity stoqa sili ue Af
oi) x
ee an
-20
exceed $1000 (Sec. 7 County Court Act, Ch. 37 R. S.3 and
Par. 6, Art. 2, ch. 79 2. 3S.) and as assumpsit is a proper
remedy on an award (McDonald v. Bond, 195 111. 122,) and
the award declared on was for less than $1000, and the
judgment for {501.25 does not exceed the amount of the
award, the point is not well teken. |
The court properly excluded offers of evidence
bearing on the question of whether the defendant company
was liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as it
was not relevant to the issue presented by the declaration.
The judgment will be affirmed.
AFFIRMED»
bots 3.0 .f TE .AD Joa tuned ysawed Vv .998) OOOLE besos
aoqomg a ef tieqmuana 2s baw (28 67 OT HO Sco ge
bas (8S .Lf% BOL rok 6 ¥ biandded) biees na no Ybomet
eat bas ,000LG nad anei «ot amr oo beisloes Baawa ealt
anf te tnuome edt boonxs tom Bead Bae Lobe sort trsaghyt
. yo tteded Liew dor at takoe sat” btawa
eorsbive to axoTie hbebuloxs ylaeqoig ttueo eat
Yasqnme Inabretoh edt soalteite Io spdteaenp alt no gatised :
ti as ,toA noltseacquet atnemdioW oct vehaw oldatL aoe
.nottsisfooh eft vd bodnsaetg simmat odd of SAMvOLOT ton sew
sbomeitis od iftw biciead ‘ent
a CGIAR A, FR ah ae a
23 © 21596
THE P&CPLE OF THE STATS
OF ILLINOIs, |
Defendant in Lrror, RROR TO
’ CRIMINAL COURT,
VS.
COOK COUNTY.
Pa = S
EW &f R i ra
\y T AR
see, [
baat — Ci as i
ABRAHAM GLICK, i j
Plaintiff in orror.
, é
“ao at
a ne Reet Nt Nal ne rl Sas tl
wy
==
be
=e)
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BARNES DE&LIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Velaintirr in error was indicted for larceny and
receiving stolen property, the value of which exceeded fifteen
dollars. He pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to
trial. There appearing to be a variance, the state's
attorney asked for a continuance and the defendant for his
discharge. The court suggested a plea to a misdemeanor if
the defendent was “willing to take a chance to take a year
in the House of Correction.” At the conclusion of some
discussion between the judge and the counsel, the attorney
for defendant remarked, "I think the best thing, your Honor,
wii be to withdraw the jury." Thereupon without further
remarks the court said; “On motion of the defendant, the
jury withdrawn and the defendent's plea of not guilty with-
drawn and the defendant's plea of guilty eitered, and the
defendant warned and sentenced to the House of Correction
for one yeer and fined one hundred dollars a4 costs."
a
[ xe explanation of the consequences of the plea of
guilty (if we assume one was properly entered.) was made by
the court, and ne witness was examined us to the aggravation
or mitigation of the effense, The statute required both.
(Sec. 4, Div. 13, Criminal Code, Krelage v. People, 224 Ill.
% eeefs «= &§
(aR SPAto SAT 2) ape wae
ee |. @lORELTE 80
OF AOR etorrt nk ¢ nebag rad, :
PHUDD SAnIMI FS { art
{ Py
VPROOT AIG \
‘
r Cr ArT es Af, a4 iy anit,
‘) D> » A ob Ue ~ OUT HE BIE che,
a 3
THU Nts EO BOE RT YO THT ve: gal! VT. CEMA 2eltauy BELO aS am 3)
oh
fiance “ot begorbitt asv sowve! ak +tismbete’
@eeitit Hehse0xe roinw to soley <td ohsegp ea aulota yaivtsosy
o¢ bebeancrg sean afd bas atifhts reed hehae lg el . sel tob
e'state eft ,eankiaey a ad of gaiissyes Stoae .inkat
atti «et dmibrie toh eas fas soneraic¢meo s ‘tot bowea yeourodsa
ti tomsomefiaim s oc asig & Deveoaggue dawos of -egtadoelb
18% & e4et o¢ sonaro a oat of peetfliv"” saw tashbne ted as
emee to ackeufonon art th o pottssdied te eexoR ont at
youtotiis sdd ,feanion oft bas sRbsy ant xoowted neleesoath—
,t0ONGH wwOY .gnENt dead ents Anidd T* bes samoa tne bare te Ot
tentiut tucddin nequyovod? “yuu ets werbidiw oF od ithe
end ,topbaeteh sdt te nottom wb" shies tugeo self soitamet
i -ttiw wiisg ton to solg alinchre ted ede hoe avervbodtiv cast
ocd baw ,Sotetne yilinn Yo aelq a'iosiasteh eff bas awetb
rOktowe 1169 Yo save os of Heoomtree Hrs bontaw danbasteb
“,staoo bso axatioh bexbaud ene baatt bas taey eno tet
%¢ seiq edt to avpmesrpesnoo oft Yea noises sa seed on |
Ud shox new (Ssietne ylrevetg ssw ooo eameeR Ow @ ys flay
Boltsvartse4 ont of aa Sotmexe Baw ceentiw om Sma ,Puseo eft
——— eiltod bosiupes etubets of .seqetto eft Yo moitegttim xo
ALL AGS ,cigoed .v speinwl shod Lanketkw Of vid dh .908)
2B
456.) If we may assume from the bill of exceptions that
the calling of witnesses was waived, and that defendant
acquiesced in the entry of a plea of guilty and a sentence
to a year's imprisonment, still we can not regard the
court's remarks above quoted as a compliance with section
4, Div. 13 ef the Criminal Cede requiring that the plea of
guilty "shall not be entered until the court shall have
fully explained te the accused the consequences of his plea,"
especially when the punishment imposed exceeded that which
the court intimated might be given. |The court at one point
ef the discussion referred to the "maximum" penalty, but dees
not appear to have explained to the accused what it viel ma
procesding was teo loose to be countenanced as a compliance
with the statute or a precedent in a case where one is
deprived of his liberty. Therecord as made by the clerk
shows a compliance with the statute, but it will not prevail
aS against what is shown in opposition to it in the bill of
exceptions. (I. De he Me Rye
~—
Vv. Hendraan, 196 id. 501;
COs
od
12
£ >
<
WeChesney ve. itsophs, 174 ic.
The judgment will be reverged and the cause
Yomanded ,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
teat anoitgeoxs to Lid off movt sommes yom ow Th (. 088
fasbretsh dudt bee ,beview saw neceoniiw Yo agki£ao ost
eonetases « bas ywihun to aolg 8 to yvine esto ml lanentnee
ont Staget ton nwo ew Lilde Somonresow £9 and sliey 6 oe
seldsoe Stiy sonaiignes so an Setoye eveds easmar stines
to sefd¢ edt dant gottivones ehot ionimitd eft to Si . ved gb
avset [finds dixon eft Lkinn hevetos od gam Lieda” ys iiag
* sefe aid ‘to asentiipeaton off beuuoos att of he cike Lox qidirt
sdotaw dads Sebeeoxs beeomwt troeuiakneg ont sere Yiislosgee
* Fabeg ate ta truco sat (aves of Nigin .betamtind tivog emg
aeeh sud ydisneg “simixan" ec¢ of beste tet mokseupeth ads te
_aat Y. Bata te dudw beapooe old ot bane. Lege svat os tseqds ton
eonsiiqnuos a as beonanee suoo od os caged oot saw ake ssoTq:
ai @nd etronw gauo. a mk siukigeae 6 te otudate ott sltdw
gwuolo edt yd sham Re hagoatome -yevotel : okel ‘te bev tages
ftavesg fon (fiw di tud ,eduteta eis dviw eonshlomeo « “ewedla
Yo [kid sit mi Si ot aes ak somite at inate jenkags Sa
s£0% .Be OCL (oe isdned ov. . 90. , eH i <u 2) 800 18 qvoxe,
' Oh ee ae ebgeae W xe aves
guns one bere Dopreves wif cE AW HES aris ont ?
| "a bith
& Bey
hone PH
~QHQUAMEA (HA CHAMEVRE
27 © 21257 i
{
{|
OLD ROSE DISTILLING COMPANY, /
)
a corporation,
Defendant in orrer, ERROR T
\ f MUNICIPAL COURT
vs. \ ;
\ é OF CHICAGO.
ELIZABETH P ARKH Tk f Ae
Plaintiff in rer. 4)
f - é A AR
hy Pid ¢: Xu -~ el
Neat
MR. JUSTICE MCDONALD DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
\ eevuediat in error (plaintiff below), brought an
action of forcible entry and detainer against plaintiff in
error (defendant below), for the possession of certain
premises; plaintiff's right of possession being based upon
a lease entered into with one NeGivern, the owner thereof.
The court having found the issues for the plaintiff, and
having entered judgment thereon, defendant brings error.
fhis suit is the aftermath of a similar proceed-
ing fer the possession of the same premises, brought by the
said MeGivern against the defendant, wherein the court also
found against the defendant, which judgment was later
affirmed by this court upon a writ of error. McGivern v.
Rlizabeth Parkhill, Ill. App., Gen. Wo. 20826.
It is urged that during the pendency of the writ
of error in McGivern v. Parkhill, supra, the present action
should have been abated. VIt is a sufficient answer thereto
to say that this question should have been raised in the
court below, and comes too late when raised here for the
first time. (Hailman v. Buckmaster, 8 Ill]. 498). Further-
more, the pendency of a writ of error cannot be invoked to
abate another similar action unless the former operates as
tt:
eYBORUOD...
Ted WeOR CaO
: (MOLE BTOGNOD ed
OF AOFAs bg ru ss senda qed a3
#eGOD LAdLOLK af b
sODADEHO TO bs 4 Sat
{aa AS seca Lt
sont wk vilinters
neat }
“Saye
ee)
%
—_
4
J
=
=e
wena ;
“er eae ee ae x
wr as
Ss}
/
Zé
Ly f
BN mi | x 3 ig ¥
Se (e420 4 SN
PHB RET HO wOTETeO Sot ceEVEa ata woueN mont: wt + 5
~,.
*
]
rt
ma Solguote .(moled esis). TOUS, sot tapbao tot V sce ia
eet Thi taLe ferksas fontadeb bes yrtas efdtore> te. pore ¢
ated x90 te mieeveeod out 0% «(woled tsebgetsd) sour |
moor bean anted sot sagEnog te deges aMMtigniagg pasalmerg
.testodt tesvo ast ame v2 95 san ee Ew orn beretne easel s.
bas ,Tiidmiele oft vel sectnak odd bawot gakved diues ost
, torre agnka! Jashoeted ,worxests d romper heros ag. asks
-basadig tafiske 2 ‘to id huss hat odd oi cine eka . Lhe
art xe Saguongy 208 tem ose of To xolagengeg eft tet gal
eele tums att nlatedw ,taabas'teb eft tentega otevider® bist
twsieal sew tnembut, doidw. .donebostoh edd tesiags bavet
o¥ MtovEnR sorts to sive so soqu dauos asidd vw pened ta
,OBBO8 of .aeD ..oy Ltt .iftotved diedast ia
Siow oft ko yonsbusd ot ankowh fad? begig ek $2
moivos trseeiq oft ,saguea ,iftidland .v sroviges a texte te
Ofexeds tswens tnotottive o et 33. .botude ased evant bivede
eflg az healat need evan bivoda aoitusupy efht tad? yaa of
ety te4% oxo boalet monw steal cos aamos ban wwoled siwoD
wveddnut .(802 .[62 8 .wessumfoud .v pumgtel) .omts garkt
ot betloval ed sounes sotts to tiow 2 hy yombnog off ,etem
&e astatoge tesro) odd seein noltos talinka tedtems etada
we F
a supersedeas. (NeJiiton v. Love, 1% Til. 486). A
supersedeas having been denicd in MceGivern v. Parkhili,
supre, defendant's contention that the present suit should
have been abated is without merit.
In the present action H. J. Parkhili, the husband
ef the defendemt, wat originally the sole defendant. Sub-
sequently his wife, the defendant herein, was made a joint
defendant. Later, however, H. J. Parkhill was dismissec, and
the case procacded against the defendant alone. It is urged
that this substitution of parties defendant censtituted a
new cause of sction. “Such, however, is not the law.
Metropolitan Ine. Co. ¥. People, 209 Iii. 48; Thomas v. Fame
ans. Se., 108 111. 91.
pefendsent has alse reised other points, which
were adjudicated in KeGivern v. Parkhill, supra, end hence
they will not be censidered here.
Finding ne reversible error, the judgment wil?
be affirmed.
APPINMED «
ofa
A ,(O8 547 SL ,svod .v_neslitet) .geebeareque «
simicad .v azvayivom ai baftmb seed gaived eseboat¢se
binesde dius vmarergd edt ieNt notdnetsas e' 3 aahaeteb Sge8
edittam Js0 a iw af batude med vad
bucdagk sit ,[Liskiuas 6% oH noises dimeowg ot mt
“G58 .tnabasteh efas add yiisnigive saw ,patbneteb ett Te
tazo§ s sham saw ,Afoted ¢neiastsh ast potiw aid Xie sougas
base ,Seenimerh esw ifitddwel .t .e rsrewod Jup¢al _dmehoo teh
beats ef FI .endis tashbasteh adt tanisgs bebsepotq aano amd
of Sotedisenes toahimteb wattc ag te soitesidedsa abdd tent
wel off tom ai cavewed ,5u ,aeitas Te semso Wem
szs® ov ggnody :Bh . L285 ak ghgoet ov 58D » Bat i itegest
i KO ET BOE 9D a
she tee , ad aieg zetia heeist ovals ead fashaeted
eoned bas ,stqes siibsiteras oV¥ Bee reone fed batenthatbe | stow
eSten bewsh henan o€ fon Litw vot
fiw dasmpduj, add ,wotte aldtesavet on gatbatt 7
o GEBDTS TA
2k Os as, TZ oF Pires
44 = 21361 i
i
WARY HOE ¥T, i £
is ie in Errer, f
ERROR TO
_
f
VB. / ) CIRCUIT COURT,
if im COOK COUN TY.
: 9
‘ VU Yt a: #
wr BKAoikheo Kk
yy
MR. JUSTICE MCDONALD. DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THY couRT.
JOHN HORFT, ;
Plasn sats in urrer.
=
VY On July 15, 1911, defendent in error (complainant
below), was granted a default decree of divorce, on the
ground ef desertion. On the day the said decree was
entered, plaintiff in error (defendant below), presented
a motion to set aside the decree, and for leave to file
his enswer, which said motion was entered of record and
continued, On Mareh 4, 1912 defendant presented his sworn
anawer to the bill and an affidavit in support of said
motion. The court overruled said motion, and te review
this action of the court, this writ of error hes been
prosecuted,
It is contended by the defendant that the court,
in overruling said motion, abused its discretion. Undere
lying this contention is the claim of the defendant that
his affidavit and swern answer set forth a meritorious
defense to complainant's bill. ve cannet agree with
this contention. |
fhe answer filed by defendant denied the wilful
desertion and its continuance without reasonable cause, as
set forth in the bill. -aid answer admits, however, that
the defendant had been living separate and apart from the
complainant from the date of desertion alleged in the bill
or sonhe
__Pseeo PrepATD
.Piaas Aen .
Ob AT ae 00
ePREOD ML bie wom any aqsavna, asics sont
ap, fl ig Ny LOR CO
sr
dees bkau ond yeh oat ad ttensily :
| : ii bieoat YO Dedetas naw aohien Mee a td teedine | we a
lial aks bosupaetg, tanbre'ted ROBE ° storia we spoon 68 7
bn te ‘dregs ak diveprtin tie be 08 sald | sore
waives of bm ,aoitem bins fatuwneve sapom edt”
otf au taae Yo Now add yerwne sat to wens d
7 : bedeooeos
:
. ft000 ent tast Javbm Yd oss ud beomednae of 94 reat ope
tobn .aeiteroakh edi beauds .misom hive gakinrreve e
| fait Sasbee led odd to miato edt ek moktnednes abd R
avohintixem # Aacot lade AGS Ms, MOTOR ban tivant?
atiw eorge sents oi adibe e' trendadqmeo od cane t
a : | enaitaetaes «
iutity ot botmeb insta tos «tf bolil towens ant
OR o8NAD oLdaMmeses dsods te somes mOD atk baw ‘
a Le Perry storowod nd Loti« Tomo bhaw. bic ‘om
A ia
-2=
(November 4, 1907) to March 4, 1912, the date the affidavit
and answer were presented to the court and the motion denied.
Defendant, in his answer, seeks to justify his leng absence
from his wife, on the ground that she had caused his arrest
en a charge of disorderly conduct; that when that suit was
nolle prossed, the justice of the peace before whom it was
pending, werned him (defendant) that complainant wanted him
to stay away from her, | such action on the part ef the said
Neer
justice of the peace, not shown to have been concurred in by
defendant's
the complainant affords no justification for/continued
absence. | Defendant's answer further alleged that prior toe
the desertion in question complainant's adult sens had
threatened te take his life if he did not leave the home of
complainant, after which he did leave and stayed away for
seme time, believing that said threats would be cxrried out;
that complainant mew cf said threats, and consequently had
her two sons arrested; that seca ri his arrest of November
4, 1907 he feared a renewal of hostilities on the part of
complainant's said adult sens; that because of the fear of
these sons and the warning of the court, he stayed away. \/iueh
conduct on the part of her children can net be attributed to
the complainant unlese it be shown that she aided and abetted
therein. The answer itself indicates that such was not the
case, for it alleges that complainant had caused the arrest
of her two sons because of these threats made against defendant.
¥rom «= careful examination of the record, we are
unable to say that the court abused its discretion in overe
ruling defendant's motion to vacate the decree, and for leave
to file the snswer in question. Accordingly the decree will
be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
=
Sh ibe A
Pfesbitis eo afab ovff {BLOF yd docee og {voes Pg teduoven)
sheiaed aoivem act Bae xeon edt of hedneaerg evew TowERe bes
apeowis gaat ald given, of aioe tewine aie ne inabaeted
geerie aig heaven bad atts deat pane ea? eo oho ofa mort
aay sts iad analy @ Pads pSouanon efisdronke to epieds s me
sow ¢2 mon exelad eossq walt te snavont, wal? eboriesy silos
met bednew dxeeiatgmeo fait (4mabae%06 aust ‘beierew sgatbane
bias aif Ye tueq sat op aoseoa Mei { ' wast woe qe Yate as
qs mai bevriroaxe wsoad aved oF puvpestaa pon eoseq att ‘eo onkiewt
eli ncbnae tab
$8, Tao \ es HekvourTievh on abuse te aia atetii watt
ot Sghys TAH Doyoses vedetet tewene o tembeyten |. cenmiadls
bot eames tivhe e'viewiedenis abiseows wt wehtwash eat
to emtad ody ovoed Fon GE ail WE OREL cit wteroed bonedecads
«ot yows Savede Bite svaek bib ef Molde verte (eaewielemes
jie hoburso ed bivuew adeowdd tied Pade getvetied jams salee
Rea ULinosnsases ban keene bias 4 wert Jusntadqaes deat
wodeeven te tastes elt Qiiwelles Selif Goetertre ence amt ted
{9 tray ont mo wetee Rida to downs se hetaxt od VORL gd
to wast pAS Yo eunwodd f48s jenew Phebe Glad alt minke tenies
dows / Yao boywaede gal ,yooos at to wehotaw eet hae ures genet
of hogudiaése od Fen nko mewbSide coe tocdesg edd oo daubaee
betieds Jae botia oa inh? aenaii ed Gh awolnw Jneiivdguce ent
ams tox caw Kote dems eebadtbat ifeeod cowetm ont?) ateredt
gserts ott benwas had dmantalomed sus? toneiia’ $2 aed ,eado
stashes tet tomk«ys ohusx adeortit ever) Te paweond wena ews co Re
ata oy ,btosa: aff to nedtdeninans Lutecas mart
emve nk motivawth eth bwetos Semen ete gandeogaa of eLdanw
evant «o% baa .eeryosh antl vtweny ot Kottom 829 anbao teh watk Lart
Lilo oorovh of Ylyndbrueses .mekicous wh vowh ee with ee ae
es PACS Wine a eigen a ta
“eCRMNTA ee A SRS 3 a la gai
\
EDWIN J. BOWES, Jr., et'pl.,
Appellants, »,
%
4
VB. ‘
| |
PAL PROM
r CIRCUIT COURT,
COOK UCUNTY.
KUGEHE S. PIKH, Pa a ae, ~
cr» | ¥ “Ny i
VW U Le A eo a KL
Appellee,
y
Pe et ltt Me et Mi Sema”
UR. JUSTICES MEDONALD OSLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE cCouRT.
_apporbanrts complainants vetowh; filed a bill to
restrain apverive;- iugene Se Pike fene of the defendants
helowy, from entering judgment upen a note for 21,250, dated
¥Yebruary 1, 1908, due six months after date, with interest
ub thg rate of 6% per annum from date. By stipulstion,
defendant, Pike, whom We shalt hersinafter desicpnite’ as the
Srose-complsinent; was permitted to file a crossebili in said
cause, wherein he prayed thst a decree be rendered in his
favor for the amount due him on the note in guestion.
Allegretti, {the other defendant telo#wy, was dismissed from
the suit by consent of the parties. Upon a hearing of the
cause thus consolidated, the chancellor found the issues for
the crossecomplainant, and entered a decree in his favor for
and dismissed complainants’ bili for want of equity. From
this decree, complainants appeal,
Ey virtue of a lease dated January 29, 1907,
between the cross-complainant and Allegretti, the Latter had
a ten-year leasenold on certain premises therein mentioned,
located in the City of Chicago. About the time of the
execution of said lease, Allegretti organized a corpor:tion
bearing his name, to which he forthwith assigned the lease
ra
Pe mail
\ ty 8 eb ae 2 se
2 ( avimcteaaa ie
in TAS oa , “y em
ri vitor | | See ad m
__oRPRUES 2 2505 ae et Go ae i ee.
ab us . oats at HOU
G S vA. t 00 US nm at ra “seattegth amish,
=F B Rt so rah oe ‘ecorteantr ‘eaawieo won tuire ime
2 i)
es deed & begin retay _adpanintgers Marne
(ops «
atest tad ault Rac) ent BULE 0% anomuieg ve ES
baba
betak. ,08%, fa «we? atom B sony 2d oeergtaart anitwtne moth ak
guate dik ete sotgh 109s. Bag nem mie auth | BORE 2 wavs
Hor gnsuade g “es ~ ated imerre't aeratocenes Lhd ee a ota get a8
atartn ven
ei.
ota BE WHER IT RSS TAREO IE Lneety wet ete senna
Beane ME ihidenaors & pra bid bape bs kensoe ait
ais at bets oest , aereb Fs) tase Poway ant hosed aoe
waaay ony a aton ane “eo nko esti reise autt 70% seve
Reali
ment deaakmeky aww ietet 3 aban hob apatto onde Aisoapee
ante to okies # rer seid ails %6 ores ue siue ewe
20% anpaak ett fan's woLtar seat wut sbostab testes, isp oaxigo
10% — akd na SOG) a boredeey ona Hemi Comoe -eaeEs bes
oor bEoa oo ath sees Pains oate ants HT ‘te sas, vodid
mo Te 42 bun tO 3 rue <6 ikke Ing emindsSme0 pawasmass hme
Lae qua ad rasta degmeys ooraeb ‘etat
808 2 Yiantint beta esagt a BW oat cky ue . Pe
kart xettes aus ,kttorgella fetes nen Squo0 -waeree, oat mows od
«Pemekiagen nieross Rcxeeonsigi aesendieaend 0 ‘Seoriooned sana, s
eit to omks outs tuewn - Wal bet te ytey. ead _ pegave ne
_mbturoqzo a renenayre esha taaee cm baat ve eres eek
a ——- | y hdres en Ne ae a ee ee |
ah
o2e
in question. Sy an arrangement with Allegretti, the
complainents subsesuentlv became atoekholders of the
Allegretti commany.
The note in question waa signed by complainants
and Allegretti, as makers, and was siven for accrued rent
which the company owed the crosseromnlainant under the
lease hereinebove mentioned. Prior to the maturity of said
note, the complainants transferred their ateek in onid
comany to Allegretti, whe, in coneidersticn therefor,
egreed, inter slia, te indemnify and save harmless said
complainants from linbiiity on seid note.
Oprataberrceieted
POSIN Ss ,centend that the srossecomplainant was
fuliv informed of the last aheveemerntioned osrecment and
assented thereto; that when the nete in ouection matured or
August 1, 1998, crassecomplsinent end Allegreatti, without
creda 2arwatubs
the knowledice or consent of the epsbelierts, etered inte «x
binding agreement, extending the time of payment thersof
for the yeried of one vyesr frem seid dste, by reason shered
Cet JA Ons. BBs Bh xh
the seid-aspeblents were relessed from linzbility. The
orrrb.Carrn awk y
chancellor found that had failed to establish,
by a@ preponderance ef the evidence, that a binding extsenaion
agreement had been entered into, and it is urged bx the
apneldenmes thot such finding is clesriy and manifestiy
against the weieht of the evidence.
chs Qaemrove
Om bahalf of the-npneliants, Allegretti testified,
by way of a deposition, that when the nste in ausstion became
@ue, he had a talk with cross-complsinant, im which he asked
for an extension of time on said note for one year, and thet
the cross-complainant granted the extersion; that he
(Allegretti) agreed to keep thie money end pay interest
thereon, for one year; that crass-complainant did rot make
any demand for payment of this note before the end of the
rf
edt ,iiteraefts stiw toemegmette ne Yi mde sous wk ..
af? % atohlenteose amuosd uli myperndus a) namie Lemos
« Viatate Aeheuaeere
sdnenhes L que ef fepadn eaw notions ot aden esl
3 ser howroos to? sovin wow ban ,atealva oa ,besougella See,
ed? see dnoctalowoo-nsess ent hewo varames ed doisdw
b$sen to vdhundas edt oF coias .banoitrem svedaniered ganed -
Biase nt stoodn thedt Seruotenatt ataerntalaess sat atom,
stewed wisestshtasop mt enw ,dtfetyell, of yeaeomee.
Sian sag lemma ave Sats “hi awetek of his tatol ,boetge
rere Siem. Oo “pada Saks WENT CF Geel GMO
wb AMER pag
saw taomtaigrpsesors. act Inst bane wn, dain ot ope a
ben frammetee Penoitrem-yreda feel ede. to boone tad whee 2,
9 how staee hi oewr ef shew oie eee badd soeyeds hetoemas
duonkt in pidéetrped.£a Gare ea ORk: .f sang
Scdia oop oe Maha
3 oft Dewet me ehetbecge ait to desis we oyhoteo ml salt
tested? Seoemeq Ts omit oct githeotxe ,tammeige aatkedd, ..
Tetedy weeces “e 2Htek bdoe wool soey one a habrteg en? 393
bho as Adeh tht dary. J
emt .¥sitidars marth heeseiet saew edaed, bbe edd Pate
, “abidat re £3 oe Lie bat’ beh ei Rey: Se
seLemedxs grkbnid « cane ,gosertve. oes Po eapawtebmogerg awe
wi Ae bogxu et th Hse ,es ni Seed seed pad Jet 8 ge
Vlseotinas bee yitasto ef givhutt dowe tad? soanddaqge
eomenh ive edé Yo tHyudaw oft tentage
shove, aw. Sim)
bebtasacd ite: ‘ape LL ii, Ain fkogae ont Te Weald mp
Segond woiteeup a2 eted eft ode ted? ,sodtlinogeh a te gan leet...
bean off Activ ak ,toentiatewmoeasow Atew Aint ae: Sad on eub
jam? One ,<s0y of ret ston bisa ne sats to Modena tne sun OY
ad tact japlenatxs ent betrava ¢nantalqmoo-aaeto off
Semtotak qaq has yore ald? qrex ad beowme (ttte1ye£4a)
whan ton OR $actke Senos amex fant piney ene to? asc ne
ode eS Oe ee Oe ae ae eee ie Tt enn ee eT a ‘
fens Sonor zeLieonada
-
oS=
year; thet just befere august 1, 1969 he received a letter
from crosr-ceormplseinent, reintivre to the payment oF this
note on Aauguet firet, te which he repj.disd in substence, thet
he had received croee-compininant!s Istter; that it would be
impossible for him to comply with his wishee regerding the
note, but thet he would tring in a5 mich sa he could by the
first of august, He further testified that the time of pay-
ment of this neta was subsequently extended from time 6
time; tnat he paid the rawiede Gs said notes after the first
year's extenusicen, as agraeds o of which was without the
CASPER AA MARS
knowledge or consent of the ahoce earns »
| htecas
Edwin: J. bores, anether gitnuess oa beheif ot ti z
atpebiané>s, whese testimony vss elec sebmitene by way oF A
deposition, correborated Albicgrett’ in thet ne hea haa ro
knowlesge of the exteneion agreaitnt between cross=complainent
and Aliegretti om the 21,250 note. Me testified further, thet
the first information he hed that the ucte hac sot teen paid by
Adlegretii, came from bie brother, evout Tour years after its
Maturity, when the crogs-complainant demandca payment thereof
and threstened suit; thst Allegretti was in a position te pey
this nete at maturity, tut thnt sinee then he had become oe
bankrupt.
Miwielieaks M. Bowes, anotner witness en behalf of
the-appolianes, testified that he had no Imowledge until
June, 1932, thet the note in question had not been paid; that
prior thereto he had Had no communication with crosse
complainant, with reference to the unpaid note, nor had he
any intimation that the time of payment thereof had been
extended,
Phe crossecomplisinant, in his testimony, admitted
that he had « conversation with Allegretti at the time the
note in question matured, but denied having granted him an
| ed ‘Biiew oe dadt ised tes ove mankaite sedis a amet
aie gout ier ep vt apdoke aaa it be 4 wiquos ae cre 33)
outt tk bation on a aati ais “nt abet Wile
“Seog 26 onde ante dard bebtsres’ Semensey an
‘sae me neh bese side Cephbens odie we ata ate
ena ane id i woe Most ‘e “ i
ate ‘hate a sieat J
a to eH “ed & sf) Spas bala’ ee deromy oe? oe gsiit
| on itis si asi eat ‘vat ae iba
tnsniaignas =n in mow pi nH 3;
dels ert bod Wdaad wi vate S862 :
we bike neod Fan bed ates mn Sith ets bas ot ah
; eat wr ta wuss quot donde. rhode af aan
an | dail eke wala
8 antoood hast od ately eau tooth a aad we Poitot oa”
“ ’ « sae Ay, 7h us, ) y Nici ov gt (tir
ee ot wo titoos e ah yy “Yee
te “Elieiodl” ao naons tt Yadboas “aenedt x
fitow age fuomd on. bon od Saute nekeba aod
seep ey! aot
sautd iheg sinciall ton bot aadtoane ra
i
-4e
extension of one year on the payment thereof. He also
testified that when the note fell dre es Oecd
him to extend the payment thereof. He further denied having
received interest for the period for mie eee eae
the note was extended, and denied all knowledge of the fact
ay OS no further interest in the business,
or that one Connell had intended becoming interested therein.
The witness ¢. %. Greenfield, was attorney for
ALlegretti in most of his dealings with cross-complainant
eri Rer nord
and the-apneliants, and his testimony was principally with
reference to what transpired at these emferences. Regarding
the agreement of May 15, 1905, wherein Allegretti agreed to
eee Weve view
hold the-eppetterts harmless from eny lishility, he testified
as follows: "Kr. Allegretti and Nr. Pike came to my offices
one day, and Mr. Allegretti said that Mr. Pike had come up
with him to talk to me about the - well, as they expressed
it, about getting the Bowes out of this business, * * *
Kr. Pike said that he would like very much to see the Towes
out of that business; * * * that he would do all he could to
aid Mr. Allegretti in making a success of the business, and
thet he would do absolutely nothing further unless the Howes
were out of the business.” This is in direct contradiction
of cross-complseinant's testimony upon. this point.
It further appears from the evidenes, that on
July 31, 1908 the cross-complainant entered into an agree-
ment whereby the rent wau to be reduced, commencing July
1, 1908, and continuing until June 30, 1910, provided one
James Connell would invest not less then $10,00" cash in
the compeny. The necessary cash was invested by “onnell,
and the rent was accordingly reduced, Conferences were
had at this time, and as the note in oucation wat about to
er
oa.
Thy emo
a iy
me
shi vasi ‘be hae h pre au shower Sraayag ask headxe a id
“ DA SE) at
1 lod ot honed ene, tet tonne at evieoes ds
sont ont e esi twoe Lie bedankt bap pba bnedate Baw ator oett
MUIR. ‘ath cag da
hohit asannes ott ne Gowns as, sod on hoi A mek tote cso dt
onto resis botnowesat QAbe soe bonita bavet iaeknshioe one ens, J
a
10/ yomsogte aay Mod noe sy, o” tof oe mahe att “in 8
tigatelquon-enns. ky oyachtayn ate te deem Pr ate
: ee Me .
ahs Rw yiingiombva ee, aon so Ae: Pate Pai wh ti OF bn
Yathiageh .eeomete ten cose ta port bemna rd. haste. cf Pai
ad HHetRe HIT OI BRAC above HOW» 4h or aS ‘ ese)
bee wsteed ost vghhtide ss ‘ies mo, ss Loamieeet wh rs NE
onsite. we oF nas AEE ote one, idgougn sce ao “sa¥0L [07 0
Se oxine bad ele ti tant bhoe: a ae ™ baw Nas om
hevdedqxre yout an of hews ett. duets. om of Hind od, steh tae
Fe oa 2 ambien kegel aunt oe 2 anwot ont aptites toe a
agen ous ad nz aoe. yey ek Pastor, aes set, a ra oaks, 2
Pave oe
Aris s Samed mu ee ae nansas * 5 natiton¢ an + Lteupetsy a ‘he
aowet odd-casion teiteu'y aietsihnn qledutnada edb biuew. eat some
ERAS
edo Sberdeon oer Ay fad ei hee “A Goan eat te ono peas
Baio held Te womnbitend a*toenzaseaan ashy ei.
re tat ere hides trate: MONS, Seae age enehea os
bie nana,
eotas rus oont bern ing Hani akgnes 200%. oat ave. #8 wn
giut unks munwats cdrpapybas ‘teed ae ate. or a dorsal anne
La ee
ome. debi voreg: CLL oe ota Ak dant Tpeaharerdit seg Atte 808
pen
OR ea
ni Mtao 100 02% mms ames ton Saowrad & Lower f£onned ,
(SSG aes
| | gf keane: wt bonpemnt aan sera een: Da _ Pee ROD ect
| WED Tee Re T 2. «kone ote
S19W uponepo AD .koamtor eam: vere oer soon anh,
p~ s. rps An Peer Wd yy ar
Se
become due, necessarily the matter of its payment or
extension must have been discussed ond some arrangement
made with reference thereto. It is significant that | cropse
complainant, from August 1, 1908, when the note in -cneation
matured, until just before August 1, 1909, did not make any
demand for payment of this note. \rt is also a BAGASE AES
fact that | cross+ complainant never took up with is eae
the mdshiic of payment of this note until Allegretti had
become insolvent in June, 1912.\/the testimony herein above
set forth, viewed in the light of other facts and circumstnnces
shown by the record in this cnxse, which we deem it une
necessary to set forth here, leads this court to the cone
clusion that the chancellor's finding is manifestly agsinst
the preponderance of the evidence,
It clearly appearing from the evidence in this case,
that the cress-compiainant had kmowledge? of the agreement
made by Allegretti to save appellants harmiess from Liability
on said note, and that he (the cross-complainant) acquicaced
therein, and it further appesring that said cross-complainant
entered into a binding contract with Allegretti, extending
the time of payment on suid note, for one yeur, it follows
aS a matter of law, that the appellants were released from
further liability. Crossman v. ‘ohlieben, 90 Ill. 537.
For the reasons hereinabove assigned, the
decree of the Circuit Court of Cook County will be reversed
and the cause remanded, with directiona to enter a decree
in conformity with the prayer of complainants’ bill of
complaint.
REVERSED AND RSMANDSD WITH DIRNCTIONS.
qo dhomyay als Yo “rogtad ode YLdtsowaetn poh omeeed
PNSMSGASTS oWEN Sai botaoeky sod dye Sema aohommaxe
@RROTD | (Gase ¢ueptikagkh ox $2 .dtevat? aonsee tet aha be wht
woidvesp at etpn odf mocty OOF (f Shao, cot Sahat ipane
yn een goa bth Coal .t gewgu, otetod tug Labam boTeim
tosoitiagse 2 asta of ag) 1 bes eine te deoeyeg cot heed
spears eng M@kw qe ised seven tea ds Lops beets (packs tont
hac istexyadis Lidew eten Bins ie dS oeonuaner ts foktnonp od
ereta xkexod youmitued: ote BkOL gortert ue. FHorloand smobed
Resmudemuts bak dost we Ye dpek end ad howote treet Fee
wm SE aad ew dnisw eae eae ng Gyeess att yd aweda
andy eif ag dtuco afl’ cheed ated 46ST den of Yeengensi
fentages yiteotiaws: ok nakbakt «teniisomeda gas ests ever)
| “ Sitebivy ade be epterts haogere eff
fan 20% ai vorobive odd wont xabuedes yhraeta #2 ;
Saeswmetgs att te eghotwormt bed danke doguee «sted wit 5 askd
wtii{igeli mont eselened staaliadga evae ef btferpe ish yt abs
bevasiapos (franhadgwecescago ett} ef fuel Sas jeter bine fe
stintalemeceugot bide fuss gabtsoqed swede: Gk ban ,abecead
Qukboeixe jrsdoigelia aie doattaoe gukbald ss eink hovedae
e2oiio® #2 they One 108) ,ofyr Liaw ao Faetysg to sade wae
woxl beucednt etew efactlegee ode fand ywal to «atten & BR
762 .£80 OF edo tinoy ov ausmdons vydlsidakd sesttast
ems ,bormpiets evedaniarwd waoaaet eff tOU
beevevex of ifLiw unwed food Yo Paved thwovkd, ots. to onteeb
eetceh 4 tetme of engisvarth iia ,bebmnaet cused odd Be
to Likd tadnmiinigues to soyeny sett Ad bu ngs aso tie aa
Fake lgued
e SHOLTOANIC ATX GAC HANAN CHA OheA ive aa iid Malay
402 2 21389
HARRIKTTE A. INGRAHAN,
HENRY V. FREEMAN and JOHN
¥. GILCHRIST, Bxecutorse and
Trustees under the will of
GRANVILLE S. INGRAHAM,
deceased,
Appellees,
VS.
JOHN W. MARINUR and LUCINDA
We. MARINER, Executors of the
Eetate of “PHRAIM MARDER,
deceased, and J. PLATT UNDERWOOD,
Appellants.
MR. JU TICE MCDONALD DELIVERID THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Say,
ton,
Mec,
ON on
ie
OM ie,
Pe :
ee
at
ee
/ APPEAL vROM
CIRCUIT COURT,
a
Pasi.
a a Sen Se Me er net ee Se Re Se ee Soe a
COOK COUNTY.
|
\
F
—*
=
pe
meee
rk
\/ ‘The decree herein appealed from stated an account
between the parties hereto, and made final disposition of
the assets of their joint venture.
reviewed on several previous occasions, it is unnecessary
to here reiterate the facts.
forth in the following former opinions in the case;
v. Mariner, 194 Ill. 269; Mariner v. Ingraham,
AS this case has been
They are sufficiently set
Ingraham
127 Ill. App.
542; id. 127 Ill. App. 550; id, 230 I11. 130; id. 255 Ill.
108.
It is contended by apvellants, thet under the
contract of January 2, 1889, upon a sale of the property,
interest on the $70,000 invested by Ingraham in the joint
enterprise should be included only for the purpose of
determining the profits accruing therefrom, but that in
the event of a loss, this interest item should be excluded;
that as the decree of the chancellor includes said interest
item in determining the amount of the loss, it is erroneous
in this respect.
| bns 298 wo axe, ie HO
rf ‘Qo “Lilie edt ~ebrer
HORE LAGIIA MAL
«THUSD stuoAEo
o VPRO 2 ote
& — fr rs oy
© efiad. O.Qise
SC ar
tnmova tte bedata. mot? bafestda stowed soxool wate
26 Neiinogakh Lank? obdm bad yetevod wakdang “set meen
need ved eso ekdt oA somdnov tate h wisdy Ye ehooes
usesovusnty al of jawokseods euckvec¢ feneves “to bi
tee Yitasistttee oth yo? Vetost edd stexedtes site
gefasgel romio estt nk anoicige xcoerrot ‘andwos Lot add *
4A EEE VER etmtlee oy mesthuolt {PDE PEW REL ten
SE2T G88 .Bb PORE LET UES SBE 7ORe .qqa river | a
of “obey tadd jadanlfsces yo bebeodaos VE dE
. tahot ont nt madergnd yo asduownt 000,00 oat ao Fa:
: “te gesqion ait ret vio bo tistond oo Atwae bebe
=2=
The agreement of January 2, 1359 provides, in
part as follows;
"fhe said A. J. Cooper, of the 2nd part,
being desirous of taking an interest in said land,
agrees to make a loan of $30,000 (Thirty Thousand
Dellars) at his own expense; also agrees to pay
interest on said loan, anc 6% on balance of Capie
tal Stock to the said Granville ©. Ingraham; the
6% on the balance is not required to be paid until
the sale of said land; then that amount to be
added to the Capital tock,
een EERE A EF EE HE OR
"The said Ingraham of the lst part agrees
to give to said Cooper of the 2nd part, half of the
profits, after adding ali expenses and interest to
the $3,000 {one thousand dollars) per acre of said
land.”
fhe aforesaid contention of apoellants is based upon the
language of the contract hereinabove quoted, viewed in the
light of the foregoing decisions in the case,
[_ Lowses are the antithesis of prcfits, and both
ere determined in the some manner, unless otherwise provided
by the contract. The langage ef the contract hereinabove
quoted expressly provides thet the interest item in question
shall be included fer the purpose ef determining profits;
therefore, in the absence of any special provision for the
determination of losses, it must follew that this same basis
of computation was intended te apply to the losses as well,
should there be any. To hold otherwise would lead to cone
fusion. For instance, let us assume that upon the basis of
computation contained in the contract, a loss of $1000 would
result. If the position of appellants were tenable, the
interest item of approximately $82,000 would have to be
eliminated, ‘ith this item excluded the transaction would
show a profit of about $81,000. Clearly, such construction
is illogical and gives rise to inconsistencies; and as we
find nothing in the contract itself which would lend substance
te the contention of the appellants on this point, the cone
clusion is inevitable that their position in untenable, It
oni bre ecg to ,tagood .t 2A Bien
~emel bies ok tagiodn?d ae gakvet to hs
Amaaucd? yd skAT) 000 YEE To suet &
Yer of ssetys ocala peRdoges sao 2
are -g to eonaied ap RS bas: meds
peedeomak .o a{iivasth blag
Lit ne vine ad of fetinpes Jon af of
art os dims gadd aestt phates | 3
Atos
ei ee Ow a -
ie: ‘conta. tusq set and ‘lo menetgal Bise oat
eds te tient. oF ItBY bas off} Yo tooo bine ed ovis Pa
of jaetedat bun acanagxe ifs gatbba tetts ey Hi
heal *
baa ‘to. ete 13g (GHax Lob basesosdt eX
ont me boxe ae .bedoup oretelketceat soars nes ina ea 4 ye
_pORBe aes tk an da dow) guitogs tot ast to.
ated Bas cee te alagdt hs am cvat ie one gages
ovedaatoroa foersane oaks » ope ‘anes ont, stonutaos
stow 900%2 Ye ces 8 $907 woe art! suk bomtsanee goisetn
aid sei td w at russ ae to LAN tas, est ae at
mest out 299 tows , pean, “900 ish we da
7 _ oF 82 baw inesomatatamoort pt, pete. rks, Sas iso
oA
| oomasadse baes b.Loow soaw Bowed, THE, ae: a )
os 0. atte ia , ‘
ajo
is maintained by appellants that when our Supreme Court
passed upon this case in 194 Ill. supra and 230 Ill. supra,
construing the contract, only profits were anticipated. But
it expressly held in the 230th Ill. that in case of a loss,
it should be borne pro rata, according to the amount con-
tributed by each, The decree upon which the court in the
230ti: Ill. was passing, used the following language:
"In case there should be no profits realized
ous wf said enterprise, and in case there should not
be sufficient to repay the capital, interest and exe
penditures sforesaid to the respective parties as
herein announced, that each of the parties shall bear
his pro rata share of losses incurred, according to
the contribution made by each,"
Nowhere has the Supreme Court indicated that in
case of a loss the interest item in question should be exe
cluded, although the foregoing banguage in the decree makes
provision for the apportionment of losses, in the event
there should be any. Im the 255th I11l., our Supreme Court,
after reaffirming its language in the 230th Ill., makes use
ef the following language, p. lll; “After the sale it was
ascertained th=t there were no profits te be divided, but,
instead, a loss of about $168,000." This ajnount ($168,000)
includes the interest item in question, and while the foree
going language may be regarded as dictum, this precise
question not having been before the court, nevertheless it
indicates that the view of the Supreme Court at that time
was that on the statement of an account between the parties
the interest item should be included in determining the losses,
and we do not feel warranted in holding contrary to this
intimation especially as it is net inconsistent with anything
the court has heretofore said in the case, |
It is urged, by way of cross-error, that interest,
from the date of sale, should have been allowed upon the
principal amount of $48,971.09 found due from appellants to
Ve
dugoD ementau x0 cenw tedd ataeileggs us bemtatakem 2£
wigs JLT OSS bas axgue wit KEL of eneo Gilt aco heaesig
tet whotceqtoiine stew atitoxrq vino towed ant goku? wrtes
Hod se Ww ease ok dadt .f 00 GG pat wk bLnd ylewoxgee as
enoo drome sit of mbbyodoe ebet One vated ad biweria as
eat st tayop adt. Ho Lele ‘noaw oateatt oolt foes ue boduthad
royaigand gutretiot sdv soov ,ontansg een »L£%, (ose
bestines e¢ttove ea ad Glwesla ecpud sand at”
ton bisede suedt paro ni bae ,cehmpiesne bisa te ore
~xe bee ¢estesnt ,ladiqus odd sages o¢, tnetolties of
na Belirtoe erktoagass oad: ot i oree eke se RSE
saa Lfadp ebb: ag aa. ‘te dose jet feseusans oisted
oF gakbveoos ecu a avaod to sasde ats: org ats
* aoee vd ehan aalvudhusmes 6
ie)"
rie
mt tucd bedesdhek guvod ‘wane rests ons asel sreckwo t
exe e¢ ALvcsde motiaenp vid gatk teotedal edt soot @ to peas
eaten astoah edd mi sashes uatos wae? ads Agvodd ie bo bute
gaore ont mk .ssacel ‘to dmeunaddtogus oft +0? aobetvote
atte amore ni a LL ARS salt nt | et od Biuode etertt
easy eeilex .. 01% ASOSS ons mE enewaaet avd siden? t tee ast'ts -
aay i ofan odd wotta" iILf .¢ pegeuneel gadwol Lot oct Yo
ied ~bebivkdh od of atitow on evew ered tant boniad voods
(600 8826) devote ctdt “Lond Bal) duode to avo 2 paedent
este? of3 olive has sokineup: az medt guotmeot odd sobvEoett
setoorg a ied amused ae habmagoy ed van easuasal 3utoy
#2 asoloddreven yeuvso ext onhited ‘oad ghivad dos aibinlenees
eeitreg edt neewded Poxoota on Yo Jmometets ent mo tady saw
~eeaaol ot% yniniwtedod at bebufomt of Biawde modi Fsetodet ont
eid oF iwtdnm wakbiod af bsthersee foot don ob a0 “Bea
gukdtyne side doodatenooat toa ot $k ws vllolooyed mokisnkeat
“e2o oe af bees oxetadorvdat oad Pavoo OAD
taorotnk dade Se rveonnenen te “ew vt ,bogad as oe hk
od? mou bowelle moe svadk BLvorks volae to stab oof mort
of aéemifeqga mot? ouk bm OO. vie ‘to Fiona —
Dae rae ee Mae Wa Le es
o4e
appellees. The contention of appellees is predicated upon
sec. 2 ch, 74, R. 5., which providen that "creditors shall
be allowed to receive at the rate of 5% per annum for all
moneys after they become due on any bend, bill, promissory
note or other instrument of eee, t will be seen that,
in order to come within the foregoing provision of the statute,
the relationship of debtor and creditor must exist. ‘The
$48, 971.09 found by the court to be due from appeliants to
appellees, was, in fact, due from appellants to-the firm, and
from the firm to appellees, but, to use the language in
appeliees' brief, "as the same amount was due from the partner-
ship to the Ingraham estate, aid as there were no partnership
assets remaining after the saie of tne land, the deeree ordered
appeliants to pay this sum direct to the Ingraham estate.”
In Lindley on fartnership, 5th edition, it is said, p. 402:
"If the assets are not sufficient to pay the debts and
liabilities to non-pariners, the partners must treat the
difference as a loss and make it up by contributions inter se.
If the assets are more than sufficient to pay the debts and
liabilities of the partnership to non-partners, but are not
sufficient te repay the partners their respective advances,
the amount of unpaid advances ought, it is conceives, to be
treatea as a& loss, to be met like other iosses. in such a
case the advances ought to be trezted ai a debt of the firm,
but payabie to one of the partners instead of te a stranger.”
Clearly, thereiore, the amount which appellants were decreed
te pay to appeliees, was a firm obligation, and consequentiy
the relationship of debtor and credit never existed between
appelianis and appeliees. ie are of the opinion that the
chancellor properly refused to allow the statutory 5%.
Finding no reversible error, the decree of the Circuit
Court of Cook County will be affirmeé,
APFIRMWED.
gous botaotbery ci vogilaqge tw gokinstnes ost .geoliogge |
Siete axotivato” dust nobkviers cp hele, gad oR yhY , & 9 SOR
fie 1o% mung tog RE he stat oft ta avieret at bewolla od.
einen ben eg pitt bated yr fe ob omoned yet warts Syeeom,
tak? neve od Liv Opened dow to comieatend tego Oo aden
yiuiate ed ‘te. so miveng, gagose tot elt BRS Se woo od te hie ee
os .teixe duam totivors bus sordoh To gécumoddstes ods
at ataectodvga marr oud ad dé daveo' sr yt bao? BO.LTe Bde
Ses tah ded od edmelieqge mort ome thee hk cow wes tlogga
nt egaiynal ot cau of tue yabetlogga of wiki ond sort
qsonsiag ott moth sh gen Sovote sauce edt as! ,Teitd feselloggs
qitiaventiag on Stew pied! an bist ,aoadee amdexgal oct of ghana
hesohto gates! oot ,boet sci to otes ent tects gel edames Bioeae
“,stateo mare sgtl wit of foomks owe aide yaq of steei legge
180A wa ,dban, ok Sa Mehisbs 220 ,.qitetantied so yelenkd at
bas sided pdt yeq of dnekot tine tom 1a efecea ond IE"
agt Joont Jamm etsudaes add petentnogenon of soltstidasds,
992 gasat gaoitudiasnoa wd go ff stam baw saol & aa sone 19 VRAD
bes stieb at Yar at suelo. Vive, nats eiom ota Biease oft, a
ton ota dud ,ereating~aor of gtdaweahing oft to eects tidahh
(ABOKGVOE BYiInaguoT Tiei? avemineg eal ages ey Foekoe Thane
of od ,bewieonion af tk \tétgue aooteTihe biaqaw To tava ohe
& type sh ,doanes yodto exis tom od af yanol # as PeIearg
th ext Le. Stferth A Be Saisaes OF OF FGQUO BoOKmvoe ONY SRD,
“ tegtende ¢ ot To baodenk ateaiiwg w6d Yo ene ov olden dud
boesos) ofow ataslfocgs dodsin cawome od ,oiOlowls .yireed?
VWiaampoanoy bra ,toivsylive wid) a saw .aellogge od yaq ot
mowred hevaixe steven thoero dye toddeh Yo qiuismmitedys elt
wit taste neiskgs eit to oxe oF . Gopliegge bis at sel leggs
ott yTotwiade edt wolly of howrion yxege ty 104 Loo ruseio,
kvotkd ett to sere efi ,coxsp PEAR OAA VOT Om TM RET
' hams tte od LLiw yiol Mood te dawod
402 - 21589
ER, JUSTICE McGOORTY DISSENTING,
I dissent from that part of the foregoing opin-
ion which holds that under the contract in question, in-
terest on the $70,000 (Ingrahan's contribution to the ven-
ture) should be included in determining the losses thereof,
Under the decisions of the Supreme Court in this
case, it is res judicata (1) that the contract imposed no
personal liability upon Cooper to pay interest upon Ine
graham's contribution to capital; (2) that the contract
provided that before there should be any division of
profits, Ingraham should receive out of the proceeds of
the sale of the property, interest upon his contribution,
such interest for that purpose to be regarded as additiona
capital; (3) that losses should be borne in proportion to
contributions; and (4) that for the purpose of apportioning
losses the contributions were §70,C00 by Ingraham, and
$50,000 by Cooper,
The Supreme Court in Ingraham v, Mariner, 194 ill,
269, held that “If * * * the capital of the joint enterprise
is to be deducted in order to reach a resiainder which shall
constitute profits, then the six percent interest on the
$70,000.00 is to bé deducted, as well as the principal sum
of $70,000." In distributing the property of a dissolved
partnership among partners, capital does not bear interest * * 3
in the absence of express agreement or a usage of the firm
to allow it, 2 Bates Partnership, sec, 781.
While the contract expressly provides that such
interest shall be included for the purpose of determining
profits, it contains no provision for the determination of
losses, and to hold in the absemce of such provision, as
wh te
; ee8.18 m Sos
“_DMLTHARSIa YEROOREN ZOTTEUL . aK
-nige gnicagexe? eas ko oqug todd aoat tooaake Lo .
-ai ,noiveoup ot soaténes add tohmutacd eb led Moin. age 9
smear sit of coisudéuinon. otmadetant) GOO. end me seemed -
Sestowt sesaok edd aclokwxatob mi bebwiortt od bigate (sige
eidt oh gxuod emetqwe eds To esole loeb sat “nedey «). - ee
on Seeogni deatines eld dant (£) gdaakiul goa ah o2-,enep
ont nage deetsetid yeq ad seqood apga -qitiealt Lenser
soartnes. sit, pany. (8). pfadtaae od noida diadeae a mesciaeay
fo Boles Yow oe hwese sett opoed dade bobivong
26 ubsoverg edt Yo. tuo evievas Slveds masazaad . ag ikon
Moitgditiqgs eit sequ desdotar «yiaegeny ead Te siem ould
Broisibiis ag hakuaget ad od se oquug, dead vot Jeotedat ome
Piogesy AS, Baked | . i? nese S28) 0b) sand
Bainoigreqgs ta g Seenee See
ee. RUM REIE Ml Oly arg Ss
oqe0 at wee
ff SCL .-3e5ktse Vv MelakyNL GE PANGO OMOIGNE OB? oy vupy
eeingtacne joioj sit to Latiqno edd * #8 TL" goed Steal. GRR,
Siase doifwe ishoianex & sosot. od seoue ob hejoubeb sd O28, ed.»
ett Ho destotal daequed mie. ods amode .ed isgee Quint ie Sar
mye Seghocing edt as ifew a8 ,bedouhos Bd ot ef OO, 9094088.
boevlosalb s ho ytuoqenq oft gnisudingteth at #000080 Yo.
* * gaerevat aged dom agoh Indiqos, .sreating gros, gi aetectyag
amit.edt Io spbaxs # To thomoetaR age tue oe, Soueada oot, ob,
2f8%.,..ROG aide toadaait Bese & Eh, MAAS. PY '
Mowe tasit aodivong Ydevomgxe sostinos sad oti si: 30 an ae
Btiniatedeh to huestaths oid xo? Ashu lors od Siete teorsdad |
it: OA lp j
to sopianioato te ould 24" noiaivorg a3 aniednee at sad itonq
an ,aolaivoxd iowa To Pisco heal asd ne ‘bkos ot re oe
eae 1 cade Shoe nt i So od
does the majority opinion of this court, "that this same
basis of computation was intended to apply to losses"® ap-
pears illogical, The Supreme Court in the 194 Ill, 269,
page 278, in denying appellee's contention that by the
terms of the contract Cooper agreed to pay ingraham the
interest on the $70,060 from his own share of the profits,
when the land was sold, apparently interpreted the contract,
not as entitling Ingraham to interest absolutely, but only
conditionally, viz, in case the land sold for enough to
pay the same after paying the expenses incurred by the
parties in conducting the enterprise, it therefore fol-
lows, in my opinion, that defendants cannot be required to
pay out of their own funds the whole or any part of the
interest upon the Ingraham contribution of %70,000, It
seems evident that the sole purpese of inserting in the
contract the provision for the psyment of interest to
Ingraham on his contribution to capital, end payment by
Cooper on the $50,000 loan, was to secure to Ingraham a
fair rate of interest upon the money he had actually in-
vested in the enterprise before there should be any divi-
sion of the proceeds of sale, as profits,
As I interpret the decisions of the Supreme Court
_in this case, it kas been held that for the purpose of as-
certainment and division of profits, ingrahan's capital
should be computed at $70,600 plus interest toereon, ana
for the purpose of ascertaining and apportioning losses,
at $70,000 without interest, i am, therefore, of opinion
that the decree of the Circuit Court should be reversed
and the cause remanded to that court with directions to
atate the account in accordance with the account stated by
appellants in their third assignment of error.
eees aidd tads* ,Juneo ald¢ te molnige wise tsa eas Beck
~qa “eeseod of ylcqgs of kobnetni saw anisgstuquea Yo eiead
BOS LLL S@i aod ob fuged omestgee oak ,faeigel ili exseg
and yd tent moktossnes & ea lloage gikgueh ai , 89S egaq
eid SSNergnl “ag of beootas BAQeel Festiuse ads tH emia?’
~atiiogs aad In wtads awe aii mott 900,076 ont ay deeuetat
,teaetace ocd boteagredak qiiaeveqde ,Bioe wew Saat add ooesciw
yiso tud ,uistgioads t@oxedri of metieggnl aabitic¢as aa Cor
of dgueme cel bfoa baal etd eeao sh wiv «viene te ides:
sus gd betxueai serneqea ond gyorg sovhe ouas said" ey
-fot suotetedd 3 ,goleqradas sat geiteubnos ai asidtag
OF bastkupet sd tonaes aganbay'bed deus neknige “gr ob , awet
off % Steg yoe 10 SloNw ed ebaxt awe thesis Yo duo eeq
“GF 000,ONE To molvudicenss medaxgnd off nog seotegHe
eg al gritteend ty saoguvg efoa edt tadd dosbive ease
og teevodnt te veomyveg sit tol nolerverqg add soaxtued
yd gosmyeg bas .fetiqas of aeituditinos sic ne mecdetgare
@ wedewgel of exvoes of aew Heol 000,08) ead Ke tequed
al yilauies fed ec yonder and oy testedut to efat ria®
-iyih eis @¢ bivena evouls Groted ealigqtedne ot ai bores
seditery ag ,etaw To sbesberg 6 to aOR
SIuOe SapTGNE suid Lo andisiveb eff Seugtedmi 7 #a CER TS!
-88 2 eaoqgisy ocd TOL fat Died nGed wal Ji ,ode9 widd we”
fetigae s'asdeignt ,esitetg To mekeivin baw dussaisti0s
ban Abortodt 3 geeyetsi eutg GOO OTR te hetugmes ed biveds
s8oe00l galnoliqoeqe bint Boriniaiisses to sevadieg edd sot
noiniqo to ,steletedd .me T° .teetatat suit in O00, 008 ta
Heerovet sd binows tuo) dhovst) sed tu epeneb ont dads
‘ot enoiteetib Atiag drued tarit of bobuaner 9auao oat baw
yd°bedete dusoden 4nd tin botabrodss ai Faueobe eat otade’
pm ft
torte To shosingkess Avint sions ah sinalloqgs
405 -21592 /
4
J. H. MCCOY, J. &. JOHNSTON fi
and J. G. HOWELL, bi
Appellees, i
, APPKAL FROM
va. MUNICIPAL COURT
|
/ OF CHICAGO.
wy
Ch Uy bee @ 5
\
ACME AUTOMATIC PRINTING CO.,
(corp.), % r
Appellant.
4
Phe)
“a
ue
ts, & j
Ne,
i
¢
anit
MR. JU TICH MCDONALD DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE court.
This is a motion, by appellecs, to dismiss
the appeal. An inspection of the record filed herein
discloses the fact that at the time this eppeal was
taken, there was then pending before the trial court
@ motion to vacate the judgment from which this appeal
was prosecuted. Hence, the judgment was not final, and
the appeal was prematurely taken. Hosking v. So. Pacific
Co., 243 Tll. 520.
APPEBAL DISMISSED.
MOTEL 2. eg te o%
elZAPON 22 2% hem
\
|
Mest Rrerer “|
THD SACD TE MUM 2e
-OOADTHO Ha |
te 60S) ounewina CETAMSTUA SMA
: A et) ieee «(4x09 )
a fe fA \. teedtegds
wy OA 6 WA O x " ¥
THON GUT TO SOLVTEO SUT GARIN Can eOm AOI Tay ome
oatmntt oe soekioage cl) ob on B at eat
tiated Belk buogat ons to noks os qumt ft .fanaca asit
aaw Larges aks amis oat ts. deals goat aut sosoioekb
THN, Lakes arth oxo ted uatban g ass caw onesti vsedet
fesoqa. aiad Mo Later sont Sranneet,, oat siaoay ot noi ou g
Bes Sel t or ail $ spemmbest esis e208 bev meana7g aew
aitinsd .08 .v gato — pmsaind eLemutame ts aaw feseee -
BY
CHATMELT AIA 7
3
144 -¢ 22092
$
THE PEOPLE OF THE , 4
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ;
Defendant in Lrrer, | ERROR TO
: ‘
f ) MUNICIPAL COURT
vs. f
é ) OF CHICAGO.
MILTON M. GREEN, ie
Plaintiff in rrer. me aN) oT ry
7 5 =f E: e = >) wv aT
BR. JUSTICE MCDONALD DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Plrintifr in-errer (defendant betow), was found
guilty of the offense of living in an open state of adultery
and fornication with one Mary Williams, and was sentenced to
fine of 8200 and costs. To reverse this judgment, this
writ of errer is nrorsecuted. \~
Defendant contends that the information upon which
thia orosecution is based is repugnant in that the defendant
is charged therein with having committed the offense of
adultery and fornication with one "Mary Dee whose name to
Goviousiy, the name "Mary Soe"
this affiant is unlmown.*
was intended as purely fictional, and such being the case,
the use thereof is net inconsistent with the words following
it, "whose name to this affisnt is unknown.®
It is further maintained by defendant, that the
informant imew the correct name of "Mary Doe" at the time he
From a careful examination of the
Signed the information.
record, we can not say that the informant was possessed of this
information.
Defendant next contends that the verification of
The point raised by
the information is fatally defective.
defendant is, that the words, “sworn to” are improper in an
i
rf ‘ joer 90 aoe ae
gM he ‘ he ORL IIE MO ae '
or nose (| nowditAR gaeansteg ag
i ' , ut
TMOG. LATE Lat ays
' 4 P, . av
-ORADTHD WO
a to Rc ee
Op] ee a = BOTA we wisabest
| efRUOD BHT oe wEX. en Vibe CA roc “oun ra ie. ok’
;
|e ae
aps
ot beonetges agy bine RORELERY xa sie A te se yconamtot
ait wrongs, aids sete ves at -BdBOD- Bite ooke
os sma svorty cig ersk" one it bw noissosno? hee 809
“eet Yael" aman ond wtbue leo eo “P faa2To, e at
.oa20 ori asied down beus fanodsosy cloud Bas bobment
Baiwollot ebrow ot At iw snodebanoo mt ‘soe Sa doosedd ga
, orero col ress ek Sandie aid? of msn isis y
eat helt eh eb vet benketnd cm athe gt oe
od enti ont ta "sot yan" Io oman trexies “watt wount a zs
odd lo coltaninaxe Lutereo « most woitemeotak att’
efdt to beeessuog esw t nase tnt ont Sekt yoe doa feo ow. '
BLED aT ahh.
eo
Ze
affirmation, “affirmed to" being the correct form, This,
however, is a matter of form only, and should have been
raised specifically in the court below; it comes too late
when raised here for the first time.
Ner was it necessary for the prosecution te prove
the status of Mary Williams. ‘the information charge: the
defendant and "Mary Doe" with living together in an epen
state of adultery and fernication. There was competent
evidence to show that the defendant was, at the time the
alleged offense was committed, a married man, that his wife
was then living and had not been divorced from him. A
witness testified that he was present when the marriage took
piace. ith this evidence in the record, it was unnecessary
to prove the statue of Mary Williams. Lyman v. The People,
198 Ill. 544,
Defendant's wife was called av a witness by the
prosecution, and, over objection by the defendant, was pere
mitted to testify to the fact that the defendant was her
husband. After the case had been closed, on motion of the
prosecution, the court re-opened it to permit the intro-
duction of testimony of the brother of defendant's wife, who
testified that he was present when the marriage took place.
It is in the sound discretion of the court to let in further
evidence after a case has been closed. Under the circum-
stances, we can not say that the court abused its discretion
by permitting this additional evidence to be introduced.
While the evidence of defendant's wife was
incempetent against him in this proceeding, yet as this case
was tried without a jury, and there being sufficient
competent evidence in the record to prove the marriage, the
error complained of was harmless,
einy axed desta ant kapitty Yad npoucnen
et bogie oe witeoto tat ote omek Lae eral ‘16 saute 98
* vik aor peorovkh sad don nae ban sed. 3
deor agubvramt ¢ nih ed eo Passa iw “oul. teat beWitest 3
Cakeshonme aay 4 ipraaet ts ate soasakve else mt be
eigen ott Ye con eee ust 6 eutate oat
ante yd event tw. Sie bed tien: ean etiw ahah meted
“188 ane wtisbas tes cig we meres ea is tenon
axdat oft BSI ot gt preven ar fuueo est “snoktiats ;
ony »stiv etirebne ted aa vended oat ‘te feisnpenpets ‘to vio
weddiet ot Jol od ¢ruo> exff “to motdewaks baame say Me"
<umcke ad taba bowels wood aad oats @ “wad ta sousdiv
aolsarsath wit boauda smoe silt ‘sade You Soa neo ew 18895
ya"
sbooubeutal ad 6¢ eombive Laneltibos abel Pint tie ye
Finally, it is contended that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain the judgment, We have made a
careful examination of the ontire record, and after due con-
sideration of all the evidence submitted and the inferences
that reasonably flow therefrom, we are satinfied that the
guilt of the defendant has been established beyond a reason=
able doubt, As was well stated im Crane v. The People, 168
Til. 395, p. 4053
"Section 12 of the act relating to the crime
charged provides that the ‘offense of adultery shall
be sufficiently proved by circumstances which raise
the presumption of cohabitation and unlawful intimacy.’
The statute recognizes the inherent difficulty of proving
by direct evidence any cingle act of adultery. The
proof of circumstances which raise the presumption of
cohabitation and unlawful intimacy is therefore
sufficient to prove adultery.*®
Finding no reversible error, the judgment will
be affirmed,
AFFIRMED «
et oonmehive eft dant bobootnoo of $k Yilonty |
s eben overt oC ,doomabsl ot abotess ot tnatod Thee
emo cub tedts baw ,hvooet evitan en? to anivanimaxe Lutetes,
asonete tak oft bee beddiedse ooxmdive off Lin to moAterebha
oft gadd Rosteddna ers ow ymodkuven welt yldanocaet gant
eupesst a hroyed hosiabidades aoa ont Smehnetah oft To tiem,
Bdi ,efgosd od? .v eax ai hotade flew aew uA .tduob efde
Pee 200b 8 ARE ORE
emits of? o¢ gttdeier goa odd to SL motives”
[Lado yrodigbs Yo eva tte? ott ged ashbivetg bepisde
etiat Seliw aeonstamiouie yo bovetg ylinekoltise ed ..
‘ypamisad Latwainy bee modded ivesteo to noksemrasty ey”
antverg to ¥tiuakYith doovesint oct somingovss edstate ont |.
aa? .ytedlona ta dea efowta yaa eonebive sootkh Yd”
baal. <e-tiplng- Ndonga Poor vihnaelr swendrsoomah 4 Phe Mens. ed
~ etetowed? ek youmiint tytwelow boa nolietidates —
*,yxotinhs overg of tagios Vine
ifty teomgbst edt ~xoxze sidiotoved om pakball .
Moras ay 2
ehomattie od .
9 CEMR LTA
eA
Pan ithe ait Le Rade ik a
aie ba} yew “ay BE MME Ya ite
ps tons ‘4 ty ta
SSP Gy
mo,
332 © 21317.
: ~ Ar T A fo ;
, YZQOOILA. OI]
VALIDA DENSBY, ); —
Appellee, );
\ )) APPEAL FROM
va. \ CIRCUIT COURT,
‘ COOK COUNTY.
HENRY F. UMBRICHT,
Appellant.
STATEMNT OF THE cASE.This is an action in
tort brought in behalf of Valida Densby, by next friend,
against John Umbricht, Clara Pitter (sued by her maiden
name, Clara Umbricht), Henry ©. Umbricht and Chicago Bank
& Office Fixture Co., a corporatim, to recover damages
for injuries sustained by being struck by an automobile,
alleged to be owned, managed and operated by sxid defendants.
Suit was subsequently dismissed as to the Chicago Sank &
office Fixture Co. and John Umbricht (the latter having
died), and proceeded to trial as to Henry TF. Umbricht and
Clara Ritter. Henry F. Umbricht, in addition to the plea
of the general issue, filed a special plea denying ownership
and operation of the automobile in question. ‘There was a
trial by jury resulting in a verdict for plaintiff in the
sum of $3250 against both defendants. A remittitur of $500
having been entered, defendants! motions for a new trial
and in arrest of judgment were overruled and judgment
entered on the verdict for $2750 against each defendant.
¥rom such judgment Henry 7, Umbricht appealed,
Befere entry of final judgment, it was suggested
of record that appellee, since the commencement of suit,
ina arrived at legal age, and all pleadings were accordingly
a
oa ee? A
wh ag
pas \
Te .A.1 00
(
MONT AGIA |
SAUOD YTEDRTO eat ot ah fie oe “we | si |
CERI AnD: | . : . fc
( jn % a a
nt notton na at vena 20. WS “a yeu RA cel ee
eine be daon yd yiunet HhiLev to tanter wk ‘Hale! trot
moe a ,
nossa ton ad Bowe) megd £7) ated tito d cet antot, tenisae ie
ie 8: e134 aja bf Bote detotenctac? ae sgt a { dato k celal atar ome
Le i :
aggettish “terdooy of mo i¢ereqibs B68) SAP ECEN aod? a a 4
ikdomotnn an ee soutte sated vd jankstads seftutar 15% ‘ j fe
sataabasteb bine yd Segeusge bas bouenms dorms od of beget
8 Aged egsoino at af as boraknakh wineuppadua ane thee ak
‘gatvad tettal orlt) defo Semi extol, bases “09 otard ate soft
baa goaded 8 yim ot aa Set st o¢ bindwesecd brs (hobs
neiq sit of moitkbia ai ,tdotuday .17 TI Ytnet osteds in amet)
qidath eno aniyaek esig Lafoogs s belit ponued faienes oft. to ‘ ae
% 8Aw 9 eeett -fokicaup ok eLidemod ize asd Xo nelderego. sme Kis
eis mi Viitakalg tot tobpcov. & wi gab? uae Wah yt febad Hi
008) to twtkds bored a atanbae teh tod fenton Oaseg to we a
faiad won @ sot eroidom ‘adashne tot Lbesedon ood —e |
taemnbut, Bae bofyxisvo stow 4 cess bart, to SRT
dimers toh HORE eaataye ORV RE 101 dobbaev banal FI be
+o Loca ako & seit] «if wRor t woatyy bas
betsengys sow ae pei, Lames x0. ns i
=) mw dain te doe pond “aCee pate oaks 905
nn ds NK x Ka is
er WS
. Ny FRAY ae’ * 3 a4 % ;
T0098 OTH ‘ayn bas Lq Mes .
atte
amended by striking therefrom the words "Marghall 0. Densby,
her father and next friend", wherever the said words appear
therein.
Appellees evidence tends to show that on July 18,
1912, the defendants, Clara Ritter and Henry *. Umbricht,
together with Zmil Umbricht, his brother, were riding in an
automobile on Jackson Boulevard {in the city of Chicago),
in an easterly direction; that when the automobile reached
the west line of “ood street, it "swerved or zigzaged" in a
northeasterly direction, passing over the curbstone and the
parkway between the curbstone and sidewalk at the northeast
cerner of the intersection of said streets, and upon the
sidewalk there, where appellee was walking, striking her with
such force as to render her unconscious and to sustain injuries
serious end permanent. The automebile continued in its onward
course, crashing into the porch of an adjacent brick house, and
stooping efter the forward portion of said automobile had
partially descenicd the basement steps thereof. There was a
conflict of evidence as to the speed at wnien the car was
driven at the time and place in question.
It is admitted that the front seat of the car
was occupied by Clara Ritter and her two uncies, Henry |.
Umbricht and Emil Unbricht. The evidence of eppellee tended
to shew that these three persons were the only occupants
thereef; that the defendant, Clara Ritter, was seated on the
lap of one of the two men in question, and that she and the
men on whose lap she wes seated were jointly operating the
cer. None of appellee's witnesses, however, identified
appellant as the man who was thus jointly engaged. pefendants’®
witnesses Bahnsen and Rohner, employees of appellant,
testified that they occupied the rear seat of said automobile;
that it was operated solely by Clara Ritter; that appellant
eden oO Lbeatertshe” abtiow of? mos lotedt anitiate vd beboaome
teecqe ebtew bise eit tevevtedy ."onelxt ixen bas otite? tol ;
aioe
os Yel we dens wolle at ebiies sonebive eselleggA., é pl
ioindat! .% yinsh ime r9eitin ate £o (ot eebeve tos ea yonee
Me Mi gaibis etow ,tedtend elo ,~Htoivdny Diag aviv tovite gos
(ogaeiny to yin end of) bimveluod ooetont ne elidomdus
hotosex eftdomotus ett oadw Jedd yetoktoes dt yltedeas mn He
aoat *heygespis se Soviews"® if ,feotda boot Yo onil teow om
sdt haw emogaduyo es spvo gateesg ,soiteouih yivetesedauen
sasediion og ts aLewebie baa emotecrsy exit seawded yewlts¢
os? roy dae ~atyowss bliss Ya mitoaarsdod add tot r
«tie wedi gatdista .yndlios eer sols oh ge onedt eres fares
eeltuiok slagaus ot bre aAweiosnegay tad rebnor os on poms, sous
biowno af2 sk bowaitnos eiideseics ost .tasnamreg bie snphaen
des ,appok Asiad sapvcths me te soneg one od nit Retina rs aah
bail slidemptin Sina to nals reg Eeawria} oatd todts Bat rid
& Sew otsat ,2estaily xgore tage asd ests hohmeoaab. wleteneg
saw aad. old. daisy Je depgs. oiit ng 5a anne hive % ¢ to2etmms
~Hosdseup wh coadg bos omit ont +s one.
tad ect Se sane, Fmd eft sagt bed imte, ad 27.
i Yxnek ,weilonas owt tes dis mada eh sisio. yd botguree pa
bebaat gordaqqge Lo aombivo off .toludml Liwk faa #to beds
etnaqyooe yino odt otaw aunianed aaneis anomdd Jaci wodte ot
ed? ap beseee esw ,GdShii @talo insbnotoh od? tem i tootesdt .
643 bap aie tecs ba ,moldseup Sh ion ows at to eno ‘wand
ont aatisaiege yitatot Siow bevace ese ate gel saodw we aon
Soititashi ,tavewod .vasnentio 8 vad Logae te 810 Hf —
‘stnshusie? .hegaane yhemae f BYAY wee Ofte tumai ants BS tneLfouga
dnsiloggs te seeyolgus .csalct bis seandet eoenentte
@ bhas %¢. teen tae eet: Deon q mea Ae Ae
Sette scee@t>to peek. ~vwet' anfa tac MS: TS oem Pea a se eee ee e2.
-5e=
was seated on the lap of his brother, Emil Umbricht, and
‘that at no time during the trip in question, did the parties
on the front seat of the car change their respective positions.
It was sdmitted by appellant, that he first operated an
automobile six to eight years prior to the trial, which was
had January 4th, 1915, that so far as he knew, his brother,
Emil, never owned nor operated an automobile, and that the
latter was a nonresident of Chicago, \”
WR. JUSTICE McGOORTY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
the principal question of fact presented oy the
evidence in this case ia, - Did appellant operate, or
participate in tne cperation, ef the autemobile in juestio?
There is no evidence of ownership in appellant.
While appellee's evidence tends to shew that appellant took
part in the operation of the car in question, such evidence
is uncertain in chserscter and is net evfficient to establish
& case a8 agains? the positive denisi net only of eppellant and
his coedefendant, Clara Hitter, but also by that of Rahnsen
and Rohner,
We are of the opinion, therefore, that the verdict
as to appellant is manifestiy agains: the weight of the
e@
evidence. The judgment of the Circuit Court as to Nenry
¥. Umbricht, appeiiant, will be reversed, and the cause
remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED «
“Bia teokudat Link tories eid to qed oc) ne hodeos aw ‘
Mh
sekivay sa Bie yHosseowp MEOGES? |ctd aedued omke as ta tant
sse@isiaeg evitoogaer thedt agmsrio ws0 sat Te teed snoch ee Mo
| betanseo Parit ed tandd ,taallegas yd bodtimbs aaw a1
caw Soinw ,lettt off of tokee enaIK treo ob wie odidogmenp
stots? eh yweml of ve ast se dnt (2i¢L sb quest Sad
ene deat baie ,ofidonadivea nas hovateqe Tom tua gover hie
“Saygh <eQ6e 28 I0: thedicowmn A sae vedtel
THOS ENT WO WOERTE SY RNREVIIE VERONGOM SOLER Y Ml
eitt ¥e bod nagerg tout 2 nol? aaup inqioud se oats ie
48 OF Sue gO. Snabisgge biG “ sis ePBo adele stk - ponobiws
gto Le wap sf glide en ‘ths at Xe Ae Riwteae ond nk eiaghotenag
stnalioage ad giclee cy a0 ni! five ea el ovedtt oe
dons taailoqgs sade wig of abaed goaobive aos lisgas okie
eonmchive dove ,mid aswe mk woe oa » ib ide wang eat ‘ak snag
Msiidsces oF FaetolTiva rox et tata Cte s*cisato ted nibsd 10 ate od
bite Sealisgya To yiso ita fakned oyte Sao oad Se Page Ba seus B
feanias, te toxt ue oni dul t94the 6 Tuo 4d tashawtsb=oe aid
| ytomdon bas
satay t ont Haart ie vite tote. aa af OL Mk Go ois to oie ov
aut to dtghow asf! jankapa % eM an wk ‘tna Ltoges on “aa
Yim ot ae gxv0d digest) any ba) t mucabt, edt -sumpbave
eauso ont Dre Se atevet ag SLiw frat Loqge tuts Seat 2
. ‘ben eranea
CUI CHA caesbyan d
vrae4 p ah A ay j ,
Ean pe ab A an ie
; a
‘ a
1 Aa
Me
A,
352 = 21537
W. &. FISHER,
‘eben ¢
i) APPHAL FROM THE
‘ g
j
vs. \ f | SUPERIOR COURY OF
| \ f COOK COUNTY.
W. H. DUNN, ‘ Jt
App 4 iani . ca m™ ££ hr ia
of = WwW has
MR. JUOTICH MeGOORTY DELIVERED THY OPINION OF THE COURT.
Vw. i. Pisher (appellee here), doing business
as W. i. Fisher & Co., brought suit in the Sunerior Court
of Cook County against W. H. Dunn. There was a trial by
jury and et the close of all the evidence the court directed
the jury to find the issues for nlaintiff and to assess his
damages in the sum of $93.49, which was sccordingly done,
and judgment entered upon the verdict. ¥rom such judgment
cefendant appealed,
The claim upon whieh plaintiff sued defendant wss
for groceries and meats sald and delivered, iImmnn, the
defendant, purchased groceries and meats from F. *. Rrowm
& Ca,, and subsequently from plaintiff, whe aueceeded F. F.
Brown & Ca, The evidence shows thet defendant, at various
times, made payment. to opleintiff upon stated accounts,
Cheeks evidencing such payments, drawn by defendant and mace
payable to plaintiff, are in evidence. The last stated
account between the parties war for $93.49 rendsrad August
6, 1914. It in contended by defendant that he did not mow
he wac dealing with plaintiff, but suppesed he was dealing
with *, ©. Browmm & Co. The only testimony in the case was
thet of plaintiff end defendant. The evidence ehows that
defendant made payments to plaintiff on accounts stated as
Bays mM PEER = 88s
if LG ‘ %
8
ie . eHase 6a SW
y ee i X ; & H P OR LLORTA 1S fe . » ft
é ; ‘ af ¥ “ us f NE tt) mea ok ye elas a ieee,
RS SPS Rot aesa 5" fos ae ee eee
Sermese wey, “ iad ee pay
: ‘ » RUSE . oe
‘ oie i eat is Ft Bs fi
Ré OA ran @ (650m
NF AP : eid See eit aoe ae aie
TRIG GP YO WOTMEEe Ebr “arEv yIioooait S2Lr0e . Ale
e Seen Ss i 3 ¢ f ’ aa ig deme
awa md asc gBkeb 2 (enon seLteqce) xodagt ah ~@ ve
dawn :) nobis er eit aE thye Miguoad ota sadely . tw ae
x“ isiat 2 enw oxad? fants EW Senkage hinted ak
havens ih a sit sousbive aay ite te eeoto att Ja bee qaet
aid @asacd of Bes YIUAIeia xo aecoei act bakt of yosh edt
.9mh YLantbroose aaw aside ,os G08 Te mua et mi aagemad
feamgaet dave xert <eotsuevy of? nogu bovetoe trongenh baa
»boissage #anbne ted
diw tacbhao'tebh oot Piitsakaie doltw acgs mlals aa?
st ane .beterhIab tas blow adsom baw aebtiesoty t0%
awomd .7 .% met ateem bas esiteor, boastoweg: Sntine WS
-% .Y hohesoonn ofr ,ttidaiala wert vidoenpesadv® Bas ,.00 3
euektay te ashbaetah dad? eweda sonchive aft ,09° @ nwetd
,Girmvenos botstn roan Viitaisic of treayad shat jaemkt
shea Ane Jashasteh vl wath ,simoeedc Note aaienebive efeedd
fstele taal eNT .eonehive mk ota , tho atale¢ oF eLdeyeq
faugus Feisbaet 93,608 wat aow soltrtsg oft opewsed tmoona
word fom bib sf iadt Inabngtebh vd hobastemo ab 31 = .ASOE (8
gmiinoh saw sf bssoqque tue ,iti¢atedy Aéiw gabfeob nae od
S20 2an5 ont Ai-ynomitgeat yino eff .of & awoTtd 1. 2 aeiw
#ads awods sonobive adit .tasbae'to) ban ttidatel to sand
eh betate aiavecos mo Tli¢nisig of afmemveq sham Jtanbae teb
afew
follows, © Way 4, 1914 = @56. June 6, 1914 = ao, July
6, 1914 - 855.\/ Defendant's contention as to want of
eet cave that ne was dealing with plaintiff i» without
morat. Shere was no conflict in the evidence pertinent to
the issues and the court did not err in directing a
verdict.
Defendant acsigns as error the fallure of the
court in direeting a verdict fer plaintiff to give such
peremptory instruction in writing. shen a peremptory
instruction is given te find fer one of the perties it is
the better practice te give a written instruction, but
the failure to do sc does not constitute reversible error.
JUDGREN? APFIRMED.
TLL 8G = NCL 0 mm RG + DERE att» re ae
Yo fnew et se aoidnedngs etemsbaaten ‘vs heii eed, at
feortin ag VER miager aigbe witkdaeb ‘ese we ever # hie Dee ot
ot #nonisnse gsonehors ous oma tehitaen on any enna a, dibwoe
ow gitteesdh mf tke von bad dones of fou eevank. ony
“ite to Stulin’t ad} «wives as amqdaos Qielies Wa |
Seun aviy oo Yehhuhady wh tottoy m gakdnor gi omk ao
WHOS Mev eg ot any rank dt hase re, sla seals NEO,
wk gt ae kts ant “ste yo a) «0% bak? ot ovis ved sondoartenk
: abt ae bend ans ora | e orks oe hte’ pooagionder 2
Daa ve Gi
sR cima Ge REN oe
Toe ae ie
Hechiahmiay set
ei he Sa
23 Bie we
ie ay SRA
se cu ¢
Es 20 tee ait
an ema Se
BAINES Na
a lh dOK Py
Kol a Rae Mia
Gh) BORREGO ga ae
PI RIL ih deme yhAy eae yey Rae Soe oul
; , , tT P ‘ a>
i! ee ee ee ee ee he ee tae Te Re
375 + 21362. / ait
|
j
ROSS ATTLEY LUMBER CO., ) 3
a corporation, : ) E
Appellee, (|
\ a “APPEAL FROM
y f
vs, & } CIRCULP COURT,
\ : COOK COUNTY.
COLUMBLA HARDwOCD LunBzk f)
CO., & corporation, ‘ f)
Appella ta f )
i bide SAN TT go
Se Or. W A A.
ea wy e ae ies ye G aD
BR. JUSTICE MeGOORTY DELIVERED THRE OPINION OF THE COURT.
VU This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of
Cook County by appellee to recover from appellant the
contract price of two cars of lumber, With its declaration,
plaintiff tappeliée) filed its affidavit of claim showing
$1419.93 due. The defendmnt (apperranit) filed with its
plea of the general issue thereto, an affidavit of merits
alleging that said lumber was not up to grade, nor according
to contract; that defendant has not accepted same and that
plaintiff is indebted to defendant for freight and demurrage
charges paid by defendant on said lumber in the sum of
$238.92. There was a trial by jury resulting in a verdict
in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $1599.52. From such
verdict the plaintiff consented to a remittitur of 935.95,
and, thereupon, motion for a new trial was overruled and
judgment entered against defendant in the sum of $1360.57.
From such judgment defendant appeals and assigns as error
the giving of certain instructions.
The defendant in Chicago, ordered from plaintiff
two carloads of quarter oak lumber, "flooded stock, but very
well washed and cleaned.” ‘aid lumber was shortly thereafter
shipped by plaintiff from Jicth, Ark., to defendant's order,
p4 \ Elves TM gues + ave
on f 4 OD, ‘pcehean “yaera” ‘palo
‘ ,, | sot iaxegiTes @
ee : soe Logga
_ MOST SANGHA ut er ee re Pr arre
SAUD BEYOAEO { je sehen tegey Ac ee
.yragon Booo ; |
ier \ socerat anowanen ATaMaOD
’ A A SOLLBIO GLO 4 94.90
‘ iireesal
vf i MD ; “8 J Se ega
Go Ma rooe™
a
etooe Se HH ae ‘gar care see Yaanobew sorTete “iat
\ pee é
te exo -gtuonto age suk penny eau dome site rer
ocd frailaque swext teveses of anitogges Yd yw aEeD dood
stoitataloos aff othe ,cadeul te atao owe ‘to onbug Goett Reo |
ant work mes ko Yo sivebittie atk belrt (eativggqe} tihaaialg
agi djhw both? (SHetteqge) sodas ted sd? .euh CC, CLeTg
agiuem to sivabitis ns wodetondd lida isin iy sat te soiq
Sathtooos ton ,ohary ot gh fon aaw todmt Sise Jon} antgetia
fads fom oman batqeoog ten aan Fn bn leh tune post aes os
apartsmind bas tdysert set Sachem teh oF beddebnk wk Titi sieig
40 mos ody oh amet t fdas iG dmaboo'teb wd bise cegtsdo
fokbuer « ab gabstven erut yd Leite ane ste at 80, BESp
dove mort RE. GREK to nue wits nk TKitdakatq te “gove’t ok
80.828 Yo ttittimes » of bedneenoe Tridakelq ent tokbrev
bas belorweve aew Laine won we “Ot soltdom ogitarce ch! bas
- C8. 08856 Yo moe sit ok trebne ied tagkage beresoe tasmghal
torn ka aehaas dws olavage foabaeteb Iromgooh douse. sort
sao kiouitand shedreo Yo gaivig odd.
ttliniel¢ moxt heteine ,ogaoses me domome teh salt
yrev tud vote beboolt odes deo redrenp to shoo kaso owt)
witesteds yiftode ast todas bie *. beasets bas hedeaw ilew
‘ehbes Gtfaskaeteh 0¢ . kkk diet aext Shirai’! ee
20
Chicage, There is a conflict of evidence as to the condition
of the lumber in question upon its arrival in Chicago. It
was sold subject to the rules of inspection of the Netioal
Hardwood Association, but such rules do not appear in
evidence. Upon its inspection by defendant, the latter
refused to accept the lumber, and, subsequently, declined to
permit a mutual inspection thereof, on the ground that a
portion of said lumber was covered with mid, that it was not
possible, therefore, to determine how badly it had been
damaged by water, asked plaintiff to pay the freight and
demurrage chorges thereon and take it sway. Defendant's
secretary, Ae H. Schoen, testified that he telephoned plain-
tiff before defendant removed the lumber from the cars, that
it was not up te grade and not what defendent ordered; that
plaintiff's representative upon the following day requested
defendant to unload the lumber from the cars 80 as to save
demurrage, which defendant did. No part of the lumber in
question has been used by defendant and remains in its
possession, subject to plaintiff's order.
There was evidence introduced by defendant tend-
ing to show that the value of said lumber when received,
was $330 to $540 less than the contract price. \”
Defendant's order and plaintiff's acceptance
thereof constitute the contract between the parties. There
was no express warranty as to the quality of the lumber
contracted for, but there was an implied werranty that
defendant would get what he bargained for, viz., quarter oak
lumber, flooded stock, but very well washed and cleaned.
Babcock v. Trice, 18 Ill. 420; Chicago Packing and Provision
Go. v. Tilton, 87 Ili. 547.
The contention of plaintiff's counsel that the
ae
mieibaos off of sa gonmebive te Saki igen s at © TeaRe 1 OBRO AMD
io ogasish mt Sevicne age ata noidesup of ses disnasd ede ™.
famisat silo Yo nottoegusat To wo Ske odd of joe (due Skee aay
ni tasaqe tom of ag ier dove dud ,oobtakwered boowbusH
wettad SE sd Fran Yeh ue moheooqunt ats sonti BS nORETS
oe bantlova peldesupandise. , one ted ssl? tyeoon ae Dome don
7 ge eur wo
¢ ve
z dfs
8 gas bnuoty oft no (oot ao kt epee, Lnwt oem & vheneg,
ton waw $2 Sutht ham oiw Berevoo eg ne dated bkue ‘te moldxeg
‘Rood Buck 3% whbaact weal ontorete ad ome To todt otdieweg
Acie deighors? auth Mae ot % as kas, baies Tater ee se gensd "
at dnebae tee Yawn Fk saint hci noe-rosit iiadictien eg tonD
mis ig beaters Log att Sscta bortitees fbn & ‘3 oA sttatoT998
Sade aca ons neo oda oad Byroses tombe tb oxotod
see shoahhxd “Feu tde'teb fae seen Ane ofaeg cd eu ton pas it
Se ele
hed aaupet ab petwortet aria LEO Ye svit ataonstiqet arvtet mage
ove of As ¢u agdo ore ond vtodined ont naoins od tagbaotos
ai watient act t0 fiaq of bib ‘taabne tod, itty rc
tae Nes
ati mk bekenie beass damdneteb ae hows need ent woteom
em av ‘eintekg ad Sethe ssotoseaneg in
ar ie
ie ot
-hiet Praline teh ee naoubond at “aoae hive aaw ‘etoatt
hevivsy ves sioate wodinel bina Yo oukav ants itt ose ee aa
: VY ssebsa Foasnd 16D walt ‘sett aed onee of seat enw
; “SomsepoDa ont imtate pete tobeo ‘atgnobasted
event .ealiuad ont naewdod tomo ‘oni edudk vanes tooredte
tedeuk edé to editaes sat of BD Ui Aotee sevveel out enw
ford yinawran Kobiqad aa sam exond gud .r0t ‘iene
2xB2 “od tari ye wiv 20 hoakantad od ait sey bLinw #nobne tes a
»bemsato bas batesw Liew eiev dud clveda punoet’ ,
pot piye vord bee, Be piteas Sram fo 088 LT er eryecd wv iogadag
Vie . £6 ve 09 £2 v +00
cd teat faames “ornnbdatate e nokta 380 ont
cen’ hit a Kee Re tf oa aad
ae
ieee? ECA eb as
Se
acts of the defendant constituted an acceptance by it of
the lumber in question, is not supported by the evidence.
Defendant after imspecting the lumber in question
and rejecting same, refused the request of plaintiff to
have en inspection of such lumber made by the National
Hardwood Ass'n. It is contended by plaintiff's counsel
that such refusal of inspection, together with defendant's
continued possession of the lumber, which possession was
at plaintiff's request, was such exercise of owmmership by
defendant, as constituted an acceptance. “iio long as the
buyer can, without self contradiction, declare that the
goods are not to be taken in fulfiliment of the contract,
he has not accepted tnem.” Blackburn on Sales, page 17.
The evidence does not show such acceptance by defendant as
would constitute a discharge of plaintiff's liability under
the contract. Underwood et al. v. volf, 151 fll. 425 = 442.
The acts of icefendsnt, in any event, did not constitute such
an acceptance as would waive the implied warranty as to
quality. Babcock v. Trice, supra.
The first of plaintiff's instructions complained
of told the jury, in effect, that if they believed from the
evidence defendant accepted the lumber in question it would
be liable under its contract, erroneously excluded the element
of implied warranty arising from such contract. Morris v.
Wibaux, 159 I11. 627, 642.
The next instruction assigned as error proceeded
upon the theory that if the lumber in question was not
according to contract and the defendant accepted sane, the
implied warranty as to quality was thereby waived. “ven
when the contract is executory, the claim for damages on
account of a breach of the warranty will survive the accepte
C 0 ee
s
to 42 yd eons? aeeos 23 bats tteneo tashee leh odd to aden
/soasbive edt od bodrogque fen at vnoivenap at octet ons
aokd asp Bk todsast od? paitoogent sed %s stb eee tot
ot IMentaig eo teompat oat Beus ot ome sats “tex bre
igovitek sit wh shew soleil fis i to selioegernk #8 ‘evadi
feanveo a Wei ately Yd bebrodaoo ef JE . alae, poowhtek
at das dmeteS rite to ltesod Ma ttooqand As icantet do “_
esw aolaapeneg dpi se ,tocimund ert Ye moicasreog beaaky
ye aidexsomn To saloisxe souk sae ,gesgne seaside ja
eid an gees on® eometgecon ae baguettes as ,daabneteb
at? fund etalooh ,wedgothettano toe tiedite .mad toyed
\dosv?neo oud to tanm£iitint ab wesad od e¢ too ese abbey
TL ageg , seins ne eres aeke * gtenid hezgoocs son aad al
ge gaabmetab wi canadian douse weds fon saa eon bive ext
sebens YSadidakd e'Vtidaialg to agwadocdh = sdsticeneo Bivew
OBA = 82> . 142 £8L (Mol wv og to boowsstin'y .toextnos ont
Hoss etusitexos tom bib ,daeve yee ab wermbawioh Ye afee om?
of ss \tmarsew beifow’ ont avykew bivew sa sonedqoues ne
gugun .esict .v docodet =. ysk ine
hagdaceuos eno ies ws fasts eeidniele % dexbt oat
al? ert bevedied yest tt sat? dootte ak ,vast eft Ades Yo
GLuow #2 goltessp m2 tedmud oft betgaces fashaeteh consbive
teemeis ede bohuloxe qlaroonmrsa ,roattnen off vobae eldall od
oY 2235 foarte ROMS 0%" getvinte yd noier bot Lent ‘te
GAB 808 .L4T BBE zandtay
behesooig tr 28 » bemakeen mitousmtenk teon oft
doa eaw Moiseonp mi woeedimel art TE taxis yreondt oad nog
aid (ove betqeooe tasbmeteb okt bas Soar yned bd palbiedoa
“evi” ,beriax ydfovedsd naw ya iisup ef ae ¢dnetrew Bobigul
no eogucah to? malo esit yrvofuvexs af d4a1$noo Of2" nedw
atgevoa of? oviviwe Lhéw yaovsew asi te tiess2d a Yo deuovom
“40
ance of the property." Underwood et al. v. Holf, supra.
Such instruction is clearly erroneous.
The third instruction complained of, crroneously
stated what would constitute a constructive acceptance by
defendant, and invaded the province of the jury by assuming
such acceptance.
For manifest and prejudicial error in giving the
feregoing instructions, the judgment of the Circuit Court
is reversed and the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
cy
ae ‘doy .v .da ge boowrpball “.ytseonxe ot Yo ean”
~axogeots Ylteors wh mitcuntank seus
ylemesaonte ,‘to bondatennn mokeeive eed paket oth
4d SoaRtqsons oviseNeeenws of ed izunen biiow sodw hoteda
aataceds ed ihe os Yo conivare ed? bebavat bos (tnakno tee
enetroovn dpue
ve
ads art ehy nd torso Labo liwkedg baw Yeotiown cat
gists Vie x60 gait To tevambal eds ,eeottowrdaet aakogevet -
stohaamox game eat bee bewrever biel
0 waatste tr a elcecse a iia
Ree
wit
183 © 22135
j
:
|
&
‘
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE i
OF ILLINOIS, \ é
Defendent in “rror, j anes TO
* f MUNICIPAL COURT
va. f
% i
OF CHICAGO.
4 f
LEWIS E. RICH, fh f
Plaintiff in urror. aa i
» By
ar i \ 4
fend) UW Vy Ok ie 4 &
a,
ft)
Ge
e
Qt
MR. JUSTICN MeGOORTY DELIVERSD THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
oe
This is a criminal proceeding by information
charging Lewis Rice, the defexdant, pteintit? in error)
on September 22, 1915, with being an inmate of a house of
411 fame, at 609 S. Wabash ave., in the City of Chicago.
frial by jury having been waived, the cause was submitted
to the court resuliing in adjudging defendant guilty and
sentencing him to pay a fine of $200, and the costs of
suit, taxed at §6.
The defendant on above date and for six years
prior thereto was employed as clerk in the Queen Hotel,
being the premises referred to and described in said infore
mation. It is contended by defendant, if he is guilty of
any offense under the evidence in this case, that he is
guilty of being a keeper and not an inmate of a house of
ill fame or assignation, ete,
|The principal question presented for our consid
eration therefore is, - Was defendant an "inmate" within
the meaning of section 57-ael, Chapter 38, of the Criminal
Code? Said seetion is as follows;
"57eael. Whoever is an inmate of a house of illefeme
or assignation or place for the practice of fornication
or prostitution or lewiness, or who shell solicit to
prostitution in any street, alley, park or other place
G6ke8 «= 86L
: OME reg
, ohare age WO Ssi0ws AT
4 " BLOULLEL W
oT ne _ ptorti mk dasbaetegd |.
qHus5 GASTON %. ; Fae
-2ADLNO FO ihe ' f cu ees os eee
| ‘ so ~& alwad
8dAroOk Om ai Arson
ele 2 ty egireh3
2800) EET TR WATS sky KamerTavE YeADOooM RORToUE samt’
’ sala pease
so iewretat yd gudbossorg Lamimine a of ature
(rete AP Ttratetey Sdsbo%eds walt ost abwod gaigtail
t sad a te afamat ns peied mtiw ,CL@L SS uodwedqok a0
emsaoino to yield end ai ..cvA daadey .0 808 ds ,omet £28
helgvgindva acw oexno oft ,boviaw seed acivad yout yd dake?
brs yiling tasbmotoh galgbthe na mak dt Lasoo trisoo eff ef
to gtsopm sdt bom ,GOSE to anki « yaq ef mid yotonedaer
298 te joxusd tive
atsey xia ist bas e¢ab eveds mo ¢eehmoteh out
Joteon ompeup oft ai vicetla ue bayodeme esw ofeisd) stofsg
ono Grad bhee ni bedixno¢sl Sha of hourtetex semistotg oct gated
to ywWikuy af of Bf ,¢ushnetsh yd hobasgaso ef 3% .mmbvan
et al add one Bind wf eonmabive of tebaw sam Tie Yas
to caver w TO otamnd os gon bag teqsot a gabod to ydilag
‘.ota ymidsmatses 16 omel LL3
ehiams tuo to) batteacty oo ideoup LIaqioukig ott |
migivia "atamti" ne Insouso tsb eat « ,ak ere te xed HOLJe19
fentmixd off Ya ,BE setgasid? ,Les-¥4 midgoon to gakmpem old
:aywoitot se ah moifesa bist febed
eas telii ko eayed « Yo ofsath ae at teveotW .Lea«TS"
neléadinret to wattoctg edt “ot soakg 1 moltangises to
ed siokion ilete ow so ,seentweai co neliutitaoxg to
en tee its) ete Die Ot | ee 6 Adi Oia Akuma ete ett «ant Bide Ae
7 4
o20e
in any city, village or incorporated town in this
itate, sheali be fined not exceeding two hundred
dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail or house
ef correction for a period of net more than one (1)
year, or both,*
Section 57 so far as material is as follows:
“57. Whoever keeps or maintains a house of ill fame
or place for the practice of prostitution or lewdness,
or whoever patronizes the same, or lets any house, room
or other premises for any such purpose, or shall keep a
common, ili geverned and diserderly house, to the
encouragement of idleness, gaming, drinking, fornication
or other misbehavior, shall be fined not excecding ~~
$300. * * # ®
—_——_
the evidence tends to shew thet the hotel in
question was a house of assignation under the Utatute;
that men and women came to said hotel fer the purposes of
assignation and the cireumstances were such that the
defendsnt had mowledge of thet fact, and that these
circumstances in our opinion made defmmdant an "inmate"
within the meaning of the statute, and the judgment of
the Municipal Ccurt is thercfore affirmed. |
APFIREEDe
oe
Pedy ‘
aide ak nwod bodarogueans ogeiiie .ytte yoo ak ..,
Souham ows yakbasoxn 2om bentt ad Linda ‘iseda ita
gate vo int eaes of ak benenivaet xo ,etalieb
{£} yao ands siow dow to Belueg « tet voktvoivxean Be
y *, dibed 8 Pin ad 9 ave
rewedie? ax biomes ga '% woktoo8
ame? LL5 Te een # ou ind a east fe sgeoodl seveaty . fe*
suonbwet xo gokdutitanig Yo eslieang edt sok eoadg to
moor weno Yas sfel ta ,ouon oa) soxiaasteg tereodw 70
& goex lete ce ,snagony doce tas wet sendaong sodte te
ont of ,ecunel gaxobsoath bus homteven Lik sree eors 2
modtendanet Iwiveth gatme, ,oonwdik teow :
aikboos es sen Sold ag £ tiene srodvade de de wae. vs
1% & # CORE
ah Sogou ods tens wore od obmid enambire emf ..
patwsesy ont Eads oust caeaiilstainiad %h expod @ saw se iveosp
a aeaoriy oaks ‘to Ttadest bLie OF gated comer bite som gaads
oat dant done a%ew asnnntemueite estt bos) no isanghees
oReet Suced Seven owt fond te eabs Coiout bad dnsbem'tod
Yotawat® oa Fuobeotoh ebb nodndue «We ok eovnnd ano tty
te feamanet ois hes ,oGea ody to gabon oa? atddtw
abowes 3% eyveteued? at Fxuen Lepore: ‘ese
Sra Gaeey
wy ernst A %
ee
poh a
302 2 22257.
THY PEOPLE OF THE STATS f ) }&
OF ILLINOIs, | )
Defendant in srror, )
: | WRIT OF ERROR
Vie TO MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO.
HANS NESS, )
Plaintiff in errer. ¢) h Len
a VU XG Ie a ey /
MR. JUSTICH MeGOORTY DELIVERED THE OPINION OP THe COURT.
\/ mis is a eriminal proceeding by information
against defendant (plaintiff in error) charging him with
obtaining from Hugene Sullivan, the informant, with intent
to cheat and defraud, by means of false pretenses, the sum
of $190. Trial by jury having been waived, the court found
the defendant guilty in manner and form as charged in said
information, and sentenced him to the House of Correction
of the city of Chicago for three months, and further to pay
to the Clerk of the Municipal Court of Chicago, a fine of
$200 and costs of suit.
Ness, the defendant, entered into a contract with
the said Sullivan whereby he agreed to do certain carpenter
work on Sullivan's dwelling house, for a certain stipulated
sum, Defendant at Sullivan's request performed other work
on said house in addition to that specified in their
contract, for which work defendant, as a result of compromise,
accepted $190 in full settlement of all claims egainst
Sullivan. On the day following, defendant executed and
delivered to Sullivan a statutory waiver of lien as to said
premises. ‘Sullivan and his wife testified that said $190
was paid by Sullivan to defendant upon representation by the
latter that all bills for labor and material furnished had
been paid, Defendant testified that at the time of said
a ae
ante ier © rm
row: at rao”
i
iy
a TO CEA
TRUCOS LRSEST HM OF rey
eODADTHD AO
ph mh aoa Me ty
Oc re) a e § ) i
> PAGS PON
*
rene oa ih vinmase
ne ee ce esuvaaner veAbnoo sorte a
Lsyyaceey Yak xi ie Dh eHO wt Sonkatite * a ae
dice mit gaagiteds (renio ab Vth thee) tnabetes venkoge
dered ad alt iy diame tad ons. shaweting ‘geogie aor oka i
awe oft peeenatery ota? Yo. etme busted bine oa
paKct dunos ott boeken nowd aivest vim yo tobe “00mg te
apt i % of
bist nk beghatto as e76t bie corns nk wi iwg din ie 868 edt
anidveried Me euler daly oo mil honwod noe fine) vam ie ,
yg of staddcul irae .ortd nen ponds, 0% ogno hit: 46 vate ae
to eink? 18 ade beo to gad Legéo Bras entd cy xnet9 eat of
athe 9 ataeo ’ne ongg
atie toantmos a oluh boveteo at neha Yo b att 888 VE
tetnednap mketsoo ob oF hoorgs on, Weosteaie mewh Lowi hice ost
hoteluqita nintioo 2 10? oakin a gnkifLows oh iev kite se ne tow
wsow wsecte bane tteg dusupes @meval ae Ja tosbosts sure
tloms mi betthooga dadt et nostibia ak ganed, bias ato
MeinozgeMms to dineer 2 on ,trehnoteh atow dotiw 10? .ta078 moo
daikages emieto fie to doomeliten Liut ak oe£e hot qoosa
brs hatuvexe thahmoteh .gtiwollo® yah oat a -. aavalles
bhav of ae mit te review wrotudnde at fuwt kan od boty ttob
O8L§5 bins tums bodtktaod otiw- oka baw navh ltd, “ eoudibong
ods yo molvadneaatger nous dade wd af, na whl hus vd bkaq Saw
bert budadgnst fatyotam bos toed tot atts fe sacks sottad
i a —? Seewae S aee lLe ee over. in eee eee ee a piaqeece Sew oy) See’ i i a od he ee 4
|
A]
20
settlement, he stated to Sullivanr that thers wore unpaid
bills in the sum of $409 for material used be dcfendant on
Said property. Defendant further testified that subsequent
thereto, he offered to pay the Hines tumber Compsny fer lumber
used by defendant on said proverty in monthly installnents,
which offer said company declined to accant, “here is no
evidence of any lien filed om informant's premiess by any
subcontractor, nor that informant hes reocived any notice
er claim for such lien, although the in®fermeticn herein was
filed more than four months following the completion of said
work by doceueeee ie do not think defendant's intent to
cheat and defraud the informant has been ensteblished, in
otate v. Hurst, 11 ¥. Va. Reperts, 54, 75, the court there
held that a man cannot be held guiity of preeuring money by
felse pretenses, with intent te defraud, who has morealy
collected @ debt justly due him, though in making such
ecellection he has used false pretensee. in the insten? case,
the informant by his settlement with coefsandent impliedly
admitted he was justly indebted to the latter. The parties
acted within their legal rights in making such gottlement,
subject to the rights of subcontractors. There is evidence
tending to shaw that dsfendant, subsequent to the settiement
in question, made payment to certain subcontractors, and
tendered payment by installments to another. in this state
of the ecord we ere not convinesd that the assential element
of intent has been established. The jucgnent ef the Municipal
Court ef Chicego is therefore reversed and the cause remanded,
REVERSED AND REMAN DS.
biegoy Ouse ores tod? MeVEL IMG es ¢ badetu asi <droweltaon
no daubatiteh of bees tntuodan tot one a. vaste edd oak elise
tmownnodge gest bo btidgeedt cemeltaut dmabae ted -elteqo1g biee
yacnel xo yoagne) trodmal esa ads wee oF hezette sao eka
eBotewliedans: viet noe of Ve toro ty base 20, dreds tee ‘ww hou
oa ai oved? .taseon oF Bbentflosn yeagsoo Bisse cet to dole.
aS @ sesdmetq altseanotal oo Seat? gels ets to exnebdive
99h29N Yue bovisvot aed § mere hath told tom sod oaxé napdue
daw aiswe noi sears? rad ck dguoddis ote spare. rot siials io
Stas ‘id woitedenos acts yerkwont ‘st and roar raoS pe eros bald
og sragel atiqaiec eh faked don oh ‘at + restated xe oe
Mi ksdebigedGs Aasd ead 3 Amores neotk melt bubectep pase Sasso
etedt tuveo eft {cy “he ,etuoar vay. £2 Rue a wv ted
ve Yeson : dakeroore i yee eB bios ad idnNes reas & yee bios
5h abs S
lewis aed one duis eth as }eeoe ot dw entaedone crag
fous grivdes ut Astcomt jean: esi vs eMs took 6 base 2££00
(92a sustcnk eff AT ,8aaneisrg eats? Sonn wend on noktosLien :
Wabsilomk Manbnoteh did frameitieoe eid “er pyeuro tak oat
esitxay av ,telsal oat of Setdoint yisteoh baw ox phox
remo tttoa dove eoiden ot elses Inget whose mice boven
*
Sane hres ee Spee 1 SSCS OA W NOI z6, geentt awd ot $o 26 talua
fim ities ads ae ‘Faeesy a0 He eaebre" 12.5 dant woe ed naibasd
ban .SxOtoott woodse atavtoo of fasmyag hae. ,nottseap ab
state sind of 1 “eters OF SinetiLatem? vd vib. borabaet
Smorneke Lnitneau: att +s? baoniveoo toa eta av bteoe ent te
feqtoiaei off to toemphuk adv . béted Ldud ae awed zie dnote te
ebobmetet garso aft bane beatervar FOS HD ek agen: a9 to duo 12
; Ray By
f oy 4 FOG eva 4 (a: tei Pat
bi cho sate ae i vie ‘ty
a . . ¥
$ a er
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
x
TR MORAY
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday,: the sixth day of April,
:
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District) of the State of Llilinois:
a
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
vey
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
ne
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. 42uyU ie
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on the 13th day
Of September, A. D. 1915, the opinion of the Court was filed in
tne -Clerk"*s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
es
q, phdaara SouAsAOM OH ede
-oottaul , SUMGAO™. b-aMAU no
ot, QUASI Me MHOL: ae +
a ee GOS - 2 ergo" vata: 9 > sapsoretan®
Sor hf.
s lhe te Pas ae
3
ee ase ‘ods so-riiw-o3- cobteete te. beds csaeuS TE
486° “41000 -9d ‘to nekatgo edd. ea TOL, a Ae
belt
Gen. No, 5921,
Old Colony Life Insurance
Company, appellant,
vs Appeal. fron Kane,
Helen L, Graves, appellee,
Niehaus, J,
DML by | ae Nie
ee Colony Life Insurance Sam yy Grae theaosellee Helen
set,
L. Graves i + ae _to vacate and
/, n
against the
_ get aside a judgment recovered oF
2
|
|
Cosmbpolitan Life Insurance gompanye Association on dJdusedi;
1aeg,for the sum of 1605.25 and coats of a and to ree
AAG Ato
atrain the aerate, irom prosecuting woe oui t epmyenced by
ve iirvarct
hel, en-or-sbeut—Hey-GywaredG, sacsinst the S-semeedskmmdigpeeiemete 6
to enforce payment of the
judgment mere ott beta fa bi baees st Sb es oe, eo ee
@esociati re ha Loe O- Arce 9 Vere tr— g 8 of J
ean pet DS & of fx wep hiwte f
The bill of complaint as amended, miei that the Old
dae
Colony Life Insurance ica. Sartre corporation existing by
virtue of the law of this state, as an oid li -e reserve insur-
ance company; and that th e Cosmopolitan Life Insurance Asso=
ciation, on and prior to September 9, 1909, Was a corporation
existing under the laws of this state, and doing insurance
business on the assessment planj and that this Cosmopolitan
association Yad prior to July lst, 1901 , been known by the
name of the Knights of the Globe Mutual Penefit Association,
POPOL PO eh ?
Cy nh hehe
Tprat on September 9, 1909, the aspetis ji
Ieeurance-6mnany, entered nto an agreement with the Cosmo-
politan Life Insurance Association by which the Old Colony
Company promised, in consideration of receiving all the assets
of the Cosmopolitan Association, to assume all of the liabil- ~
!
ties of the Cosmopolitan Association then existing, and ad which |
—«
hit,
teed
sOnsdA moxt Ise cry
a
Madina) ies Ped
i
nealeh eSleshe athh ions wisn sioaibeureilt ets wo
ons ed poey a Oe ee ae
oe
ee Se ae ‘eas
eid tents’ etelioend a), vd betsvooet daemghyt 8 eb
rh enul—s0 noftdstoopeA sysxsgmad somstvanT oth asd is
—5t oe bre gttos to ateoo bos 88 .a0at* to eno
Dy, Site 8
ne
vd rears 2 et gniivossora MOLT 54
Pe te eB a>
‘tilciapeaiaiiaaaiiianat ent teatese > abdeee
aii To ihemysq eotolne ot Reet
. 4 Sonstwenl gs tht | Batt eceane.. Sigg. Fan keg bet
* mY A So
y
Sea OS “wep Foon: rach ~ LAnrA
: Sara ties SR
B10 sd tect hhesesce bebiene es tutalqmoo to fLid ed
a eee AY:
ud ae re nottsroqxo9 a onal eonewwent ord
—~ivenk evisest » £f bio me as cotete abd! to Nsl, off
*
—O8eA eoneiweal sthi nat tLoqgome- 2 edt tent See 3
getferontao s enw .e0er «8 tedmetqe® of roizg, poe ne
eorsivent gatoh bas .etate atdt Lo eWol edt webu
it ELoqome od abet ted? bos gala drevi@seeen att mo Bs
sit yd owont ased , L0CL ,tel yint of xolxq dst mo!
\tottatooreA t£tonell’ LegtvM edeld acid to obngtnt auld
\ kes Rukh a Fin ihe 34 °
obikennesebuikit:_ dantietcs ext ,@0eL .e redmeta
~omeod edi dikw tremeengs ea ots. i
wielod HO sft sotdw yd mottstooaea oakeseeat@
. hich doc eat LLs Bikvtooes to nottstebke
‘Bipiet de: e0e Xo Sue eeeres. et aotsa
'
might exist, on and after the date of the agreement,
Avt ude et rahe
It 2e alleged trette-pitd that the appedtee recovered
the judgment mentioned against the Cosmopolitan Life Insurance
Association, for an amount claimed to be due her upon the cere
pr den. e divaato
tificate of membership issued Ne rents mtae CREREDS Frank EF,
Gravesm, by the Knights of the Globe Mutual Renefit Association,
the predecessor of said Cosmopolitan Association; that the
cirduit court of Kane County was without jurisdiction to
render said judgment against the Cosmopolitan Association, be-
cause that Association was never legally served with summonsx
the sumone upon which said judgment is based, having been served
upon one J, 0, Myers, age agent of said Cosmopolitan Association;
@eaé- that Myers was not an agent of said Association: and that
the Cosmopolitan Association did not learn of the pendency of
the suit, or the rendition of said judgment, until about Sep-
tember 9, 1909, ia: tC
The bill also alleceg that the appre ee orior to
the eommencement of her suit against the Cosmopolitan Association
and prior to the recovery of her judgment, in consideration
of the sum of $500, paid to her, legally released the Cosmoe
mexkan politan Association, fromall claims and demands which
she may have had by reason of said certificate of membership,
The bill akso allegag that Frank E, Graces, the insured )
on the 25th.day of August 1907, forfeited his rights in the
insurance ewertificate, for non payment of membership fees
payable on that date; that, in order to become r- instated in
the Cosmopolitan Insurance Association, he had signed a reine
statement health certificate, in which he made a warranty that
he Was at that time in good health, and did not have any disease
or serious illness) and had not taken me‘icine, or had any
medical attention, nor had been treated by a physician, since
eevee) ¢ 1 ees ° aa
Se
Leve, er
_ttggmenran out to etsbh sit wedte bas 29 te kxe fdgt oe
er a ee Op. & .
betevooses.| 2 edt tedt Eiterideett ‘pegelia =i t Mii ye
ponstvect etid as? ELogomeod edt tentspe benot tiem "tiomabut's ar
=-169 od3 fos ted eub ad ‘os beakede aochaseaad 6 0% -eoktetoonsA be)
a teeth nee
«8 dnstt ,basdand e+ wy id bewae t ‘qidezedmen ‘to Stall =
wwottstoosséA fitemed LawduM edolD edt to pitdg tak edt yd waeeveT f
sat gars craic lait ani staqannn’ bise. Yo toeesoeberg ont Aye
os) soitetiatryt . - re eaw VaeAOO ensA to: ‘P1800 | ead
~od MortsiooesA mst Logon 00 mis dentens Raabe’ . sites aay!
hale
(zertonuva ad iw Sev ige. eitnan 5. teven canw motdshoonsA. Anat y
a Sek
imoldsioeash : a ctasbsingeest 2 bie. to snege al = a 90. a | on
fai} poe ;goktetoossé bigs ‘te fnesa ns ton sewezevll tadd tne |
yomehues 90d. 0: need fom Eb ‘noiteioones ah ad-bLowom oo" edt
“gee duods Litas ,dmemgout bine. to tok £haet Odd TO. ¢i
of xO faq aad
: se taild shyereiss whke ‘ura bee
roitstooe aa deshbor camaont ent ganiage Sue “ad 20 daensansange eld”
soissisbianeo ai gtinesgbut ted ta yseveset,sdt.os. a ;
~omeq) eit beessler yiiegel ered ot biag 4008? Ie awe adi Beir |
doris ehiens) bas smbslo fhsmorh: Mtokistoosea mad thoy REXERT
tie tedmen io stabilities bige te. moeses. XS bad svad :
( Rewvedivedt yeecew) 7 dmaxT saws preaeiie osda Litd edt, : gathalze
eit mi addgtr ald betietict ,TOCL tewguk to, yab A088 2 dd ome ou
seet qidetedmen to Inemyaq noma t0t getsoititzes. somatueMk ay
ak Betetentos eager oe saxo ok gtads cedahs tgda> ne: aidayetann
Tat citertaw 8 ebem ed dotdw mk ,etagttitzeo. ai AO, INOMOTRED
Graber Yam ever tom bi hme Moved boog mt ends tadd 29 88% @ib Co
ca Ute bai. to ,eitoban medst tom bad: baal. Saath
. P0ele gtteloleyiq « yd beteext acod Sef tom cmt
_—_—$—
becoming a member of the Association; that these warranted
" pepresentationeo? gaid Frank *, Graves were untrue; that it was
agreed in said reinstatement certificate, that in case they
were untrue, the certificate of membership should be held null
and void; and that the same was therefore void; and that, be-
cause of the matters alleged in the bill, the judgment recovered
AAMC hear
by sppe- ae unjust, inequitable and void,
pe rcceogen
The s= anewered and filed a cross bill, oraying
“A
for coy bap ey Relief, and asking for a decree to compel the
Otin
appettant, to oe the amount which she claimed was due her on
the membership certificate, and on the judgment which she
4 <
had recovered, icenee-orferet—
ues oresented by the bill and cross
a LAL et Ra reaue. .
hb, amd rendered a decree didmissing the original bill for
A
want of equity, granting tne prayer off the cross bill, and
- ve wy Conte AA ios
ad judging that, : recover against the aspertent the sum
of $1950.25, and costs; and that, upon payment of said amount
the judgment against the Cosmopolitan Life Insurance Association
be adjudged satisfied,
The+eord -cisctoses-meny—controversies; and 6 gomber _
of contested questions of fect snr law te reateed--en-this—aspeei,-——
It appear Fe F é that Frank E, Graves, thiehusband
den bute. LA
of ampeteee, filed an application for membership in the Knights
of the Globe Mutual Benefit Association, about May 38, 1895,
at Elgin Tilinois) and that a xexx m& certificate of membership
for the sum of $2000 insurance, for the benefit of his wife
Helen L, Graves was issued to him on that date, The certificate
seateaea se following provisions:
That the Knights of the Globe Mutual Benefit Association
agrees to pay to the beneficiary, the sum of the insurance,
"in consideration of * * * * the sum of $5.00 * * * * and
of the payment of such other sums of money for assessment for
Netrsitsw eseds tote jrottetoosea om to Tedioat & |
Lue -
aaw Sh het? reurtre ote eat ent om Patan bias 2oomo toate
os i as ee Ro esol
yonts seco mi tes etsetttiaes inenedst enter btee at
Lf ‘bleted bivote qida ts: FMS 1 te gisoititzeo edt outta
<ed .tedd fine eet erote ret act gine add dadtt bos A
Dettenioes ddemgbut « war fikd a ni beyelie exesta » oft. 3
bot bike elded tupent teu tay ek peer ~
grtyarc (LLfd eset « Setkt Bree be teweuts
aox0 it b EAS oe als -f
a 0! spies Lie igus 4d. vetnenexe peer (ew ie
» tet LLte- Lentgixo ert “gaikew ink? eetosh s betebnet
Ute) ame te Ea ghee:
pes; (aris aaote ‘eas aq toys tq “add cabinet, yo Lupe to
sipr ae : Ropes oye
OEM We a eS Sa) r a hg
moe oid dhettcase. odd te nibege tevoues Ss atest grt
tavems bie %o ddenyso moa stat Bre iatpos> ce es. oees
ss
ACS Oe, Tae eh, ®,
adtfetoodss eonsuredt tht BAshiheoo | sui it tentese tem
~~, FBC R-O EF rn phen Oran “yet “to “snot seer
bradeud sit ~2evst) A ames 1 Fad nc BORDHA VES He Ry
eT
avigin® sx ‘pi qiderodman 137 nosdeotlace as ‘beltt 428
(206L) 88 Yoit twods otdatooeek $itensd fata esol
qgidetedwom to staeotritreo Ri xian & far it bans “qetomtLit 7
n d: Diya
etivi cfd to #ttened eit cot \sonertant O008% te mye
sheothetzes eT ,efed tedt mo mid ot: bevent aw seve1)
a | *: ‘A: sanoleivorg gatwoliat et
if he Hokteloo ce eA di Tered seem ‘ederD eit to at igh
relpliodk-
| \oonetueRt edd 2S mare edt i inpasee
e
_—
mortuary claims and expenses in said Association according to
—_——
the By-Laws made and provided"; * * * * "that it is also
understood, covenanted and agreed: (1) That the aforesaid in-
sured shall be liable to assessments for mortuary claims ace
cording to thetable of rates prescribed in tie By#Laws of said
Association; and for the dues for expenses as required by said
By-Laws, upon due notice given in the manner prescribed by said
By=Laws,"
Also the following provisions:
“It is understood and agreed that the application of the
insured to whom this certificate is issued, now on file
in the office of this association and bearing even nnomber
herewith, to ether with this certificate and the By-Laws of
this association, shall constitute the complete and only
contract between the aforesaid insured and themcelves,”"
The following is the provision contained i dew the certificate
concerning the assessments to be paid, an the manner of paying
thems:
"And it is also understood, covenanted and agreed: (})
that the aforesaid insured shall be liable for assessments ‘or
mortuary claims according to tie table of rates prescribed in
the By-Laws of said association, and for the cues for expenses
as required in said By-Laws, upon due notice given to him in
the manner prescribed in said By-Laws,"
On the back of the certifpate, under i head of "Important in-
structions and information", apsuars thé following, concerning
notices, dues and assessments:
"Notice of dues and assessments due will be promptiy mailed
in time to reach all members on or before the tenth day of the
month, *®
Also the following concerning advance payment by members: /|
of. aatbtooes mottsioosea Bian at aueituaxs bile entalo yaaudtom |
«ObLs ef Tr tedt" ee ue “ytbebtvorg bre shen evaded j
“at bless tots edt tact (£) bes tas bas betmansvoo booteteba
~98 antalo yteuvtiom tot sitemasesas ‘ot eldsil ed ‘Lisde Berl Pe
Sfsea to aWwsedeya eit nt bec broee 14 sete to cide! edt of gn tb
bisa yd bettvpet sz eeenogte rot seub sid tot ome motte
bise yo bedixoasz¢ teanan sciit af Meviy eokv om ust) moa a
= VLhO, DLs. eteLenoo S oid ‘edutitenon Liste reese :
: " aeviesmerit _ bewuent biasenots odd neowted:
eteottitreo esis axt, nik bentatmoo notetvors oud et “gino ot
patysg: to recent me: abisq 6d-ot etteneseaes eit gobare
at bedtxonera weiss to eldai re ot gntbsooon entelo “dieh
“Beamegxe 10% Bev eft tol bas «holsatoones bise-t0 enslave ei tee
ai mid of mevig eolion sub mean awadaya bine mt! ‘bsttupes é er |
"awed=ya bias at bedironesa <n
vi sR tedmem xs. ponte eonavbs ma 000. 2
) “anaes: sg. ant ona
- | roo
| suenvers wishing to avoid the inconveniences of making small
payments, or the danger of lapsing arising therefrom, may
make advance deposite in any amount desired, Any unused portion
of such advance payment or deposits, shall be payable with this
certificate at its maturity, in addition thereto, Traveling
members or others, who do not receive their mail regularly,
will find the advance plan much safer andmore convenient,"
In reference to the amounts and number of assessments, which the
members of the association were to vay, Section 3, Article 5
of the Byehaws of the Association, in force at the time of
the issuance of the Graves Certificate, crovided, that on a
certificate of °2000, each member sh ‘pay a small annual
assessment into the general fund, to pay the exnenses of the
association, of $1; and Section 7 orovidea, that mortuary as-
sessments sng re mad@ upon all members to pay on the amount
of funds, as often as required to pay losses according to the
xameX table, The table referred to fixeg the amount to be
oaid upon the Gravee certificate at “1,00,
The provision in the by-laws, about the notice of assess=
haere
ment to be sent to members, *E as follows:
"A notice of an assessment delivered to a member, or left at the
insured&s residence or place of business, or mailed pottoaid to his
post office address as last furnished to the Secretary of this
association by such member, shall be considered duly served,"
In the year 1901, tlhe name of the Knights of the Globe Mutua
Benefit Association, was changed to Cosmopolitan Insurances Asso=
Ciation, The latier association adopted a new set of by-laws in
1905, by which the directors made monthly assessments when
necessarym, to be paid by members for the mortuary fund; it also
Yaised the table of rates, and inoreased the assessment levied
against certificates like the one held by Graves, from 1,00 to |
——
fisme yrfaan ‘to snatentaunteiditie’ exit bhove os patdetw at
Yasin <itoxte reid gor kent te ga bedsJ. to rsgmeh eat ‘to. Bi
sottiegq beeurts UTA, botkesb Porson ya mk at taoash sun
aids alt tw oidaven ed dik ate ,8P 580965 to dmemyeq sonavbe
' gatlevert etartod? no dilate gy ab (wtiwuten atk ts ste:
Ui tedeget Liew ‘hedd evisosx don ob odw ,etedto iwi
*,dasinevteo stombas tstee dos male sonsvba ‘sat
ed? dots eiteweeeece to rodium Sas eatnuome eft OF “eone7 3
"8 elotexn «8 mottos® .yaq of ere atoltsfoonea edt tas
30 entd edd ite e310 at Mobtskooses. edt to. eKedey co ®
Any Nae he ape ene
& mo Fact hepives étanktitred. aevew) edd, .%o : eons
lis tedmen ose (00584 to estes
feunin ‘Eiane 2 wed |
acid Ye adtnoors ey : se: ot cg benas't | ‘Lerensa | “od. “Oak “dh
mt 2 SE TSS
38 ; eras som tads spebivers oe ‘gottoee. ine» “a8 To. “aba t,
tiifoms ; eid 10. ye “ot exo dine fle: aouu baw od Mgaieve
“itt ov gatbronos eeesol yeq. ot: bertinpex ‘ae ‘getto aati
ed-ot tavome ve dif exit. od bere ter sided ‘oat .eidad
— 06,0% ta ‘esaottidzeo gevexd edt noau
aeeeee to-soiton silt tueds: Woke Ns eed ott -sotetverd. edt us
* ‘tawoLiol es Pe exedmen od dies sd
ect te ttel so yxedmom 6: ot bexevtseb taenpeezes me to.
eid od Beast toneby tle 10 iments ‘to patinnenebiiees
mi awal-yd ‘to tee wea a betqobs soiteiocess todtel sal)
ftecke etoonaseses yaar enn Shem ond Senet nate - fia
i eels tk ybawt Travis elt 20% ere cimet
—_
#1.70. The by-law with reference to notice to be given to
Ronbers, of assessments, remained the same,
About eight years prior to his death, the insured, Frank
E, Graves, in following his trade as a printer, moved away from
Elgin, and took up a residence in different parts of the country;
and thus took up s residence in St Louis, in the early part of
the year 1907; andlater in the month of April, settled in Nash-
ville, Tennessee, I't-te-evicent;—from “tlie broof offered onthe
Bitat———anat® tne insured Kept the association, of which he was a
member, constantly informed of the changes of his residence}
and upon his removal to Nashville, from St, Louis, in 1997, he
sent a notice giving his address at Nashville, to the secretary
of the Cosmopolitan Association, It had become a matter of
Custom, between him and she association, to send money for his
assessments in sums of $5,003 °nd sometimes he sent %S,00 ond
$10.00; and sometimes these amounts were sent in advance of mor-
tuary assess ents made by the association, When the amount so
remitted was used up, the secretary of the association would
notify him to that effect, and he then would sgain remit money,
This custom prevailed during practically the whole period of
his membership, The amounts remitted by him were aoplied in
payment of the assessments which had become due, and which
thereafter became due, In this way, he sent the sum of x&f,
$5.00 about the 25th. of April, 1907, after his removal from
St. Louis to Nashvilles and the amount sent was applied by the
Cosmopolitan Association, to pay assessments levied s ainst his
certificate, No notice to pay further assessment was received
by himuntil about August 36, 1907, when he was notifiged by
the secretary of the association that it claimed a balance of
60¢ due on the July assessment, and the full assesement made
for the month of August,The secretary also sent him a so called
as
health certificate, for reinstatement on account of a forfeiture |
A aaa Ala idl ae hh
o¢ mevisg ed ot eotton of sone te tox Ag iw waloyd —
‘ °° ,amse edt ben tine x ‘einisneceaes to,
Ansett ,betvent edt ,dtseb etd ot notre e1asy tifate Su0dK Np
mort ysaws bevom tedatxa e 88 shert eid pitwolfot cee wore
ay s?nuno, sii to sfrsc then PtLb fi sorebtaer ®& ay toot DAS. 1 i:
te trsq Vitae eft ot .,etwol #8 bk eorehiea 8 qu doot. nik ;
~desli ty pelttes ,fitgA to dtcom edt at ‘Yoteline oer tae
oxcong- BBTSTTS “Toor “ETE Hott — drehhve-st tT oan
S Baw oi do tdw to mottstoowss ‘aif toek femvent eth # =
‘feomediees aid to segnedto edt to benxotrt vzentanen « Lodi a
ed ,YO@L mt <etuod 78 mort ,etitvdectt of Lavomex etd moo
vetezoee oi of “el fivdest te averhbe cid paivig sotton 6
| to “med tai 8 enoosd bed ¢T Moitstoogea” nsf ETocomeod »
ere <ot vecon bree 4 lottatoceas ei f bas med meewted «
one 00, 83 dnee edt somtds moe bas 500, 8° Yo emue! mt sranngeoes
~Tom to gnceths at tee siev stnuoms seecit vemttonge bre 3
o8 ke edd ech stottiioodes gift wa" ‘eisai etna” asenes
bivow natiaresasa 4," to yrsts: sen ens aw beew enw vi
- Venom timex nisos bivow nedt ed bre ,toetts tact ot std Vistar
= to” ‘botisa slodw eit yilesttosi¢™ pts beiteverg moteuo, eb
mt betiqns erew ‘meal wd bett ime a disrome © eat qidsied
_dotde pas “anh emooed bed dotdw stnemereses: pit to. toms
az8 to muse ot dnee ei .yew atdd ot .eyb omsoed tevtss
La
mort favoret etd. tetts ,TO@L’ .LixgA to .at@8 edt tueds.0 ey
i Bo eoasled & bentsto tt tad? nottstooess edt ‘to cote
bi 2
eben ‘taomenenes List ent bres tromeesens aah
me he
‘oe beta, oe B mid F708 ou ee e edt, ‘A
: Posi ; TK, (RD RAR a) hak Rei eR.
—————
of his membership, This health certificate he was dir-ctec to
"sign and return, Thereupon about September first, he remitted
to the secretary the amount, which the Association figured
covered the balance of the assesement claimed by the association
te be due for July, and the asseasment claimed by it for August
and September, At the same time, he signed and returned the
so called health certificate, changing it, however, by writing
across the printed warranty concerning his health, the words:
"Wigcarriace of notice of assessment", The insured made remite
tances after that time, fully covering the amounts which were
assessed against him, by the aseociaticn, for the remaining
months of the year 1907, and part of January 1908, He died on
December 11, 1907; and proper proofs of death as required by
the rules of the association , were made out and sent to the
association,
About five weeks after the death of the insured, one
Adan _C, .Scheg
wT metal”: Bf 99
gel, who was a director of the association,called
mA Obtained
2, and ghaxkxed from her e release of her claim
under the insurance certi°icate, by paying her “500, Aft: rwards
on the 8th, day of December, 1908, the exresies, commenced &
Suit in the circuit court of Kane County against the err eee
Life Insurance Association, to recover the balance she clsimed
to be due her on her “2000 certificate, Sumone was issued in
this suit and served on J, 0, Myers, December 10, 1908 as scent
of the defendant association; the president of the defendant
association not being found in the county, The service was
made by leaving a copy of the summons with Myers, which copy
he mailed, postage prepaid, in sn envelopehaving a return card on it
to the address of the secretary of the association, W, W, Krappe
Freeport, Illinois,
Saat
, 4 4 + . a =4 |
A notice of the suit which had also been commenced, was |
OG al
ot bsto: tLb esw sit efseoiiiozes aj lasd etd? aicie rede
bet ime ‘ed ,vettt redmesgo® tyods nogue test TUTE T bas
Serge moltseroqoeeA ed} dokdw «towne edt YialeToe9 |
sottstoonas edt ya hentsto themereaes. alt to sonaled sis
texguA rot at wd bembslo tremeeen es, edd Aas a¥iot x01
ent bemwiter dns bengta od coats Shae add. TA sapMeds
guttizw yd wtevenod , i an bgrtasio cSt eoLiisreg tLeed beg
sebtow sili dtleed pis amimzeomo0 YHeTIAM Seva lus ents
wtimes bem betyent ect "toemaseaae to eation to ongts
_etew dot dw “adnvons asl aniteva9 ytivt taht dads art
gatmtsnet edt 10% tink iteiooeas, edt, NXg. smi tantegs &
| mo beth ef .800L yrsuinet to rag. ae a ORE rey ud Ie,
xd bertuper es ateoh 2, Bak tecowg bas. ATRL, aff 5
eas ar. tree fine duo eham ete W ie noltaicones i ak to sous
Hela
o Pt i
emo gbOzvect a0 Yo tee ont retts skeen pee tyoda
" petleo oitatooaes anit to tod perth 8 Bew ot ,Loed
‘a ban tetdo teers
misio ted to eetelex 8 Re. mort ‘bantxed@ bas . om
aa edt 8081 semen A to Neh, cei
EY |
ast tLoqomeod eit tentess, om hog sei to, ¢2ue9, tiyonke: ots
bembsio sip sonsind edt re v0081 ot moltstoogsa, eons ty
’ mt beveat esw anomnu® setsottitzes 900 Bf ted mo red ub
i. tasge ec Boer OL tedmeoe caTeye «0 4% no beviee, bas thee
is tuabaeten edt to tne btae xq ent fot datooass euaicateg
ae BBW Selviee on _«¥tnwoo emt at bayot gated ton. oo
< mer at Bt sromnie sis to x99 sans fa
* . Pp y
hd: 219s, eain -¥? eee Q
Seip ier 16 a Rift. raed pe P SPE in eae ih Revlad) ee “
= ) r —_
Af ee ee land
Bt
| also sent, in the regular course of mails, by sepelicete attorney
in a letter, postage prapaid, to the address of the Association
a% Freeport, Illinois, on December 9, 1908,
No steps were tsken by “he association, to defend against
aw feat tant
the claim of the apeeeioe; and on June 1, 1909, a judgment was
rendered by default, “cainst the association, in favor of the
appeiiee, for $1605.25 and coste of suit; and this judgment
ciel Cr rf hpi ‘
#6 the one sought to be eee by aspettanit.
that on the 9th,
Qa i shrps Area Dicks re
day of September, the anpetient entered into a contract with
the Cosmopolitan Life Insurance Association, whereby in considere
ation of the transfer to it, of all the asseis of the Cosmo=
politan Association, it agreed to assume all the liabilities
of the association for death claims then existing, r that might
thereafter exist, On the vasis of this contract, the a
on May 6, 1910, commenced the suit referred to in the bill
a Owe ae,
of complaint against the » to enforce payee et
judgment, and the prosefution of the latter suit the s#eertamt
also 8 to enjoin in this proceeding,
In support of La claim for the relief sought by the
bill of complaint, appellant contends that there was a forfeiture
_of theinsurance certificate held by the insured, on account of
the failure, by the insured, to\ pay the assessments due for
duly and August 1907; and that the insured, by signing the
reinstatement and helath certificate, dated September ist,
aaknia acknowledged that these aseesseants were cue; and that
he had failed to pay them that he ‘therdby also acknéwisdged
that there was a forfeiture of his certiztigate; that in the
reinstatement certificate, the insured made eertain warranties
} concerning the condition of his health, which were untrue; at
that it Was expressly agreed in said maixk health certificate
aoe: &
\ A
me res + Shes by . ‘ ay t
yeatodte steotisaas yi caftem to eaxvoo talwges edt ak on
Modtetooe sé eis Bs eaethbs eid oF. Dteaerq exadeog -
28081 ae reds ost 0 <wEOmELSY x0
tenisgs bae ted ot Molteloorss ad, Md aeied sxew eqete ‘or
Spare a, ae ‘nd
as tremgDut 8 802! .f. eng so one” peekiodae, ‘edt ‘to. ft
‘edt to tovet at tolteioceas ‘eat tentias testes” x
tromgbut, ets bos (tive to aseoo bre a8 20088 tot
ee | B f eke
2 Hat Sesh Re PE:
stieiiodes vd bedsous
wit end mo tent
attr tostdnoo 8 ote peiesas ators
®
-tedtesoo mt yceredti etoitatoonek someneat ear dastioree
=e ae NN
le. ie
ome od - edd 0 aieers hae tis to
tigi beds a geteatn met ambailo es not pethes O86! oi
Pon Naw OG o he
se edt ,toatdmoo aint a sided e6e a0 stebae :
é “ : yD sealer erie ay, Ge
Aft aria ne oF Rigi eae tiie eis AgortemnaD fog
: oF ewes oe
7 aA > .:. (oa 79 as
sit aitingte yd , bern.enr ah \essia brs eroee siegil
“et tel isdmetqe2 ‘betat setsoniiexeo dite Lod ‘bas wae
tsit base yeub e18% Bre east ted begbeLwoi
beyheiwinios ocala yderedt' ed tas yaa gad or ‘benka
ens mk wast’ Bs aia Yo ele
| that if those warranties were found to bs untrue, the membership
certificate should be thereby avoided; and that these Warranties
were untrue, and hence the certificate was avoided, It is fur-
thermore urged by appellant, that after the death of the ine
sured the appellee, in consideration of the payment to her of
#500 released the Cosmopolitan Association from all further
a
xXxabiikxkxkem liability under the insurance certificate in question,
—
Appellant also claims, that the judgment which was
Obtained by the appellee, against the Cosmopolitan Life Insurance
Association, was invalid because J, 0, Myers, the person uoon
| whom the summons was served as ascent of the association, was
not in fact, its agent, and that therefore, the court did not
have jurisdiction of the association, 28 a party defendant in
the suit,
-
We will first consider the question of the forfeiture
of the insurence certificate, It is clear that the right mxx
claimed to forfétt the certificate, was on account of the insured's
failure to pay assessmenta to the association, an that those
assesenente were based on the advanced rates fixed by the
! association, under its new by-laws, As a matter of legal right,
vs association could not enforce those advanced rates against
the insured; the only rate for which he.was liable was the
rate fixed by his insurance contract; and this insurance contract
Was embraced within the terms of his anplication for sembership,
i Bie
his membership certificate, and the By=Laws of the Knights of
=? Globe Nutual Benefit Association as they existed at the
\time of his becoming a member, By this contract his assessment
as fixed at the rate of $1, ver assessment; and he was not
Obliged to pay the higher rate of $1.70 per assessment, which
Was fixed subsequently, by the new by-laws .. (Peterson v Gibson
: aes Sib
qide tedinen sco e Sut dcuy ad oF brerot Tew settnenron saodt D4
rey ‘ ‘ty
aeivasiieW esedi sadd brs Ry chad ydererid ad pivods. edaont ts"
-1ut ak tI ,bebiove sex etnoitidzes eff sores brs “euratas |
eat siz to dtseb sav este taue atast Lente “a Bega “exon
To ted ot EE a edt %o nottersbtanoo Fae 4 «eellogge aa
ted¢sct Lise mort ndtéutboeek net kLogomeo? ede, begceser
rot tasup at siaoltti ies eoamtuent eit xebaw yiltdaed amis
Bsr do dw tnemabut eit tect canta cele toad Leqah
Se is tag iy a9 Pr MN evar Rigen a BL tii»
sonetuenT slid muy tLoconeod end Bhp a veefieacs eit yo be
Mecn mostsg eit ate ae 4 eavaned bileval Lo soite
bee an id Jaen
eaw .otsstooces alt %o trans Be bevies aBW. enounve ‘edd
She Ee Aion Po }
ton bib F1s09 | ent Efe te? bait pas 4 inege edt tet at fom
’ i er ees Ah ft
ae take ted. wre & Bs otaniooses: ica to mocdorbetrut 9v
ewtisii0% ed} te Mo tteeio Sdy rebtenco gant Likw ew
xia sighs, ot jaa Peel? erat edvortitzes oxen ed
ele oe + ite G
seody tsit one Wtotssrooans ‘ute ot ‘sinsanenee a f
ge vd bextt Betax beomevbs add mo peas exew atnenees “i alt.
- wae a tS 43 at ay = hae Oe a Sevan ‘a eH: & 4) ;
waogis Lege to Sag? ae. & BA adam wen att ebm wottstoogs iP
OWEN gl Seca MN
fenisgs sedex Seosexke scott eotoine ton bimoo ees
tay Beh RE ea eRe i Chae a 2 AR :
eft asw eldeil BAW. en sie t sh tot ofan > ould ibe went
i nee fegt kuel
vosttiago eonsivent etat bas {toaxtaon eonsmant eka 3, bexit
2a Ushkin. i
Gideirsdus” rot aottsotigna pti te eared ails atid te beosrdine
é a Peet Th FSy
to etiginA sit to awed edt bas sSioothieseo qbslesredaom :
N AD.
eck ta bessixe Yer BA no ttsitooe ek Ra Yosef Lowtuat edofo ¢
2 egy St
tiemasenes etd tostimon eid WA .teditem © grtmooed bist to
fom gay ec bos jtremessees rec; SJ to eins pry, ie ext
»* ‘ a oe at
sto hte stnamaceasa teg OF, on to atex Teng eds ves ot be
er
a
,
S eeeeieeeencee
10
191 Ill. 365; Covenant Mutual Life Assn of Ill v Kentner, 188 Ili
431.) Furthermore it does not appear that the notice of 4%ssesa~
ments, which is provided for bySection 4 of Article 5 of the
By-Laws of the Knights of the Globe Mutual Benefit Association,
Was mailed to his post office address; and this was required,
before a forfeiture could be deciarec and made legally effective,
It is clear, that the right to declare a forfeiture, was
dependent on the giving of the notice, as well as the failure
of the insured to pay the assessment. which he was obliged to pay.
(M, W, Traveling Men's Asa'n, v Schultz, 148 [11, 304.) For-
feitures are not favored in law,
"Before the defense of forfeiture because of non-payment
of assessments can prevail, it must not only appear that every step
necessary to constitute a legal assessment has peen taken, byt
also that the member alleged to ve in default has been notified
in the precise manner specified by the rules and reguiations of)
the order," (Farmers’ Fed. v Croney 106 Ill, App. 435.)
If the $5.00 sent by the insured aout the 25th, of April
1907 paid the raised assessment, within 60 cents, to and including
the month of July, then according to the rate Which tie insured
wae obliged to pay, the amount sent was sufficient to pay his
legal assessment, not only in full for July, but also for August;
and hence his assesement for July and August, 28 4 matter of
equitable right, must be considered as paid, No right of fore
feiture therefore existed; and it is bhvious that i there was
no right of Ruxfmshtuxe forfeiture on account of non payment of
assessments, none could be legally enforced, Nor was the insured
estopped to deny the forfeiture hecauege he had signed the re-
instatement health certificate, (Cov, Mut, Life Asea'n v Tuttle,
87 App. 309.) If the Cosmopolitan Association had no legal
right to enforce a forfeiture of the insured's membership in
the Association, then it follows, that he did not #lose such
ah 2a ? bn, ms i rey ie ee , Richer ih
Sit 885 .semtmeX v LIT to mara etil feu dul tasaevod ieee.
ssesees to soifon siit fads tweges fon neoe. az oromteds ut
siz %o @ sfotistxA to db noitosayd tot bepivors at Mote
oltstoosea sada tha feavtoM edol) sit to piaig tax exit 20, al
,beifupsi Bew sind bas peestbbs esottto save aki ov bes
»8vitostis yisgel i Soe bexeioed ec biuoo “exut eto? 8
esw ,ersttettot a etalned ot tigen wa hedd 2a0i0 abst,
etulisi sid, es flak. af ..eotton exis te gotvis, edit no ta
"sq o¢ begtido ast ai igidn gremepeeas, ols a ay, “henenail
“10% (808. . ILE. 8h1 .stludoe Vit aR 8 ‘rel gattovest
Sales ie bertover ton ors wen
dnenysc-acon To seusosd eyytiettel to eanetes ult. ex tea" i
ci
Ph te.
“@ere ytsvs ted! tesaqqe vine tom sesum Ht .fhavexd m9 esnomacsaes
5 sr
va
tad sa Ricgnneaier oth fonprosee, Leash = edui bienaa, 0 of
tte ehoitelugst bas eeius sit yd hihi looun tennam 20035, 8
. (,68h- ath eilI 80L yenoxd v bet ‘enone * 0.
fixoA ep -t8S eit? tuods betvent oti vd ines 00, ae erly, 31,
gotoulont brs of *"~.,atfeo O8 aidtiw vtoemeessas beater end pone
betient ait’ doriiw eter silt, of gaibxooon medi ent to “83.0
ein Ye of tnetottivue éaw dps e Troms, oud Ved od ‘bests
itauguA sof oafs tud eas rot fut ge eR. ton <tremeneet
~tot io tdgtt on yhae? Bw econ. ed Sam yee
asw eredt “f tedt evotvdd at tt Bae jhetatxe oroteredt |
To ixsetsq for <9 truoooe fe etud tetxot axatttixak to cr t
Setwart - | efw Tou _.,beototns ytiagel ed hivos artont “atone
RE! bi
F $
e- “81 ei [@mgle bat of Sausced eivtistio% aah wash ot ;
ae ehdiuT + oes stid . tom ..vav) eteor ivreo sms
sium, ck ‘oat to tid coeal, eo o
ere Bey acne ae
Ny
aS Later on Eile xotdatooueA mat &Laccomod ‘ecth Lm
: RY ol
il
membership; and, thet the Association had no ight to exact a
certificate to reinstatement, or require the ivsured to sign a
reinstatement certificate; end the signins of the certificate by
the insured, had no legal effect whatever upon the status of his
membership,
Moreover it appear clearly, from the certificate itself
that the insured did not intend to make, and as a matt-r of fact
did not make the warranties concerning his health, which it is
/claimed that he made in the certificate, By writing across the
orinted words xmxgrxnikx contuining tie warranties mentioned, the
words "miscarriage of notice x assegsment" he clearivy indicated
an intention to avoid making ank sta averent concerning the warranties;
and that he expected his reinatatdment to be based unon the sup-
| posed miscarriage of a notice to nit, of the assessment. We
are therefore of opinion, that nexp wos no lecal forfeiture
i the membership of the insured; jroz \e his certificate of
\insurance, / \
Upon the question of the Malidity a the release, it is evie
-|dent that the circumstances ane which wie reiease Was obtained,
and the me ns employed in obtaining it, ag “shown by the evidence,
rendered it Anvanid.| Men the director of the Association, who
journeyed to Tennessee for the purpose of obtaining this releass
Game to the we EY Sats was in a distressed and nervous condition
bordering unon mental and physical collapse, She waa still
suffering from the effects of a physical affliction , which had
befallen her; was greatly depressed on account of the death of
her husband, and worried because of t.e iilness of her son,
and the illness of her mother, whom she wae nureing, and whe Wes
under her immediate care, ‘fo—evidence shows —that she Was BO
Weakened and nervoua@ as to be incapable of Ne the norval exere-
' Gise of her will power; and, incapable, on account of her condition
—
» transact business of importance, It-ras-tcom-thts-reek;-—<orlorn /
era hel
Doral
a
peetdoeriaw adil gatmisores theme ysts ime untisn blove of notine |
BP e.
a Josxe of tdgit on bed ‘moidniooesa édt tai? fre ,qtdexeds
8 mute ov bemwati ett etiupst 10° tomedasente? ot” eteokntd
yi stsoitiites edt to antimgie ad? bre pstacttittes taomes stemk
aid to avtatea eft mnogu tevedatw toette Level Ys bed bewient sult
testi ateottitxso edt mort ebrabics ereeqis ¢t xevoetom >"
fost to ithe « es bits, .etem of baotnt fom 5rd bewent oud ag
at ¢¢ dotdw ,dtised etd anintesnoo peftneciee edt xem ton BEb
edt seotos gati fr yi. . xecaottittes ont mt. ebsm ert tesit “bem
edt ,bsnofinem ee Lins t LAr eng giinteditoo nee aR abror besith
beteoihat yitsel © oi *eaamageney ‘ial eotton to eaizzaoatn® 6
-~qie eit nous beesd 97 ot tnsnbtaten tex ata be toeqxe ed ‘tastd be
the ct inemeoe oes ont Ty nti os sokijon @ “to 251 tis08d besog
dsixeeaaese’: Leigh on Bei ae fans Hee PNM, to ae
nine 5 ; F af \ ; AS abi?
-tve ei ti _pesv ict eid te Weber Lan, sat to noting edt aot
beicidede asw esselet oom fotidy ci seonetenyotts ony tat §
Sonedtve et yd Nworle’ex ,tt antntstdp mt _Pevotqme en ont “ent :
ondw .moitetoosed edi to Tovostkb arit nom |. bata e’ ae.
Lincs Pops
eeselet etir intetdo to eRootia et x Y 3 0
esele giinias © sROC Tia xo osneeniey | x Beyer
moitibnes esuvevienr bas beavettatb s at weew erie Prat ad ot
—
iftte eaw si® .seqsiios Lsoteyae bits Lstnen ron. hd
toe ted To ageniif e + to eayecsd befriow bre |. basdasi
eew of” bas hckbns ew iis modw q Berita ret to bp
ae nod to ttgodon 0 (elder . bare! ‘ptowoet Ew —_ “re
5) Ly
4
i2
and ied Gakeabe woman} that the valiant ee i 2 Comes
/
mopolitan Ins rance Assoc atio concentrated his\unimpaired power
! and argument; \s d he set out toc optince her that
the Assogiation was really Aoing an act of ee ae in Te Det
—+ |
her $500 instead of the #2000\which was due her./ She a&%s he
told her that she had no legal claim against dea Agicelation
and could not collect anything; that she could not afford to co
to law, because if she went to law, the case would be tried in
Iilinois, and would take perhaps six years to dispose of it;
that her husband had committed perjury, in swearing to a
health certificate; and, if she brought suit, her husband would be
branded as a perjurer; and she, «as a perjurer's wife; that she
could not afford to have a law suit which would disgrace he
children, and her husband; and if she did not take the '500 offered
to her, she would eet nothing. He admits t at he told her in
the negotiations for the settlement, that her husband had sworn
to something that was false, in tie health certificate; and
that it would be better for her to mske this settlement; and that,
in her weakened and enervated condition of body and mind, which
he Was fully aware of, he talked to her for an hour and a half
to induce her to make the settlement, siaeh et da is no coubt,
that she was induced to sign the release bec uss he im»reseed
upbn her the belief, that he was acting in hey Noitsrest; and
\ . , / .\ .
by playing uoon her fears, in making represgntations which were
f
false, A release from liability, obtained /under thes& circim-
stances, cannot be, sustained in equity,
It is not necessary to discuss at length the other point
raised by appellant; namely, that Mvera, the person upon »rocess
Was served as acent of the Association, was not legally the agent,
The proof shows, that Myers attended to a number of matters Tor
the Association that persons who are acente usually attend to,
Ce hy
‘oor 4 Che) > ihe
SES ARR akan At pitty
done ein
#B0D SARTO Toyoss£h ttsiisy adt teft <memow betst topge
all
tewoq berisdm he c/a! ed bets Sidon evildl dant conetvent mat ht
edt tori jad Bide of tuo fee od bine) itmomurg te bay
OS rt alex to Tok ‘ns ann ew notte 088
; Pete: ene \ ter sub een dotdw/O008N” edt” To ppesertt et | 7
eigee tentsys wis hW Page's on’ bad ode° ‘ade ten | £
6h of Hiotte fom bindo sete tailt guetddvets toe ft6e eee ‘bhdés
-af beixt od Sinew'esao eft wal ot Smew erfe tk eeuboed Qt
iti to ssoqath ot atee} te "sQBAted etat bivow bas ye
e of yottwswe nt Cyxupted bedetimoo felt Basdaud i6a'
$¢ Siwow basdeud ted tive tiguerd effe Ti hws pedeottietes dd
site tent yetiwv atxsrupted « as ,9de Ais ptexuE xed 8 da be :
Ted sosteath silyow dotdw it wel & eves ot huotts tom*”
seme tte: Goak ‘eds -etet — Heh gle Ti bee phrsdedd ted bas qe
; ~to9t ted bios en TA! Pics: sii sentdvon: tes Sivew ede seed
mtove bed bosdavd red: tadt cfnm lat es sift tot ‘aottatiogén eft
i, oo? 3 ae yedooititres: dtised eif ak \setst asw teit gakiifem
1 edt bore idnemeities eiddé edem of ted tot tetted eae
3 dotdw .bofm bao ybod ‘to toi¢ibaoo hetevrene hes iabiialt’ Ss
t
: «sawed on ‘et Peed bok sdneme liven ect extam OF téd ‘sie
heseeicmi 811 \eudees easeist sft ngte of ‘Bes Bak sew ‘6de tad
\’
' Bae tfeote aye 8 ‘ok gritos gaw srl All vtetied eit” eH
M059. fits saan: gbintawes mort Erree
pee
gufog tedto siit Mgmel ts eanoekh of crea cecda ‘ton we
eeecoty four hosteq sit exec teif , vlemen toscteqds
’ ,tiege od? vilege! fam os” (motistooecd oA} to ines as”
tot owreree to te Arse 8B wn Seba ht sy axel mo adie
* we
ges ‘Sead vea wiJ saseir prey Bite one yi 16H
13
such as takkng applications for membership, collecting dues, and
remitting them to the Association; also preparing proofs of death,
and taking charge of them for the Association; and receiving the
Grafts in return, from the Association, to pay for death claims,
for delivery to the beneficiaries; he also took releases oi such
claims for the Association, He undoubtetlly stood in tie pogition
of an agent of the Association; and would be enerally regarded
as such; certainby outside parties, and the public generally,
would be justified in so resarding him,
In Crowley, Cook & Co, v Sumner, 97 Til. App, 304, the court
says, in passing upon the question of azency in connection with
service of process:
"The language of the statute is broad * * * * * it should
receive a liberal construction to effect wnat was clearly the in-
tention of the legislature to seoure, Corporations doing business
over wide areas of territory, are practically beyond the jurisdic-
tion of local courts in such territory where the business is done,
unless they can be reached by service uoonf their representatives
there found, That a representative for limited purvoses may
be an agent for purposes of service under the statute, is plainly
seen from the fact that not only a general agent may be served
but also any agent may be served,"
It is apparent that Myere, at the time of th= service of
“the summons, seemed to regard himself as an agent; he made no
lebjection to the service on the ground that he was not an agent;
and did what any agent would do, after he was served -~ transmitted
the copy of the suymons to the proper o*’ficer of the Association,
Ancd the Association seems to have re-arded the service of
Summons upon Myers, as agent, as prover; for it never questioned
| Such eervice, The Association undoubtedly not only had nctice
of the service, but of the commencement of the suit, There is
WIM € ee Sy oa ‘f ti
Ea y we a i
4 Wi awk Ny ,
ane FP s Ase” i ie fe Fo il RN alae) Co *.
a mye ; * ee
ade Ca era '
~<a
4
j
a.
¥
=)
- bas, a8ub gattoelios. ,.qidstsdasm, tot actotisoifqns gadted Be re
efiteeb To stoorq. gatiaqsiq osls, jatoitafoossa ed? on, sede yok t
ed? gaivieos: Ana jgottsioogeA edd rol.medt to ea zedty, getsed
<8Uisio diasy, tot Yaq od ,MotdetoogeA edd moTT ,M@tuser aie :
hove To aeaseisr Zoot os. of ise itelertensd elt ot yxevetek
° moitieog ecg xt boote ylketdyobaw eH .foitaiooaeéA, sdt tot, mb
bebtagex yifatene> ed. blvow oe proitetooess, odd) to. duega,ae
Wiisteney oifduq edt ons ,eettrtsc, ebtatue pee
| 3 ov wmttiygathtaye: of, why dettitent ade J
; dio eft oO .agke .LLT TO. premmw® v) ,09.S.2009 cwstWorOAE
dtin mottosnmoo mt yonese to mottaevp 913.moqu, gntseaq at, r a
ae Fae ees, fa 4s deseo07q to .
bivode th * *.*.*.™ baoxd et etutetes ect. to.egsvgnal.od
~ef eda yliweio eow tuiw tootte oF mottourttenoo teuodil s. awit
eceniaud gatos enotssi0c10> ,eivose of etutseletgel edt. to x 5 4
~cibaiw{ ei! Saoyed yiisotsoatm.exs. .yxotir1es to agers ebti 5
.8905 ef evsnteud est. eisdw yrotixied dove ot atzeo. fsoek to
Bb
aevissinessigs: tiedt Roqu solvies yd bertogze: sd aBe asia, Bes
ysn essocivg betimti tot svitstneeeiges « tect shah
vinisiq ei ,eiutate eit 1ebsu eotvige: to senegivg 10°. ¢aspe mes '
Sevise ed Yen diege Lareney s. yino, ton, tadt tost, edt no7 ve
" bevise sd vam toege yma oes th
oes '
to ecivies ed¢.to emtd oct te ,axevM tasid terenar: at. thsi Aa a
On obem sil jtnene ae as tieamid basset, ot bemees ecomus. 666
J 1 k
,tnegs ae ton esw ed dadtd baworg eft no. eotviee edd, of mots t
hettinensit -- beviee eaw off tetta ,ob hivow. Jasys, vets, daw bib.
BS moltetooreA et) to xeotito ueqorg eld of pmouwe odd Jo xYqoo |
eff to eotyree edt bebaspet evad o¢ omeee nottaloogs
, _benottesup tevent oh tot AT Moly 85 ,tnegs es, STS YM Mog acon
“4 eng: ‘iad q
a | seston bud “yirro tom. yLbstdyobous Hotds£OO@RA ent, are is
4 a
Z zs = aed? . thieedd Becdusmennenecs. adsee dud .eck
14
in the record, which can rebut the presumption that the Association
received the copy of the summons, which was mailed by Myers to its
secretary, in cue course of mails, Nor is there anything to
contradict the assumption, that the Association received the notice
of the commencement of the euit contained in the letter which
was mailed by appellee's attorney, postage prepaid, about the
time of the service of the summons, If the Aesociation thought
it had the right to question the legality of the eervice of the
summons, it had ample time and opportunity, between December is
@908, and the first day of June 1909, to do so, Not having
availed itself of ite ovportunity, in the court where the suit
wae pending. the Association clearly was guilty of laches; and
laches is a bar to relief, ina court of equity, (Allen v Smith
72 Ill, 331; Bhe Blackburn v Bell, 91 Ill, 434; Higgins v Bullock
73 Ill, 206; Walker v Kretzinger, 48 I11, 502,) Furthermore,
a court of equity will not lend ites aid, to set aside a judgement
at law, for want of proper service of process, unless it appears
that there is a meritorious defense to the judgment; or to the
claim uwoon which the judgment is founded, This doctrine is well
settled, and was upheld b this court, in the case of Cadillac
Automobile Company v Boynton, 142 Tll. Avp. 381; anc the cecision
in that case was afterward affirmed by the supreme court in 3240
Boa, 391,
It is apparent from the record, that there is no meri-
‘torious defense to aonellees claim, or to the judgment which
appellant seeks to vacate and annul, It was entirely proper
for appellee to file her cross bill, and ask for affirmative
relief in this proceeding, because such relief pertains to, ane
ig a part of, the subject matter of this suit, Where a court
|} Of equity has jurisdiction of the parties, and the subject
Matter of the litigation, it has authority for the purp se of
moiveiooesA edt tsit nmortquuecitq exit dudes mao dotdw beovet od
ee eee eT ee ee
ot gridtyas eros et 10 salto To eetv00 eub At ra
soijon eit Sevtecer motvatooreA ois Teiit (Ho Ciera ae edt tor8
dis tw med del edd oat bentsatnos PEs ont 0 nome onténoo r co
# guodt foifveiopean edd tI eromues ent to sotvise eff aa
ont to svlw tee ont to yitsost eddy adtteeny of wae? oid :
er tsdmeos” ieswied ,yiinutieqvo bie emtt elqms pat tt yen
grivel! tof sos of of ,SOCL anvl to yeh tarts edt ‘baw
tive eft erenw divoo ent mk .Yeinuécog¢e ett to Tleats B® chs
bre peadoet to viliog esw vitssio notisioosHA ent sucks
ee
ddim® ow meliaA) .yttupe Yo tavoo 2 mk ytetlet oF xedis ab diioat
4oolive v eabyetk (262 £00 i@ ,Lied v muuddoela més yes MED BY
‘Kj
ee
: .stomredtryT (,806 fff 8h ,wogntatexd v texleW 7308 VfLT- i
. : mee
< Siemgbut s ebies tee ot .bts ett busi tom Lliw yrtvpe to PIw0o &
od 6 ae. aa
{ _ @tbeqqes ti eesinw ,apeootg to ssiviea teqo1g to tasw tot wal te
in () eft oF to Gtremgiut ent oF eeneish evotrottren & et oxedd tant
iE ils® ebentitoo> sinft: sbebrvot at praahnt et doide moan akase
; osli tbs. to eaxno eft mt ,turoo etds d biedqy asw hrs belt ses
; motetoes sic one (£88 Gea ,ILT GAL .motnyod ¥ Yasamod eT Edo:
OMS mi t1yoo custque odd yi bewrttie brawtetts esw e960! weed
f -fism om ef stedt tait ,btocet eff mort tnerteqcs ati GT wh
doidiw doomghut edt of to ymielo seelloernre of oemeteb s otrot
xeqoty vlevtine sew #2. Lunas bre etsoey of sxeee tae. Led
evidvemiitts rot Wer bao ,f£ftd eaoxo ven eltt o¢ esl reqaa. 01
baa 40d enteatieq tetiet doue seurced ,girtbeesory etd inte ot
, douop s eted! ,tiwe ebdt to rothom toetduye adt cto dmeey
‘ : tostdue eft: base ,eedtteaq oid Yo mnmmennetsist mae yetup
ill i oa ae call dl, a oa elias» t,o sie
dminiatering equitable relief, to adjudicate all the righte of
the parties which are involved in the litigation, (Coleman v
Sonnolly, 3434 Tll. 583.) The court did not err in decreeing the
relief yrayed for by appellee in her cross bill, Appelless ciaim
and judgment was one of the lisbilities which appeilant had
assumed under its contract with the Cosmopolitan Association,
It was, theréfore, ee a8 much ag the claim and judgment
were valid, and a subsisting oblication against the Cosmopolitan
Asso ciation, and under the terms of appellant's contract
it should be required to pay the same, |
We find no error'‘in the decree, and it should be affirmed,
Decree affirmed,
te stigix ant Sie. Prigtrosnnuad wea ot vtetles typ
tba: ‘ ‘ce me ay ae cat Wes tale ae
y mansiod) wHoltesis EE out at hewkevn? ets forte
Cis ARR Rdae Ba ae Seas Te. * AE ee Pe ef a
‘edt gnteexbeb at = dom bid tuyoo ed? = {, ean
< oie8 EP ? ae Wee wi med et Eos Lax se
misio aes lieatk Ld a8 0TD ted me eeLieags ho wi sot
a! 2282 Eee are gnety Mae. a Ee
bad tmsiivgne doiaw eeiticedats gad te emo esw i
SP aay ak Se Pee uae Ree Uae oo) - Soret
snoltstooeah nei LLoqomeed ale ash | dopsm09 i
tremgbut ine mbeto. ont es oun Bs ae eTOCOTT .97
i? Te sete eee eee
aatLogouse) omy torkege mottentide anbte indus 5 bas
ee ee ae x ao — rf
dostinoo etineliocas to enned cs ebm ame
arr) Baa Cea ey ee
| emee | ent yee ot beakiper 8 |
Sat. OR et Oe bk |
bowtie: ad f biweds tt hae aberped edt ak toute om batt,
; Haig oss ey i a a eis ¢eah, wir. inet
ebeokt tte eexoed : a
2
bho? BRS
Pedaery. dite. 1% git CAO LEP wb
221m A pte «Oi ae Yee veda et ad
Jadidue en? Nati yr ~
eo atc > Bag, eseath iii ds ee
STATE OF ILLINOIS, |
SECOND DISTRICT. oss
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREor, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said AppeHate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of _in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
CST AAT WM ss temney, Ley + ihe gl iad ay Tae rv pang a
Ps hae wi t
" ( ator
walloggs os to A191) pragud .) say yore fo Py
#fvtoveH sdé to taqood baw ,aionil{l to etgie
gt lo dor merc ae ei 101 jit :
ott Io Golirikgo ot 10 4409 suid B el Uriogetol oft ded COVE ayy YEAH Ot slog
ito rapt herding 4490 were holtitae svodes edt unt gd {HOD 9
, ods “ifn bas bas war tee wavered | Moun YKOMrpe aT mE
a x a BIS EHO ds dq007) atallaga /. Hine odd todos
E 9m bial suo lo woy odd ai ~-» toss
Sar __ bos betbatind sein Hapegon
ng ment ae
Where ® benefit insurance certificate provided that ths insured should be liable
Pl scessients for nortuery elwins aceording to the table of rates orescribed in
the by-lene of the association, ani thet the insured's application then on file in
‘the office of the asseciation, said certificate, and the by+lIaws of the association
‘shall constitute and only contract between the insured and said associstion, and
‘such association thereafter changed its name and adopted new by-laws incressins its
ate of assessvent, held that: the only rate for which the insured under such cer-
tifioste was liable was the rate fixed by his insurance contract es erbraced within
‘the terms of his avplication for nembershio, his membership certificate, and the
by-lans of the association as they existed at the time of his becoming & wenber,
‘and he was not obliged to vay the higher rate fixed subseousntly by the new by=lans,
and such sertifisate was not lisble to forfeiture for the insured's failure to vay
such higher rate.
‘Porfaitures sre not favored in law, and where the byslaws of a benefit insurance
association provided that: assessments for mortuary claims should be uoon notice
asiled to the postoffice eidress of the insured, held that the risht to declare a
forfeiture of w& zertificete issued by such association was dependent on the Sivins
of the notice as well es the failure of the insured to pay the assessrert which he
wes oblised to pay.
Where a benefit insurance essociation has no ridsht to declsre a forfeiture of
a insurance certificate, such association may not exact a reinstatemsnt health
certificate fron the insured, and such insured is not estopped by having sisned such
health certificate from denyiné the forfeiture of his insurance certificate, nor
has such health certifizete any legal effect whatever upon the status of his men-
|
bership.
ak bediroesxe aetey Yo ore edd o¢ $01 ikidene ea wan taon 103 2da8
“lak efi) ne ned? notteotiqgs athatvent ot) tds Erta \nolgatoovew edt 40.
poitstcosss edd Ye angleyd edt foe ,odaci tienes Wine ;noltetooees end 46
bas ,soidsicogas tisa tve teineni. edd wgewded Jostinos ylao baa sdudidel
ett Satseotant evelayd neu totaoks bra ems ati bednato ted teosedt aotdal
~vee dove aetie tewant eds doidw 104 star ylno odd ted bfad :troneasugay®
7 siddis toowwdee ae Jowndaos eoveryadt eid gd eyes dey etd aew aldatt eae
of ef) fos jedect lignes qidevedden aid daiansdaon 90) noideatigos ett 3
viednan ¢ gatwooed aid Jo ond of) te betaine veld aa neidetoozgs edd
i eaxsieyd wey aft yd yldaeupeedug beri? atey tedaid efd yea of ket iide jon eee
r yso ot erslie? atheawent ef? to? aiudfelyo? of aldetl Jon eer etacttidses 4
ie
o> Seeetice aA Sel
=
~
odeweni Jitemsd e Ie ei ah te add svedw boe ,sel mf beveval Joa ove somu sie
sito soou ed tfuode avtals. YASH IFO to4 stoeuaecass dads tabivera nots t
s ei#iset of Jftian afd dadd Kled ,betment edd To Gudstres saryiotans ed? of te
?
;
“the words "miscarrisée of notice of assessrent" written by the insured under 6
venefit insurence certificate across the printed words conteining waerrantiss as to
nealith in a health certificate sent to and signed by hir for the purpose of rein-
statement under the supposition thet he was in default for nonpayment of sn assess-
Bt; clearly indicate his intention to avoid making any statement concerning such
Berranties; ani that he expected his reinstatement to be based upon the supposed
miscerrisése of & notice to him of the assessment.
A releese of liability of an insurance essociation signed by the bensficiery un-
jer w benefit certificate issued by such associstion ¢catnot be sustsined in souity
where such releese was procured from such beneficiary through nisrepresentsations
by x director of such associetion while such beneficiary wes so leboriné under
physical and mental distress as to be incapable of normal exercise of her will pow-
er ani of transectins business of importance.
Fhsre service of summons in @ suit s3einst an insurance corporation was rade,
the presijent of such corporation being without the county, dv leaving a copy of
such summons with & person within the county who had been attending to matters of
such corooretion as agents usually attend to, ani who received such zopy of summons
Without objection and transmitted seme to the proper officer of such corporation
nearly six months prior to judgment on default in such suit, end no ouestion wes
raised in the court where such suit was pendiné by such corpoorstion as to such
service, held thet such corporation was éuilty of such Teches as bars it in equity
from relief aspinst such judsment in the absence of a msritorious defense.
A court of eouity will not lend its eii to set esije a judgment at lew for want
of prover servize of process unless it aposers that there is & meritorious defense td
the judgment or to the claim upon which the judsment is founis4.
EE fe’
- ae ceianeysas atiniednoo etyow kedataa ed 2eotee etecitisses @ se
bo ' ‘
; <sier to sqoohe edd sot mid yd fensie bone of Saaz aladi Tidzec A$ ae cs
- re
5
iy eaeaae 12 to foeiyecdon +03 HIuetok ni sew ef Jali sot tizoague oat setau J
dove Sniniaeonos Jnensisse yoe Saidga Cicve ad aottaedni aid aiecteai viteels
. ak: ; iM
“keacague odd moau besad od ct dneretetanier aff Eestosare ai dadd tae fe]
p Los )
We iy
idnenaseane ef} jo wid of sotdon a jo egein
uy
iy
“au yistsitened edd yd Cengie sofsgisoses gonsiveni as to ytilided! to e2aaeles
ne
i “ee
ytigoes ni Centataue ed donsss acitdstooaas dove yd teueat olasilfitse Stened
atcriednseveigetaiy divcidd yretottisasd dove roT? beiucotg 298 sasaiex d
Op
aekau Snisodal og 2aw ytaicilened dove elidn avidstoceas cue to 4
og {fiw ved 20 eaiorsxe Lamton Io efdsasont ed of ea eaetdait Isdnem Ene
i p> ake
: = ssonadieont to easaisud taidczenetd Yo baa
.
- te ygoo # oniveel va ,ydnuco edd Sucdtin Snied nottsicaros doug to tneki
,clee 2ev noiteseqios sonavwani os senie$e diva s ni anosanz
hee ; is
Ye aresien cd Snitvedds seed bed odw ydauce add aiddin moatea a diie anommue
ms ae:
acissaicaitcs dove 2 ysfitdo secoqig efd oF ange beddisenant Ene :
3
234 acijeevo cn Ene dive dove af dlustel ae jnsmétut of sofaa edinom ¢
dove of 22 soiteroatos dove yd Sotkaed saw tive dove exide gaues edd
-
viiuoe at df aved ee aedoe!s doya toa yslivs exw aotdsteqtoo deve tat fed
2
2anste! auoiracdiy 8 to ssosede edd ni Snensbut deve nhc
in
men sco} usi fe dnembkut @ efies tee of Ea adi Emel don [fiw yvdtuo ete 4
anelet 2ugitotiren s i siefii ded3d evsecae $f 2selnu asacoqs Yo sciviee tegen
tekauot af dmamttot ed? dotds non wtalo a to
etekauot emtbot 3 oon wials ais og to dite
Where suit is brought by one insurance company to vacate & judsmernt reeovered
Shist. another insurance company whose assets were scquired and lisbilities ss-
med; by contract between the two comoaniss, by such former company, and to res=
Min a suit brow#sht against such former company to enforce such judément, it is
oper for jJefendant to file cross bill and ask and reesive effirmative relief
ainst. such former compsny under such judgment and contract.
mi \ { ae alt x
a sremebut & otecas od ynagnos eomaruentt ha nt
Oe ee
em
<a 3eidifideif foe tetivooa oven etenas azoda eeq nog sonewwent so
a s
seer of fos ,yoaquon temt0} dove yd ,eeineamoc ond edt pesries, foed
i
pet $i ,dmerstut deve gouolte oJ vaegwes iemto} dove Jentese stgord
x
% ‘Ietley evidanyitie evies oi tas dea bos Lie 22045 of} os dnakwetek
| ae:
,isersaoo kne tnewtkat dau2 askau yaagnoo vemaaw dovga
f
'
Hy
1)
—_=-=- 9”
ac
* q
4 5 ra
ri £
rd Ps
f r)
4 af
4 £
N |
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATH COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand fine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District/fof the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
‘Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, pustice.
|
}
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFBY, SNOPES hataitak, Wh Ga
E..M. DAVIS, shexte, <a ¢ QO if 4 8)
a oN fii :
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
aot 19ND
DEC 2 | I the opinion of the Court was filed in
Mae Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
4, bas
Yemcertit
a. woe
Fac
oe
¢
‘
i
ae
eaesetiit bas ee ws basevodt sao brod to Yo, ae
:a3todilit to staid shi tol totrsaid baosse edi soa eee
.soiteul anibias ‘ft , dLeaTe ZOKARAOG 00H -
-9ort teak SHUAAD .& FHAUT 10H
9ottant | \ auaaa ri <M MHOL at
"\:
Anel9 aero a aaHTOTE TAHO
PY sUtkred® .2IVAC MH
SSS SSS ee ee eee ae a at —
6 we mere ye * “
: MeL stmpets gevthcccae 2 wae ees = ey es TN ee ae, Ghieti es e
gota gh eel eis at taiea Wi eae By faa a
; 4 "¢ d ‘ 2
a a \
Nagy '3%7, MP oS Peat ae fos % At ‘ ‘ \) ae ometp le ee"
¥ Ly ?
a "
: :
a ’
ital uy y= . ea ar oo 46
mo itiw- of ebrawred ts tadd caacuitusa 1 #6)
Cte} Ted
tt patty? aeW tipod 9dt to. “sotnigo dt
29tHart bas sbrow a ai’ Jtxu0d) bise yo! oft te 3
'
e. ‘
i wre
wip Fore ; as
4 z' 4 4
‘
ver
” i
* Ny ,
® :
} Wa
i) \ Fi Shanty Welk
~ ; i
~~ i,
/ i i
‘if en
i 1
- Al
ry . Ae NM ‘
Wy > ai .
Gen. No. 6076
Julia Jacobson, appollant.
VS Appeal from LaSalle,
Joseph M. Ramey, appellee.
Dibell, P. J.
Joseph M. Rakey owned a byAlding in the city cf Streator
that had a stairway on +} outed @ of the building. Mrs. Julia
Jacobsom was on said stairnsy Ahen a beard thereof gave way
under her and she fell through the ground and was seriously
injured. She i oe npafy a3 agaimst Ramey to recover dane
ages+herefer. She fi ae a t oeaeetion containing three coungs.
Defendant did not demur thereto, but filed a plea of not guilty.
There was a jury trial, and evidence for the plaintiff was
heard. Plaintiff offered in evidence a lease of said building
grom Ramey to hertusband, Samuel Jacenson. Defendant objected
and the court reserved its ruling. At the close of the plain-
tiff's evidence the court sustained the objoction to said lease,
‘Thoreupon plaintiff by leave ef court filed an additional count.
The accident was on October 31, 19123, and the additional count
was filed January 22, 1915. Wo demurrer was interposed thereto
but defendant filed a plea of not guilty and a plea of the State
ute of Limitations. Plaintiff demurred to the plea of the
Statute of Limitations and that demurrer was overruled, anda
plaintiff abided by her declaration. The plaintiff again of=
fered the lease in evidence and the court sustained an objection
thereto, and granted a motion km by defendant to exclude ail
gaia evidence and instructed the jury to return a verdict
for defendant, and this was done. Motions for a new trial and
/ in arrest of judgment were denied, and defendant tnad iudenset
B ) & Oe ahh KX
fin bar, and plaintiff below appeal” therefrom. Picay Cae argued,
pthat the original declaration did not state 1 cause of action,
that if any cause of actiom for plaintiff has ever been
C , ‘
» it 48 in the amended deelaration, filed more than two_
a.
wanei eae croscosat
rollsBal wot? Leoqas |
polfeqrs Cyoaa I Age ,
ie S ghol eS ode |
> ies
tosserda to ytico odd mi gntbhi
sist .aik .gribiiud adi to dae adeno
Yaw" evsg toored? orsod « jee witsts bisa tto esw
ylevoitea sew bis bnsotg a ages {fet oe bes 3
ish tevesst of yomef tentege tive, at «tony
ye re i’ :
»atavoo eerdt quiniesnos molisisised 2 belit
-¥3iisg jan to selq s belli tud etwiast custo ton bib?
aa tiiinisig ent tol sonebive bas tekst Vig ses
gaislivud bisa to oenol © eosebive ci perettd yiidntert is
dotoe(de trabastot ieoun Leunse dbaedeut ted oe —
~titsig edt to esolo edt fA .antlux eth bevtocet txu0s ef
,9esel bles ot Moltooide of? benksd ave Hruoe ortt | comebl ve:
.truoo fenoitibbs ms belit Ptsoo | 2m eveet vd Vitintetq: no
taweo Lanoitibbs oa brs ,ofeL.. te reXtod9Or 10 Baw debt
ofetedt beaoquetmi azw Tevtueb off ater (88 viswnet Bett
-fst2 oft io selq 5 brs yituy ton to selg & belit tuebr
ef? lo selg sit of betiwmeb Tiisitisls — os
bee ,belurrevo asw tetimmeb tact prs adontne tat? to
“to misge Yiftdnielq ec? .toltstsiseb ted yd bobids ahh
acitoeido as benistazse tuvyoo sdt bra eomebive at eesel oft .b
page
Lis ebuloxe ot tnsbreteb YO wt noftom 2s betasts bis— 3
doibrev os mutex of vit elt petouttant bes eomsbive ent
bos Lsitt wor s tot amoitoM .enob eaw atdt bas «taba
af. tgeryhes), ee cnet bee ,beined etew trong dirt 20
av A Ay er
ONGTE | smorte red? iseque voled perineal
fies to ‘Saueo F P edate ton bib Robt
:
an ee the injury, and that the statute of limitations
\
| bar
the action. | :
A plaintiff may amend his declaratiom or file an addé
tional count stating his cause of action in a different way
after the Statute of Limitations had run, without subjecting
‘his action to the \bar of the statute, as held in Swift & Co
v Foster, 163 Ill. 50, and in many other cases. If the cause
ef action set up by an amendment to the declaration or by
an additional count is a new one and not a mre re-statement
of the causd of action set out in the ciginal declaration,
such amendment or additional count will not relate back to the
commencement of the suit; and if the Statute of Limitations
has run vefore said new cause oF actiom has been stated, the
plea of the statute will be a defonse to said new cause of ac=
tion. Fylienfeldt v Illinois Steel Go. 165 Ill. 185; Mackey v
Northern Milling Co. 210 Til. 115; McAndrews v Cc. L, S. & F.
Ry. Go. 282 Ill. 632. This rule is re=stated, upon the basis
of the foregoing and other suthorities, in Rakr v “ational
Safe and Deposit Co. ~234 Ill. 101. One of the three essential
elements of a cause of action which the plaintiff must aver
ahd prove in such a cause as she one now before us, in order
to entitle him to regover, is the existence cf 2 duty on ths
part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the Injury
of which he complains. Rut an allegation in such a declaration
| that it is the duty of the defendant to do or to refrain from
doing certain things is only the averment of a. legal conclusion
4
and is an insufficient pleading. The declaration must state
facts from which the law will raise that duty. This is fully
stated in McAndrews v © L. S. & FE, Ry. Co. supra. and in many
other cases. ;
Bhere is a class of cases where a suposed defect in
a declaratiom has been presented to the court aftor verdict.
anoitstintl to etutsts ent tant bas eYrutat enh othe Fi
‘ o2ti,@s Molios ~
bbs np eltt %o totisrsioeh abd bneme yam Tittptalg A 4 “a
ao,
Z
fo
yew ineteliib s mi moitos to eauso sid gatt, te tnueo ,.
guitcejdue tuodtiw .aux med anottesimbd to asain ott, m0
D8 dhiwl at pLolt af ,eduiste odd, Lo x8) ‘eit, the ons
gaueo sit 4 seoaco redto wm at bas PAs Lit eo, tet aos
ud to noltaxsipeb outs of trombrems ap Wl qu, tes, ¢
drome? steer etan 5 son. Drs pio wari 5 Pi, dros sensi ;
7 :foltatsi sey, Lar igit edt ak #40 Apa Moises. to, baus
ed? of Xosd eotalex tom Iiiw. tavos Ancottibbe.39 § tno;
astol jeitens to otutet® . Silt 2. bos itive edt to 9
“08 Yo eaueo wor, bh od eanoie. £ po oe sabalelace 12. 98d ud
v yosoul ,G8L .L1T 381 00. Lpet@, stomt Lit, _sbletaetym: a
. a $42 of Ov awetbohok jell bE org. 209 Baki lim
stasd ede nous hetet got al elyz eidt, 2888. Ltt. 888,
- fscoitst ‘Vv tiie? mi ,Beitizodiue. Fedto baw, antogeto2¢ 8
Lebtnoese cont edt to eaO ,.10L Eft REST. 209 tisoge™ ba
zevs dessa ‘Ubintelg ont? doisw Boles to. e8ue9 £ ovat
: , sehr ri 2 BL oxoted WOR erro eae BS St &. dose ak ev 1
edt mo ytub s to sanetatxe out Bt ePOvORET ot md -ef3
er bat edd mont tiitnislg edt tagtoty of tiene ep 0
aos sisloeh s dows st Moitsyetia ms tof ranisiqmoo ed ol do.
_ Mott siaztet ot to ob of trsbneied edt to x bib ont aba a
foleyfonoo Tagel to tremreva eft vino st agate lise
eistea Seu Holssrsloeb edt gilbsetg tretotl’ ck, an a
- yltut ai atdT en tase abort iLiw tat addt Hoke, al Bh
“. {>
mi! a he * we ;; " has
: , cy’, Ae
i>. a oo oo hae 3 an
|The general principle is, "where there is any daftak defect,
imperfection or omission, in any pleading, whether in sub=
stance of form, which would have been a fatal objection upon
demurrer; yet, if the issue joined be such as necessarily re-
quired, on the trial, proof of the facts so defectively staked
or imperfect]y stated or omitted , and without which it is
mot to be presumed that either the judge would direct the
jury to give, or the jury woulc have given, the verdict,
such defect, imperfection, or omission, if cured by the
verdict ." l Chitty's Pleading, 675; Keegan v Kinnare, 123
Ill. 280. In Western Stone Co. v Whalen, 151 Ill. 472,
notwithstanding the omission from the declaration of the nece
essary allogation of knowledge by the defendant, the declaration
was held good after verdict. So in City of Fast Dubuque v
Rurhyte 74 I11. App. 99, and 173 Ill. 553. the declaration
failed to aver wither actual or constructive notice to the
city of the defective condition of the sidewalk which caused
the injury there involved, but it was held good after verdict.
In N, K. Fairban@ Co. v Rahre, 213 Ill. 636, the declaration
kn &exem did not in terms aver a certain material fact. The
defendant did not demur but pleaded the general issue. The court
conceded that a careful pleader would have expressly averred
the fact but held that'it was fairly inferable from the fact
alleged that that particular fact was intended to be charred.
It was there said that on demurrer toa declaration mere
inferences or implications from facts stated cannot aid plain-
tiff, but that where defendant coss not demur but raises
issues of fact and submits them to a jury and is defeated, the
court will tndulge in intendments in favor of the sufficiency
£¥ the declaration and will regard as sufficiently alleged any
material fact fairly and reasonably inferable from facts stated
oP)
ao bens
ptosteb tudkam yas ef exeddt etedn® vet elqtonfig féren
-~dye. at senftedw .yetbselq yosa ni qtloteating ‘to aot toot |
‘agu aoitoetde Istst s mesd eved hiitow nidtde) mot to sonst:
-et ylizsaseoss as fous sd bemlo{ evsck sat TE dey Sade
gainin Ylevitooteb of siost od? to Loorg heitt gift i ¢
ai tt doidw tgortiw re ., betftgo ww betstes eitoetreqme 3
or
efi toorth Bluow egbuf edd tedtie tat Hemw eer od 68
i totbtev ont <fevks évad binow yruj, edt ae) 19723 0
odd “yd bere at Mo taaime %o dotteitvejad ehaee
éfl ,etsnakd, v magooN ;290, garbeosd’ ai gis ido Er %,
80h .£fT fal (meted® v..09 snose Ar6so8W at
-oen edi to moltstsloeb edt mort Roleaimo eit grtbast
sottsrhloeb. adi. ¢ drabaet eb ed? ve eabelwond to" MOLES SO LENE
Vv eupudud tant to ytid' at oa Jtstbrey, efts boda" bieit”
Hoidevsloeb Ht .868 L111 8¥L pas fee Sqga’ [irr Sy ony ie
ed? of edSrton ovitoutteties 160 Isutoe tédéie revs a2
beauso dolkdw dlewebie: bad) to hortibaos’ evisoet bb oni '88) wd
Hibs rests booy bled asw th ted ,beviovit eredt yrutat
noitstalseh edd ,d8) .ILT° eis ernst — vw. v9 Sinadriet 3:
edt ,tost falvod am nkstteo # (eve ante irk tor bib’
truoo eat .euent Isvteire3 ads bebeel¢ tid rune tom bib
berievs vlesengxe éved blyow sebsolq Ivtorso s° tadt a
Fost extt mort oldex ste ylrist apw tk! tadd bled tod 4 9 ‘3
.begtedo ed ot bebnednt ~ aaw ost nitisory¥ny’ BUY dunt
eren sottarsloeh « of tettumel no tent bisa oredt
~tielq bie tontso, bedste atost or? atoidsdityat Yo #6
esatset tied cate lh tom aon tnabrtetep ote tet duit
bad (hetseten ai bra tit S ot met atindye brs’ ‘teat Yo"
yorefoitive ond Yo to¥st int etnonbaeitat ay wpe al
Yas. bapeice yitastottive es braget itty base totes !
‘otate ojeat mot? oldetelak {Yidonoenet bea ett ae ads
in the declaration which may fairly be presumed to have been
proven; and if the material fact is fairly inferable ffom the
facts alleged and may ‘fairly be presumed to have been proven
the judgment will not be arrested because of the absence of
an express allegatiom of such material fact from the caeclaration
O'Rourke v Sproul, 241 Ill. 576. Mueller v Phelps, 252 I[11. 630,
While this question has usually arisen after verdict
and it has usually been said in such a case that the declaration
is good after verdict, yet there is also a class of cases
where the same principles have boen anplied where the question
| arose before a jury trial. In North Chicago Rolling Mill Go.
v Monka, 107 Ill. 340, the chief ruling complained of was
before the trial of the cause , and the question raised was
whether a certain additional count was for a cause of action
in substanee other and different from that stated in the first
count. It was held that it was not, but was merely another mode
of telling the sxtmxx same story. The court said: "The damages
sought are for the same injury alleged to have resulted from
the defectiveness or insufficiency cf the same machinery
and that the existence of such defeets was by reason of the
default of the defendant." In Chicago City Railway Company v
MeMeen. 206 Tll. 108, one of the principal questions arose upom
demurrer to replications to pleas of the statute of limitations
to an additionalcount filed after the statute had run. The
court said that it might be true that the facts proved under
the amendment were at variance with the allegations of the
original declaration, and still it did not necessarily follow
that the allesations of the amendment introduced an entirely
new and distinct cause of action. This was illustrated in
Various ways, and the court held that although the amendment
varied the details in several respects, yet so long as the
entity of the matter upon which the action was founded was
ne ) ue % 17
a x x ass eae i call va
sey =) y , inf ,
heel pea! Ne Beh ahh nid %
* hed : ms: ' } vehi | 7 aah ta
pre f P) at i; cae |, it y :
7 ihe: Vi i oe)
; ‘ PY rf
ased evag “of bamwscetq sdf virtst yein “dofaw! Wolfet sto 8.
edd mott eldsretnt yltist af tos: Larreten edt ‘tt Eas” -
mevoty doed evsd of bemtaerd od yittst: cen baa “beget:
fo: eamends ot t0!esueeed ‘befsetrd ef “Fon ELbw Fndmyl
foitersioed eft morY tos? Isltotem foie to aiperngret i
noltarsiged ed? ett Beso 6 Hove WE bree need aire
sound to wealo s onfk ap-etedt tey Pobprev torts”
aoliaeyp ent exedw Berfats méeth vis! ‘welqbortiy bathe
.00 [LEM 3abL fo onsotdd dive of .TeEYS nhsiredlhe store
mbesiet soktwowp 6it bie , Seiiso BHT To” Lait?” ett
hotter ‘to eausd stot esw" tewoo” Issobtipds mistress 5
tax? edt Ai bedsts tedt mort ‘trotett Lb! pre tedto’ ys |
show tedtons yLetem Baw ted fom caw tf ted plbd’ aba ca
Bogansh: odT* ¢biae truoo eAT > eebba tase Shae ext gird
mort betivaer evad ot begelis yrutab émee edt tot ots
oyroridesin emse edt to yore bolttuaitt “to eeemovit é
ecru vitceeeoonm tem pry tr Liite hop enue
viexitns ne beosborint dorembirems woth % persia
al hbetectegl LL aust ataT mottos to eames: fortath © bk _
| teombesime edit’ sywoita.le fetid bIed tevdd- wits CG us
ae Ae ie Deemed ee Bmol” cr rer" eaboogeey Loveves mt st
‘preserved, it did not state a new cause of action . The court
there quoted with approval from Alabama Sreat Southern Ry.
Co. v Thomas, 89 Ala. 294 as follows:
"The various amendments allowed to the compiaint do not, in
our opinion, introduce 2 new cause of action different from
that stated in the origimal count of the complaint. The
of
ban
gravamen of the action is an injury caused to tweive hea
cattle shipped by the plaintiff on the defendant's railroad
on April 29, 1886, which injury was alleged to be the result
of the defendant!S: neglirence. The several amendments each
make a case based on some alleged violation of duty growing
out of the undertaking to ship these same cattle. They may
correct a misdescrintion of the contract as to the agreed
point of destination of the cattle, or otherwise cure an
imperfect statement of the same subject matter, or add new
averments of facts more clearly showing the negligence come
plained of or otherwise altering the grounds of recovery, or
varying the allefec mode in which the defendant has violated
his duties growing out of the agreement embraced in the vill
of lading; but they
ca
o no farther. The iientity of the matter
upon which the suit is founded is fully preserved. The amend=
ments all fall within the lis pondens proper, and only sub
serve the purpose of accomplishing substantial justice between
the parties and ef deciding the pending controversy on its real
and true merits. This is the main design of all statutes aliow-
ing amendments to pleadings. The Statute of Limitations of
one year was for these reasons no sufficient answer to the new
counts added to the complaint by way of amendnient,"
In Ll. 5. & M.S. Ry.Co. v Enright, 237 Ill. 403, the trial court
Sustained a demurrer to “he original declaration, and to the
fame declaration as amended, and held it didi not state a cause
trvogr ed? ai mottos to eavso, wor 2 etat pr tomibith: tira ewe
/ NE, rredtwe?: teex® nosis laA . moth, Lavetaqqs: Atiw bet oup a |
sawollot, ea 0S, .6 LA, 88 onto rs
at: dom ob. trteLameo edt et bowel la: atmembrems ir:
MOrt treretakh. nottos: Lo. ssagso* wer w soubottal i aMtod
edt. .datelquos eft: tor tayno irabgtce orld ab bets Le
to deed eviow of beameco yrutml mm, siimol tony erit: t v
bsorlisx el tnabnet ef ond go tttite he fe, edt ud bene
Wont bE TO. porrer toeidya emae “ort tho dmemetste: 4
—moo eoneagtigun edd anéworks yvineeio stom etest. te r
to .Xtevoben Lo abanory eft pobred te. eckererito eo 2
petsloiv asd insbmebob sdi Sohdw wi ebom behefie edt) gi
Llic edd of .besetdme, taeoapearyge ett ho dre gibmota, Be
tettem eftete yrismehh edt smoddual om oy xeds: duct 43)
~bisns- ett .bevreeord viluivet bebowok ek diwe ertt wom
Oe. YLM0,, biter ~Moc ox _emebired: ail enh midttw fet J
meewled soltay, Letdirateduys anidatiqaocgs, To eRogrwt, ©
lset sti no yerevenmdnoo ynkbaog edt grtbtoeb, to: bas a '
-wolle aetutsie Iie to mpteeb miso edt ef et ay wad brent ¢
Io enoitahimtils to ethetsh® ‘oat, simombbaesi ot oatn nail
rer enc of tewemm Inmet oi? ToR ott pmo nee sao, 7
‘ tronbrens Lo yaw yd Sorbatgmon stat ob, rei!
frvep: Labrt esit a ofits wE6 tighrat x wenaienein M
of action, Another amended declaration was filed after the
statute had run. To this the defendant pleaded the ceneral
issue and the Statute of Limitations. The court sustained a
demurrer to the Statite of Limitations. This ruling was before
the cause was tried by the jury, and so was before verdict.
The court held that ewen though the declaration us first amended
stated a cause of action dofectively, yet it stated a good
cause of actiom and would have been ‘good aftor verdict; and
that the second amended deglaration did not introduce a2 new
cause of action but reestated more perfectly the same cause of
action stated in the first amonded deciaration, and that though
the facets concerning the duty of the defenaant were, perhaps,
imperfectly averred in said first amended declaration, yet
they were but a defective statement of a cause of action anda
would have been good after verdict, and therefore the court
properly sustained the demurrer to the plea of the Statute @f
Limitations. In Hagan v Schleuter 256 I1l. 467, one of the
questions discussed arose upon the ruling of the court in sus=
taining a demurrer to a plea of the Statute of Limitations to
an amended declaration filed after the statute had run. This
ruling was, therefore, before verdict, The original tieclara-
tion averred the unsafe construction of a certain wall but
did not state in what respect it was unsafe. The amended aece=
laration specified the ~articulars in which it was unsafe
-and set out in full a contract which was only referred to in
he original declaration, and contained averments as to the
relations of the parties which had boen omitted from the orie=
Binal declaration. It was held that the last amended declara=
tion did hot state a new cause of action, and that the court
@id not.err in sustaining a demurrer to the plea of the State
ate of Limitations. Vogrin v American Steel & Wire Co. 66 TAL
oS
m
SNe Fl, AMR Dale Re SSRIS RS AS eg i! a aie ak ae on
ey Al he gat yh PT nail ached ihiies ii Aa RLM Ls.) 7.
eit wths belit asw goitsersioeb: bebnoems- 1edt ond noite:
Lstems3 ext) bebselqodmsbnsted eft) atdt of (paurrobedued
6 benksteve tien ecT senottetimsl 20 etutet® edt pay
eroted. ssw aniiot aidT ,anoitstimid to etigate. edtvot! T8L
stoibrev etoted esw os bes .~yrvt> edt yd betrt saw, pees
bebroms tert?.am moitstsios!) ent dAguvont mode teit lod dxe0 f
boog # betste ti dey .ylevitbeleb motdan topeause & hotets
bas ,fotbtev tests Soog! need ever) bisow bre wodtop! Onn :
wens eoubotint tom bib mottsraloed bebmous bropea eld.
to efuso ems odd yliostreq eran. betstp-er. dud) noiton to
dgvond todd ban .wottstaloeb bebaoms gett} edto mk podete. 10bd
.adteq ,etew tosbmetebh ef? To: ydwb ond gninvesnos: etosk 9
tay Moitersioey Lepaems devil, bi se ni berreve x Ltoek
bos Moitor to eves B bo dinemetate evisoeloeb: # sud) OTOW
izuoo ent oooteniatic bits 4tobbtrev tells Boog, abed:, ose b Ls Q
te efutsd@ edt to sely ed? of temxuumeb edt bentetave,’ Eo
edt. to emo , TOs .LLE 858 votweldoh v maget at « vane iteds ’
~aue ai tiveo oft Lo gritux efi Hoy. OBOE S venoupelb scoltenep
of. scoitetinid to stytsiG@ ede To solg: 8 od nemumeb: «i robe -
sid? sur bad otutate ett settee belt mobtetsloed oswons a
ssrsioei Lanigixzo ecT totborev .etrobed coTotor ods: BBR 30
dud disw mketveo 2 to moltouyienco eiaemy edt: obarxeve : . '
#“oob bobnoms eft .etsenws esw di tooqees teow mk et adhe: to :
stseny esw ti doidw al arselwotiun ont) bektioeqe,! noid:
ni of bextetet visto sew dotdw toertroo 6 Diutenbbdwo tes.
eid of Ba etmemiovs benisimoo hau woltstsloeh Lanigizo ©
eivo oft monk bettimo mood fad aeteiee: seléxaq ‘efft hor 2 bd.
estaloobh bebmems. dast ont dadt bled exw tl « stolteratgeb !
éivoo oft tedt bos , ,ttottes bo esusp wep se, etete pod) bib
474, is ‘e recent application of similar principles where there
was no verdict. There the court found in the language of the
original dedlaratyion words which by reference were held to
sufficiently admit of proof on the trial that at the time and
place of the ay appellant was in the discharge of his duties
as an employe of \the appéllee, although the charge was not made
in language usually employed in common law pleadings for that
purpose. It wasthely that the facts so found in the original
dgelaration by implication and by reference, though not set
=
out with the same axthi dularity that they were in the amonded
declaration, authorized the filing of said amended declaration,
and that the latter in no manor changed the ground on which
appellant had originally preNicated his cause of action. It
therefore seems to be an established rule of pleading that
though the question whether the dause of action stated in an
amended declaration filed after the statute has run is the
same cause of action as is stated in\ the original declaration
usually arises after verdict, and it\s usually said that the
declaration is good after verdict; yot, where there has been
no demurrer to the declaration and the question arises upon
the pleadings before verdict, an amended declaration or an
additional count filed after the statute hae\ run will be
held to only restate a good cause of action defeetively stated
in the original declaration, if the necessary alldgations
may be fairly and reasonably inferred or may reasonably be
found to be —— in what is said in the original declar-
\
-
4 potas.
| ation.
The original declaration in—+he-esse-et-var sufficiently
(alleged the location of this building in shoe City of Streator;
eG
, that it had a stairway on the outside; that aspettes owned the
(building at the time of the injury; that the stairway was
rel? “etorw® Yen he helt te reD em e rormldients teste #
oie ‘to eysugnel edPott Bewot Pues ‘ett oredr - pee tot
ot BLod -srew Sonereter vt Woldw” ebtew apheoncek job Lar
bes oukt oft Getedd Loft? ony xo teed 46 ‘timed yrineh
eitgh eid to egradoethy Sar cf asw dha fleqds cesyhi “eitt *
ehacr tod dew eerste “sat dyuodtie voor logits ‘edd/ to See.
tary? agit bael wer omiion mr ‘eyo Lames § Tisyéit-6
Lomigtyo edt mt Brivot of stost otf tent ‘piemesweTe
joa ton sagwertt “yeorterstor | lives ott set inmk yd - oid
bebrons: oni mb erew yer! Rett yt tre tyb ietinnd sin 56 ost
etottaisloeh bebneas Disa To: gut ey of aie beiatide >
dokdw Re barrow “ene Beymaits Tonciaiy ont WE Note ‘eult
sTismolt6s Yo! eddno "ete neleobeia «! Rae dete Wed
tadt gatise le ve oly veitakhsstas ate ‘sd of aacael
ts ‘nk botste noftox to onal ede rod ortw a
notteteiveb Levtyiro nee worst es estes 1 to #
edt tot Dive yi tevex mr tH bits iis eiauiesid Sefks vouias
e ae nt of ert
Pitaniestininn msde Pause “opm nse
og LEW mie shai ebsitsts of? vette ‘bork Feito © te we
betrte Peeing ee: Hol tos to" Baio vine ct nba ino!
ptotae “ Pony LO erty te Bie DIR tts Re otter ee | ’
ach ls othlbaint ore ks
TD olitiid emeterne | tere tebr Hts’ oct a0" ‘winch ‘
Brion ee ar eee
f : y
miei (im
| defective, rotten andwsafe; that appettant fell through it
the thee é;
‘ana was injured; and that af had made a contract with
| ; ,
_ the husband ae > ~t-to keep it in repair. | It 1s argued
jthat the oNginal declarntion,/Gid not even defectively state
I
‘a good cause o ot i lid et ot facts
i
which made it a dv
| : ‘ ; ee ce
stairway in repaip; and because it did
yhad any right to be upon™ that stairway wh he was injured,
The second count of the original declaration alleged that on or
Aron
about May 23, 1910, pee eR entered 4nvo an agreement with
/ 4
» | s v7 D |
Samuel Jacobson, +e husband of apsethant, te keep the roof
> A ? F
stairway and outer walls of said building in good repair and
- atiot,
condition. That count did not say in express eel si this
agreement was in writing, but it said that a certain matter
therein was "in words and figures as follows", whieh -
-_<
implies thet—i+—-rar Tiot & verbal bit-a-written-erreerent
| to whieh+he.pleader referrad, At.-one-pleeo——that—eountin-
plies—that- the part quoted therein from “the-e¢roement—is—
| tie-entire agreement; but-i+~-is--fairiy-inferrea tater—that—it
: ; the Abr
was not—-the entire acroement, bacause Pdtecount avera’ that
| Cobetiee
| Ubicrdey he undertook to keep said stairway in good
) Tepair and condition until June 15, 1915, which 46 not contained
anor r :
in what i quoted from the 2groement.| Said second count, there—
j
fore, alleges an agreement batween appellee jand the husband of
appellant to keep the stairway\in good repair and condition, and
| that said agreement was in force\at the time she was injured, ard
“it plainly indicates that the agredment/ixx weikimg was in writing
/
“ana that only a part thereof was set ut in that count. We are of
i \
the opinion that an amended declarajAion\er an additional count,
Stating more fully the nature of gaid agredment, and explainbng
More fully why appellant was on Said stairway would not be the
tating of a new cause of action, but would be stating what
a\hoas
tk dauortat Liet, ‘Trnttonay Fast seh vam bee. Het sey eves
wale Prone Mme
iiw tosrtaos 5s, ebsm hed oeblegdy
bewats af at | vetagex mi tf sii of
etsin xiekiseeteh neve ton DiDpok; erage tent |
@tpst, fue, deo tom dtd. seat
A\et. tnalt ene “bewo oolledty
inelleqyse tedd. wor ee bk ae parened by 5
f aroCiie ©
i
Boas, ed io Metz y
to no dacs vegoile goltetslooh ae LE 0 eat to tro noe .
oret aS
besul at asw ape tedw ysutists tad
tiv PR RMROREA AB Ott berotae | iad
te SOY esis ‘
EEE, Pe. proteus ov iso aeae
f é Fate id
if ey Mena
eee f
Biit: eteriiainvent.a Paetane pt ee. ton pip jriahn ae
kee kgs
Totten olatre9 ot tact, biee at. tug, ,anktizy ot BW on
eG
sclnkninetionse, ba "awolLor, a5 EN, bas. ebxoy nit BEY n
7 Stktey
CAMA ie
fede anes er pelbintee faiagatas
booa ak yowrkets gise, aped, at Aostrobey
“SN, i baw
benkstnes tor. ial dois, OBE ER Bt ont Abtow Moktibsoo bis
{ EON
hse [-taomoot gs, etd mor? betouy at ?
ee
jean
anttorae moowty 6c MERE 18 tale
weteds , ikued baeo
to DEBE RE ed? brs
5 2 tek.
bits ,bexu( ak asw els ey ent te gore) nh aa m tremvesgs b
PME SHO aE.
gnitiow oi ssw gabtene ni Sroudoras nist tend “sotaothat %
20 OLB ae sagoo tedd of Say ‘gn BAY. tooreds fess & Sa
<tawaD hace i saan As %;
audénkalgxo. bh emt bis to outer
j ae Pris an bLsrove x Avawihade. bise m0. 8
vy ee Be WARN IN iy, A,
{ might be reasonably inferred from what was alleged in said
second count.
It would not be implied that an extorigr stairway was
to the building, but rather that it was
the use of appellantts husband + and to
put on as an ornamen
there for use and for
enable persons who had\the right to do se fo pass between an
upper story and the street, It vould be p/esumed that appellantts
husband had an object in requiring shat /the stairway should be
[kept in good repair, and that\it was / intended by the contract
\.
that he shouldu se it in some wa pe See with his home or
\his business, With exceptions not oplicable here, a wife has
| the natural right to go whereior /rusdand lawfully is. A some-
“what analogous principle is We in Yepnit v Rabbit, 69 Ill,
277, and Kennedy v Kennedy, a Z1l. 259. \fo state the occasion of
| her being on the stairway wore, fully wound phy be enlarging the
| particulars of that which’ is fairly inferable from said second
Pa
in—H: 2 s ae) and it therefore appeared that
the agreement mentioned in the second count was a written lease
‘ a
ES ==
of said biillding from ax ee to anya aye husband, to be
A
used only as a store building and a flat for living rooms, ani
that o> was to so re-model ths building that the upper
; 4
floor should have suitable apartments for flat pursoses. The
Proof was that the upper story was so re-modsled, and that at
tr
the time of the accident ao. —= , Samiel Jacobson and hi€
family lived in the uppsr rooms, and that this stairws Was
AL Pree I.
their means c* access to the street, and that | seeraat lived
there with her husband, and that she was passing between the
Street and their living rooms when this board of the stair
Way gave way beneath her and caused the injury.) The jadditional
| Led}
a same injury to the appetbent,
for feceived
upon the same stairway the same building, by regéon f the same
lefect, and only amplifies and enlarges that which is fairly
Bw th decd redtext he <ndertae out ot, eUigiT: ap
“od bis’: Drsdauit ‘el tnetfeace to ‘bask veH¢/ ‘rot, pre pep
\ Regn fia acpi 3 GC BOBS
Nh Heowts oe oka oe 8 ob ot tify ‘edt bet ote LBSare
a dcwadihcg tect beinver ng ibe Igor oT
wae Fade
j adn)
~patoe Aver ‘er! revel sist hesBeo as oy, ‘tate
Me nein
it ea WES Sr v iddied potkts ak elgtoatag. 2
cee es ns er
te Hofesooo ott otate or/ aes 354 78 whence v a rs
aoe
alacccieidl od “xia (piso eit Pak veriete pit HO.
\e
+8 # ERENCE” ordered +} ‘bas
yt Poets Sea eae erties Raat
“aaw beges bagoea, edt 2 ag Benet tno5, t
“ee of coned eid as ,
: alt |
fie (SOT aii roe vn x ey ‘oikted oro g
ipl hen: te es, i
eau "ads dactt Bint ose Tebomes
endet“ie¥fizw's
wis ee oft Poise | is
can ayat ate eit
bevil mt,
a day” bra tootde oitd ‘ot “209090,
edd Heewd on scaly Bate one sats bas sribdeus
“gists ont to pisos atid nest ‘emo aetyet ee
Beawiaa be ed spore t
se A
ee ens ‘eis. ty no OE we saebtis eon eee t
a . Ligy wt Nigel i baa Rac ;
hk aie ct i ke ene irtaiebaat ial’
‘
io
LO
to be inferred from what is said in the second count. We are of
opinion that these were permissible enlargements and fuller
statements of that which was imperfectly alleged in the second
count, and that the tatute of Limitations was not a defense
thereto.
A ppellee however contends that if said stairway was out
of repair, it was only a breach of a covenant in the lease, and
that the only action to which he would be liable would be in
covenant for a breach thereof, and therefore no cause of action
is stated even in the additional count. Whatever may be the rule
in other jurisdictions, we think it clear from Sumasack v Morey
196 Ill. 569, and Rorggard v Gale, 205 111. 511, that in this
| state, if a landlord has covenanted to keep the premises in
repair, or hes known and corcealed defects therein from the
tenant, and because of a failure to keep the premises in repair
or because of the defects so concealed, sither the tenant cr
tts any member of his family is injured, or any other person
lawfully upon said premises for business or pleasure is injured,
| such person would be entitled to recover against the landlord
\ for said injuries in an action on the case. In Rorggard v
Gale, supra, the wife of the tenant was the plaintiff, and though
She failed to recover, it was only because of the insufficiency
of the evidence,
We therefore conclude that the court erred in overruling the
Gemurrer to the plea of the Statute of Limitations to the addie
tional count, and erred in refusing to admit the lease in evidence,
/@nd erred in directing a verdict for appellee. The judgment is
therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings
in conformity with this opinion.
Rexgaxrx Reversed and romanded.s
ok POLBALH BOW Pele moe ae xt wits Cie
to exs oF etmyoso broose oft mt bise at sath eee
woliyt bine atnemegt sine “ele geb hired etew tie BA,
broese ett me pegells Yitoetreqmt an dobiw todd 0 oe
pastels tor say. anottstieh! 29 egutare eit. tal? Bad
tuo asw yewiiste biee th tadt abagtaoe gi ib { soltegg |
bas easel edd wi sHAnevoo & to hosord & yino pay at aa
- ot ed biyow ants og bisow or dotde of nottos ino
noites te GGUS of erotered? brs booted! fonord & ade
efux soit ed “yso tevetsaiW . tease Iscottinbs en? at neve
, 4 ta ae
yetoK v dosesmue mort x5elo vt aide ow senott oipelaut
o aM
abd? at gedit ifs of iT 60k volen v brsggroe hos 1088
ot seatmerq edt goed ot begastrevoa aark _broLbnet a bes
edt mor mbered? atosteb else moo bos wom asd t
tipget af socimerg edd qeoxr ov omwlist £ 20 eausoed |
RES :
to theres eld rodtie .boLsesnoo oa atosten 9 pat 20 08k
No BTeq odio YL To, borstat al ibm aid to. soda
Ny ifs the -*
: ong
brolbaed “ests tentige wevonet ot peftivne va iarow moa
v bragarof al .saxo outs 0 moitoe foe at selzutat t
aguodt bas ptittmial ent Bsw tenet ge to etin a ra
sng
a
yoreiot? taenk adt to eessoed ime Bbw ca sevouex ot be
Y een
Ls bi gt Le
~Ebbe odd ot anoitat baht %o etudase ed: to ‘aolg on
eoneh ive nt gasel ost, Thee ot get aston ae berre bee tro
et sreaygout ed? voskt aqie tot tolptev r) » gaitoorth oh
agaibesoory xedtaut rot bebune cape odd “Pan Domrevar 9
.oLtigo 4 ot on a 2
»bebnsnei bis bearevel ADREEA
StATH OF ILLINOIS, )..
SECOND DISTRICT. (oo I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFy, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, ot record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and a vee a
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
_} alOUIMSL ae
stellagu& oy te Qeols oyaand Jy maneorenu 51 = “Poiitald CAG
abymodt orld do saceasa Drie, sort? tw ataste odd to deintel boosh bise toh b
oft te rotmicns sda Jo vqoowd & al GiHogoTot ould dedd COITAA VEE oa Jost
gntite a gi buoséet to senso belitae aveds oii wi gies on
ale wits har Gewtl yrn dew obceaored L Monn eT yuomirenT: “tj 4
xidd .owohiO. ds tod nea! Dive afd to heoe
agen forgo eases Be 9 ED 1 i pte to qaib
a: ne ee re bray batbutrd oni basanods,
Th > f = ‘e ; 1
ws A 4 ; wh if ly
a pea? 3 — seat da aed here} mites ietmenbo | Seema bi perrohe Mi Pe pas
ff
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE cour
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the’ fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand mine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District sof the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
iy
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS; Justice. oe es
f INO TA. TO?
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFEY, Clerkf™ VV VY #e°*° 4.”
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
f
———— SSS ee = — ————
J
df
py A be ey
f ss f Prony 7 Pg J Ys ;
i ~ . | FAA / Pi gine f / aay y,
/ a | #é at ing al d iff sé / / P A
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
DEC 2 7 1915 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
fOllowing, to-wit:
owe hag” 4 j ‘
“tm » \y ihe ; 4) | ial ‘
‘ : : : Ty A | wi hs. - Lhe Wd . i
tare , ‘ ‘ a peas fiver
» UL Aca y 7 aN OL rg
gi , iy ae
, wit) ar Pr e
Ly m4 i
on wire q KA. i hi A
: CHT FO MHAT A. TA
tn. ¥ “ : x x + 2 2 , 4 ~ 35) 4 i @
ysdors0 to y tri eds , uY go ,@wsstO J8
ma ; ‘ , : ae
~m9sttit bas ~hiod onin basaut sno Stor ryo Lo
eee ones “a / y aah 4, 7 a es oe ee
: ro 4 L j 90) ,O% JOT 2 DMTOOS « 3 fig rod
me a a Se a ee ee oe ¥
wane ti bieetl., ied QOWMAHAOG cok
, tS Ary + "Tut A LTT Pos 6
.sottaul .gavHao..l aMAUM fon
sottast ,BUAHTI“ .M 708
aft fon
. LY <i
. :
rn . ‘ a sre A nal) * a et
hy -
,
La |
+ Foe + ma + Pad act 4
10 w-ogy , a LS 8 01
? r = ry c 1 + “ we ad
si bDaelii eaw-sry00 edt to Aorniqo iJ
. em ee yo Lb epiee urk . fs 2A ~ tem -
STHBiL Of enyow 32 mi ,vtwov Ors 16 .90fFtta
~J LW OFT
:
?
——7 i} ig
;
Gen. No. 6142.
James B, Padgn,
Defendant in error.
vs Error to LaSalle.
The Chicago, Rock Island and
Pacific Railway Company,
Plaintiff in error.
Carnes, J, ie
- ie Ae pee) Ahan
unloading coal from a car that had hae mest on 3 side track
by the Chtago, Rock-tsl Raiiway—Company,, the de=
fendant pele , and while so engaged a switching crew of the
defendant shoved another car acsinst the one from which the
plaintiff was taking coal with such force as to throw him to
the ground and injure him, was brought to recover
for 3 jury. A jury trial zesulted in a judgnent for
$1100,0 m which this writ of efvor is prosecuted.
It is
ontended that the Yeclaration does not even
defectively statava cause of ac#ion and that defendant's motion
in arrest of judgment should/heave been sustained, This is
the principal question is the case, the contention beine tha
it does not appear that plaintiff wae rightfully at the place
where he received his ipjury, and therefore the defendant owed
injure him, [the declaration
him no duty except not to wilfull
so—far—as—_it—reiatesto-this—qusstion, charceg, that the de=
fendant in the use and operation of its railroad had a team or
merchandise track connected with ites road in the Villace of
DePue, in the County of LaSalle, which track was used by the
defendant in placing cars thereon containing freight, so that
parties entitled thereto might be enabled to unload said freight
\
from said cars, or load freight into the cars; that on January
Someta
—
_ iy F | ats.
-GSL3 .om med
mpbet -d asnsl
-torze at tashbaetei
-9lis@sl of tori 7 ev
bas buelel doo ,ogsotdd edT
.vrsomod yewlisH oitirosd
«torte aft tittntsld
hte, aD | .& ,sentsd
fac ictin sas ph 5 sav nilit-totehasie cpihet_ aah .
dostt obta £ mo Deinaite avd bad tedt te0 « mort Ls09 gatbaosmr
-9b sit 4 Yaagnod. veel besl-ofttoet-$—baalel Toon oan edt x
edt to wero gsnidotiwe s begesme oe eLidw bas _ Reded tnsebaet
eds dotdw motl emo eft tentsans itso tedtems bevode tnshaeteb
ot mid wordt ot as eotot dove mo {soo anttet saw ttitalselgq
tevoos: ot trgyotd esw e efit) .mid stytat bose bavotg eft
Zot treamgbuf « at cat yiurt e rot
8 to
-betyoseortd at to xw att dofdw OOLL}
feve tom easoh annie” edt ¢edt hebroetnoo’et tI \
mottom a'tashasteb tadt bre motos to savso 8 Atste yLovitosteb
ef atdT ,benisteasve assd evsd\ emgbut to tesits at
tedt amted moténedmoo edt .easo ot at motteeup Leqtontiq eft
eosig sit ts Yluttdgit esw ttitngély tedt tseaqqs tom seob tf)
bewo tnehbusteb sit stotorsdt b <Vtutel aid bevieoet ed sisdw
ftotterelosh edt \ smid stetatAiiutliw ot Yom #qeoxe ytub on mid
-eb ect tact feotaco é
8
To meet s bed bsorlisr atti to mottsteqo bns eeu edt st tnabret
to esslliV edt mi beoxr atk dittw betosnnoo dostt ee tbasioxem
edt yd beev esw wxosit dotdw ,slisGel to ytavod edt at ,euted
tsit oe ,tigtett ontnietmoo moeredt erso gatoslq at taebneted
tigtstt bise beolny ot beldens ed tigtm oteredt belttine eeltrsq
eS a =< -_— ee SE EE ——— ee ee i el A ee
12, 1914, the plaintiff was engaged in unloading certain
freight from one of the cars so used and operated hy the
defendant while said car was standing upon the said merchandise
track,
Then ated Nae ian, that the defendant, without
warning etc, drove another ear, ete. |
It is said that declaration migit be true, and yet
the plaintiff might be a trespasser, This is true, and the
\
declaration would probably, Zor that reason, have been hela
bad on cemurrer, But the question here ig whether it is good
after verdict, A similar desthration was before the court in
Seibert v Vandalia R, Co, 179 11. App, 617, and the same con
tention there denied, There wag an averment in the declaration
in that cése that the plaintiff tas engaged in unloading freight
from the car into the wagon, ang! Hed been so engaged all the
day before the injury complained of \and on the day of the in=
jury up to two o'clock in thé afternoon. Those avermente left
the declaration less open Ho attaok than is the declaration in
the instant case, which contain no allegation as to the length
of time the car had been there, or the plaintiff hed been at
work there, and there is much force in the \defendant! s argument
that the declaration, considered under the rules announced in
Mackey v Northern Milling Co, 210 fil, 115, and\ Meandrewa v
C. lL. S, & BE, Ry. Co, 2228 Til. 232 does not even Wefectively
state a cause of action, Our attention is also called to our
own decision in Vogrin v American Steel & Wire Co. 9 Til,
WS 2455 where we endeavored to ASply the’ PUlS announced ine
We a 1, TT ae
/ - q x ae wert
: —~. ay
mistiso gatbsol{ay mi begsgnme asw titintelq edt .afel ee"
8SL8 on
eit yi betsteqo bos besy oe atso efit to eno.mo1t 3 dghoxt
.cabe? .¢ semat
ealbasdotem bisa sdt aogu aici asw Iso ane ei tan tnsbasteh
Le 2 fis ie Dat
-Aostt
tuodtin deaheatab edt ‘tadt smile nedT
r oA .ayeoid> eat
[ oto . tae redtons ‘evoxb ote atinisw
nego vswiiel oftiosT
fey bas ,envtt ed tigi aoltsratoes “a $sci3 btse at #I
ronrgeig
8 ed tigim VMitatsiq edt
.G ,8eatad
bLed teed evel <10as6T Sarit tot Ladies bisow noitatsloeh
eis % .soted > tefeio-rreb)et_ Ff -eenal ie
B nis el #2 rodtodr ai ered aoktgenp edt tu . te TTme } mo bed} --
ay moztt fsoo saltieolam
“nt paves edd ‘oroted Baw mottsts feeb. ‘reLimte A -SOLbTOY tetts
eds brs outs ai eidT tonenqae™
= = : Re Lenk £ expaft 4 Seni at ' Svat sat vd
“109 emse ‘ont bas V1 -aqh ae Mane ae Fi atisbnsy v tredfeB
7 , SeGed fnabaet
nottersives edd ak “tnemteve as pan ered? sbeitne sirep notinet
$e o*neitessa bevede tashas tab
tighter? gatbeolay at begegme ash ‘Tusataca ot tedt ea&o tad? at
ie a. Exe? sax tttéakal
eas ils HSegsgis oe mesd bolt ‘bats fogs edt eat tso edd
— Ps bie Savor ant
=a eds ‘to = edt no brs, to sents £qmoo vutat edt stots
i ‘bee tote be
tteLl adnemteys saodt noone: ta iF ak Avofo'o oud a8 qu ym
folde sox -OOLL
at mo ttetaLoeb ant et aia ‘fostts ¢ nea eeel aacawee o9b ed
3 ; ey bid SFHOD #T
Aran: odtt ot BS noktagesia ont aisdsoo doidw .29889 “tmatenk ent |
tc Ravao SB Otats yvievitoe>kheb|
y mood Ssa tiralats edd to ‘yee dé meod wears aso edt omit to
f ome ggemnhvt 6 @e9ata ms
tnomugts a! dasine ted ‘oat at e070 ang et, etedd bus ,etedt diow
‘s Bottveern Lackorinzg ext
at beoawonns prt ie ect rebriy boushaterec Mott sraloeh edt teadt
esi: of fit% tacde ateecce tom eeok Ff
v erexbakolt bre att Lit ofs +00 Ley Stedtio v wae
; po Rerisoet ed ete
“Lev itoe? of nov: soa noob ses tit eee 00 VA oH a 8 al oO
ot Yom\tqeoxe woh om mid)
m0 ot belten pels at notinetts wO stottoe to eeuso 8 etste
F t253 ,MSiseace Rite Ot aot dase-.
iT evi 200 eum a ieese sankzomh Bi bogs, at moteioeb mwo
t: sift. &o bre easy oc? st éasbret
pet peor One LE- BEY “YEA 08 7
*
tiw betoenrtoo do git as tbass (ots
@a5 D6 ev soeuvds doid® .elleBad to yfane) ed? af outed
det? on .tcigior? tiatetm@eo soetedt eteo patosiq at éaehneted
Srigtest Siee Seolau of felduae of trgic ofexrsd? helsizas seitisg —
le A pw, eee eee et ee ee ee eee ee eee oa te! oo 2 eee
App. 245, where we emeavored to gapply the rule announced
in those two cases and erred in the effort so to do, as
appears from the decision of the supreme court in 263 I11L
475, We are inclined to the opinion that *he rule
announced in the Mackey and NcAndrews cases should not be
Vv exte med farther than is required by those decisions, and
| that it chould not be applied to this case. We do not see
how the lack of averment that the plaintiff was lawfully
engaged in removing merchandise from the car can be held
a more serious defect than would have been a failure to aver
that he was at the time in the exercise of due care for his
| |own safety, and the court held in BR, &@ 0. &. W, Ry. Co.
| |v Then 159 T1ll, 535, the failure to aver due care was cura
lay verdict, and used the following language:~ "Where there
}
|
J
q any defect , imperfection or omission in any pleading,
whether in substance or in form, which would have been
a fatal objection pn demurrer, yet if the issue joined be
such as necessarily required, on the trial, proof of the
facts so imperfectly or defectively stated or omitted.
and without whichit is not to be presumed that the judge
4 would direct the jury to give, or the jury would have
given, the verd<ct, such defect, imperfection cr omission is
: cured by verdiet. 1 Chitty's Pleading (14th. Am. ed. ) 675;
Illinois Sentral Railroad So. v Simmons, 36 Ill, 2435;
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Co. v Feehan,
149 id. 208. In the case at bar it is not to be presumed
P the jury would have given the verdict, or that the court wall
have sustained it, without evidence tending at least to é=
tablish the fact of due care on the part of the deceased. The
"“métion in arrest was properly overruled,”
The Illinois authorities on this subject are col-
lscted and reviewed in Jacobson v Ramey. Gen. Wo. 6076
-beonwonns e@iszied'yigegsm of heTovbéhiéoow etétw' 38S tage
» 98 gobcot oa ot totieveds mi vbetr6: brea as bso" “ows bead? “a }
efi L688 aE Fxw0o emetgea eft to to kekoep “ett ‘eirt 2b RESG
efux edt tedd atc imtgo eit ot begifori ers oWoSda
ed. ton bivyos@ mosso avetbnAoW fines “youlo AW “od # nF be onwonns é
brs ,atoistosb eaodt yd benivpet eb Red¥ ener sY pet Sze |
90a gor ob of .eeso abdt of betiqgs' ed ‘tor Mivdrde ti tedt
Yiistwel asaw thictislq ent sertt tremvreve™ to fost edt wot
bled ed mao ts0 edd mort esibrsdoren ‘gakvoriet ne sea
mevs ot erslist s msed eved bivow matt tosted Buofree otoit'h “4
gig sol etso oub to ewtowexo envemt ‘enki ent th esW ba°
00 sy .H .2 40.848 ai Den stoo” of} ene® “ytetne vo
» EBIND, SSW, OTSO Oyo rove od otyList of peta 4“ LiT ear weit?
...¢tesit-etedW" ~segsugnol artwoliet eit Leas jn? QWOLEROY é
- gakbseig yes. cb.moiestso to gobtoetteqat | ('48680B¢n8°R!
need ,aved Siuew doidw ,mwx0 mf xo sonsdadve Wt’ pedeaie . |
od beaket evsah eft diotey yreriumed eg aa EOE fasats . |
~) sBHt cho Boor; ylsi cheats so _voriupet vittaedéoert ’“s ¢2°b at ae
betiimo ao betste ylevrtseteb to yltoetreqatt ‘Ga! ® oF te
egbut od¢t : edd bemseotq ed ot tom at sito hiv hid PF Dae
eran bissow wiut edd to levis od “emi off oSete DAiey |
si Moligsiao, to Moltoeiteqmi stove Aova (te prev’ wit nes |
EW of. be » th ctl) grtbseld afyrtind ft wowed! We BEBE
pS88, ddI 88.4 amon t@ v .ot! DeorlseR Ler tabo font?
,Herest.v .00 beotlish eT sins? bre sleet’ roeribee
_) bemmeetg. 9d. of tom at th adits’ oend ext nT! BOE Jn en?
iN edt, tert to . torbvev> eft movty evat DIBOW wat ae
9 ot tesel ts gnibnet eonehive twodtiw ,tt ben isteve ved.
‘
edt .beaseoeb sit to traq ont mo erso eub to tost et distidet
oe
iw 7d
" polutisevo yixreqorq asw tastrs al moidom" ‘
Lee ar
-fo09 sts toefdiwva sindt mo vettitodiue stomifiI ofT ¢ ni +
“ Aine CAR:
\
------I11, App. =---=.
We\think the declaration mst be held good after verdict.
therefor the court did not srr in overruling the motion
in arrest of judgment. .
The giet of the charge in the declaration of the
defendant's neg)tgonce is that it pushed the car upon the
one which the plaintiff was unloading without giving him
warning. While there\ is some oonflict in the evidence, it
abundantly systains Mie dedlaration in that respect and it
is not seriously contended that it does not, There is no
contention, or ground for contention, that the verdict is
excessive if the jury were warranted in believing the
piaintif?'s avidaace as to the extent of his injuries, and
we think they were warranted in \go doing. Wo error is argued
as to the rulings of the court on dhe admission of evidence.
[ me only instruction given at the instance of plaintiff was
on the measure of damages. The injury claimed was an aggrawe
~
tion of a denna, from:which the plaintiff had been sonetin
suffering, and there was evidence before the jury as to a sure
gical overation performed on plaintiff after the tine in
question, and-s—fair_question was—presentov—as—to-tow-mrch-e f
the disability under which plaintiff was.suffering resulted.
P from the acclaent. The instruction complained of informed
the jury that if they found the defendant guilty in
assessing damages "they should take into consideration
f
all the facts ami circumstances shown by the evidence before
4 them; the nature and extent of the plairtiff's physical
injuries, if any, eo far as the same are alleged in the
M
declaration and shown by the evidence." J
jence in this case which
that under the ev
jimgtiom by the jury between the disability rasulting from
the aceident and charg
in the declaration, ah disability
\
bentisee te. gsiss 9: vigesa « ee ) fabian yqQhe (ETsebanteqs
-toibtev rSfPe boop Blot ed toeim moitetsl gob edeodaadevewscod® *
Rottom eft \arkturteve Ht tre ton bth tuo edt Arotors +
trompbint | tor testis
1
is Yo moreETelseh eat BY exteds Siti toritets: eff be congonns |
ett sogy tso edt Berauy tk See et soxenit gon et thsbastetr © V
mit grivts tvodter gnrbeoiow ase Tretc Helge 09! utotetwt eval? |
ti .Sorebive’ ent mr torfirds stwe ak evento eLEaR . geetirrew si
ti bes Yoogser tstit’ nt noltersroeb ent Sntstegeytoreaminie
om ei erent? .ton Beob “FE taft Beiretnos ‘Wevetsee tomas
“gi tobprey eff tse oktretros | ot prevoty x0 sortnetrtos!
eit -grivetiod at betrorieyorow rst” vent ett evbeane 28°
De p~eéerrutnt ath to tretxre it ot es sorebive fe PER meg 3
beygts af torre of sartor oa” NE betticrcsw ettew ‘yore Sintdcbve wd
-soreihive to roiesimbs eff no tives enh to egn ify edd —
easw ittinisiq to eorstant ent ¥s nevig nottetivdert vine
~“S7B%g38 Hs asv bemislo yrstmi ef? csegsmal Yo ervesem divs
entvenon need bsd ttirtnisiq ent sordwemort abeteds to nett 3.
-te £ Gt as Ytut oft eroted esmehive sew ered! “Bne geivettse 4
ai @rtt edt rofte Ittcislq no Heitétreq noftsteqe “im kgs
to-dommr-wort-ot se betmesetqaew cottasup sist _ssbesqenortedupy
besfdeet gntteitue caw Bin tslq dora. vebaw ytifidserbsertt: | f
bemtotst to Hortslamoo notteurtect ea® teh E9Ss ogs HOT: :
ni Ytites toesbretep ext - brvot Seas? r foe adteOyedtos lee
noitersbféro> otct sist blyode vents” eegémah’ ycteese2bs
sored ‘edrobFre eit yd nwore eeorstemyorhe brb atm eddt 1fRr°
“Tshteydg ett€ticksi¢ eft to trétre brs vetbam exit qimedtte
“edt ni EE 0 emse eft es tsb oF atts hi qbebnobmbe
ef bests ot ¥T | “Leonmobtve ent ye mode bir ort eustoeb:
—mitoeih bertupex doliwetrs etdt mt oe eal retort
(tilidset! ent reowted ed? oye? not thet:
a
that did not result from the accident, it
8 likely that the
jury were misled ani adted on the bel#ef that damages
could be assessed for the\disabiléty, egardless of its source
We do not understand counsol too co tend that the instruction
would be vad except uponthis \pe otildar condition of therecord,
It is true that in cases vaez9\¢he plaintiff is suffering
disability that may have arieen\only in part from the
injury complained of, inefructiond\as te the measure of dam-
ages that might otherwise be good sliguld be carefully cuarddd
and the jury clearly informed that gadnages can only bs
based on the injury/complained of. This \instruction referred
the jury to the gfoiaration and limited t
those there charged,—an “Fhe court, at the instance of *he
defendant, very—clearly and-tforciblx instructed the jury
that the damages must be confined to such as ave.the nitural
4
injuries to
proximate result of the defendant's neglect; that the burden
of proof was on the plaintiff to show his injuries were
ee
caused by the defendant's neglectg and if they believed
that the injuries from which plaintiff complained resulted
from other causes than the defendant's omgkark negligence
that the complainant could not recover anything for injuries
and specifically told them if they found from the evidence
that the condition of the plaintiff's rupture which nece
sesitated the|eneration he underwent did not result from the
accident of which he complains as a natural and proximate
consequence, but was a condition in no way connected there-
with, then in determining what his damages were they should
leave out of consideratiom the fact of the operation, the
time lost thereby, and the expsnse paid and suffering cone
nected therevith,| Mo think\that yhe instruction was one that
could be properly given in or}f{nary cases, but thet it needed
qualifying under the facts Fs tris case, and that the other
instructions before mentioned full) served that purpose.
& OF
\
edt tedt yLledil ak ti ,tmebioos edt moxft tivaert ton bib tsedt
eegenad tart rektod eft to bes g-bee~ delaimiétew-vest |
_eotves aff. to asolbosenoh vets tdesth/est-r0r: beespsesotd bigoo.
nogtourtan® edt stadt bnethoe, ot: fearwoo) bust szebne tancob?e Ss
ebtogered? to moftipnos tsbldo eg’ ‘afd snoqwehgenze! bed ced<b Lab :
gnitetiva si- tt hintelg exit /exentw eeesdombotadt Surt ef tI
end mort esq ms _yline freaken-eved ysar ‘teds ‘gtrlidgnetb
—mgh to, exmesem ond of ab -Saottoute ont “abo boaktelqgnodwytstat
babisuy- yilsterse od bl yotla: boon ed eekwredito tig im taditie
ed Vimeo 259 seated. ‘tedd: hearcone’ eitselhs yiut ceniobns:
berteter noitoustant / eid? .to bentalquoo yi istabced? ud obeead
ot aeitutmiowd? betimhi-pas m domabodp ait ot yrot edt
sii to sometent,.edt he. ptiyoo — eon_ebogreda exsedt recast
tbe : oe |. dasbteFeb
detatan gin eg florea of berktaes ad rteum: ao ysnsh edt tedt
cebtud edt: dae ptoelsen e'tnshaeteb att tarthisdeenx : etsmexeng
sag Stew geltufat: aid wale ot Di bintslq od? mo wmsw' Yoong: |
~svor pevettled, vede tt bres ~tooigen a cenit yd sbeasso
o tbetLuc0ox bonislomos Write tely fo ti mott eetustht ant chedt
yoo Q0Megiigen drakgnc atinsbxetel edt macdt sedeso tenho tort
seftyutmt tot asidisca trovoser tom Sivoo tmentbedqmom et! ant
= > Senebive; eft moth pavolt yen ti meds blot vileot hiosgadws
sent dotdw ot que e' Tit tetaly edd te aret diGnoo! vertt dasit
edt mor? @iveos tom bik tnewreban et Holtececa| ert botetibese
etsitxorg fra Leretet ¢ 98 entelqmoo ef dolmw to winspindke
~stedt hetoonios yey on mi norhintroo .s vew aed) eonrsiupeantoD
blsod=e “odt exery eegsash etd tadw > getmietrotety mf sei), otbw
eft foitsremo ett to tent ef+ moitaxebtanos to ato synel
=-moo gaivetive: pea. bieg esmeqre oft bes .ydexdrid peo: eptt
doit eno, BAW aoifourtemt ©
BDeboon, th tort tod peeks vr
tedto effi: ted? bam .eReo'¢
Yee - ogh betouttems rele
The sixe of the verdict indicates that the jury were not
misled in that respect. Finding no error in the record
the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
aad
ent tent yLealt ay at ,tmebiooas edt most tiges: ton Bib
tegcanneonnst: bites: sotectbadetatss son —enies
_-eoxgos <br0oes. atsetopebepconiant hafta totencpnateth abs bei
o MOTE tech = Heey BS ss otivindlsn eves “ant (decd. Ye bhbdeeth
bbbsecs pls siered od me na: tdg in startin 35
Sy Ai RT ABS - renegtni ’ Fads: bearotnk yeiteeie yiok new
Gereeies Rehrout tans yf Jobat: Yo: occkalamas secarbak vent seo re aad |
J gad ped tubitt sade betiuhivhan a ‘(sui ent ot: 2 este
omnes BES BRES) QareLger eiahneRob: ed? tenidess: painter
Pie ee: aecwetars pba: “— ge Re hin bela: meh: rat ont
eedratek sok cht ere fee Bier tee tng)
_ glepineidaes. ett money Rane att 22: melt bilos. yhteot haem
Popneae Sakie comcnip atichhtehelg ene toro? ApicDa! ait ae “
Sct, wort 4 Eoee fam ake. deevwenbouvad esac 28s.
weeds hetgeceor vary ox nh oo Mites so rw tad poeemm
Lkaiede 408 exe” aageueh abt tevim gerteebees toty ck avert ai
ee ee ee ey vee amataebi onnsi Ro dio ama |
stom gektetivs iat kise pemetl ne wit ims dent sod. cat a
tet? snp. sev coitourtom: | ae
bebern. th gad? 39d nonas. wx
“iit ese: Nat: See:
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }..
SECOND DISTRICT. (SS- 7. CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Tllinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of = in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and Ea
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
girflingg A - ad te
Palwd yy rt (|
+
otid To nototiea oi
add zifs Gie Sou:'
i
lo sarysed ben zlguifils do
zicd rasttO nice nega atalloggA bine add Yo bee,
no Bie veo lo 169'r
EM, SET te RG a ea Bae ike
uth Sy +
a} Pia a0
A ;
*
=
—= i
10)
, ry
\
; eal s
119 sesh 2 72 HALO! TEI 40" t
1 yOu Buide Be prion Sit Wedd 1 TTI CATE ot oe
noite “gare ek baover te SEB haldia ee orods ody tii dysiod aye
‘ut soe Od udongd Be AOA vuominear? nl
ont fi, es qh
» ua
ba iron atti
ae _
= ?. ie
' = ed bee. ‘
1p nays ee on i tae
seelstedes copies :
4
sy ie EN papa intions Se ee one ane a
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
ye
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the eo day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine & belo and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the! State of Illinois:
E
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
DONA TA A~tnd
‘ CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.j~v UU Joffe | U &
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
/
} | ie ; nz eas 2 4 p f
\ : fof ff ge y
/ AAW eo / We te ye fu
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
EG 2915 the opinion of the Court was filed in
mhesClerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
a“
(Tadot20 Yo ysbh Atari ent
-
-asssLit bos bot baba adin Dasetod? esac prod tHe ‘to red
Pt
‘atonil{l to atsete jedt Yo toitiaid baooee ods 10% bas :
-sotteut Boibiaesd , dagger aOWAAHOC con edT--
soitaul ,@HMHAO .l EMAUG. .aaH.
.soitteul ,QUAHHZIM .M.WHOL . nok.
S43 F oa Ee UP Sa) .dveld ,YTTUd .0 AHIOTSTAHO |
ee". Utivedé .QIVAd .M .a
i woke
* * Na A '
gy eye ks ph Ve
\
‘ ice ee SN & fo wh rs ay
ao :tiw-od ,abrswratts ¢sdt ,S3ATEMaMIR TL
ni belt? esw t1ipo0od edt to soinigo edt oth Ot
eetugit bas ebrow odj si ,tx0d btse to
7
Gen. No, 6821,
Joseph H, Paxton, et al. appellees
vs Appeal from Lake,
William H, Fabry, et al appellants.%
Carmes, J en
Pimeaetiae prior to August 1914, ~ iant Bradford
E, Simmons, was the owner of a store building Per ey on which
it was located, in Zion City, Lake County, Illinois, and
the other » William H, Fabry and M, F, Ellis were
using a ae of it under a lease from Simmons, as & drug store
in which they also sold cigars. A resident physician had an
Pw re x:
office in the b.ilding. On May 3rd, 1915, after this condition
had existed for noéne months or more, inelisse, rourtoou lessees
of residente properties in the ea? Zion, filed a bill for
injunction to restrain such use of said building, and applied
to the court for an interlo cutory decree enjoining such use
pending the litication, The application was heard on the bill
and affidavits in support thereof, and affidavits of the def-=
endants who appeared and without answering the bill, resisted
the application, A decree was entered restraining the defend-
antag, until the further order of the court, from using any
part of said premises as a cigarette, cigar or tobacco store;
or a place for the manufacture or sale of to bacco in any form
or manner; or pharmacy, apothecary shop, or drug store; or 4
place for the manufacture of sale of drugs or medicines of
any kind; or the office or residence of a practicing physician,
surgeon, or other pereon actually engaged in the practice of
medicine or surgery.| The defendants prosecute this appeal,
and the question here is w ther the trial court was acting
jf
within its sound judicial Ai retion under established legal
yd
principles in granting the preliminary injunction,
L888 .o .med
aselleqas .f6 te ,motxed .H dqeeot
etal mort IseqqA av .
&,atnsileqqs Ie te ,yrdel .H meilliv
xu
an On , SOMTLO
brotbhsexd BaF .ef6L teuvguA ot tolig emitemo®
Se ’
dotdw mo tol bns gntbliud stote s to 1IsnwWo eft asw .enommi@ .ff
bas ,@iomiiil ,ytawod sisd ,yttd noes mi ,betsool asw ti
ezew etliad .1 .M bos yrdeT .H metiiiw , tedto edt
ezote gutb 8 es ,enommte mort sesel s reba raven s gntey
ne bed metoteydq tmebieet A .atagto bios oels yes doidw mt
gotttbmoo atdt 7 siti -bt& yeM mO .gatblt od edt at esttto
accesel uhivenet ,oStom to aditmom emén 1ot beteixe bad
tot Ifid s bellt ,motk to ysid edt at aettreqo1q sémebtas1 to
betiqqs bas ,agntblinud bise to eauy dove aistteer ot mottonutat
eay dove sninto{me estoeb ytotuo olretat as rot tivoo edt oF
iffd edt mo bised eew nottsotiqgs oT ,moitagitti edt gnibneq
-teb oft to ativabitts bas ,toeteds troqque mt etiveabitts bas
beteteer ,ifid ot anitewens svodtiw bas betseqqs odw atasbae
~bneteb edt gaintstteer beistns asw setceb A ,mottsotiqgs edt
yas gofau mort ,fawoo ent to teshto ted¢uvt oft Lttnu .etna
yetota ososdot to Isgto ,ettersyto s es seatmetq bise to t1sq
mirot yas mi ooosd ot to else to emtostunsm edd tot sosiq s 10
& Io ,etote gutb to ,.qode yiscedtogqs ,yosmirsdq Io ;Tenmsm Io
to sentotbem 1o aguth to else to sitvtostunsm edt tot esslg
.tstoteydq gifottosiq s to somehteer to eotito sdt to ybakd ‘yas
to eottoetq edt ni begegne yi sutos moeteq isdto 10 ,moegiwe
~teeqqs etdt etyoeeorg stnahgeted yitt [-ereatve to entotbem
guttos esw twos Ietxt edt tered et ezed motteeup edd bas
fagel bedetidstee isbay motterpéid\Istothyt bouoe ett altdéiw
——a Oe Se! ae. Re OU} ee ea ee) oe ee ee
The NS read on the hearing are incorporated
in the record, certified by the clérk of the court, There
is no certificate of evidence, therefore we assume that we
cannot take notice of thei# contents. (Lange v Heyer, 195
T11,°420; Wheatley v Uracek and Gettert, 160 Ill. App. 646.)
| We will asaume for Ahe purpose oF this decision that the court
ona consideration of the bill and all the affidavite filed,
was warranted in finding that the allegations ped, found
in the bill were true. | me theory of the bill ag, whet John
Alex, Dowie, in his lifetime, prior to 1899, organized a reli-
gious sect opposed to the business and practices sought to be
enjoined, and various other forms of business regarded legitimate
and proper in civilized communities, and still other practices
that are generally condemned as immoral and illegal; thatin
1899 the site of Zion City was selected as the location of the
society in which such business and practices should be prohibited;
that in furtherance of that purpose Bowie obtained titie to
nearly all the land within the present city limits and executed
leases for the term of 1100 gears containing restrictive cov-
enants against said uses; that a building plan was also adopted
to that end, and various statements were publicly made and
published by Dowie proclaiming such purpose; that afterwards
Dewie became insolvent and with his property, including a large
portion of the land within the limits of Zion City, passed into
the hands of a receiver under the control of a federal court, and
the receiver made sales of the property in various ways and
under various restrictions that resulted in maintaining such
Testrictions as to all land sold; that the result of these facts
te that the owners of land in the City of Zion holding by or
under titles containing such restrictive covenants ere bound by
the covenants, and also that the owners of land there situated
-_
betstoqroont eis gattsed edt mo beer ad tyebiYts ent ef
estenT ,txmu08: edt to whee ‘sdf Yd Berti seo” ‘prods SP We
ew tedd ‘emuecs ev ioteredd eonepive to stsottitiso om et
CL .teysH v egmal) wainedioo Kiedf to dofion diss Fontso
(.888 .qqA .LfI 08L ,ttetted bas feos v yoltse W (08S: .L4T
tiyes eds, + adit motatoed eidt 20 eseqiug sdi.rot enue Liitw of
> qghe Lit ativebtiie edt Lie bas tht edt te, aoitarohianages go >
bavet cost io eqoitagelis.edt tedt» fhe dk} ag, eiastieH egw
aiol,tas8 ad L684, 00¢.ro-vs0eds oot] .eusd eTRYMELES, a0,
vile 6 besinsgto..ce8l of .tolag.,emitet if gid.gt..etwod .xeth
od ,0¢ #ciguoe seottoeza bas geegteudedt ot besogge tee auota
etamitigel bebreget seeniavd to smot recto eyottev bas. ,beatogae
osBepdtoazg, yedéo Litte has ,setiiaumuon besiitvio.at tecozq, bas
abtsdt. gdegelit bas.Isromst es. beamebaoo. yilstegeg, ers, tedt
eds; to, Meitsool est es, betoeics. saw. yt to -0L8. To. ote edt Peet .
ibetigidowg sd Sivode eectiossg bas esenteud dove, doide at ytetgoe
(ot elvid heatetdo efwol. seoqiug. decd. to eomszedtiut st tegt
betwooxs bas atimit ysio taeseig sAt atddiw, basi od? tis, yitsea
~voo, evitoliieex gaintsiaes sissy OOLL to miet. edi. tot, aeasel
beigobe cele sew selq gatbliud « Jedd .jeeeu bise tantegs aigane
bas ebsm yloilduq erew siaemstsse evoitsy bas bas. tadd,. 08
-ehiswisiis geld yeeociug dove gnimtsloorg. etwod, yd. bedetidua
eetsi « gitbulont .ysteqorq etd dtiw . bae taovyloagt, ensoed sired
otgt beeseg . YEO sek to atimbl esd atittn boast odt, to. mottzoa
bas , tayo, Letebet S io Lowinoo oid rehay sevteoss £. to, abasd. exit
bas aysW evottey at yvxegorc sit, to pelee sham xeyteoes edt
douse gaintsinten at pediueex seit anoitotztees, avoltay, zebau
stosi eseds. to diuast oft tect jhlon baal Pais ot. AE peqtipiagaes
PR BaP Lod, OR, Bey WAP Allt, A, Reed 2, arpang st. teqt ot
vd bawiod ome etmane von avisointags coup. antthatago etsy, xphauw
hatertta avtadt ._Aeoel .%e aware att +08 anfa kee _patreaceves ea
/holding under titles in which “here ,ane no restrictive cove=-
L
nants pee hes bound if they purchased with knowledge of the
plan eed which the said city was founded. |
Appellees! able counsel required twohundred pages of typewriting
to set forth in the bill the matters relied on by them to support
their right to an injunction. Very full, exhaustive briefs and
argupents are presented here by counssl for both sides on the
legal effect of the allegations in the bill. The briefs are
| for the most part devoted to questions that must be determined
by a court on the final hearing of the cause calling for an
|} investigation of the merits of the casm that is not undertaken
by either trial or reviewing courts in determining the propriety
of a preliminary injunction. It is urged in the arguments that
a matter of public interest concerning the title to much property
is involved, which is manifestly true, and such questions
p might better be left to the final hearing and be decided ina
proceeding where the decree of the trial court can reach
the supreme court for review that proénciples may be announced
‘that can be acted upon as rules of proverty. Any decision that
we may render, or view that we may express has no binding effect
On persons or property not included in this suit, and there is
no appeal from this court in this case. There seems to be a
dearth of authority in this state on some of tae questions hare
involved, yet we think the principles are well established and
settled on the authority of the text books on the subject,
and decisions of other states, Our supreme court in People v
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. 333 Ill, 293, quoting from a former case
said, speaking of the remedy by injunction: "The tendency seems
y to be to greatly abuse it." The appellate court of the first
district in Young v Federal Union Surety Co, 183 Ill. App. 378,
cited Beach on Injunctions, Sec, 110 and High on Injunctions,
Sec, 13, on the proposition that the merits of the case are not
-evoo evitoittest on Ole, etedt dotdwat seltit+t tebay antbiod
Gd? “To * “egbe frond Ad Ee *bessdotiq yeas’ ‘tt YBaded’ Moth ok « fae
e. bebnvot esw ytto Bise a} <HoPAe ae hd féiq
galsiiweqyt Yo eesed bethnatfewt béttvpet Leanioe “stds Meedtrég
troqaqge of Wiedt yd née betlot etetfam edt iota “Satt at “dftot Foe’
bas eteitd evitvevstize [fet yrev .foftonutaf né ot tig ts eteds
eit mo asbte dtod 20% Isenvoo “yd eted hetmeberta ers dtnemigzs
ers eteitrd edt /Lftd ete nt emotéecelia eit Yd tostts ‘Iégel >
bentwreteb od teum ted enotteevp of betoveb trey ‘Felon’ Sis" Yor
cy ‘tor! © gh FEieo sevbe ert to’ gntxeed tkntt bHY do favo! sya
neiistueba’ tom et seit meso ert to at Prem ot to. nord Gaivthe j
ytetuqorg sat oitatasteb mt wtrv0> satwetver %o Inixt eeddbe ya
~~ ene asktanyen’ oft nk begxy ef FI \nortohutat® yran tar teag & to
“ ybreqoag doom Ot eLdtd of} gatirxecitos daetabnt’ Situvg Ye Sedvees
erottesmp dove Bas’ <eurt Yitestinsm ec - “Hob aw (Bevtowi oy |
‘@ ci bebtoeb ed bas sattsed fanit edt of steel ed “gested ; $igia
“floss sso gxusdo fstts ett to setoeh odd etedw “gakbeedeic
Bsomsoans sd ys esiqtonétq tant wetvet rot tatoo ‘omotque’ eit
fsdt motateehb wah .ttiscota to eefyt es modi Betos ed nso fads
tostte sntbaid’ on aad eestoxe yan ewotsdit Wety x0 sehnet on
ef ereds bos tive atdt mt bebrfont $6tr ys 16d614 “46 Bod 164. Ho |
& ‘ed ot amese otonT .eeso att mt tivo etat more 18d6G0 ber |
eted-enotieoup sdé to emoe mo etete etdé nt ytirodévs “$6 deteeb
2 “btis beretidstee ILew ots eefqtomtia sat dntdd ow fey obevLovat
co) (Soetde edt mo adood txet sit to ytirortis ext ‘no betsPee
3 eigoeT mf tru0o omorque twO ,eeteta tedte to avo APs his
9860 temi0t « Mott saitoup .s@8 . LT ‘ee 60 at side? ‘beiado q
emese Yomebrot ect" smottonutmt yd ybemer sift Yo ‘gattesde: i
“tet? edt to too etslleqqe ect Ft eeuds {itsery ‘of Ad ot
SVB 6qGAe VEIT 88 (00 Yer? otal’ Cerebet v gavey HE fots aearb
peocmemannaived gt bes OLf Joc® (enottonutal ao Yowea Ped ¥o
tote wneale bee ._etoaecevoo . edt )
in db eek ae eee A _ . ee Ee
pd
|
4 |
—|
|
|
|
|
passed on in considering a preliminaryinjunction , but the
court should inquire whether less harm will result to the en=-
joined party if he should be finally victorious than would
accrue to the complainant from the absence of the injunction
if he were a winning party, and quoted from Russell v Farley
105 U. S, 433:
"It is a settled rule of the cowt of chancery in actions on
applications for injunctions, to regard the comparative injury
which would be sustained by the defendant if an injunction
were granted, and by the complainant if it were refused,
(Kerr on Injunctions, 209, 310) And if the legal right is
doubtful either in point of law or fact, the court is always
reluctant to take a course which may result in material injury
to either party."
And from the City of Newton v Levis, 25 CCA 16l:-
"When the questions to be ultimately decided are serious
and doubtful, the legal discretion of the judge in granting
the writ should be influenced largely by the consideration
that the ee to the moving party will be certain, great
and irreparable if the motion is denied, while the incon=
venience and loss to the opposing party will be inconsiderable
and may well be indemnified by proper bond if the injunction
is granted."
/ It ie said in A, & E, Enc. of Law, Vol. 16, page 546, a prelim-
inary injunction may sometimes be properly refused uoon the
same facts which would entitled the party of right to an in-
junction on final hearing. It is said in 32 Cyc. page 740 the
object of a preliminary injunction is "To maintain the status
quog to maintain property in ite existing condition; to prevent
further or impending injury = not to determine the right itself."
On page 74l< "It will not be granted where it is not apparent
(
: \ that any injury at all will occur,"
iC >
Fe a.
“edd ¢ud), mottonstatytentatierg’ °s grttebtenod At” ao bese
—as/okt¢ o¢ diveot [itwemtsd eesl redéedw ottupat® Sibome 23868"
biuow nett avotirotelw yllentt 6d bigote® ed t#° tia a Shiela
aottonutnt edt to eonsads ods mort saantelqmoo edt 67° ou7808"
yeitst v LfeeeuAcmott betoup hte (yitsq gatadiw so étew oH° TF
Erzav” Jato tat geek oya‘putdeg
covemotfos at yisedsdo tot asoo sXe tooelut etdF60°A ek FPEURTE
yYistat evitsitsqnod sit brsner ot *lanottonufat tot ado tdaes Egat
cormottonstat da Tt taehasteb sd} yd Hee tAtevd ed Bisowoderdw”
os (pBeastet stewetiovtt fnuarts lames edt yd "bas betsiateg °etew”
oSetceboddgtx Lapel edt th bad (OL8° (C08 @motdonu fri: ‘no B8exy
Beanie sat oetves ‘ete (sont ‘x6 War recdtbegrat “tedeie” Egtedded. |
Yispat: -Lebretan at tiveet yen dofdw seids s ‘eiat ot fratoufer®
‘ate etran “wort ts “Ot
-wtl@l AOD @& .etved v motwet to wro ‘edd oT tnd!
eyoites ets behbteeb yletamttlu ef ot anottdeup odd nedwe dyts
grttesia mi sgbst odd to mottetoerb Isqel sdf vetoes
Mottstebianos eit yd ylegrsl beoffecftnl ed Bivona t fw ede
sdmengs getstrde od Lite yung yaPron ene-ed Mero ee tae ™
Smpoomt ect elidw ,detned af motion on tPF eiscedes F Bins
eldetsbtancont sd [iftw yiursq gmfeocaco eft ot eeol brs wonsiney
aottonutmet od tL bnod teqotc yd belt inwenar od Liew yen? Dive 4
rs <i hee nlvcg!? WP
-utierg 6,880 epsq .8f .LoV (wad to .onT .9' 8 lA AY Stee St
edd moot beavtet yLreqotg ed semttenoe yam “motfont tit erent
~ft as ot tigtt to viteq ext helfttire ‘biivow HokHWw eto Shee"
ede OBT Seeq ,ovd SE mt bree ef FI .gritaen Lanrt no-tott ;
eutvete ent mistnien of at moitonuytrt Yrsnimste te s to toot
snovet¢ ot ;mottihnoo gattetxe eti mt ytxeqore ftstmbein ot foup?
" tieett tagiti. eft emimreteb ot tom + yr tit an thasemt® xo! rented
tnexsqae tom eft! exedw —_— ed tom [ftw $1" abaya
Be ee, ak BA lk Se Be : cis
a
«
Andon page 749 = "Great caution is to be used in issuing man-
< datory injunctions, * * * * * * The complainant must make
out a clear case free from doubt and dispute,"
On page 751 mw The issuance of a temporary injunction to maintain
the status quo depends chiefly upon tke relative inconvenience
té be caused the parties,
=
And on page 753; "The right asserted by complainant, however
mustbe perfectly clear and ffee from doubt where the effect
of a preliminary injunction will be more than merely the maine
(/ tenance of the status quo, or where theinjunction will cause
defendant greater loss and inconvenience than that which wiil
Pe
{ be suffered by the complainant in the absence of an injunction.
ee
¥ In any event, an injunction must be refused * * * * * if he
’ fNomplainent) does not make it appear reasonably probable that
' an irreparable injury is impending and will occur before the
j final hearing can be had,"
On page 756; "When the question of Iaw is one of the chief
<I flissues to be determined on the final hearing, and complete
Y relief can be then afforded, the complainant is not entitled to
(the preliminary injunction, An injunction will not be granted
‘where there is grave doubt as to its propriety or necessity,"
(On page 763, "A preliminary injunction will not, as a general
(rule, be granted in cases where it is not shown that any
lirreparable injury is immediately impending and will be visited
‘upon complainant before the case can be brought to a final
hearing."
The above quotations from the text of Cyo are most of them
supported by a great number of citations, generally from the
reports of other states and the federal courts, The author,
however, does not note any decision of this state in conflict
with the general principles that he announces. A reference
e.2t Tob Fe
~1.80 gatueet at heau @d ad af nottsee" bhatt) egeq mba”
ig tmantsiqnoo edt’ *” ae ar ay Bjorn +8 ne
" .eguge th bas tduob mort y0se if teels Babee : pe
aistaten of nottonugat yistogmed 8 to sonsveal eat x * tay" bg 8d RO”
abe
‘I
“ba
/
esdatiemaae f evitslot edt pie eS abaéqeb « op ‘eutste” oa
easttisg ot Lei ag
= se ta eae bat i ¢TesRe
tevewod . men teiquos vd Hei teases bs. Hf edt * e3eq Fe fe) baa |
ees | ane am rts 2 ‘et igi tes Gr
sootte S: ie ezesiw tdsrob sort eett ‘bas ‘tselo yitosti1eq ;
=a tem exis ezen madd e rom od iitw aottomutat yten apres 2 0")
agene Like moltonsstat edit eredin to ‘OUP “audeta” ° oe soneney )
4 4 Sig whey F Pore 2 Fert i er =
{iiw dotdw dade msit some inevnoont Boe asol * tetse ts
Ea é = TOBE Pag he ams “3
nottonutat : as 0 eonsads vane ne dren taLqmoo ent ‘d cE
Ser sae ~~ sar
sc u ** * 8 8 peace” el a seum moftonutat ‘mu ie bao a RE
4
ted? sidsdorg videapane x SPPEAS tL easm tom ek es ar iiosy
edt stoted tTr9950 Li iw bas gatbrecnt et wasted t oxdatadeie id |
& |
"bad “ed mB9 sities Heat? |
on * \
“tezdo eat - emo et Wat %o notseeup edt ‘medwe iget ‘688q q nO}
£5 Fe
= hee w
etelqnos bas aa irsed Cen ‘edit no “beaimxssob. ed 63° “dbu e!
FRE x 4 ; |
ot beltitne rok at comings the edt -bebrotts neds “Sa a8 “tet 8
“ii Ore. 4
Sern ed tom Iliw nottonutat nh ~motdonutat hpi
el eter:
i wttaasees tO vteltqorgq sti ‘ot "gh tdyob evsty Tr “Sao? "8 0RW)
P= stay st fon fLiw mofttonutat vier imilere A" in" Roy Gat)
ees Bi My ects vom ei +f o1s sdw aeRso mi besnsty ber cana ae)
betiaiv ed iiiw On pela hei Sivtatbansl ek quia tat teat)
SA. Bact As
Ientt & OF tdguord ed mso 2easo. odt stoted PaaavatGah oCReED
fi Re oF vee Keene neat
Ong GET as
gus b
medt to teom 9ts on io txet edt mozt “eneithi eon » ede ie
Sue « Bir wx ie
o Wi rer See OS
_ mort Si lexeces eeaortat fo to Eh le io ea het Sets |
o Fete: oT yne ¥ * Aon cori rts
nodtus sat atises farshet edt pas sesste FAR C it
* tise Paws s ey NS iy te
yc 4
fotttnoo at etste eidd ‘to notatoeb st » efer wer se
Reverse fon «4 ees be boas + ore :
eomete tet A ,8eonvonas od tadd “solaiai han aq faxes 3 . "SP Sd
i
to the volumes of "Annotations of Cyc" showing decisions on these
various points since the publication of the volume from which
we have quoted, discloses tat most of these principles have
since that time beenrestated or recognized again and again
by our federal and state courts. This opinion might be extended
to great length by citing and discussing those cases,
In the late case of McMillan v Kuehnle, 78 N. J, Eq.
251, the court considered an application for a temporary in-
junction by owners of dwelling houses near a baseball park to
restrain holding baseball games there on Sunday, the bill charge
ing that crowds attending the game, by noise and confusion,
Gisturbed the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, and held
them not entitled to the writ. The court said,=
"Such a writ ought never to be ordered unless from the pressure
of an urgent necessity. The damage which it is legitimate to
/prevent during the pendency of a suit must be in an squitable
a
—— =.
—
re
point of view of an irreparable character", (Citing authorities)
And quoting from an earlier authoritw ~ "It is impossible to
emphasize too stringly the rule so often enforced by this court
that a preliminaryinjunntion will not be allowed when the
injury which may result from the invasion of the complainant's
right is not irreparable," and added = That the injury come
Plained of could not be mammxexad considered as an irreparable
mischief and that if it be conceded that the disturbance is
of such a character as to entitle complainants to an injunction
on a final hearing of the cause, still it is not so substantial
as to Warrant the issuing of a temporary writ,
In Mefer v Somerville Water Co, 79 N. J, Eq. 613, the court said
"The object of a preliminary injunmtion is to prevent some
threatening irreparable injury pending a full and deliberate
investigation of the case upon the merits. It will not be ordered
unless from the pressure of an urgent necessity and where the
damage threatened during the pendency of the suit is of an
a”:
esedt mo enoiatoeh sntwode "“oyd to enoitstonnA" to aemulov sdt ot
doi dw mort sau Lov eae to soltsolidugq odd sonte etalog Ms Po i
. oe! 8s 18 edd.
eved ao teiesion oueat to saom tec is seeofoeis .betou he Fe Ta
an nt vxOFER
nkege bas ateye besiagooer zo betsieeimeed emis taeda conte
ts 2 |
Aaheagye ed tdgtm notatao eit sed 109 etate. bas Tasebet tmw9O
} Ri SSN ezagq &
»8easo seodt ‘gateavoaih brs pantie vd onee eet | at
Tare
‘pi ,t WH 8Y ,olmdend v mslliMoM to ease ets ont al
cho &¢ 5-4
-1i yistogmes s rot aoltaetiqas ts bexebienoo ‘tauoo edt es
Whee Ss 4G AO
ov Atsq Liedeasd 5s tseNn eavod gatlionb to eTenwo. vd not onut
78 f3 ag 8 tal
“gisdo titd edt .yebawe mo ered omg Lisdeaed amtblod Re aeaeer
otevtnoo bas eaton ., .ensg axis gathaets pbwore tadt
. 79 eanrak 7.
bled brs .doodtodag ton exit to setup bas eoseq exit bedmuterb
rabne )
~,bise tues on? thaw ests ot belsttae tom me =
bexettye @ ;
‘emsaastG edt mott eeelnuy betebro od ot seven # iguro thzw s dove"
here Une
ot etamitigel at ‘tt dotdw egeush oT .viiseeoed: fasgu as }
ano8)
eldstiups as at ed saum diva s to yoaebreg edt gatsuh |
cree:
(eelttitedtus anitid) ."tetoszasdo eldsxeqetit a8 ie 4
ot sidtesoqmt ei tI” ~ wticodtus seilise as sort Rios
tivoo eidt yd bsotoins astto oa elyx edd vgntzts “ea >
edt mecw bewolls ed tom ILtw mot taqutat yrentmiLerg, Zé s tase
a! snantsiqmoo edt to motesvat edt mort tLuect yam dode xu
(ut SSS LOL. 2 H
“moo vYiwimt edt gsdiT ~~ bebbs bas " .eidsraqetrt tom ai Res |
ee] Lei ie e] |
sidstsqetri ns es betebtenoo ’aznxanma od tom bluo0 ry bentalg
/ Sead ae | t|
et somedtwteth et tsdt bebeonos ed #2 tt sede anes Xp tombe :
ets aa j
aaa yas me ot stnentseiqmoo elttine ot as redoetado & dove to
aldataqerzs) |-
tetsantedye Oe gom at ti Ifite .sauso ont ‘to gatsed fsatt aan |
BL Ez + GAIOS 2 g oe ai
i tirw yrstoqmes s to grtueet edd tnetisw ot Bs os
W ga hiaed ©
biae tioo edt .€18 ,pi .l .u eS .00 tet\)eV mht dynenet * te as a
Ou vYoos
emos tnevetq ot at nottnaustat Yuen tmtLozq 8 to tuatee sam
ve ber roqa
“ etstedtied bas Liut es gathneq yistat eidazaqertt Fa gad be
ata ' oO af TOqes
bexebzo od ton Iftw sl ,atizem edt moqu e850 edt to eich
e* or JOR BBOD sve
en ptaste bas Raghoenen tmegiw os to “emwasexg edt mott HEE |
eter Exe LHEtETOY of ae tw |
_B| Gye s - & bt A RE lb eg ce Sar ata ym, elgin a. Ne ae ee
| irreparable character." (Citing authorities)
In the case of Blanchard v Eastern Pennsylvania Power Co, 80
N. J, Eq, 10, it is held if the complainants case rests on a
legal right which is not clear and has beenfairly questioned
then a preliminary injunction cannot be granted, (Citing autho r=
ities) In Fredericks v Huber, 180 Penn. St. 573. the court,
in holding a prelininary injunction, restraining the use ofa
church improperly granted, said that its effect was practically
to reverse the whole status of the parties, and added = "This
is not the office of a preliminary injunction, which is not to
subvert but to maintain the existing status until the merits
of the controverg can be fully heard and determined,"
And adds = "That the status quo which will be preserved by
preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, noncontested
status which preceded the pending controversy,"
In Snod grass v MeDanielz, 144 Iowa, 674, the court applied the
rule that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve
the status quo of the parties and not to obtain affirmative
relief in advance of the trial,
We find in Richards v Meissner 158 Fed. Rep. 109, the following
language in relation to eranting a preliminary injunctione
"While it does not finally determine the rights of the parties
to the action, and is intended only to preserve the existing
status until the case can be fully heard, and therefore xu it is
not necessary that the court should, before granting it, be
satisfied that the complainant will certainly prevail upon the
final hearing of the case, the court should, nevertheless, be
careful that the complainant haa a probable right, and that
there is probable danger that such right will be defeated
without the special interposition of the court, It is equally
true that where, on the showing made at the preliminaryhearing,
shonak" to eemulov sdi oF
ee otisy
(eeititontus’ arttid) * aeeendado. D 8. idexaqertt |
| coup eved ef
OS .o9 xsswod sissviyeans? fret est ® bketonart to” so ert al -
oe aod ot tas eonis
&.%0 atest eeso etnantelamos of} t4 Bisa et 7 or. ‘pa ob
» stete bre ieisbet. w98. 98
bemoiteensp ylttstaesd esd bat tee fo" t6n ef doldw tdgit tapes
~ : ay of .
=I oftus gniv£d) .betae1g sd toanso mottonutat ‘quactnbterg aeaats
~iiuoo edt | sd Jnasd OBL ,téotH vy axofrebert ‘at (ests
heave bregon. JTen Ag £E8
sto seu edt gntmtsrtesy ,aottonutat Yradintlerq s gathidd at
tpoms
yilssitostq ssw tostte etl vert bise (Betas ‘eteaottl 1 ph §
ti8s%
ainT" - bebbs bas ,eetdisq edt 26 suds] efodw ‘ott eaxevet of
> tant 2
ot tom et dotdw ,mottonutet yrentttierg to s0ttto edd tom et:
dtuteth
atizes edd Lbény eutste smitelxe sift mis¢atsn ot ted poy
" bsnimaeteb bas bised yllyt ed mao @teveriaoo 6 odd Yo |
Wi bevieretq-ed Litw Hots cup eutete off PaaT® abba ba
bevestmoomon ,sidseossq .Laitos taal ont at mo heRants Tabede
: " yetsvorimos otthnsq eit Bebeostq ‘Gokdw ‘nae |
edt betfiqgs t1wo09° ont ,ATa .swol ASL &letnatol y asats bone ae at
evieestq o¢ ai agitodtutnk yistoqmes s Yo eeoqmue| edt ‘badd aon
cg Pana gy io Se ones
evivemxitts mtstdo ot tom bas eettrsg off to oup autad
‘Ie a =f
‘ Sntth OY 46 Sonevbs at Se
amtwoliot sit .COL .qsh .bet Sal temeateM v 1 abrsHoid ot ie
a wk ddgkt
=—nottonutat yrenimtiet¢ 8 antiners oF mottelsx at e3 |
eeitisg ed? to avdgtx odd entirreteb yi Cant? tom peob $i "bemae
gnditetxe eft evtesetq ot vimo bebmstat at brs ‘ hie Ria
at.¢£ gz ezotetedt bas .bised yiIut ed aso sess edt ‘Ittaw u stare
ed .#i anitasrs stoted .biuofe trvo0o silt tent ged cones
edt moqu Litsverq vidtsties Iftw é¢nenkslqmoo oad sand Estte fies,
ed yaseledtieven .bivode tives sit (éaso ett to “yh zsed | satt ’
tadt bas ,tdgtt efdsdorq s 88d teentsfameo eft fad? “twtezas = i
hedagteb ed Liiw tigts deve tat “‘reguae’ “Uifdadord a sped neat |
Ridaups, atl .tivoo edt Yo mottteoqretmE Latoeca pred ‘tuodt tw ,
t aN ace
ackzeetynatintierg ont te ebst autwode eff ko .exedw te ,
lee ge ASAP TES ab,
—
I i
the law as to the right to an injunction is quite doubtful
and that as much, if not more, injury wpuld probably ensue to
the defendants than to the complainants, and especially where
in the event of the bill being dismissed on final hearing,
there is grave doubt of an adequate redress to the defondant
resulting from the injunction, the court should refuse the
application for a temporary injunction, and await action
until all the facts appear on final hearing."
The principles announced in the foregoing authoritiesagss:
rere
seem reasonable, and we think they mignt be taken as a guide
Lo |
by courts of this state in passing on motions for temporary
injunctions. Even on final tearing our supreme court has said
in Hill v Kimball, 269 Ili. 3983— "In cases where mandatory
“injunctions are esked for, ' it is the duty of the court to
“consider the inconvenience and damage that will result to the
_ aefendant as well as the benefit to accrue to the compiainant
"aa by the granting of the writm, and where the defendant's damages
and injuries will be greater by granting the writ than will
be the complainant's benefit by granting the writ, or greater
‘than will be complainants damages by the refusal of it, the
court will, in the exercises of a sound discretion, refuse
the writ.'*® (Lloyd v Catlin Coal Co. 310 Ill. 460; Dunn v Youe
mans, 224 id. 34; 1 High onInjunctions, 4th. Fd. sec. &.
and cases cited.) Applying those rules to this case
‘we are unable to see any valid reason for the decree. If
we assume that the complainants will, on final hearing, be
_jentitled to an injunction, still the maintaining of the or=
cf
<___|dinary drug store and physician's office in the City of Zim
|during the pendency of the suit was not such a threatened
j
| mischief and injury as should be held irreparable in passing
a
on a motion for a temporary injunction. The restraining order
did not issue to maintain the status quo, but was in the
‘ [ATEN han
{utiduob ettup ab mottomuiat as os tdgit sdt ot ag wal edt.
otcevene pidadory biugw.vruiak..etom ten 2t «doom eg tadt bas: |
sredw yblebveqes bis .getaeatslgmos ett ot mart, etnsbgeteb edt py
saatbneed deub} wie boestmaia gated {iid ert to tnoye eit ae
Sdsbnoken .e%3 of asebes etsupeds a.19 tduod eusxy et oxedt,
oi? autor bivedie ,#su99 ett .gtoLtooutal edt mex’ ou? Syges »
. Gghiqe tiausbas,.goitoaujal yrstoqmes 6 xqh moltagilgae, —
eoccess sow oMegadzaed Lett so teeggs coat oc: tte Lttmey. |
annesoititodius, atigyetgi edt, nk bgomuonns eeiqtonizg edt” oy
eblyg.s.as Goled oy tngia.yedi anid? ew bre ,gldsnoeset moe ; :
o¥aszoaae? cot agoktem.go.gnigesg gt .etste stat to attuga eg)
bise esd tivop.emorgua two anizest Jaatt mo wevd,..,enoitodupat
1s hanna ee -£i1 G98 ,Lisdat® y tee Ha
segeugae'iasnaoten edit salle pense Xe palamtectons .
Liiw.codd tiry.edt gutinera yd tetegtg od 1ltv, setrupet bos)
tetsexg 10 ,tixw edt antinerg yd < themed, altnectalqmos edt 9d)
edt, tito Igautexedt)xd segeugh,ptagnte{qmog.ed Lith aay,
oaures. foisetoaio Lavoe & ig, eslotexe eds. ft. itty. try :
HOE. WV mgwd 40h, ~L11 OLS .90.ts00 gtited v, byold} °! .ttop edits |
peitlie BR? oPEnndt? stmoitonubaheosgeetst iA ARISE GRRE
»( 8889, Sigs 0} selgz osod? gaiyiqgs. voofsb9#?9 peep, bas. bm
» 31, -sen90b edt rot goeser Ailsy yas 990, 9t eldsry erp Om,
ed, ,gaitsed.lacit.co tltw stmsatsique,..edt tedr..emyesg eR]
o7Qp 982, Bo Bainivdaicu, edt iLtte, agitorgiat. os ot best tia
MmiS to. ¥ti0 edi ai sotto S'asioteyda bgs.erote gysd yrentD
Renetseris s dove tom easy, dive. orig. 39. xomebned. edt a BG T9R
aniscsg ot, eldstsqeizt, bled,eg. bivgds. a9, tubes pte POPES.
Tebyg, galabertagz, oT upigeautat xrezogae?.p tt mgt tom, 2, Ag
ee i ee, 6k ot a — meh att, aed « de tet a ee os be
f\
nature of a mandatory injunction granting the relief sought
by the bill in advance of a hearing on the merits, and there=
fore such as will not ordinarily be granted. There is grave
doubt about the law upon which the complainants! right to
ultimate relief rests, Many questions arise as to the legal
effect cf variovs facts averred in the bill, and whether a
sound consideration of public policy will permit the en=
forcement of the restrictive covenants relied om can only
be known after a final dewision of a court of last resort;
and finally, the injury and misbhief intideted by a wrongful
issuing if the writ suspending an established business
during the pendeney of the suit is one that cannot be ade=
quately compensated in damages, and therefore the aefendants
could not be adequately protected by the bond required,
while the injury that would be ststained by the complainants
in wrongfully refusing the writ is of little importance,
We are of opinion that the writ should not have issu ed
and that the trial court was not acting within its sound jui-
icial discretion in entering the decree awarding it, therefore
the decree should be reversed.
Reversed.
“HY KE
“gxguoe teller oad Yakdnety nottonuiat Yrotepnam”s Yb etiten
SLgRS AE nah Seabed SHY ad “ShineSH°2 18“ednerha Br fete Sada | >
““Systs ef ere? .petders od ylktentito fom IPRY eB dodeetor |
“ot Figrt tegmartelqmoo eds ‘Moldw moqu wel én Suede tadn
a aa as 6ebte enotfeeup yao ,adeer teties ot snitiv
5 tefiedtw bak (Iitd eit nt betreve etost avoftev 16° tsétte
“8 of? i “Litw yotfod orlauq %6 mottstebt anos’ bawoe
yime mso imo “petict stttatevoy eviteittaot edt to themeordt —
“TP eroeet desl 6 #00 b to motaiged Tankt 6 vette wont od
“bit inom 5 yd d pesorrend etuseim bab’ “ytirimt: edt weiteast Bis
8“ peenteud Koteticbtee he gntbnedeve thaw ont ti gatueds 4s
° Rape ed’ g6ntee” Ballf’ otto Gi “928 one Zo" YoRenneg” oad GukehD
esasbnsteh edt croteted* bik (wegemabd at betseneqmoo yetbup
(betivper brod edt ed betoorotq yletsupebs ef “ton BLuOo |
“Basa tsiquos: ett ve benkstete od btvow ted} prota bit Sldaw
veonstrogmt eft#tf Yo at titw eft gmbartet pie ouw he
be vost ved tom bivode titw sit batt mothe Yo bts OW wi
‘Lpee’ pavoe ult atasty gat ses tol aw trvoo Thbx2 Sie she hts
etoteteds o antbrswe eerbeb edt guivetae mt mottetoeib Istot
bi | om shoexever od BT vorfs eeroet! elit
be dae OS a 7 fae ~ nS an by 5 Bd
beateven file, tee
: = é ay wie 3 i k ; } ‘ Seah bal 2 i 2 t = edz +
£ 4h .bf 89S - Soe
} Saks ods
S fax wt * € of |
“39 ys oT oftiives
rt
ua Freatey
ue dak § ie t ¢ an try |
acai
GEL SK) . dod. Sigode ae. yeyiai poe 2ebtogias
POM. bit FE 2 € Gist t saeijeasios owetogeet.w 6o2 Rot tom, & of
—_— ew Se ee ee ee ew ee A epee = er |
STATE, OF ILLINOIS, } ..
SECOND DISTRICT. Gar:
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
I, CHRISTOPHER C. DurFFy, Clerk of the Appellate
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this —
day of— : in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and a a
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
5
~~
7 -
? *
iv
t
2
OR ie
~ {2.4
sgh ike
we ei VS
hy
)
- ae ad
asallygays ads 40 Aras
RB gehyoveA prt lo taqeed bas eioailll te odei2 aris ‘te doindell) bnovee bine abt
od Th duiniqn sdf: to gor omits 6 ul ‘aa ea odd dads Yarn ay yausD Od
othe 2ifts baw (east! Yor re od dioved 1 “gosnoly Honea? nl te ‘
ddd onveatsO in Jtno) onsfloqgs bise ot To lesa”
teow
arey
a) er ey ee
5 : aay as
7 t n 4 vy
nd j
. lest gf
Vet:
;
ys 7 5 a S30 53 ‘Al
a) ee Alsat meet i
' @ MoS sg 2 Bye wire 2
, tN IS BS ar i ew ;
. rn
a LAR ,: *
e Be i he ie 4 Sa
i"
nt Pu ‘ 4o AN A 4 siing= .
' wy Sea | \ ; nog
; fie ‘ ayes a,
4 ‘4 , a
tart. ¥ 5
Cah cs. ae . »; %, “? art
y .
ae 4%
eit ny A z
“% put
, Fink +
ne Ruy
nite t ¥e
; J 5 ;
F T .
re * by co
‘
g, DAN, Dees
’
‘
P3 1
4
raya
7% bradano jowrnay Scht a Se Ree cooks petal at xed,
ay fh Says
co
+4 f HoTioTeraye Oil
— bie be pin agin Biaastod
ey AN hy hy
ah sabi
Pun
1403 ioe!
Che Lg an
‘
t a
i
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE ;COURT,
SSS pe
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the es day of Ocrober,
in the year of our Lord one thousand ning hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois
Presenht--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
4 Ve iP Be
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. JOHN. M. .NIEHAUS Justice.
2 An / :
CHRISTOPHER C., DUFFY, Clerk” U VU i
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. i
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
‘ng ee mR, AVA
Lp 4\
the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
'-M99tTtt Eres borheud ames basevods ae pe 10 Lo Bet
‘
+ setomilll to etst2 ods Lo do ixtafd baonae dt 10% bas at
29rd gyt naibioord 18810 ela ake . 10H ont
ep tdant BRAGAQ .U HMAUC .oo0H
egttent //SUAHTIY. M WSOL 80H
a, r RIG eS ik
Check. otte EM iret9 YEG ..9 seaqorarano
| i _ sttirede ,eqvad Md
a — 2m SaaS SP nt erases
; v3
-
, : a
1 no bbw -of abraw7s tts todd JasaaeNaMe Bae
a4 at bolt? | o5w “e100 adt ‘to noini ge ods .
sotngrt bas abrow ari at t300 ‘bise to sotdtoa
tdiweot ,
iM ‘
ty. i” ate i
7 1 Sa
Gen. No. 6144.
Christine L. Palm, appellant.
avs Appeal from Winnebago.
Rockford City Traction Company, “ppelles.
Diovelil, Pe Je
mo
ee re ; | 2 ae
On the 57th. day of January, 1912, at the corner of Secund
Avenue and Seventh Street, in the sity of Roekford in Winnebvago
. . ‘ x - ° * oa :
County, Christine L. Palm fall from the step of a car operated
\ Pal
=
\ sf
by the Rockford City Pe ae Sonny ao eee injuries, for
which she brought this suit to ree eer e She filed a dece=
laration, to which there was a pled of the gensral issue. Later
Ps \
peed ;
he obtained leave to filie, and did ce four additional counts,
to which there was also a pxe ia of the ge eneral issue. At the trial
Sie the De uary term 1915; of the circuit cours of that County,
a was given the plaintiff to amend her declaration, which she
did, by alleging that the conductor of the street oar neglig
=
@
3
ct
~
ect
permitted the exit door of the car to remain oven while the car
was in motion, which induced the plaintiff to believe that she
could safely alight and in doing s0 she was injured becsusé the
car had not been atocped. Ths ant demyrred to the amendment
but the demurrer was overruied am the prea of the ceneral issue
formerly made to the original declatgtion, was ordered to stand
as the plea® to the amended counts”
dence the court instructed tpé jury to rdturn 2 verdict for the
defendant, which was done; as motion for a
fe
&
fa
trial was overru
-_ the defendant ha@ judgment against the aintiff, from which
| The car in question was of the "Pay-as-youeenter" type and
appears to have differed in at least one important re
Lia
na
Sal
the cara of that type now in usé. The rear platcorm was inclesd
i eR RRR ea Li Mh a
' . i, as +h ha” Toe!) ee aig
stnelleqge iva ee ont’
sogedsantW mort IseqqA eve am
| scolledqc® ,ynsqnod mofttoserT yet brot
ae +b oT (Lis
basose to remtoo efit te ,81eL wrecnel) te web HITE oft 10
opsdenniwW nt hyoixooh to ytio eft at ltsex: 2 stmeves: Sas ¢ |
betereqo Teo 5 te. Nichi edd moti £663 mfeT i enite trio Pe
vol ,esiiypat bevieoe™ — Yaeqnoy mottosrt ytio brottoofl ot 7
-oeb = belt? eff .eegemeb xevopts ot tive atk? tfuuord ene fo
teved -eveat Letenes sci to sel & saw sredt doldw od eon al a
eatmoo [Snottibbs wot oh bib kas ,eilt ot evasl bentetdo ene
feizt edt tA .eueat Lerenes sit To has & Oels sew stelt —
ol
Vinod tedt hain tivoxto
yftnesiizen weo testtes sdt to tofoubmoo edt ted? yntpelle gue
tso eft slidw meco alemor ot aso eft to toob tixe edt pesttareg
ede tesdt eveiled ot tittmislq edt beoubal dotdw ,.moltom — t
eft eeyscosd beswini sew sda oe antob nd bor tigtle vietes é 4
tnembnoms edt ot bertyuee tagbas toy edT = meed tom best 120
eyeet Levenen sdt to seXg edt bte belyrrevo sew teTwmsb Basil
g .
baste ot betebte ecw aot
-Ive adt Ile to eeolo ont uN ano bebnens edt ot pa pelts
edt rot tolbrsev « awger of yrut hen betouttant tusoo dé eomeb
belurxevo sew Letrt wp 2 to? fottom = “yenok esw doldw nebneteb
detdw mox? Renee 4 edt tantevea toemgout ft tuebaeted os ih
L salestce woled titta
and on she right hand side of this platform was = step and two
doors, the rear one of theee two doors veing used as an entrance to
the car and the other ae an exit. The exit door was not under
the sole control of the sonductor, but could be opened by any one
desiring to alight from the car. On boarding the car through
the rear of these two doors on the right handside of the car, an
intending passenger would proceed along a railing, extending
os — )
fare to the conductor cr Alesse put it in &© box provided for tha
purpose, meunt one step and go through & door into the body o7
she car. A passenger desiring to alight from this car would pass
through a door at the rear of the main body of the car, on the
other side of the car from the door by which he entered the main
body of tae car, and, uvon stenping down on to the piatform,
turn to the left and either oven the outside door himself or have
the conductor do it for him and go from the vlaticrm on to a
step and thenes mp te the street. White—tire-eviterce—t2-not-axite
cLear—en-tnis Pp speirty it anpear eae 1at this exit door was not
controlled by any lever at the hanc cf the conductor, but was
ocened by & handle attached to the door itself. The position of
the conductor ordinarily are at the time of the accident here
| ad
mn cuestion was,on the platform between the entrance and exit
doors leading to and “rom the body of the car and behind the rail-
ing mentioned above. The exit door, used in passing from the plate
form to the street, swung dvack against the railing when open and,
as ths space into which an outcoing passancvsr aterped was adout
k 4 t
two fset square it will be seem that when such an outgoing passenger
stepped onto the atform from the main body of the car, his pre-
ly
sence would prevent the closing
its opening, if it was closed, by the conductor, who would under
such circwrstanoces be standing behing such passenger. /
ah, ee a ERO ae DB! Lie 8 a
. ‘ - 9 7 iy fe fll ‘ AY i i iy a
; ul i i vei
ceraniedth kk Aaa
ot sonmsttns ms es beey giied atoob owt eneat te O09 .GSO7 | elt.»
teboy ton sew toobh ¢ixs.sfT ,-tixe mo as tedito edi das 120 !
eno yas yd beneco ed bivoo tud .sotoubaos edd t¢ Lortmos Loa.
dgvorls tso edt gathrsod a0 .t4es edt _ tigile od ogatt
te ySod edd otal tooh wa Pan Qs. Ans gota 209 dayom ene
Basq Dlyow 189 aids port tdatts ot anizieed soggeageg | Avetae 6
ed} m0 »t8o.sdt to ybod ates adt to zset edt te toob.s 4
Alem 212, bSt6d09 | eG Moiiw Yd took oft tott pee.gdt
vetgitalq edt od MO. moe. gatggete mgqu LPO +%89 aoe 383
eved 19 toamid 100d sktutuo sd agca aed te bas, titel paige
4 ot mo mroitelg ec ‘A mort, 9g, b08 . mid rot. t
otdupter ret soment ye sit oitay, steette edt Ot opm, cogent —
atom asw t90h dixe aids tect, TAtais siaiiaae 7
to moltiteog sdT .ileats xoobh odd. ot, Dedostie elbacd 6 ee ‘
nat tmebtoog...odi to amt gdh. te Singhttnyiht ea wie
tixe bite eonatins edt aeanted mre tteLlo dt a9 EM aelisepo at |
~Itst edt, .baided doe taoietid to yeodyedt mor) Lins, of gatbast 27908,
ler.
wtelq edit mort gaitacay At peas took. xs, Evy eavods Lenottnom
i she mego nmedw gatiter odd dantage toad gaya ..teerte edt od ar
a) tuods eaw beqgetea isgneeesq gniogivo ns dotdwotnt , AR
- tepmeggad 2 gitostue ne dove aedw dant geea od titm ot SREHRR
Aw erg aid .teo edt to ybod atan 2
Ms Lv
fe
m > ‘eo . afago aaw tf, 4, st00b sdtto y aatsole at Aas o.
ei ne reba bivow omlw totovbage ci 7",
‘| a ae ase
Aspellantbecamé & passeneer on this car about six o'clock on
| we Ln AF ir
the evening in question. It was after dark and the lights in the
car on the street and in the etorze woe i hia street, were lichted. A&
the car neared Second Avenue, aapeitent pressed s push button,
A
thereby notifying the conductor that she desired to leave the
car at that point, and he tranamitted this signal to the mctoraterk™
left her seat, went through the exit door ani atenped
platform. The undisputed evidence shows that when
she did this, the outsije door was closed. Thile ahe was 3tanding
ust ag the car reachsd Second Avenue, its aneed being
2 bw men came out of the body Of the car, pushed by
the aes » oveaed the exit door and stepped dow onto the .
ve Jbsr IY,
strest. At that time the conductor called cut a warning toapfeiient—/
that she waumikd should wait until the car stoonsd bsfore alighting,
but she either did not hear him or paid no attention to him, and
passed out directly after ths SWO Meh stepping off of the ste
and failing on to the atrese
ee en or renee oe
heaset It sa anp nt from the evidence and from a plat of the back
: _ ple THf-
Platform of this car, introduced in evidence, that as safeestent
) Stood on this platform after the door had deen opened by the two
men in question, her presence prevented the conductor from gloaing
Bhe exit door, and that her denarture from the car was 30 suiden
that the conductcr had no opportunity to do anything to prevent
her from leaving the oar, except to call out a warning to her,
ica Mer. Ti Hf- Hh
ag he did. Assetiest ‘admit her testimony that when she left
her asat after giving the signal to stop, she knew the car
> = =
was still in motion, to us thst an-ordinariiy
patelligent person, in tas exercise of jue care for his own safety
ck
» could 6asily judge by the atree and store lights, whether or
Mot the car waa in motidm~It is apparent to ix Yond, aiter the
two men left the car, appellant Toilowed without taking holde of
ng MJoolo'o ais tiuods aso aids no Tegnsageq & PMBOPG,
tit wk etdgtt edt dae Axe xodte kev #1 .mottesup at antan,
BA .betdail erew .teerte ent eats satote edt of das teoxte, atl
J ‘ Te
wtettud dauq s besaexs,. <eunevA broos? bete0en ap
edt. avecl ot borteal.oe feild totouvbaes, sit, galyiivon, .
“yiethirotion off ot Lengis eidt bettimangrt, ext Foret water $63
beqcets ‘bre took tixe: es iguondd tmow «see ter thet. aedé
sedw tect awode sorebive betugeibay edT .mrottelg ext on
sitboede caw ote olidW .berolo, ear t9.0b. eb FaP HR: gaat Biddne
eabed beege eth .guneva bone? betouey, Weo ent .ae tose bean "
vO Sedeuq..%#o edi 26 ‘bod edd to ovo emeo SFB si.
ond tno gvoh begaete bos toob dixe aii DEHECO, pa ents
Ba ncp Sh
& Sanbiehoce? aninisy £ duo. pelle tofovboos, edt emit tage tA
padidg i he -enoled aowaete weBO° out’ Lites tiew bLaode siumn
bales
; ; bre ~widoot noitmos te. om Steg to, att wed tom Sth. medhie
Gade ‘att oo be aakaiets. ghee | owt edt vette yltoorts gwo
i we ' . ¥ y ¥; i RA!
1 - aaar on zo: talg 6 mnt Hits eons ive aad. mott taemedan es. wo:
Bh testy
a : to i
a ae ae ted agomsbive oat Denuborst ms «mo eldd: to am
» & ows ext xd PAARL naeg fhed..moob enh rete, mio hela, haldcg » bao;
antsolo mott nottoubaos est betnoevetg sonesetq 168d. Otte Eup.
cae
noeboye o@ Hew, S80 oct mort etwtregeb tad tedt RUS 0 TOQ hs tbe
tnavetg eh -satdiyia ob ot yilautroggqe pa Led, -xotoubnoo st
,ted ot grtansw.< tivo [ino ot tqeoxe tao dt eaty ve 0 28
Ae Sun, SR ‘
ttelL ede nedwotedh.. yaemitget tec mi hs tea
Joos 280,09 wer afe -.qodte of Lengise edt -goegvic Ot 28, cot
i.e a er od tEeto-emaee.dul. ime og MOL tom mt a
AMIVEQ aud a rials er20 spit to. setoxreKs, ie ‘RAR G ¥ ‘
v
is
any oiderati-or-paying—sny-attertion to Whether or not—the—ear
posine Ln} 4.
was oti} moving. | Wien abpetiant ste oped
=
)
co
of the car to the plztform,tne exit door w
nothing in the evidence to show that the
down from the main body
23 ¢
gonductor knew, or should
Oe
have known, that any one other
than eae
intsnded to leave
the car at this point. I+ is-svicent—thet— +4 oonecector—warned
appellant as s00n as he discovered that—tke-car—door-wae” open,”
andthe fact—tratapsellant—did- not Hear nis warning or $7 id-no
attention can aot..os-considered negligence on his wart. Jitnesses
Ov pee poe ree
for eseiiss, net cennsoted in any way with the company, heard
the conductor's warning ons kaew taat the osr was moving at the
yoo 4 wet ch an
LF to Regd
time » As appeiies ‘says. in its. nt at AP an
the conductor's rning, it was sither
not aa good a 5 that Of numerous otpe
i
; ae 4 .
because 3hs was not sayin brteei ton to her surroundings. In the
because her
ersens on
nelliant did not.os
hearing was
car
hy 23
che
oF
ay
~~ f
ey
latter case, she was negligent} in the former case, ths conductor
jf o™
wags not negligent. Ne
We do not Zind any s«¥idence in tharccord that would justify
>
us in holding that the aopelles was neglipent in its overat
tS
of this street car, while there is considerable evidence to show
that asneliant was negligent. The judgment is thersfore affirmed,
Affirmede
fe el Bi
t80° beta epead oF Renee eee
wbod bet est mort mob _ beqvede tne
wc sent bos bseolo esw took tie ‘edd ato aig end 08 Pa 159 Ter |
Sivore to ‘veut pee ha wows od soascive bee
evesl of bebaotai detfoqes fusd ‘xeuldo sao vate todd tworal eved
besten sotosinoe eii-tadt-tnstive af #1 statog etdd ce use at
arse -@EW TOOL TES Odd ~ baits ‘berevoceth ef Bp &
oOnr-LTee “iS GATT TeT” ern” teen Fait Sealant iad So
; Ot Ti. 18
eocesadth hreg” etit-Tro” soribgiigen berebtenco—sc ton. juste
hrese e KAS CMOS edt dtiw Yaw yne ak "-betoennos tan
edt ts gaivom eew 120 edd decd Goat 5 pataew, e' xo¢cubaon sft
Pre AAT ek, as gL
ces ton bib tositecca. th SeLad eid ob Bese
~
20 anttze ” ted pape ved redt te ew ‘tt vane etaoroutnoe edt
ov tA tapas
to tH sit mo anoers¢ Rate avers nut 6 tadé ce boog a6 to
Mi ye ev rue. ie el
ent al sagatbuve rise yon os nos Duets yatyec fon ecw ee esueoed
ont Le eerie
tofodinos sit ,.seso renitol itt at Veneg teen wew ede «88L0 nettel
4 (hb two Beekee
ae ad “stnegligen tom eew
a ae ; Re eee tax ithe
wiideut Divow tedd bios: x aha ae soasbive me batt tom ob ow
oe PN alk eat, oe
“nottetsco ati at tnegttaen aew “eel leqen ent Paevree hh te al ey
wt td
wode ot “spnsbive stare bistoo ef erect ei tae +380 teetda sidt to
|
mq al ; 3.0 See
pbemritie sroteredt et tremgbut eT vievetinel ‘aew tneiience feat
; Gag Bi TO Loos
ebomri iia
soiteerp At trea
soohttze oat
4
gtoubnigs 2a ey
vee 199% ame
rita wh bo pai |
|
Ler La taee Beat |
colton s4 +A Gee
at foe te Jie pees
: oy , ' get Webel hhh ol Aa ia"
nek . th nwtéldow of wg aed ae +
SATE OF ILLINOIS, } ..
SECOND DISTRIC’. pane I, CHRISTOPHER ©. DurFy, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this -
day of : in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court. /
‘ i setladsph ods to 4919 IT . puaTOTEIAHS .
» . 2b 1991 alt to ‘Taqson, bus ziomil to otsi@ edt to tainted 60008 bise 703 bas ai
ait to pe a to oa aid & ef i Raiveax iol edt fsdd YUTAIS YaasaA Od sostodd
re
f
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, f
j
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the Pitch day sO tic tober.
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second Aen oe the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Bheadiatue Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, doce.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
Rs ap . T= f* _= } J
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.” () ¢\ Kk
ron 1 /
Va, Aa | XM B De
E. M, DAVIS, Sheriff.
j é f am,
f 4
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
) oy ae
, ee
the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
mOlLOwing, to-wit:
ay
eTadoteo to yeb fFhid oa GSD out ao ,.ewsitO ts. bled, oa
soitaut gaibieet? ,dI@atd BOMARROG .noH odT-x
ooitvanul. .eRAHAD .L FMAUG .noH
‘leditant: ,QUARIN .M WHOL non”
ek gr 4 ce Sree Sa 7%, a i:
Ni pe a eee YY .0 AUHGOTSTAHO -
oe ' 3tveda .BIVAd .M .e
ae Ay 4 3 ; :
if ‘ ae ; ‘ i vie \
“as | Se Gaal ve Ve ‘
. ea at
iva tdiw-od ‘aheeneens Sac OSX
ni bolit esw tip0d edt to adinigo,.edd-.0° 8 Agios
29Tyait bas abrow ad¢ oor .,}4v00 bisa to seitto atin
if iW. “od meat
Gen. No. 6147.
James M. Swan, Deft. in error.
vS Error to Kendall.
William K. Loofbourrow, Pits. in error.
Dibell, P. Je
Swam sued Loofbourrow in the circuit court of Kendall County
\
\
and filed 2 declaration and had 3s summons ued ho the sheriff
fo
which was returned ‘served, and on October 323, / ‘1914, at the Cctober
Lee]
Term had 2 default and a judgment for $676.71. On November
\
1914, at said term, the defendant aonsared by attorney and entered
\
the default. On Warch ©, 1915, still at said
cts)
a motion to get asid
October Term, he enterea AN motion +o withdraw the motion to set
ex
p
ct
aside the default and thie latter motion was cranted. He gays
“
he afterwards, on March 15, 5, at said October Term, sntered
another motion to set asides saiQ def affidavit, and that
motion was denied. He thereupon o > bil f exceotions
concerning said motions and now pr: ea of error from
the order refusing to vacate
The bill of axcestions does not ehow usen what cround the
first motion was based. It obviously was\nev: neard but was with-=
drawn. The second moticn, assuming m: 23 to which the
bill of exceptions is Silent,
toniewetetenae. |The declaratiom was uwson txve notes for different
ay)
q@
, @
oO
He |
pu
gums, one described in the first count anc the ocher in th
count of the declaration. The affidavi an
without showing whethsr the ond nete declared on was
meant and it alleged that that note was given in cempliance wit}
a contract for the exchange of lands. It did not state with vhom
ak
this contract was made nor any of ths terms of the contract.
\
It dteted that Jam
Qin a4 4 ae mn Wie w do pan Ag
Ne oOwan Ala not comply wt bth Gls VAY Lome the
a
ty
H
2
4
ia
wo
Ce
Fs
o
cr
contract, and oecause of his failure to do se Leefbor
received any considcration "for ths above mentioned note," anc
etorre o£ sek ae ee
flebuet of tomxE 0: ev age
»xotire of , 2¢29)wemmrodhde.d: i mma
¥ al +I .iledt
yinvod IfabaeX to tuyoo tivorto edt ee bewe sen3
tittede sdt of beusst enomma s Bed base aolt [oes s pett Fd
_ 3 ? Ps
a
mecdoto0 sat ts ,dS18L \,88 tadotoO mo Snes Sevier benwitet esw
; rear : 3% |
<2 rsdmevell a0 .L7.8T8$ sol tmemghut se
c
-~
=]
ea
Dp
can
o
nh
h
®
beretas bas yertotés yd beresqas tnsbmeteb
biet ts [iite ,2f@L ,.o dorsi a0 -tivetes dt shite tee og |
tes o¢ aottom edt watldiiw Og mottom |yff petetas .ati eh ae
tadt eyes of botaetg ecw nottdn tett | eidt bas diusteb effé
heisias emuisT sredorod oice ts Yas I ,@f dope no ,ebtewts
tedt evi c so tivaltel biee ebtes tea of nottom %
enolitgpoxe, to Lite « > bealed ° noque rsd oH sbeimeb ao
MOT? torxre to tiuw <« estuosegig won bate eaoivom bise. end ree
a
edt doidw of es ry s® ono patmees ‘gaolgon noose nah,
-trem to tivebitits ms mocw feeed asw ytnerté ‘ek wtiotigeoxs |
dmersttib rot ton owt socu sew noltereloeh ot] ees
- a
; borooes swt at todie edt bas treason text wd af bediioseb eno
AREA Gg = pS ANOS bo ;
Neton eid ot betslet} ivebitis od? mottersloeb odd to
eew mo botelosh eton bmoose 10 garit edt tedtedw gattode tu
«tty eonsifgmoo at nevig sow ston fect tedd begetis tt baa
motiw ctiw etete tom bib #1 .abaal to esmedoxe sit tot so.
efoatines act to emxrst edt to wns com eben aew toed
bed bepcuich nla (OB Of ot de siete poe 96 mre i be
that he denies that he is indebted to Swan in any amount. The
affidavit dai
tract nor in wha
stated only tne
which
the court
founded or not.
not show whst Swan was required to do by ¢t
t
4
Q
9
le cone
respect he failed to comply therewith. It
ecal conclusion of the arffiant and no facta boy
ould determine whether hie conclusion was well
This arffdavit is entirely insufficient to show
that he had any defsnee to either note and it practically admits
that he has no a
he affiant in th
4d,
t
tednses arose
clusion
and is insufficient. Moreover, as
eo
=
fense to one of the notes. The fasta should
hat the court could determines whether he had
ct
so
affidavit further said that Swan was indebted to
é sum of $3000 but it did not say how the indebe
nor what the fasts are, and it stated but a cone
veneral rule, a
fo
efault will not be vacated merely to let ina sét off, for the
a
defendant has a perfect remedy by bringing suit against the
t
plain=
iff upon such set off. The court didnot err in denying a motion
to set
wo
slide the tentuxtx default.
In this court Loofbourrow claims that there is 2 dsfeot in
[the return of the sheriff upon the summons. So fsr as aoveara from
|
\
the biil of exceptions this point was never made in th2 court
below. By
in the casé6, and
for vacating the g&exee default which he did not present to
court belowe
201
md
order is
the motions above recited he entered a full a-pearance
he cannot ve heard in this sourt to urge a reason
a
therefore affirmed.
afoo sit yd ef ot berivpsr eew mow? ee wode” von. it? +l
tI .dtiwstedt yiqmoc ot belltst of toeqast Mefw at tom fost
yo stost on bas trsitie ef? Yo motenLonoo’ Tevet ent! vito bee
Lisw ssw moteylonoo aid redtedw enigreted biyoo trifeo- biel lew
wotle ot treteltivesi yleritme ef tiveblie eta stom x0 be
atimbs yiirottoera ti tae ston xedtie ot eeneTeb Yne bat
Sivede eves? saT aston edt to Snot ‘seated of earl od! Gali
bad ed rsttedw snimretet biyos twos eft tet oe bette aes
ot betdebet exw mew? tect blee redtiw? tivebi ize edT .eedets
adetint erft wor yee tom bEb ff two 00083 to me ond mt vn aw
“noo = tud betste tf bas wee etos? ont tenw' ton Bt. fi:
ad? tot ,ito ¢#e sat tefl of ylevem beteoav ‘ed sateen ‘
- -nisfq edt taniese tiva ,atgnird yd ybemet tos txsq 2 ead “trie
noitem = gatyneh ai tre toabith Pyec eof <Tio teu Move woo
7 . cee etiusish akiwzwak ocit ‘ebtee vs
mt ¢osted c at ovedt tedd emtelo wortwedteod Pryde “eLde wp et
: mort erfoqcese @s tet 08 .snonnwa edt moqe BIitede eft ‘to awd
. “ “¢2u00 edt az absem raved exw taiog efdtd enottcdoxs “se geed
asnetseq-s [iut s bersine ed Betfost evode’ ‘aieéit domi C6as oe
Moszer < egry od tuyoc sidt at breed 6d tomtes of “bae °feeso%
“edt of tneest
SWATH OF ILLINOIS, )
SECOND DISTRICT. \ se
J, CHRISTOPHER C. DurFy, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__- _ - =
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
eee ae eee vo
i fae. Aas a ; amg ¥ 7 i i 7 oO, a
a - y de _ : a hd Ve ts
= mas ee “ae ee a eee
a — ~ WAS 7 ™ 7 7 eta a
&
*
wate ALOWI LT 40.8
visiisggt vil to dnek>d orsaud .o aysgeremHo To "4 TAT ENG yoo
afrton9 sl oft to eqosd bas ioullt io olet@ odd to toisteid baosse bine 10t hae
ont 3 te qolacn odd Jo ygoo suid 6 af gringstot ods dal? YIITHaD YaaRuR Od tooradt
sotto vor ai bossy io sede boltitny svods odd nf sso) ¢
7 add zifte bos basil var dee otaneted | ownanW ynowrreaT wl
: 4idd .owetiO ie ol) atelleqy, Dise sit to Leow,
7 . S00 biol tuo to se%y od gi... -- 0 eh |
A he shin: herb ania basaivodt
3 ’ 4 fi wo
e f
r .
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
rel
“the fifth day of October,
&
if
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
p)
D
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday,
P}
within and for the Second Distric) of the State of Illinois:
rs
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL,
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, «
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS,»
CHRISTOPHER C. ne Clerk. pn nr a -
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriffs
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
oe | the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
“a7 $F
maf ft
\
7
esay
_TRUOD STAIIATAA SBT TO MANT A TA
fo yseb dtiit ia odin no ,swstt0O jis bled bas.
volt
_ satontlil to ot8t2 oft to jotrterd baoo9@ sit rot bas statin
.s9itaut sath feeth >mddailIQ ACAARAOT
My
.eottfagtG .2HAURAS .U
.s0H sd?--tas
ZUAUC .aoH
.eottaul) ,2UAHGI“ .M WHOL .moH
.0 ASHIOTSIGHD ©.
; Ml 6
y TO Ry ey ne: .tr9f0 , YUGUA
Reet VP OS we *
—— attited’,agIvAd .M .do 0 Ue
ih :
ees eee rr a oe arate Saeeeme = et ns er ee
- 7 fi
Gy, F i t ae oe
v0 tty Wee Soe oy
m" be OE dager Tae oe
eX | ae ]¥
= A 4 a SE Bo
,CHRTEMEMER T
arnt |" 6 Ga,
10 :tiw-od ,abrswretts tant
belt? esw tru0d. edd to, mciniqo sd
mt, Sot
estusrtl bas abrew sit trod bise Yo
ss iw-ot
Gen. No. 6165.
W. D. Chemical Co. appellant.
va Apceal from Peoria.
Teck
Walter Teed, appe_lee.
Dibell, P. J.
| By a printed and written contract, datei July 29, 1913
the W. D. Cuemical Company sold and Walter T. Teel vought 6,000
pounds of hog and cattle powders for $253.00. On June 18, 1914
paid company sued Teel in the "eoriu circuit court ucon said cont-
ract for the payment of said #s9c 2
azsumpsit uoon the ntract “ith the common .etunts added, and Teel
pleaded the general iss al pleas. On a jury
/
trial, at the close of all the court instructed the
7 = Par
jury to find a verdict for and such averdict was re-
new trial was
turned, a ete ror nied, and defendant had
is nopneal.
jusgment, erent h plaintiff prosecutes
It a:peared from plaintiff's proofs uoon the trial that
Baefendant, at the same time that he signed the contract in guestion
@lso signed and delivered to the company his promissory note for
'2360, the price of said medicines, and that thereafter and before
this suit was brought, the company sold and assigned said note to
one R, F. Zehr and when this suit was brought on June 15, 1914,
Zehr was still the owner of said note.] It if a recognized rule
of ‘he note of the debtor for s pre-existing
ldevt is not payment, unlsss it is expressly agreed to take the note
f
Jas payment, or unless the ve with the note or is guilty
Barber, 5 Johns, 6&. This
Stone and Gravel Co. v yarn
mer, 49 Ill. sopy49. On vrinciple nest be that when
bite ee and aosigned this notem, it dfs not retain a
eton sot otst o¢ Bsetas Ys
ice +olt
ihetieqas .60 lets a
eeizrosd mort Isesood | ev ‘a
eal leqce BE i
7 7S hae A
EISL .C& ylnl ioteb ~toertmes metéiiw tre Hedalve ss ya
000,98 #tdgued lest .7, ted isk boe blos cased oat
2ieLl ,8f snvt ad
~tnoo bisa aocy
fesT bos ,bebbs atavese somnoo sit itty apts exit nous tec
yiut 6 #0. .essiq Letoed
sdt betoustent frues sft
-S% a2w toiotevs fous Ome phen totter & batt of
bec tosbreteb boe ,beia ag een feicd wea eyes ry
” ig
eisecas sind sajuceeetq Titiatielg d dw sort ta
a
= oa
ted
ey
fetsxt sdt+ noo etoorg e'tittatelq mort Serasa «se $I
moitesus al tosrtmoo eft bengie of tedd omit smes edt te tasbas’
rot eton yioscsimoxrs eid yaeqmoo sdi ot boxaunter ra 0 a) mt
t >?
etoted bor tettestedt ded? bas ,esaleotiem bise to ‘selng ri
pone q
'
et eton Etse beantecs Ots blos yusqmoo edt tiguoxd asw tiue |
~ALGL ,38f saul oo taguotd asw tive etdt sedw bas tdek 4
elyx bestanooet « al gI Caton ise to temwo ect ciate ‘aay
anitetxs-stgq a xot rotdebd sit to efom ed? to gattawe ods tet me
Sf
*
eS
viliun ai to ston edi dtiw ie TOFE Ebs 28 sit spelen TO
<
yedoT al bled enw sin dinenyed\x07/nottetiesena ect gt
qa thin betdug sow etd 668 .ensigt
Pa \ ams. i
ot ee -€65 .LfT 28Lf .eaxe mou!
oe]
&
4
‘aeted ¥ 299
aka
Pivoo ats: a
¥ ii
|
Dy
PWic
Snow 2
cause ofaction acs ainst detendant for the purchase price of the mer-
chandiae, and 4 that position could be maintained, the vendee of
the goods could be Lacie betadhd ed at tne same time to two actiona by
dizterent persons to Te cover the same debt. Ye hold that when plain
thie ‘gold and transferred this note to Zehr, it did not retain a
cause of action against Teel for the merchandise. That note was
outstanding tn the hande of Zehr = this-euit was begun and
therefore ‘plaintiff then had no cause of action to recover for the
selling price er goods, and the court properly directed a
verdict. Tee. the president and the general manager of the
plaintiff testizied that the company took this note as payment
for eaid coods, and this waa not sae heck in any way, and this
rule
a
appears to bring this. case within the other yraneh of ene
“above ‘stated.
P Zens sued Teel uoon this note ‘and upon another note in “the.
‘county a oare of Peoria County, and ¢ that suit was pending and on trial
J when this suit was begun. In that suit Teel pleaded the vensral is-
sue and that the signature to the note was not his signature and
another BD ectal plea. On that trial Te el had a yeraict as to this
F {note, finding no cause of Sobion: Aopellant here assumes that that
Was 2 “finding that the ‘signature to the note was a forg=ry and +here-
:
=
fore argues here that as that note was 2 forgery, the original cause
09:
of action remained in plaintiff. There is no evidence here that the
jury in the Zehr anae found that this note was a forgery 2nd henee
‘the Ssevnens on that subject is not well founded. If the only
“issue had been aiethes the note was a forgery, there would be force
in plaintiff's argument, but Teel also pleaded the general issue to
Zehr's tabc lerMeion upon this note.Under that plea he could have
proved payment. it nope ar that Teel only received 3,000
pounds of the 6,000 pounds which he purchased. If he proved that
Pu le) aan) ae » Peat: re:
eS A cd ae “ i J ry 3 ov be VAR TT Ni
-tem eft To solxg ®8609 eae edt stot dasbaeteo fontags iho
to ssbmev sat ebealstalen ed bivoo no'ttleoq tant + ‘baie’ oaks
yd anottes owt of ‘omtt emoe od¢ te “betoetdus ed bLlyoo abeo 8d
misiq nedw dadt blod sW .tdsbh emse sect tevoosa x oF anoeteg Feat
s nhetet dom bib tt .aisS of ston sind berrstanett mee ial
@
2,
+
+
o
up
ed
bt? 4
a
a
a
Dp
+f
SF
cs
on,
¢
a
G
Lt
oF
=
Ue
oe
o
Qe
bt
fae
my
Q
tr
fay
7
wt
ca
he
Paks
2 re
be
Be)
a
ae
o-
ent 36° Tenetan “fetenes $d? ba& ‘Yasbles 1% “edt ‘pevos Tol te
tremyeg ‘se stot wtat soot qndqno® ‘edt tedd” *boliiveed™ ‘bbe
atné a Ute nt bidet fon B.sw eidt bas Messi: bic
Ieitt so Bae eotiasq esw thos shsF fae Wwiaved etxoed to duved)y
~et igtenss ec¥ bebteta feet tive fate at ladeed saw ‘Yive ‘ehdt a
spat
ss
bie @ivfeoste ele tom sew ston ent of swiengts od¢ tadd b
etd? ot da dobtrety ¢ bed L36T feicf tadt a0 vest fetoece
teft tedt eemvace ote énal led TOA | hnoiton ‘to sevso on “gatbnlt
-eten* bie Yisgiot « sew stom off ‘od ‘elwiengta ont tedd Caleete
seuso fsekeivo ott (VTSeIET & Bew ston tedt- Be feds “eted seugne
edt tert ered somsbhive om af owed? Oe tintslo ak bs ntenor molto
Sdored ‘ins yregrot s sew ston aint hedt ‘bao? 6eae ates ect
yino sit 21 .bebruot Lfew tom at fost dus ‘edt ao “toca |
este? ed bivow éredt CUTER TON 2 agw stom edt sedeaue aged bed |
ot gysct (stenen aft bebasl¢ cele Lee? dud trom te a'y
a ‘even bivoo ed selq fedt reba. ‘eton sidt ‘nog ‘molded
2 iG : o Se 4
a 900,a Levis y Lato Leer Hed “Suge cet sez
so, So ey , ¥
re is es af & evo ae se ‘bees td ‘ A * cy Bey OO ys
: earth B ae il.
shown & complete failure of consideration by showing that the
merchandise was worthless or was not what it was represented to ve
_ and that he ascertained that fact and delivered or offered it back
j to the company. He could have oroved other defenses under *he
|| general issue. No croof was introduced from which the jury could
know what particular defense it was which was sustained in the
county court xm to £& this note. Therefore there is no proof here
that this note was found to be a forgery./ The proof in this
a
3.88
is that Teel did mt sign the note. The fact that he filed a plea
=~
q3
par
,
o
h-
ce
Hs)
u
e
that it was not his signature doss net mak ry. Even
if Teel testified on the trial of the Zéhr case that his nam
oO
ct
oO
that note was not his signature and not by his suthority, still
there may have been many other witnesses to orove that it was his
Signature, and the jury may have so found but may have systained
some other defense presented by him. Plaintiff after a fashion sought
to inquire of two witnesses what Teel testified in the county court
as to the validity or invalidity of this note, but he did not rake
any offer to show what he éxnected the answer to be, as recuired
by the rule laid down in Ittner Brick Company v Ashby, 198 T1l. 563
and Court of Honor v Dinger, 1283 Ill. Anp. 406, and if that rule
f/is modified by «hat is said in Hartnett v Boston Store, 365 Ill. 331,
yet any answer that could have been made to these questions, un-
accompanied by any proof of what other witnesses testified in
be
the Zehr case an that subject, woyld not have been material here,
i)
where the question if material at all,
+
=
was on what ground was Zehr
defeated in the suit on this note, and that is not disclosed at all
by the proofs.
ra)
p
bh
Hy
}-
hy
$
'
Ou
J
The judgment is therefore
Niehaus, J. took no part.
gerts of to
5s ot betnesexget sew tf tocde tom ecw 78 seolddzon Bem wath
es
ite
fosd tt beretto to berevilet baw fost edd bontotreoae ed ted
é ; steed eh oo}
aD
sit Tebny seansteh sentra beverq oved ‘bisee C Bed pda. 0
3 é # 19% ry, 4
bisog yt edt doidw moxt beoubortat.. Baw to072 ol + sues Ls :
7 ie 2 math | den oe
eas at bankernue ow Motdw gew ti ganoish beara a 9s: tedw
oa PO to
sto teo7g on al eredd sroieiedt ston aisa tt ot nd daw
—_—r x ape)
2: Te GB
eso eft at toorg ect \.ysogzol 2 od oF bao? aaw ston els
“a oe
esig «s Relst ed tedt dont eat -eton edit agie moc, Db ‘feel |
savil “Breese Ot & tt Ce Pasi tom seob owtengte etd tom ‘caw tt
of omen eis 4 dt ga@eo x68 eat. 20 fete ed ft 80 boltiieod £e
Irtte oi He is vg ton bas ewtengie etd fom, een efo
u
eid eaw of tect every ot ‘seegendin redto vse need vad x Ysa
BY
beoiestexe eved yan gud bawsoy ea eved yen vas edt “bas. outen
Se ty bp & ame
tdmsoe motdest s tetig Ibtalerd aid yd botaseet¢ seneten re6
tawoo yinuoo sat at baits test ieeT teate . eeae seadiw owt to 6iiy.
efex tom Bfb ad dag <5 0R elas te yitbilevas £0 ytibtiav edd
betivpet se .6d of ‘tewets ead bedesqxs od tedw wos of 3 ‘go?
G82 .fff SL ,yddad v yo arto forxd teattl ml awob biel knee
folca ca, 48
efyt tect tt bas B08 10 A Lit os etesat ta 7 xon0k to ie Ls
»f55 «LIT G38 .erose nodes ¥ tient xe! K st biss at ‘ted ee, bett
Ph. Bo
-my ,emoitaeup ezed? ot. eben Heed eved bLueo dat ‘rewans yas:
: heaps
at beliivess eeecontin rete techy to Yor vas xd bets iy t
; ; ei, MO d
_<8ted takes fem toed eved tom Bigow .t0etdue test a easo a)
ndeS exw bauer tedw 19 sew hie ts Letreten 3 golteoup oat
educa ja8? mo ¢tosnmete s
{fe te beeoloatt te fe a tate bas .otom otdd 0 dine sig ‘ae
mt j ; i REN eye 20 sate
STATE OF ILLINOIS, a6
SECOND DISTRICT. Gea
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Tlinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
J, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__
ateflonwé ati Wy wel sora O agisotanino J
abiwosil adfin seqaed bas ziouilll Io otei@ edd to dorsi b
adit to notgiqo ala lo qos odd 6 ak giiogstol 913 dod) Yara
a oto Yui it Prose to anus by! rid avod
te
oft ziBe bos: bax! ru Ise otmroved 2D erga?! YAO
: _ _#idd sneetO te aisaDd ap eq bine odd’
goo bial aie jo apo7, add oi.
: ae ts
— "
oo
en)
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
a
=
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the rifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine sy ial and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Tligmods:
é
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Rd
Ree
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.:
hs
3
a
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice,
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. _
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. pe UU
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk's offiee of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
a a
“ \ 18
,THUOO STALIGGGA BHT TO MAT ATA
Ry iO ts
bi
,7e9d00190 to yvsb
,
pM9edtit bas berdiwd eaia basevodt sao brod tyo to 18
2X,
satoniliil to atsi@iedd Yo totyteid bagsea sdi rot bare.
-softegt Baibieerd ,JAXGId. @OUAdHOd .aoH sdT
“,eottanl ,BUMAAD .L SMAUG .coH
HP iY aD Od MH sootsogt (QUAHEIM .M WHOU w.acoHe ni;
tf
_ waved ,YTTUC .9 ARHGOTeTAHO
4
fir ! " ‘ ‘ i
f
~ et
=
~— -
+
i, o¥
; ‘ Pa acre
f
/
- ‘ Ae de mee, s Mie Ae oe dite” “pht ish
Theres kh 4 bi iid opie RAM A Sade oo MY Re dea 2 pits ORE
" fi
ti
: & ri
ft sis un i Lax ;
|
f
: ' iB we
J ‘ Ay
s
: F oh ogee
, i, : s « ayy i ae ey tye Ae
fo :tiw-ot ,abtswretis tad? ,CAAAEMaMAR TT
Br.
ni belit. asw txruod edi Yo goiniqo sit - ae
ay 288, TO, ROLREaS: ORE. eae
2etogit bos ebrow edt oi ,t1y0od bise Yo soitio atime
.tiv-0d ae
ny
Gen. No. 6167
June E. Mills, appellse
vs Aopeal from Henderson.
Village of Oquawka, saopellant.
Dibeli, P. J.
} on May1S, 1914, the husband of June E. Mills occupied a
part of the Graham Building in the Village of Oquawka, in
Henderson County, as a3 takery. There was a brick sidewalk, ten
or twelve feet wide, in front of thig oduilding and at one time
there had svidently been a stuirway leading from this sidewalk
down to a cellar undernéath, but its use for suoh a puroose had
been abandoned many years before the date named, the stairs had
been removed, and the opening s& in thak sidewalk, leading to
the stairs, had been covered with the wooden door. On the evening
of the day in question a wheelbarrow was standing on this wooden
door, having been left there by Mills, as he intended to use it
during the night for the purpose of transferring bread to tne
depot for shipment on an é¢arly morning train. Between seven and
eight o'clock that evening several persons were sitting on that
wooden Boor gave way and they were ail
@
wheelbarrow, when th
cellar. The svidence shows that June EF.
ct
—_
-
ra)
precipitated inte
Mills, who was one of those thrown into the cellar, was avite
Seriously injured. She was at the time ir a delicate condition,
and about. three weeks later sutfered a miscarriage. /Sh<\ brought
Buit against the Village béccause of her said injuries ayd uoon
|
@
es.
cc
B
<
ct
ry
»-
@
we
KH
oO
a
ny
~~
<
ra)
Q
>
Cc
r
+
-
ae
oO
C
°
=
3
C
ec
=
.@)
3
oO
ae]
to
trial was overruled and olaintifi hed a judgment Ved that amount.
from which the def sntant below avoeals, arguing — that asoellse
Was guilty of contributory negligence, that the villigess was not
Negligent, that the damages aré excessive and that the\gourt
: \
WOelow erred in Ats rulings ‘en the evidence and the instructions.
senoltourtient nat -eiguiaaaniien ett, oo’ eens ad £
sfeerebash mort LeeqcA
- »topiledgce axwanp0 to oe
- 5 2 n : to 4g ae
s Ssiquoco alliv .7 cowl To basdaud eft. SL6L ,oiysM ad -
ee
oi ,siwseupd 0 epelliV sat af guibliu® medero edt te F
met ,aLewebia Xolid s eew otetT .yisded eae «xydawod mor
ent? eso te bag gatbiiud etd} to daott at ,eblw test svi
Alewebie aidd mort gaoibsel yewtleisa s ased vitaebive
bed gsvcwg « dove rot saw ett tud ,fiwentebow teliso a ¢
bss sileje odt ,bemen stek sad etoted sissy yYosm benobuede
ot gotisel ,dalewebte xtacdi mt aa guinego edt Sas
geigseve ect m0. .took meh oow ait diiw baexevos.moed hail aoa
eit ot beard aise to eaogiug edt 107 tigia edt
baie mevee asewtsd .atert gatmrom vires oe oo tasmgida- rot
-t ent dett ewotke eomehive eff .tetiso ane otal pee
eviup eew ,telleo ede otni awordt seodt to eno aaw oat
.mo tt £bceo etsoilen s af emit edt te saw ede -oetu tat evo!
tdauard baal ogetrrecetn & bereltive rstel edeow eendd . tuods
foou cil, eet auiint Sise ted to caucodd 8 egelltv ‘edt ventegs
wen of of nett fm A\ 900.8% 10% epiorte Naeegaeet ei ‘
.trroms tedt 393 toewpbyt « bed tittatelg baa sivarsvo
seflsoce tadt e ai ,~eleagos voredtaapne eb | ont do
ton a ae ee tent ,eonegiigen yop {iata9e 30 we
true at tedt 6 svieseoxe ete seyemeh ¢ t
/
ey 54 Re al
which fell in, : the supports underneaht it were
a
had been in « condition for a or t
two years befcre this accident, « member of the v
the end-of his cané through s rotten hole in one cf
+
}
é
«
composing this wooden cover, and in spite of hie knowledge
+O his knowledge the place nad never been réosired. wi
was on the Board nor up to the time of the acciden
hesses testified to an entire lack cf reoairs on
nineteen years or longer. Certain pisces of timber
an eVid
of the supports oi this woodsn cover. Thsse timber
idence and identified by at icast one witness
i. A
ne Pa
ly shows that the\wooden door or beard sover
and should not—prave—pesn-admittet; out ve constiter™
Qient identification was made, Other evidence was
show that xheak this wooden portion of the walk was
eondition for public travel. The evidence further
City had been notified of the condition of this walk by comp]
introduced to
in an unsafe
showsd that the
BGMBXEXMANE to the wayor es or president of the village board
ee
pean t ald? ar al ; ; 7
with a request ae ee tne walk or that portion of it
be condemned and removed. This complaint waa ignored, aoparsatly
Without any investigation of the part of the villazs o “totals. |
- 2 wo
Under the principlea laid down in Snherwik v City cof Aurora, 357
\
Tl1. 458, the\jury were/warrantsd in findihg from the evidence
E4 that in thie cas@ the duty was laid on the city, wot merely of
=) | £HSnautineg inspection of the sidewalk, but alsoof insvsecting the
Buoports underneath tis sidewalk to ascertain whether or not they
Were sufficient. It is avident thet this was not dons or en
Wattempted. We consider thag the jury were warranted in\finding
Jthat the evidenes shows the village to have besn guilty ef neg-
Agence, as charged in the amended declaration.
ox ! a to qttiue need “evalt ee ebb
tavos breod to to0h
bas asttor stow tt Né@sentebau atioggua att
gesei ¢A\ .omlt to mecha & tot moltibhop’ s
a ener fen aay) pets i eeiet
juq Btaod svelliv ed} Yo tedmsm oc , ded food ein Srotsd stk Fe
atasiq edt io eno alt elod asttor 2 duos snso ald ‘to ba
edt to eubeiwordt Bia ‘to oftas of Sr “Ga avoo tsboow @e hte siitss
tect beltireet sd .wLlewsbfrs oll diy sift to ts étttt “to ‘ttt
eit slicw Beriece: ndod teven bet Wosty “edt egdsfwond
etiw tsd¢0 .dneS Poor ‘srtf ‘to “ewts ont oF qu “rot bisdd ‘oui ke
mot @eeld efit? a6 erieds? Yo Meer Suftde “ne ‘oF “BER d ai
bettinbs stew todmit to esvsiq “dt at¥e eo Jeger ‘Yo "eeret avedemen®
Meq gotéd Be sedifiw od6 Pfexsst fa Yd béttivagar oat’ ate
x
T x04
siow Bredwry esect” yrévod ‘nedode end to stroqaie Sas $0
ty
{
fitnstt ‘Units LOTTE For eter paniReuilasasns
whee todd ronrenco” orto voott tmbe- Heed-< ‘ton-olae: ,
ot beoubovial caw eondbive tonto” Lapa “Wen ‘ndtteo lt Aieot
eR er ea eanearse:
ststau té Al daw Mhew sdi *te aotd tag “nebdow ePdt “tae pide?
edt tadt+ béwode 1sdtiut sodsoive sit? ‘Sfevet# Sin dig tet nd Pd HB
tatelanoo yo tle aid id ‘HoPdtoa@e dat Be PS PirFoe nbee Belt 9
buA6e escl{iiv oct to Wtebigerq to ax Toys sit oe axxxie ee es
= is Rt da “eS.
tt td néPero¢ tank se x LeW odd juss We tbease\ wont ‘tees pee ay
yitueteccs preety éew falelgmoo eiadT | bevomet | ‘Pie “Senadtaod
ars
\V WLSFOEMo Sgerrky eat to trsg edi tebe ipa
me ,
séacbive 3G hott yids at’ be iieties sesw- cut Ant ste
5 yleten. tox ate Sat Ae Etel ecw tiub? sit és ‘otitd a"
5 acai’
yet tor 16 “t6 ate dw ‘Wied teoes ‘ov rate ei6lk he eet’ ag
. ba
a
paths tab” ‘bedhoruat yew! tet ett” 9400 Habib
edt gattoscent 1048 to soe (atiteWwes te 89 to”
geve ‘to pio Fort’ dew" ‘otet dut¥ taabiv
.
ee a
It is claimed that aspellee was guilty of negligence, in
that her complaint to the mayor regarding the sidewalk showed that
\ she was cognizant of its condition 2nd that, in sitting or being
| on this rotten portion of the walk, she was not in the exercise
of due care for her own safety. It apmears from the svidence
©
i
~
| that her complaint only related to the surface of the walk and
that she was completely igncrant of the conditions existing
underneath that surface. We do not fsel that the duty could be
7
/
y | laid upon her to ascertain the condition of the suocports cf this
——
| sidewalk and do nct think there was such evidence presented to the
the
rh
)jury that it should have found avoelles had such notice o
defeot that she was guilty of contributory néegligencd.
r Complaint ie made by avpelliant of the action of the court in
| refusing certain instructions requested by it and also in civing
A Neraetasn other instructions at the request of appellee, but after
| considering all the given instructions as 2 series, we do not feel
©
true that certain given inatruce-
that any such error exists. It i
ltions east upon the Village the absolute duty of keeping its
| sidewalke in renair, while a better statement of the law would
ate been that the duty of the village was tc use reasonable
Jf gare to keep its sidewalks in reasonably safe condition for public
—~)/ travel thereon, but one inatruction ziven at the request of appele
Oo
o
3
sig
a)
he
ro)
@
f2s
} J
4)
ws
5)
lant and one requested by it and refused
Statement cf the law as the instructions complained of, and
we do not feel that aorellant is entitied to complain of that
fcature of the given instructions. Aopellant complains of the
refusal of one of ite requested inadtructions, which told the jury
dn brief, that if they celieved from the evidence that this por-
tion of the sidewalk broke because six pzople were upon it, then
there could be no recovery. We do not consider that this instruc-
tion was correct as applied to the facts. These six people were
MMot piled, one upon top of another, on ons portion of this
at yeonsyitgen lo .yttivg asw eslleqgs tedt bamteloet $Ljm oh a) |
eslotexs edt at ton asw ede.,dalew efi to. .moltxog aesiot eid? 9
eonsbive edt mort etscoce TI -Ytstes wo, ted ..t9t. S1so. sub 9G
tae owfew od? to sostirye edt.ot.betelez,ylao talelqnes. sed. tedt
gaitsixs emotttonoo edt to tmetongl yistelqmeo eswe ade edd
ed binos ytut edt tedt Leet tom ob eV. .soatmwe tedt disegms
aldt to attocowe edt to mottifaes edt atstrsoss ot 19d. noqy
ed? ct betmeaergq somehive dove eew etedd anid? tom ob bas. XLeweb
edt to eottem dove bed seifeoce bnwot saved bivode. tl tedd. emt
-,Honenifesa yrotudirtnes to “ee sew ode tedt.. tosted
nt ¢ryoo edt ie mettos sit to ¢nellecgse yd ebem at. datetomodecs
satvis mt oefe bie ti qi betscoupss enottourtent psledros, goteutor |
wette tod .eellecas to desuper oft te enottourtent redto-mtetzep |
isst ten of ew ,aeizvee ¢ as enoitourtant mevig, end fle gadzebtenap |
-outteni mevin mistxso tsdt sunt ei gI .ateixe tors, dove. yas teas!
eci gates sal to ytub etutoeds ect anelltV. edt mogu tazo enolt
bivor wal ext to tnomstete setted « elidw. .sheqes. mt edLowpbie |
eldsaceset sar ot eaw epelityv ext to xdub edt tanh, Ad eas |
ofideq sol mottiimos stse yldemoseet at eatlewsbls, ett qeex. ot SP:
emee edt bemiatmoc beevtet boe df yd beteeupex eno = 4a \
bos ,to beniaflomoo anocitountent edt es wel edt to Aroma
tect to mteiqmoo ot beltitnse af tasilsqags tadt Leet tom of . 4
wi edt blot doldw ,amottourtent Ostesupet ett to eno.to,
“oq aid? teat eonehtives odd mor® Sevetled yedt Tt tedt.
sidewslk, but each were standing, or sitting or being supported
/
4
by, a distinct portion tae walk, and the sidewalk ought to be
) in such a condition that’if\rveople stood upon each portion thersof
~ Bs
they would be supported.
ri
Comptaint is made_that—the damages awarded were exces
PEN AL poe FZ.
sive, There seem o be no question put That dapeties was injured
by her fall. She complained of an injury to her arm and reck and
she suffered a miscarriage shortly after the acoident. She was
under the care of two physicians for a considerable time
after the eeeicank cua. while \assetieant cladma that her misoar-
am
\ :
riage was not due to the accident, etlll/ the surrounding circum
\
stances, as shown by the evidence} arse such that we believe the
. s \ 2
jury justified in considering it due to the shock she received.
In view of her injuries, we do not f _ that the amount awarded
Y,
/ \
jury on that point. f %
We find no reversible error in the record and the judgment
|
i
a was so great as to warrant us/in disturking the conclusion of the
|
is therefore affirmed.
Avfirmed.
\
;
ee ot ¢dguo aiewshte edt bas .ALew “nottrog fonttetb s
i wad? nobhiibroms ¢ be
. sbetmogese: sd bivow y 1
Soeredt aottrog dose’ naqw Bboote eats
, “
Je
" —E9ox9.e7eW Cah ene Spent agg tadihe athetin scsi titel 69 out aa
aX eens ah :
bewjal ecw esitegar ted! tud moivesup om ec iF eRe ered, eve
bas 49-00 Dae me tec e¢ yu tab we, boo benftelqmoo,sil2é sbtetmel
een, 8d? »taebioos edi tetisa yidxode enntosbopeas & Sereiis:
emit sfdasxebienoe. & roi-n eneis leydq: owds to: ened edt te
oi ~re08im ted dedi enibeto teetisese slidw ecg — 5
minate aiibowo tie edd) MLS at ehiovs eat ot. eb touraaw 6}
edt eveiled sw tedi dows Bre deonsbive: edd yo owode! ss), ee
ah
v3 iis
-bevisos1 .edé doodae-sdt. ot bs pti gaitel tengo nisbososssahene ee
bobriens dauome sit tedé iget Pog ob sw qeetuutat! sero Lowe vy orl
Pp ~*~
ent, to notevLesoe edi gubdrudaib: ray tastiswsot- as nmi
rf noptoutd Ae fie’ tn statog tent no y
1
tnsmgbut sdi wale edi at rorzeheldiezeves pe
\ a
oaias ax ct viosds eft, spat \ehomxt ite: stoters: ait < ae
>
t; elo ebemtitTra, | g Litw. ,.shaces, a oxen Tt:
i a
Pat? mood. =~ '
& oor of p sh? ams of ae Fite
i 1 Saree @ D eae 40 ia me ~
ey
Y
Lonel — + fas +
» Fue fos tend Le 82
<=
fa
tient, aevls sce
i @24 0 ene
i .¥e 4 3 ect
CR P t , » - vende ve ft ot ¥ ‘ ¥t over 23.98
ie al an
wll / 4 ~*? TiG O@80f4 .« RF OX » eo? at Sellggqa, -*
oe LJ Li. , 4 6 ‘A Y @n 7 reo = 5
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )..
SECOND DISTRICT. \ eas
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of = = in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and =
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
A = oy Bat re tes Fees spe ie iF “gy Hons!
G Pao = Ga e a ‘
Beas Ca ion
: aay K
; fe
+ Pie
G e.
_ = a :
= 5 4 Senare Z °
: f Pers te.
7
: es y 4
-
7
;
atailnjat adi to Atebo ~raqud. O asigoraan) Lt eal ® TAT
oad bas .2ionilll to state adt to dotatei haoa98 hise. 46
add to soiriqo odd to yqoo auth 6 al uniogsio) od sede YATTAAD HAAN od ,
o wa
soffte vor oi biesgt jo »ense boiviwas evades od at in
ehaoueatl old te 12
yt xfits bas bosd yur fee otaysted } Agsaan Y yuowrreaT “1
aidd .ewadtO de gino) stellaggA bisa odd to ie rn
ano bral two. to tH9y 6d? gt.
bir: borbaurl oria ba
ig creme
- ae ——S
. —_—_— y
a _
ey nm a a A
Scia
eed 5, scm etter
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
B
5
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the rifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine Hondred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The\ Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice,
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. © (}
E. M.\DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
iteut sire uaee cigar HOMARAOD conju
.sottaul ,29UHAD .L SMAUC .a08
oottact ,2UAHGIM .M WHOL .AoH
oe : -— oy fy &B —_ cae
oe @ © A 1. 4d ptxefo pyeaua,.d agmsoTaiaH . gy
“ttived@ ,BIVAG) .M .a
7 b “
th cay wef KN:
oe in ie So PS OS
\ *
= 5 uf r
= ;
+
as
: bk
ihe
fy
m0 ert ebtswretts edd , (aL MEME TL Eco
rh wus
ai boli zew $109 oft to asorsige ads clef Ray ee
3 , toe event eo
gatusit bas abrow dt mi Lirgod bise Yo enttto atdtelo Tel
ra Oe ; ' ' : ae Aes
:tiw- of acer
a oe Ya I
Lutte SAR AN tM) ok eae
Gen. No. 6191
Frances Mertel, Deft. in crror.
vs Error to LaSalle.
Charles F,. Walter, Pltft. in error.
Dibell, P. d.
to recover $250.00
ay
re
Q
aw
c
*
0
t
DO.
by
=
r=
Con
oO
bind a real estate
( bargain, which was fingily abandoned. At the close of the evi-
\ 7
dence the court sh jury to return a verdict for her
Le el rod 3 . ‘ 2
for (350 and such a yerdick was returned, a motion for ae nev
f
A
a
error ig brought to review that judgment.
fi A . 4 . S 2 oe : o
trial was denied And aon judgment, and this writ of
Walter lived at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and owned two adjoining
lots and a dwelling upon one of them in Peru, Illinois, and
the same was in posseasion of a tenant, named Strack, and Walter
had the right to terminate the tenancy by October 1, 1914.
Walter had upon said premisea'a sign that they wers ‘or sale.
Frsnces Sauter was about to marry J. A. Mertel and desired to
‘
purchase a place. The negotiations wer: all by letter, mi ihe—
only_guestion fa, yhether the rindayof the-parties ever meyFy
us a] ths +ermsot a -vatid-comtratts All the letters were
preserved and were in evidencé, except
receive. | Itis arcusd—in-ser-ochal fat she\court mignt—well
find from the evidence that. no-such-ietter wa sent.—The
question whether such 3 letter was aent—was-enec-of tact—cor-—the
d
assume that suc letter was sent or elsd the judgment must
be reversed for fwWidure to submit thst question to 2 jury
We shall assume ‘tha
=
\
letters constityted a« complete contract waz = question to be
@etermined by the court. Tslluride Power T. Co. v rane Co.
eS
eaile@sl o¢ 1t0oTre ev
a rt oF
«Totte ami . tel? est len 7 selted ;
z Pe Set} ffedia
: srt
astis! si esinsdd beuve (retys® yiremtrot) LetrgM sesastt ae
etstes Lsey 8 baid of akd blog Ge dotdy'00.0aa} revooet ot
ie
oe
-~ive efit to seolfo odt TA -denobnsda yits £tésw ‘dofdw abopred
rs
nae
tod tot tolbrev 2 amiter ot ym add SOetoerth ¢ryoo edt wed
wen s to? mottom e ,beariter asw ciabks < dome bas (bane ‘tot -
to titw eid? bos ,tnemgbut bed Pittalelg¢ Be Setded. Bow fest
= - tnemgout/seudd wefvex ot figuotd st sone.
eniniotbs ort benwo bre ,ewol ,eblqat tebed ts bevil rstlewW ae
bre atestit7 wrt at medt te emo aogy gatiilewh « bus atel
tieW bos ,doertS bemen ,tosoet £2 to moleaseeog ai sew emse edd
-of8fL .f£ redetod yd yonsnet edt stsctmirst ot tdgir edt bed
asiss to? etow yerds tedt ogte c:‘eesetmetg blea noqu bed retieW
ot betiaeh bone LetreM .A .L yrrem ot tuods exw tstued seomerT
—edt—tas yrettel yd Ife s19sw enoltettoxen eT sooEre Ss é esedomg: ‘
tou reve -eeitisg oft iene ‘edt ~rentenw 7 otteoup xiao
etew srettel edt ILA ebostiae ‘bifsv-2- deranngd sie Lhe aoa
ot betittest retleW tedt tqsoxe ,eomebive al stew Ons bevreeesg
ton bio efe bhetitteact LetreM .6%M doidw rsttel S110 gatbncs
Llew digim tasoo//s ont tadd~thedeers re ib-beugae ol 41 -evisost |
oe? tee Ox rette. dove on das y. sonebive eit _moth bake
edt toi-toel t¢--9f0 ~een- dee. 2aw netddt> & dove redtedw sue
teum ev ,soneH potéenlads pect. scteah toa Dlyes-trsvs-oft .
teum tnomybut ent ele to «dee sew ae & Move teild emcee
‘,
esedt sedtoAt, tree eaw retiel 2 dove Asdt haulatcad a titel
hg -
ae
ed ot 10 eeyp s sew FoLTsA00 ates
« BL58
[ wertei beran the negotiatione by a letter, dated March
1% 1914, addressed to Walter, whersin he told Walter that he
passed by his place that day with a friend and saw the sign
upon it and he thought that friend appeared to be a prosperous
buyer, and he asked for lcwest price and particulars. Under
date of March 13, 1914, Walter replied to Mertel by a letter
containing the following among other things:
"I want (4500.00 for the whole place, or $3500.00
for house and ones lot, the fruit end berries are all on
that one lot, you see Mr. Strack and ask him to let you
show your man the house, he has rented the place for one
year, but if I sell he must move db Oct. Ist. 1914, or if
your party wants it sooner, I guess I can arrange that with
Mr. Strack.
I will take $500.00 or all I can cet cash down and
baance to suit buyer, at 5 per cent. I will want ¢250.00
to bind the >argain. I will give you $50.00 if you make the
deal. You know the place, and can téil him ail about it,
there is hot water, furnace, oath and toilet, sewerage all
in, cupboards and sinks built in, slso china closet; get
him interested and show him the place, and then he can see
what there is there, let me know what you make out as soon
as possible."
Under date of March 18 Mertel answered in part as follows:
We finaily sot to sse the house last night and we thought it
was just what we wanted, but don't you think you could give
us a little lower price. If we bought the wholeplace and
paid spot cash we would like to occupy it by Vay ist."
alter replied to Mertel under date of March 19 in part as follows:
: "I oan't sell it any cheaper than I priced it to you. -
dors betsh ,rstiel s ud anoitetsones ‘edt eet is x08
ed tect xetLeW¥ Blod ed aterodw ,red Lew ot beeesttbe oie
agle oad wee bus baeivt s dtiw web tadt scala ‘aid we ‘boseea
ayotsqeotg # ed at pba ih basixt tests reaver? od Bae ¥E
webal vexéivottteq bie sottg aowol sot “Bexes on Thal oat
vedter 2 yo Leszelt of betiqot tettet Slee at aout 40 s
. | tegaidt tedso gnomes gn tnasio® oat “gotated
00. ooces to «soslg eloiw ont 102, 00. oeey Pye
~
“ty ue bre O88
m0 ile StS aeizied bas ¢iu1t edd tol eno ‘Ene eauod tot
43
“wos Sal Fh P bem Sein
sox te f ot mid Yee, bas Aoerse tM 366 wor «tor ‘eno “ted
Sxasotd Sf
eno ro? eorlg. sai betaet ye od "seven edt nisi rnd?
[-re¢law -4 r
“tt TO bres sal “1 H00 ae evom feum of ‘Tise rth ‘dud 4 Se 4
nae ce Eakin
_ ddiw bot egietis' aso I eeduy I <teaooe St stash ‘Ybreq”
icant a
7 06.0a8%° tnew Iftw I «t20 “a9q a” te owe ‘thee od
eit Pere Hoy 3% 00.08% Hoy ‘Bvis “tiiw I meg ts edt E
iq 2s pee
voy *ieeb
wt tdods {la mtd Iist neo bie seoele eid yomx
se) AO rT hw et re tteedpe-
lis @setswee doltos bow feed eonntut wzeton tod at lige
tes itesolo snide oats “nk risa ‘finke ‘Boe “abasodque
6e6 fed oc meds bas ,eoela ett mid wods bas bedeerstat
mooe es co Siva wor Fedw wort em fol eoeede oi ee
-"
‘oq o ~ |
seidbess b jgoos
adios cae a a roy
; ra S
We =H
0 AS gn
favelt fo2 Be fia mk berawens fesxeu a doxell re
(fer o nol 86
$i tdguodt ow bas figha tect saved es it 886 ‘8 “Fox ‘Ylieatt 3]
a 4 os “fp oe oa
eviz bivoo yoy intds 10% ‘f! aob tod .bednen ew tedw teug
b . . 1a Aovue tadtce
Bue eoelages Port exit #ifguos ow Le seeing onl elttis .
yok rot 890
" tel yeu ue. tt yquooo of “SaLt Biuow “ew dee
wages.
sewotidl ‘ee tieq at ef Moxa ‘to ‘etek ebay tet
ye ia (feo ge wenn eae Upeptoge wee: ‘athe > b
PS
paid $4,500.00 and can't lofése on it. I don't know «hether
Strack will move or not, he might ask so much. I don't care
about the cash money. I would just as soon have a sood piece
of iand that will increase in value."
Mertel replied in part as follows under date of March 33:
|
/ |
"Inclosed herewith please find bank draft for $250.00 to bind
the bargain by Frances G. Sauter for the entire place, trustim
this will be satisfactory and you will croceed with the
oroper papers. Kindly take up the matter with Mr. Strack
we would like to occupy by May lst. 1914."
Walter replied to Mertel as follows under date of March 25:
"Dear Sir: I have your letter and bank draft of the 33rd. but
( He rec ire
till fall
will not bind the sale uxtil I hear from Mr. Strack. If he
asks too big a price to vacate by May lst. 1914, I will not
sell only subject to the terms of his léase, csiving him wntil
Oct. ist. 1914 to vacate. If his price is more than I care
to pay, may be xxkk you and I can arranges some satisfactory
way to buy the lease. You may let me know what you think
about this plane I will keep your name in privacy at cresent
and probably I can cet him to vacute at my price. There is
furniture stored upstairs in the house that will hive to
be left there until fail. The party buying the voroperty will
also have to buy thé winiow shades which are in zood condi-e
tion. The price will be $10.00 for the shades. If I can
arrange ith Mre Strack I will have the necessary rapsers
2)
<
g
ct
|
ead
or
¢
a]
i
ob
4
(O)
at
re |
c+
Hi
re |
a
G
co
Oe
ct
o
b |
tuo
4
a
a
$
2
ied
ct?
om
oO
ri
Hi
@
that the purchaser must’ buy\ the window shades and
iN - Miss. Sauter then wrote Walter in part as
~~]
follows, under date of March 30:
——
-
est y. Raat) SR oy Varm) ‘Chey oe iy ba bi i" mi “i mt Pat 7 ian
tedtedy wond t'mob I tk ao sagol t'as0 hee 00, 908 2b Be
odak _
eiso d'ob I .doum oe des tdgim ed ,tom to evem ELtn ioext2 7
eaoelg boon s 8vad moos as taut biyow I. » Yoniom eso edt tuods
",sulev at seasioat fitw tase nd a
268 dotsM Yo stsbh rebnay ewolfot as $req at “botiger fe
batd ot 00.02E% 10? stark ned batt esselg dd kvered bepn Loney ak
miitesxt ,soalg etitas sit rO% vesuee 2D eeouert wd lepted cal
eft div besoota Iitw yoy bas yrotos? rites ‘ed ‘ELtw pret: a,
+ 9 nin tesa
gwosrd2 .1M ditiw redten edd qu exnt, choad ,areged a <> See
"lar@L .tal yeM xd, yqucoo ot ‘otk Sian bei, ive
$38 doze to sish rebar ewoLlok ge Ledzeil, ot a
gud .b1ge ot to tiertb anad bas rettel WO eved ‘Tinie nea"
ed tI .doerte . ml mort Teed I fi to eles edt batd ton Lie
tom iliw I ,@f61 tal yok WwW edeoev ot eotzq 8 ais. oot ats
IW?
fttou min gaivig easel aid to emited ed} ot too tdus n0 flea: F
rita « Cae
2itZ0 = meds stom at potxg eld t1 .eteosv of eLeL sed rtoO poi
yaecenteliap amos egrets meo-I bas yoy alti ad vst weg of) 7
oe woe
tata woy tecw wont oem tel Yom yo -secel edt we ot ae See
vases tT ts yosvirg at smen TOY qeex ILtw Zz. rasta ald tuode
hy — a) pres )
at etait .eoktg ym te edcosv ot mid teg aso I “Udadeng tages
8
“ vs ts
ot eved {liw tect seuos add ni eiletequ bexota ewtiawh | e.
Iitw yéregotc edt gntyud yt1sq edT »List Lidow ered is a ed ore
-ibnoo “boos ck ots dotdw eebads wobalw exit yd ot ovat {esta
wat
ago I I .eebede oft 10% 00.0L3 od £Ltw. sotsa eT “ott
idilassag aA oe:
steged yrseasosa edd even .ILiw I Aoerte . oth gb “OReee tins b
3 Yo sfab ©
"a Ustelionnt qu AWSTD —
= ently oF .
-eHrekcthnoe wer owl” beoutortgh exed-net ist tant sSVISE
stedt Stel ed binode aay sh bowote out? Seen ‘ont te
bas eoberde . wobniw adi Ard tent ropedomg edd fede: 5)
aN Aaeo
pe tieq of tetLeW etorw met retu08 pris Zoteee
Pi ha cus Ledrol oe
_ och ea - in 108 doteM to eteb 3
ro yp at taxiue ? cole “eboedd wag & .
i note by the letters you have sent that you are not trying
very hard to accomodate me with the house by May lst. Nowif
you do not cure to make this deal, we will peas it up and you
may return the $2350.00 or if we can arrange a satisfactory
deal I shall want the whole place, insurance papers, tax
receipts and all other proper papers including lsase so I
may collect rent, all for $4500.00 the shades are of no
benefit to me as I want new things to begin with."
| It will be—ebserved that when Walter Tecsived tne ts50 Ne Ferused to
( bind the bargain by it and that in the letter Just quoted Miss.
Sauter calls.zor—the-return of the (550. On March 31 Welter replied
as follows:
"JT have your letter of the 30th. inst., and am enclosing
letter from Mr. Strack, whereby you can see that it is
impossible for me to gst him out by May lst. but if you
will buy the place. let him hold the lease until October
I will be there by Saturday of this week to close the bar-
gain, or as scon aa I hear from you.
KJ
I understood by your former letters, that you would
not buy the place unless you could take possession by May
lst. but by your last letter, I understand that you will
buy tue place immediately if we could make a satiefactorkty
deal, that is I will turn the leases and papers over to you
dating from April let.
I will hold the draft for $250.00 until I hear from you
( or have @ verbal conferance vith gpu."
. The letter from Strack which Yalter enclosed therewith showed that
his wife was in a hospital and that he was not varmitted to discuss
With her the question of civing up the leasé, and that he therewith
Femitted-the rent for Avril. On April 3 Miss. Stauber replied a
follows: a
‘
aniytd ton sig Loy ‘fers tose eved voy ‘erettdroedp wad woe | I
tiwol Fel ye Ud dauod “dud ditw en etebowoodw "os Duar ognee Pe &
yoy ‘bie qu ¢f essq L[fltw sw (fLesb atdt eda oP etse Wed lob arey © mee,
Ytotosigitse s SRMerIs ‘deo sw Tt “to 00.0889 ‘ent catudter yaw ;
xet .etsqeg sonsment soslq Stodw sf¢ dtoaw Llade kt: Laebo! x0
| I oa esécel yotbulsat arsqe’ wsgotq rsdio' fle bas atqisost wi
on to 81s asbede sit 00. 0088s tot £f£6° tase vosiioo van
",dtiw atged ot egnidt wen tnew T BSS oh’ oe’ Chee
od -beastsT Sr Ocet ent pevreter retter enw sot he
@eTW EStoup Foul wetye! T° Saf * at ScavopTaTa2*ychboh eee amuneee
bet oe setiew LS doce HO “TORET SrF te: winter edd-set-elico rediee
f : ; woe oved 1’ sis rendttot gs
‘goisofons me bas pitent .Ad0S Sat Yoxed yer “toy Sve IP BEG:
al ¢t tect ese med voy Yestsdw woxvte a mot aetfer
voy tt tud tel Yel yd tuo mid “teg bt “Si HOT erdfacodatt
nedotoO Ltéay eesol ot bLod mid #8. ddatd “exit Yad EPbW
~isd edt saols of deew eins to yabtude? Vd sredt od “Lfiw Ll
oy mort teed Ieee moos ge 1Q~ dies
Bivow voy tacit ~etettel yomtot awdéy Yd Bootersbay P¥ode: ys
yeM yd motaeecaoq oad bittos Woy eéelatf eosrg Sted tom ©!
LL tw wow tedt boedatebay T (tevtst tes -woy yd tud seeL
yéttotocisites e elain blues ew ti yistetbenmL eselq’ sit wd
voy of revo eteged bos ses6l sit ntut Iliw’I at teat feed
ter LtrqA° mort panied
yoy mort ted I Ito 00.0882 not #terb edd SLod Li tweTo* = he
"ugg dtiw sonetetnoy Ledtev # ever to i
tadt Bewode dé twered? beedfone “Pedlow ‘fold Wosiee’ mort Hertel” set
gesoeth ot beditmzeg tod dew ot tact bhe fettqedd ent ew ehtw Sid
diiweredt ed tadt One .eenel eit Gy anivi to Mottesup eddwed
ss beilgex redueté sectM & {irk nO Vitroa Yeretmer etes
|
"I recd your letter of March 3lst. and as the offer is
{
favorable I wish to close the deal on next week Thursday
( ; o
V ‘or Saturday which ever time is convenient for you to come.
( ; ‘
You may write ms when you will be here or call Joe Mertel
i
when you reach town and I will come down town with him."
cat b+er itis—Het 35 iti 6ad—-aS BLOsee Ou XUTCESCA- Sawn
ra a“
for\him to coms to Peru and to close je deaKon Thursday or
ya
Saturday of the following week. 1t412 be observed that he had
LO.
wo
Oo
said tit she would have te oy the window shade\and pay
therefor and she had refused that condition and he nad not withdra
it. He had mposed the condition that furniture shoud: main
in the house tN 7611 and she had not anewered “hat and abe had
i 7
told him that gtH& should want insurance papers, tax receipts
and all othef propex papers, including the lease and he had hot
answered Anat, sexcept\as to the lease, and that he was waitin
or _o#<readi senterence wither Walter testified that he
wrote her a letter dated April 3, saying that asa long as she was
Batiafied to take the place he would be in Peru the next Saturday
to close the deal, though he did not remember exactly what he wrote.
She wrote Walter as follows under date of Acril 4:
"I wrote you on the 2d.inst that your offer scemed favorable
and I would like to close the deal; but yesterday I was
given a much more liveral offer, and would anpreciate if
you would consider with me. I was given permission to remain
on the same place after Oct. lst. which I will occupy till
9
then; in fact I hardly think I could arrange to move then,
te
and as the rent from this places coesn't néar cover intel
taxes and insurance I would much prefer to not closs this
deal at all now. If in the future I desire the olace (whic!
would mean much moré exgesnse and inconvenience to me than my
ps)
oO
wo
4H
9
re)
ch
om
Ls
~
present offer) I would be very glad to make
4
ia trusting you will let me know at your earliest convenience
Pe SE eA rn a Ps SUS Oe! TR eee toe a oe
nk ear) : . : ye
7 : , ; a,
5
af xetio, edt ec pas .tald dose to mettel: auoy hoes am |
_ ysberdT deew txsa, go Lesh edt esoto ot daiw, I eiderovel é .
.. san00. oF. HOY rot tasinsvaos ef ome neve. dotdm, vabruteaae ) \
Lstreu sol ilso to ated od Litw soy nena em ot iow. yom uoy ' Ph mis
Motel aiiw awot. awob, emoo ft ty irbae swot,doset sox pede: |
doing boBEeToxe-du6 pgeoke os Gesbedt—teent Jon-= $
10. yebaxudT, no Ased pom. esol od basen ured ot) mode ot mid /
hed sd tedt ee 08 20 LLENT, -toow vatwollot sslt: Too Nee
OL}. yeq Bae Asbeds wobniw sit; 98 eves) Sivowns ede ty at to
owsitbdtiw tom Bsd ed bre mottibaoo test Boguiex bed ede- of. Sa ,
atemss/oivot siutinoristedt no ttiones ede fe eoay bad .
bad ef bas ted? bevewane tom bed ete bas (18i Ltt esuodisd
Sratibax act ,aTegeq eonsivent daew bivorte fess
tod bev ed Boe eagsi odd guftulsal ,ereqeg
fits aw gaw 9c todd ons ‘eecal , edt .oF 2
eh tadt bettitess redLell xed-dttw eoneretaee hadseene
sev ede es gnol as. tedt gityss...§ Lirgh beteb rstieLl 2 ted Tet
yebtwte2 txen edi yreT at ad bisow od eoslg edt -stet .et dat ata
-otomw ed tedw yltoexe todmemes tom bte od dquorit »_Leeb edt eeole 2 a
. & LizgA to etek rebay, awollot as 20M stom dis
ti etetostqgs biyow fas .~rs ito Senadht QtoOM ee .) pees res
oismer ot noteatmres asvig esw I wom dttve weiitenoo binow: I ,
ALES Nausoo Lfiw, I doidw, tel «tod vette eoelg ema. i mo we
<tedt evom od egisite blyoo I Aaidt ylbaad I. test. mh giterity iat 4
>
geeratal Iesvoo teSnH timtesor eselg edd MOTI Forex edt) Be». BME -
‘eldt eaclo tom ot tsterq doum bivow I, spas went neem
if this is satisfactory to you and if you would be kind
enough to return the $250.00."
|
‘(withdraw un
rht—to.
ail the terms of a binding’ contract had been ar-
| samged+ Under date of April 6, he replied to her that she must
stick to her agreement or lose what she had paid down. He therein
told her what insurance he had on the house and when the policy
expired and offered to turn the insurances over to her without
chargey this being the first time that he had replied to her
request that the insurance papers should be turned over to her.
He also stated that he had an abstract which he would give her
and that he would Be at a certain o ffice in Peru on Saturday
April 11. Hs did appear at that office at that time and Miss.
Sauter did not a»pear. [It sceme entirely clear/to us from 2
consideration of the foregoink correspondence/ that at no time
/
f
did each partyagree to all the \terme of *the other. Miss. Sauter
refused to pay extra for the wirdiow shades and Walter did not
withdraw the demand that she euyaeks Migs. Sauter jenenned the
insurance papers and Walter did nok o°fet to comply with that
requirement until after sne had withdrawn from the negotiations.
His request that she should allow peta rurniture to remain
stored in the ouilding had never been \ooepted by her.» She re-
quested the tax receipta and he sever ofifersd to cseliver the
receipts to her. St
ry’
oO
Lar
requées
| those papers were had not been determined. \ It is evident that
_* was intended to endeavor te effect an
@
j ; Various matters when he cam@ to Peru and hada verbal conference
_ her. There had been no/discussion or agreement as to the
form oi the deed. Walter nad received the rent fok Avril and
there had been no agreemént whether he shoud@ retain it or should
Pay it to Miss. Sauter./ It is our conelusion that the minds of
4
ye
botax ad Bilyow voy Ti bas wey “ot ytotostetted et etn tb
",00.0a8% edt fitet of ee
ot-tdgis 2 bed ode po ttetiopen sad aon :
-18s msed bsid omg & to vebiisid edt ried
taum ede tar¢ tert o¢ beilge: ed ,6 “Thad to stsb 1ebau Preae |
mtovedd ef .awob bteq Bad ede few ebol to #nemesise wer OF
yotiog edt non Boe eevod sd no bed od @0ne weal tadw bab.
tuodttw ted ot tevo sometwant eit amt of betetto bie BORER
sed ot betlq=1 bed ed tant emit terti ed? sated’ Sine postr
.ted ot tevo bent ed blyode ereqeq sonstvent oat tedt “Peeuper
ted evts bivow oi dotdw foexseds ne bed ed tert} ‘betste hist
yebtudee mo wed at sotit o mtetrs90 2 ts 86 bitow ed tend wits
seet¥ bro emit tedt te sott%o tatd tes TsSqqe Bib aH ee fet
& mort ey of \1e8 fo yleritas amgea +1] .x80q0 8 torn’ ie ese
sitege 0% ont to’ notvevebrenes
|
emit on ts tet \eonehadgeertoc
refuse .ée il sree, eit Yo amred/edt Ils of serseyiteg owe bib
fon bib totLey bad, asbede wobhiw eit tol sitxse vad ot ‘petites
edd bebnensh redwed .eeil .biugde ede tend boeneb Sif WeubideW
dads détW yiquoo ef keto fon bib redieW bas ‘steqeq somstwent
-enoiteitogen edt mot? mWerbAt fy bed ede redts Litas tneadetiupes
atexet ot eiutiatwi ine. wolis otuode ‘eHé ted? Heeupex alH
-61 ede .1ted yd pet qecog ke ed teven bed gab i fd odd af berote
edd tevifeh oft bere yfo ae dt bone etqteost xat of} Betesup
te‘w Boe e1sqeq ra074 rele bei geuper of2 .sed of Btgtever
tedt tnebive si tI / tpadimaed de nesd ‘ton bed ei1ew eteced esodt
sasdd mo pF rae a he toonts \yd eveebas ‘oF bobmednat eew dt
eonetetmoo Lediev s Ast Boe pred uf meo si gedw ‘atedten aver
f
odt od af he pede to motasuoeft\on desd bed siedt vated Ade
the parties never met on all the terms of & contract. Corcoran v
White, 117 Ii1. 118; Middaugh v Stough 161 Ill. 013; Scott v Fowler
827 Ill. 104.
The judgmemt is therefore affirmed,
ond
ae
Vv astoorod -toatimoo 6 to amrot edt Ile no
“RX ead Gisow voy If bak Udy” 02 oa: i?
telnet v ##o08 {88 .LLI LL dauod2 v a bil 48. elt oa
Lites i
rs
® » G0 rae, F) sof
geee gto thelisuvn- $hd—-nert- Levaebitt be
obs omadt he be vhal on) et jmemghut
-t2 deel Bead toe tatoo ‘Qrihs 2 20 axed af3 ita
/ ¥ n ag =
ay )4..4-De4-$4.
taum exis tect ter of Belbloor ba R:) “Prana to tab eee
ved? af vega Stee Bud’ Bu tall’ “wor Yo" tnemed 7ya" Mee
gottog ai? ny exo emuda ett’ he Bes’ ont eonawent tack
PUOUT LH “ac! of YevG se oadaat et mot oF botetio BA
ist od bettosy ter ea tandd amty torts ody 90100" Cae vt 7
7 PFs TRU!
ted of reve bent? ec bivents ategeq: aon noiweht Sas aia" .
ac evizn blivow bf doldw tos fads ne bari bal teat” Be
gabsuie 5 no uxeT af adrtt o ciefreo ete 36 rtow er’ Ls
eee? Exo trit tart 3a. anto®s de vt te See “ae “ib 5a EP cis
2 ways is or ba (e yoo tied daghe ty. sitet & tok" bap.
emit of fe fart \serebavgeer tes ‘Pxsege¥s sY Bz ‘to! nO th
setue® veel .tacida |r "Yeates oc ifs or wag
gon bib rottet slid eeithi tetleey edt to” avize Yag™
f
edd bebrswet r9s22 oy ti »bigdde ete fey bnswed i ‘.
fet? dttk vigqaao 33 nave for bik tottcW bak eroded obits
-etoltelteasec oat mot? thai) Lan alu vette cyynb ta
siaret o7 ea? why kedass solie biucde | sie decd Ke
“or s#8 sed 4 badgesue Rood seven bac gas r ive one ne <
cid tevitet oy taxi ‘awe od Ene e¢ateods nt a
ertqay wEReY rent bot esupex ene .aed of WPGippe:
jai) Yoshive et rt /cbettesvedee Te 5¢ ' For bart ereWw vias 1? asad
siead oc tasmeetag AB voekte ¥ doveelad ‘ot bébndiitt
sonetTrinor accisy 2 hed "Baa i285 of pas. ox netw cre
onf oF au ivudee Yue "¥ nd Puna ote on ‘bed ‘bait hie
hte thieA fot fast sal HOV EeoaT Dy cosdlaw ¢
iidone x it gtatoi Biuoite ed” sade este "¢ . is —
Mas Sich had taie Bareaeende aude fee eee
STATE OF ILLINOIS, bets
SECOND DISTRICT’. eae JI, CHRISTOPHER ©. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and - eee
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
atalloqgs oft to dela -wraud. 0 aunstoverniHo I OB. =
ahioashd adi io ssqoed fas wionifll to otuta ont to Jointeid haooek bine 103 ase rs
ost io oisigqe Sci to wy sot B zi ynioysiol sds ded LUITARD YUAAAE OC le |
qoifto var nf frrovey to seus haltitae svods odd ai sue
aft vite box oma yor doe ofavored 1 soatanw ynomiresT “ul
_eidd wwattO de p00 aisiloga h. ‘bine offt to [eee
ano fiod iwo to sey edd ot ox —— to ysb.
ee Ror nia age
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
State of Illinois:
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day or Octaber,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the
Present--The Hee: DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
DUANE J. CARNES, Fastioe.|
justice/ «a («C&A oO
long! +
Hon.
JOHN M. NIEHAUS,
Hon.
DUFFY, Clerk.
CHRISTOPHER C.
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff
to-wit: on
igo
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards,
the opinion of the Court was filed
in the words and figures
the Clerk’s office of said Court,
following, to-wit:
etedotse te yeh WHITES. ods “YsbesuT ao ,swsitd ds i
,asestit boas betbeusl sonia Soasevornt 30 40, Brod tuo lo 169y say
2
szienrili to otei® oat 20 foitiai qd. binges edi +o% pee aid
-sortaut gaibreer4 -wi@GlG GIVARHOG . cok odT-- $91
bes 5 .soitaul .2aKfAO 14 WHAUC . con
opr we Asottent ,QUAHATN .M WHOL mol .!
5 _
7 ft a $Y f) @@ axel pyTTUd .9 aaHdoTeTaHO
4 a", bs ae .ttitede (QIVAd .M a
5
4 . :
SAAN TT RAS TS A eR a RLS Rae eR NF eee em ae itrie— -—— = =}- —— a a — at
8 if
use ak
= : y if
oa a s 4 OF
tee A
‘ Ei. ut “ ;
. a
\ + a ae . 2
; 2 4
ao :tiw- a abrseresi8 jsdt ,CAaENaNES TI 1 8s,
mi bslii a6W trod odd 20 goin 11 G0 sda . a1
gsrugit bas abrow add gi ,tsy0d as to
x ro -_ : > we 7 "x24 [0 a ‘ . _ MS: dye x e
Bis
Soe Wei a y a t Ne tie Y
Tw a oe at oa f
Gen. No. 6211
P. J. Miirlett, Deft in error
vs Error to Kane.
D. J. MoDonald, Pitf in error.
Dibell, P. Js
4
P, J, Millett own# a farm near Paris, Kentucky, where he liv
‘Dp
and ac forte contracts for railroad construction work in various
parts of the United States. D. J. MeDonald om#= farm near Aurora
4
ITilinoie here he lives, and he idee like work in variouw parts
By
of the Unit:
oo
da States. The parties had known each other for years
t)
it
or
Ky
and during é¢ time covered by the transactions here involved
| were in various parts cf the South. On Acéid-16;5—-$6bes-ittrreti
( brought thi-s—quit—semnestelt ale OH Parse icat cromissory notes
pub O9,..Ons—Lor-$i;O0T dated June SO
Se
&® special count on each cf the notes and the consolidated commom
counts. McDonald filed numerous pleas, the mam general issue, a
denisl of signature, set off, release, ocayment, accord and ;
8
atia-
action, lack of conside ion, and tha 1enotes were civen in @
faction, lack of ideraticn d that th t > i i
partnership transaction between the carties, the accounts cf which
~)
had not been closed. Tee ercdct.for
plaintiff for $4,083. On 5 3, 19815, and on April 12, 1915
after motions for a new tria
Overruled, plaintiff had a Jus n for
with legal interest there on Avon
of error brotght by tispeuals to review
The special counts on the notes did not state that they
pwere payable at any particular
por Miliett, he stated that the notes were payable at Johnson
City, Tennessee. He did not sesk to amend the spesial counts
If the deolaration, so as to correctly desoribs the notes./ there
ate tbe OP Die Vy. 4 ’ hae e A rPivtp . ae hh ——
a niet tit Pn mee le
£688 volt. @8e
yorrs at #ted ,tterc hy i q
,ansY ot ott? ev eb
storte mf THIT bl enotoM cee
: wb .¢ Ltedio
hrevts od etedw ,yMousas® ,aited wsen mrct Asans tteLliM .% » | ee
evoitev nai Arow nottourtaenco Sbsorlier 10% atoeri nce “hia et Bile
“gtowA teen met @Rawo blenodol .t 0 .ee9te¢8 bettal. edt To etteg
atteq wiotrsev ai Atow evil ahi’ ed bos ,eevdl od net
eetesy tot isdto doses awondt bed easttuaq sdT .setst& Ostiav edt *
bevfovat e1rsd enoitocensrt edt yd berevoo semnli ont gatiub ‘ae
SHEEP PEGE ~,8L-Lbdgd 00 .dtvo2 edt to etrad avottav ai
getor yroeelmorg tert estat He bisnoGel>-terteve—bive
vey
Aa hated. ena
OE Shu BSF EE OCT ris 59 F800 CIEL engl
—~“NdES (eet {Ce teuguh—Lateb 00.9
belit sK c-miunaetregtoagco x90 xf
somnoo Setebtioaaoo edt bee seton edt to dose mo tnyoo feiceqe
£ a fstsasys wzz edt ,eesiq evoteméa beltt SLenoloy etait
g-gites bos broscos ,tasmysec ,seeoler tte tse ,etutcigtea to tetnes
emt aevic stew estonedt tect bas ymoiterebicmoo to Moal .motdon?
dotdw to etnyocoe edt ,esitireag edt meewisd moitosens1t qisatead Ea
192 solLisev—r-sew ST sti to Yt -besolo need tom
@leL ,eL LiigA no bow ,areLl f 70 .€80,8% rot ttidaks
nesd bed tnewabut to tssite at &irt wen 6 tot enolttom 2
goitbrev odt gnisd ,Til,4}3 tot ta cui £ bed tiltotelg boiutrey
tirw 2 st eidY .mottibner Ati motkaosted! testetat Lenel dth
etoemghyut bleafwelver ot SiemodoN yd a
yodt tedt etete tom bib eeton sd#t no stayos Letoage edt ”
noltentmsaxs geor9 mQ 6.80sla teivoitieq yas ts eideveq 2
moendol te eldsyed etew eeton odt tect betets od ttc 0iM
-
etnuoo Letoeqe odt baome ot Xese toa bib oH -seeewkiten
4
@
®
a therefore a varianse between the three svecial counts and
of
h
o
t
&
be }
@
tt
i=)
oO
cr
ue
w
‘go
KH
°
<
oo
+
-
io
i3
s vs
theyé could be no recovery under said
ra
special counts, and WcDonal é entitled to have given tarse
| instructions which hej dNesting 2 verdict against plaintiff
‘as to the first, seCond and third
petLtet+ proved the existense of tne notes, tne signature of McDonald
A
thereto, his payment to MeDonald of the principal sums named in
—jgaid notes and that he lost the notss aft
fore entitled te resove
i'fenses hereinafter
McDonald was not
the three sume of money; and the tnree checks upon which they
- + 4 o ar a WG =an4 : 4 ~ 2 i ¢ 5
n evidence bearing his endorsement; and he admitted
fer
were paid were
giving memoranda showing his resesipt of those several sums. He
claimed to soul wasther he gave notes for them, but letters from
A Sew. oat,
him in evidence etexsconcluaively that he did
c
aa
i '
a]
o>
ct
o
oO
5
each of said suma. Hs aged. not Slaim to hava paid them. THs—ebe
ject of the common counts
against some ascidental v
MeDonald claims that in February 1909 he and Millett met at
Knoxville Tennesses, and formed a partnership in railroad conatruce
tion work; that he was to put in his equipment, worth perhaps
$380,000 and Millett was to put in $50,000 in oash and Millett wae
to be allowed six per cent interest on his monsy and VWceDonald
was to be made upon his equipment, 2ani that these moneys re
advanesd by Millett to McDonald for ths expenses of said partnere=
Ship, and that the partnership ended in December foilowing without
amy contracts being taken or any work being done; and he claimed
to have spent $5,000 or $8,000 in expenses in travelling about
—
country and trying to get contracts, and while he did re ee
YWitaie{[q tentsys totbrs Oil gatdw apati su Ty
GAG 6m
va
tud smottstelosh sit to atmo bx baie tea bao
Llenotom to stutemgia ent Spe be sat io songs txe end bevesa
ni bemen emuse tegtoaty q ede to bleacdoM of tnomyes etd.o¢
; : . Ls ve 7 » Cah % 7 bs a“ 7
J esedé—naw-all -\titsdsm tetis seton edt deol of bat ibd
’ “sf yertdo Ti ,ad¢nves dommoc ad? pebau
bisa svig ot tivoo sit to Leaitet edt ve pemtsd, joa eo
7yv vt ™
ke)
gniivieoes bre tot galias best imbe bLenodoy, + BLO DE eats
be
" be
; ; yed? doeidw nog eaup abut edt bos ivesom 2 to enwe “ee
bettinbs an brs jenemeetobses eid gatreed, optekive at ene bt
7 eH sense tenovee saat to tgteex etd meanods. , ER
‘ : mort eredtel tud wert se2, gefon. ave of ash xestedn © of ;
| . x0 ston << Enee bib eit ted? qtanteutanos wee, anmen ts
> ie mde—esT smodd Sieg eved ot lele tom dete eH (OMNES Aba 2B ;
pate ey s foster of cl tive as tow etnuoo SAN
v fetasltoes ene.
5Oo8
beve eston io nottctroseb add trt
LA
=
_
te tem fter6IM bros off goes eeinds, at fe halads, tae q
eouttence beorlis1 at qiderentied, & bemrot, bas .seaeennel ¢
agedzeq Attor trongtups etd, at tug ot gow od tect
7 sw tiellimM bone deso at 009,065 a ug, of Baw peep:
SisaoToW bos Yeurom pis fia #estotag daeo red, KAB, Pepede
7 dotdw molteniay 2 focus ¢estetat taco req xte, Pete
eTow eyonom eesad tard bre <P aematype | eid Aoqu eben
id.
Lete 79 e
OFM EIR
“read tog Hteea io eeautogxe edt x03 blecodoM ot tteL.
TaHin.iic., ae Y gS
y daroutd tw patrol loi redneo0d, at pebas alderests
o
7
— bomtete ed bae jenob gmied xx0" xe PS, "58
Mute iS ( £0¢ ay eS ia a We
that Millett made a part of these trips with him, he stated that
Millett did not always go with him and he implied that Milletts
expenses may have been legs than his own; but that the affairs
of said vartnership had not been settled and that since this suit
Was begun, ha@had riled a bill in
aw
quity agsinst Miliett to have
the -accounts of the firm settied, in which he set up these monsys
as advanced by Millett to the partnerahip. Millett denied tha
any partnership was ever formed, but alisged that they agreed at
Knoxville to try to zet some conivsots for reilroad censtruction
work, and, if they obtained such contracts, they would be varte
ners in such work, but that no contracts wers obteined and no
partnership was formed; and also thst these moneys were not ad-=
Ve)
venced in any partnership matter but were loaned by him to MeDonald
to meet MeDonsid's own pressing financial necessities. The corres-
Ape
pondence which afterwarde followed between the parti¢s me in ¢evie
dence and shows repeated oromises by McDonald to nay Millett these
ieans and one of them show that he had paid $193 interest thereon
: 2
and in none of the ietters jdeA_ NeDonald claim that these moneys
were advanced in a partnership transaction. Pre—jury were ftelly
instructed in favor o thesewere partnership matters.
eC hb
Millett complains of +t ¢fusal of ope inatruction on that sub-
é sect, but we ere of the the ground was fully covered
joy instructions that were given This issue was determined by
he jury against MeDons1lg4ne we of opinion that the preron-
| eer ae ustaing thak consiusien.
McDonald claimed three itsms of set-off. He alleged that he
Meertain sateel rails ‘or $416, and that he had leaned Millett #300
he engine and the rails were not wher @ parties wsre, sni +he
Stice se-teat neither were ever delivered to Millstt and
ever came into his possession, but “hey appear to have been seized
f tedt bests ec .mte ttw eqtrd sted tol trey e” obs’ ° Merril Fi t
a att¢erriM tedt tetfqmt en Soe mie dt iwoog: eyerts tot tee ES
a erttetts est ted* tud inwo eid aed agsl need ‘svar yam
ttue etdt sonte tent bos beltitse need ton bed qidets ct re¢ pice te
sven of PY¥srtrIM tanters Yiitipe nt Itfd s s belts ~ care om
eyenom ced? ay toe eof doidw ot .bettitee mrt? ° on? to atmoosn: off
tadt Beinsh ttellin ~QGtdeucntree sit of tre lll «ad becenaneal
ve bsergs ved tect begetie tud ,bemrot teve Zew aie settee
aoitoypitenoo bredgifiar rot Steer tates sKog tex of put ‘oF sLiitw
-tirsc.ed blycw yYort .efoatiios fous, pemicitde yedt 22° (inte 69 8fgo
of Eas bentetde erew stosttnoo on tent tod «2 TOW ti
-fe dod Sag eysnom essd? tect coals “bre iSemrot” “daw ‘qiderst
‘bienoGoW of mid yd Ledéol stew ‘tud retter glide tondredg easel
~eerroo Sit -egitieséoen fefcnent®. sole certo avo c bis oT8M te ot
— Pn fy :
-ive ok oe asitweq edt. asswitsd bewolLfot ebtcrred te: ao Pile 3 one dag
aeae
Gcedd tiefliy Yed o¢ Llenofo yd seeimots. béteogst Vivodé ope one
eee” tesretni SOL bteg bad eftadt’ ode msds to sid nda 120
syetom sastt tedt mial 5 pttnddek hiee. @estiel -dd¥ te- ‘tint Sale
: .
yi bebtorew yrst eat stottosanett.qidatsatreg’ « nt beonevie eae
6 rovet nf® Bofsundap
sat to eanislomoeo ttei Ls
-etstiam “géderosntres erat ceeds tt bien Todok ©
-due vedd ao nolfourte sf bi to. feats
Betevoo yilfut eew bavorg edt af ag htae ent ‘td “se ow ‘$id 49
yd benimretsh saw soak oe hae vig etew tsdt' enolseurdenk
%
~fhoastc eft tedit*notnaigo lo 6 (a See tenlegs gt a
| ae-beslomas. Git antetsiia § biveodcud asd
has
of ted? Boensifs 6H sTo-dee to amedt sotdt’ Séui$io/SIGsht ata
bone 0O€# tol entane atwtteo s tielleM og boteviled baz’ “bio”
OOS$ S#SLIIM bensol bet sh tect! boe--76Llad" 102 sttetosaeed abel
ett boe . eter eeltisg edt stew ton stew ab igaiblota: ice
tae ttelliw ot bereviter Tove o1ow rods Len’ tetessto-etes
Pam “bextes goed oved ot teegee yed® ted .motessaeoq ache otha
on attachment acainst McDonald. McDonald did give Millett a
=~
‘eheck for $200. MoDonaid testified that this was money which he
doaned to Millett. Millett testified that he loaned MoDonald
this money and tock this check in payment. The—jery—feurt “on
Miliett on thia issue ar
their conclusion. »
‘On tne cross examination of MeDonald Millett's scounsel called
fo
for letters of various specifie to nave been
Loy
re)
ct
o
@
~~
w
es
te
iD
i719)
ro}
ey
written by Millett to McDonald, and no such letters were produced
by McDonaid or nis counsel. Thereuson counsel for Millett read to
wa
®
MeDonald frpm g@svearious vapers which he held in hia nand, which
purcorted to be carbon copies of such lettere from Millett to
5
McDonald, and asked MoDonald whetner he received sucn lettears, to
which McDonald replied that he did not know or did not remember,
and counsel asked MeDoneld whether various stetements read to him
were true. This wae all done over the objections of McDonald's
counsel. [xe 2 eae sinron that” th] course pursued—wa8-aighly
imeroper. At that time no one had testified that these were in
istters which nad ceen written and meiled to
Kh
fact true copies o
=
MeDonaid, and they then aopeared to be merely self servines declare
tions. Ne—such_ use saeuld—aayv=.ocen osrmitted of these peers
until it nad been sroved\that they were true copies of letters
which had been in fact, ordtten and /aigned by Miliett ani duly
'maiied to MoaDonald proverl: aidressed and stamped ard placed in
the Post Office. They could onky then be evidenoe in favor of
Millett if they anpearsd to oe cant s of a corresoonience between
the two upon the aubjcots gnvolved ir this suit. By readinc them
. y
\
7 \
into questions their su,ostance was placed osfore the jury
y \
before they had been Shown to be competent evidence. But after-
\
Watds tie necessary oroof was made to admif\ these carbon copies in
@Videnoe in connection with various isttersa from McDon2ld to Millett.
-
Te eee ee
pe ttellin ovle hLb bLlenoGoM ».blenodeM sentenc tremilostt,
efi-dotdw yenom eewoatdd tent bettiteet bisgodoM .008% rotedos
‘BlsaoGoM benrol ec dads belitd¢estodtoLLIM -vdtell2M oF bemee
EGE t pref ent «6. divemyeq ai: doseds eldtideot has Yeuom eke
gibtuteib atosy’tasrisw ton seob gonebive Sst tie eueet REE ai:
wer i:
~,
og “moteubeage®: rE
belies Leeaoo e'ltte l(t BLenodoM to mottentitexe éecto- oad -RO*
aged evad of benelis ,eeteb.beltiosge siensetee aan
heouborg Siew erettel dove of bas 9 ~bismogoM or ots el Lime yo nettle
ot beet ftisiliv to" Leensoo nocwetedT'.Leanyuas: eid<to bienodoa™
i
Acidw ,boued eidval blied»-ed.-doldw cs1égeqd evolisveRtk wqrt bLleo 0
ot t#ecLiM mort arettel dove Io #etqosomadtss ed efubade ri
SF ial,
a
od ,sretisl dove bevisos: ad vedtedw. blededo bewas Sas bt nod:
eisgneret tea Bfh 1o wont Som Bib sd tends Seiler SfsnodeM de “df
mid ot basr atnemstets euofitev tvedtedw Bblanodo beter Loomwoo ie <
Sh ey
s'hisaodoM to enottos{do ait revo sn0b Lis aswiehdT sewrhS “
yideid-eorbeveisg-stiu00 sat irr omnia:
mi exew esedt tedt. bstitdast Sed emacca enit deih Pom
= ~~
a
ot befliem bnew nedttimw oasd ben dotnw aredtel to eefqoo euTd
~relos) gadvisa tlee ylotem od ot ‘herséqus ment yornh baaog
~ Peogqe, esent. te adi enen any LBB BRAGS imo: aan diove-ei 6 SGOE
eretisl.to asiquo eurd graw yedt sayy’ paler aed ibaa:
Yind ons telLiM vd be mgte, brs nat gta ,tosth af meed: best ie oJ
ai beosf{y bas Seqmete dria bedeerbite vitsaet?s LLenotow << tis al
to tovet ni sonebhive ed. nsit uo bivos ywoiT seot PTO ee
\
P|
needed somehaogee tte «2 to ated ag ot berzssgcs. vst uu veen
mett pnitbest yd ative eid rif " BaMGowiit Vac ees sit moqy ot
Yiwwt sdt stoted singin aw enuteteah ue thondt smottes sist
--tetic, tod ssomebive tet aq 9 30 (os nwo. need bad yer :
. nf aeigoo godusa ener, besitos ot sbhem waw Toorg YTB 809 cr wt
. vv
ites ot SLenotom era stettel esuotiuey ittw mots os antoo! mien.
We conclude that no harm was
should have been prcverliy put in evidence
examined unon them.
correspondencs that
with any partnership
recognized his personal liability te pay
Millett. The abstract is meagre and
t-
réad al
could not have
the evidence in the reeord
found differently ¢
lone to McDonald, though the letters
before he was cross
conclusion is inevitable from all the
this money was not advanced in connection
transaction and that McDonald rereatedly
H)
M4
as
oO
ai)
0
ct
4
7]
tt
ie
c+
a)
ct
check they might heve found either waye
rth
Lis
judgment is therefore affirme
;
ersitel) en2 Mgvodt .bienotoM ot enol enw! ted! on feds ob )
-gaord ese sf ovoted! eomebive’ Ht! tua! yLxeeoke! need eve BEM
edt [fw moth eidattvent ef moleuLohsd’ od?!” .melite note B ea
meitesmnon mf beornevbe tem exw Yotrom eint! Nenad someda
grte lt pibeteenmss bierodoM teAti bre wottosensrt Ssnttec’s
ot dosed svenom eaent yeq of ytiltdstl Sanees fan
eved: 68> .egeidd teétrocmt: atiepobus ergesh’ ati tourtedeiecTieds
yw etdedscdt: bettettce ers: Doe btoost! satemt ecaebive! eid
CO8k edt ot ce tact mt ax tqsoxe yitnerstehb based eved
o¢ bagy tte. 1 iMag". teen say swe pertté bavob evedt sigtm ved
od pbemrttises roteteddy veteymemgonte entree gaqxt visi
Sokce ,
of TEBLL IN wovt aredts? moves t ons joo \Madtec Sui GEows
et , us ners i ‘ sel¢edd Sletelc’ Usxex
%
t eye wm = 24254 Sis x
“ r it daft te
3 ¢ Le r pe i $ ea 27 Oe le Be OaaseE
' 1 ane 8fGo 8 rove: ecoo Dla. @gys
ote J exe Bale TR ST ore “Stil Th ir notehes ass 20. wis Savi
fest Sétettasd Bed eno oa nolf godt
oti betiean Sup nettiis seed dei Gotta epetret XX ae lqot owed, *
-pahee5 uadviss tise viexyen of [of hesagou Rett yeas inv ofBis
Byopeg 20* “9 pyipderneticumese . eee piages 201. hone Es
. — ee duit ben ig ased Weoeee
roeiks vantage atti ,toat nb nede bani
Sint eto » tewoeorgts ehtscoty biswdowm eS
TuN . OM tah WO ee, et pio qth yootthg
Lane kn Beteu eS ae Dewweqeas yeas me:
. } * 4 "1 r vaio eet aloe FSi) & Bor iyo ~
> eid ator beeat® Sue eodsited\ un Theds savite
retin dw@ .aomiive toefegmes Fa oF rieciite coed Bait
=~ : \
at asians ao@wws catty Pi nbe,ed: Soe Baw Foor
ol e
tt gpm Gris ot) Siaagtek mork oxpatel wokeey, dtbw nolhs;
ae Is , ‘aa TA
——— ET
STATE OF ILLINOIS, | ..
SECOND DISTRICT. aes
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Lllinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
IN Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and ay. =
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
pe PES eae" a“ pmo: — ne
, a
“| BOUL
t
stalloggh adt to dil .yrisd .)- AGHEDOTEMARY J ze} TIAATAE
abtmeaH ait to veqesd bows aiontliL to siete. aft to Joiaeid booose bisa
sid to noitive oft To ~qov ound & ai ‘aniogs10l odd jedt YuIrsao yaaa oa
sotto yar ai broos't to eenso halidas svods ard: at ak .
> orld xifte bos bowl rom foe o8ais' ed | sounan ynomrraat ul
gidd swedtO ts d1u0D aisiteqgs bise odd to fs9e
~——1e 48 is
ae
arse bral wo to 1897 edt | ee een
__ hens boa exit bnwe
1 yes
ro
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
i
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the Pont ik day of April,
in the year of our\Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of f1linois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, supdaice)
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER c.. DUFFY, Clerk.
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
“3
12654 sit 1.3
z arc. ,
et
pfirgA Yo ysbetttpod edt .ysbasuT ao Swat te
| 7 ae
,assixia bas ies asnin basavods sao biol 16 Y6°
7
7 seioalIfl Yo state isd? to foisteid.bndooed odd 10% E
7. Kn : | ie:
a ; sorteant garbiestd , 2UAHBIK M WBOL
, \ .sottesl .29MSA0 .t SHAUG .coH =
Jesottabt ,IIGEI@ SOWASHOG .aoe
YEP AL 6 4 @ \.sx019 .yrwa fo aaproratand 7
i .tYized@ ,2IVAG .M im
: a
mo s:tiw-ot ,abiswisiite tedt (3a0aMaMae T
qi Bslilt eaw $2009 adi to noiatgo sadt 310) ae
—
aetusit bas ebrow edi at ,t1ru00 bise to sitio.
Gen. No. 6220. ;
Jewel Tea Company, appellee
vs Appeal from Peoria.
A. T. Peterson, appellant.
Dibell, P. J.
[ the Jewel ee Company, a corporation, hereinafter called
the company, entered into a contract in writing with A. T.
Peterson to carry on certainbusiness for it in Peoria for
certain compensations therein named, and the contract contained
a provision that Peterson should not engage in the same business
for twelve months after the contract should be terminated for
any cause, in the territory in which he worked while in the
| employ of the company. The employmen$ was terminated on May
(28, 1915. Shortly thercafter Petersen entered into the same
{business in the same territory, a
( Mpany iilec
iG
t
enjoin him fromxgo doing and Petersex answered the bill.
mpany filed an amended bill
that his answer, filed June
|stana as his answer to - ded bill. Thereafter the appli-
‘cation for a temporary , njunction Wes heard upon affidavits
(
ct
©
ct
QO
rad
ve:
O
a)
£
by
i
El
|
co.
c¢
Le}
a
f
~
Le a
LNG az
idavits were pres@nyed by a vertificate
The bill Fe ui es the office and principal place of
business of the company was in Chicago and that it maintained
»@ branch office,and place of business in Peoria. Its business
te buying aug selling and delivering teas, coffees, baking
“powder, extracts, spices, cocoa and other like merchandise.
It sends agents to homes to solicit orders for such merchandise.
Tt has a scheme by which, if a customer orders a certain amount
: such goods, the customer receives certain other household |
iH
|
j
4
rORRE
selleqqs ,ymeqmod mo
»oetitosl mort LseqqA e@v
~tosilegqs wmosteted .
belles tetisnisred .moitstogioo 5 ,yasqmod ssT [ewst odT
= aT «A dtiw enttiaw af tostitaos s otal berstae
vot sitoe?d ai ti tot peere s fo yrtso ot Pos:
bentetnoo tosttmoo edt bas ,bemsn mistedt ano td saxoqmoo ate
te
B
esorfteud smse sit x gegne ton biuode aoereted todd notaty a.
tot betscimred sd biluyoda tosttnoo edt xstts editaom eviowt x0
eft af elidw bestow of dotdw af yrotixisd edt ot — ra
emse odt otmi ksretas msexeted xusttsersedd yitroda .aier
Ko
a ee eYiotirred emse edt at eeen!
{Lid Esnisito sdt of ,élet Sag eure beffit .rewenos eid :
—fiqqs edt rettestedT .[iid yee od tewens aid seb
sisotititres s yd pavaileess stew etivebilts ex \sbetnerg § eam no.
hehre-tede nor? teeqqe-me ete -reoaak ive.
to eoslg Leqtontiq boe2 sokftto edt tad? wode {fid odT
benistnisn tk tsdt bose ogsoftdd nf ssw yaseqmoo eft to eeenten
eeontend ati .etroed at sesntaud to soslg hme eottto donend «
gnitisd ,gection ,aset gattevileb brs gailiee ine sie
-setdnedoism exif redto bas soooo ,seotiqa vedoetdxe |
-entigaedorem dove tot azekto tloifoe ot esmod ot eines
touome nmistreo s-atebro temoteyo s tI fotdw Rs omerios
J
. merchandise as a premium. Its agents have horses and wagons,
ue each agent has a specified territory to work in, ani when
a customer has once been secured, effort is made to retain
that customer and to secure future orders from the smme party.
Each agent keeps a bookcontaining the name and orders of each
of his customers and-some data as ‘to the amount of trade of
each customer. Such books also go to the office daily. The
bill is very full in details showing how complete a knowledge
each agent has of the customers on his route. The contract
with Petersen contadned the following clauses:
“Party of the second part further agrees that on the termination
of this contract, or upon leaving the employ of the varty of the
first part for any cause, thatche will promptly tuen over to
the party of the first part all books of account, papers, orders
and all other property belonging to said party of the first
part and used in the business of the said party of the first
part.
7 Party of the second part further agrees that he will not
at any time while in the employ of the party of the first part
solicit or take orders from or Jeliver teas, cceffees, baking
‘powder, extracts, spices end cocoa to any of the customers of
the party of the first part, for himself or any other person
or company other than first perty; also that he will not within
@ periofi-of twelve months after leaving, for any cause, the
Bervice of party of the first part, for himself or for any other
person or company, solicit or take orders from or deliver teas,
2
coffees, baking powder, extracts, spices or cocoa, to any of
-
.
the customers of the first party in the territory in which he
,6no0gew Ens esatod svsd etasss etl .mwimerq ¢ ex eatkrad
asdw bos ,ot A10ow ot yrottxred betttseqa seek tudes Hose
aistsr of shsw ef trotts .beisoese meed somo es remote
= e , : TASH 924
-vitsq oemme efit mort aretto sivtui siloeae oft bins‘ rsmoteno ¢
ect .yfish sofito eit ot og oats sxoos ou, -zenoteno
Sas -VESGROS
sebelwond « stelgmoo word gatwode elisteh ai tut xisv ek
tosiinoo sfT ,stuor eid mo eremoteyo eid zo acd a
edt to ytisc st, to yolgqme exit eaivses soa To. tostta09 ati
tak ‘ OBS
ot reve. osut yitqmorg Lf fw Sic ded, <98UG0 yas ros 35d dane
ersbio ,eteqeg ,émvooos to axood fils tisq garit eas Ei) a
eee © Ga
gerit eft to yiasg bise edt to aventeud ont at beew a
be de Bhan ale Mit SS .
ae ‘ :
- 3 “ . 4 } . = : = $3ss%:
toa Ifitw ed tedt seergs isd t1sg Lm0998 eat te woret 28
¢ req sarit et to YtTsq . ond, to velqas oat at of bw Sak xs
aatisd ..pesesttoo eaet tevifeb to moxt e1shro eded to ttotLo’
to atsmotauvo eit t
nosisg tedto yas 10 ifeantd tot req. tert? ods <0. Bet =
midtiw ton [fkw. ed tedt oals ey osag tarlt nedd ‘rerio saber
| =P 3) gee & 4
tedéo.yase tot 10 tleamtd tot ,trsq tert? dt zo viz8q ‘$0 -agives ;
to yas od ~£0909 10 B9olqe sbeawutize tebweg abled wseetto
od dotdw at Yo: inist edt me yd teg terit oat 20 eremot eo
seetes yi{stoegas boas evotgme | @ setts. tert? nt ofa bes
edt to ytteg eit ‘to nensents3 9°44 Git oR
eremotevo att dtiw ao betirso 10 betosanerd won es
on
PR ee ae en ee I ee ee a RS,
[Party of the second part further agrees, aS a condition
precedent, that he will not directly or indirsetly through
himself or others, take away or attemot to divert any of tke
custom, business or patronage of the party of the first part
with its customers in said territory for a period of twelve
months after leaving for any cause, the employ of the party
of the first part.
Party of the Second part further agreed, as a condition
precedent, that he will not engage either for himself or any
other person, persons, or company in the tea and coffee business
nor will he offer for sale any tea, coffee, baking powder,
extracts, spicesm, cocoa or other merchandise during the life
of this contract nor for a period cf twelve months after the
terminatiom of this contract, for any causS, or after leaving
for any cause whether before or after the terminatiom of this
contract, the employ of the first party, in the cities of
Peoria, Lacon, Henry, Chillicothe, Illinois."
The bill chargeg that Petersen had full knowledge of the
customers on the route which he had and on one other route,
and that upon the termination of the contract he entered into
the same business and travelled over these routes and solicited
trade in the same articles with customers of the company, and
sold such customers like merchandise. The bill sought to enjoin
him from violation of the agreement for twelve months from
the termination of his employment, and alleged two grounds of
urisdiction, namely that the company could not have a
> > < A,
3
jadequate remedy at law, because it would be impossible +
[o)
a@scertaim how much trade which belonged to complainant
o
withdrew for his own advantage, and how much trade he had in
(the company's locality, and also because Petersen was insoleantt,
The proof showed that Petersen circulated a business card, in
Which he descttbed himself as formerly manager of the Jewel
2 Company.
aoitibaoo.s es +,48esi3ss tedtavt:tisqubmoose ent ro gerard
dgword+ yltocuthat to yLtesuibh tom Ifiw ed tedd — drebeo:
edt.to.yas trevib: of: temet tse tos yews: sist .@teddo: to Tisemtd
tausq tdsrit edt.te yireq edt, to epsoortsq) tor essmrfend: wodeto
eviewt.to-bhoiteq.s sot viotlats? biseacatcarsmoteto atiid¢in
ytuxsg- sdt. to yolgqme edt , 2859 yas toi gaivsesfoietis atshom
streqotetitedteto
moitiimoo sas ybosiss tedtxwii tisq Haoose edt Yo ytrstilis
yas to.ifsamfd rot. tedtis egsegae -toa iliw 'shiotsdé .tnebeosta
esenitesd esttoo bas set edd ial (yaasqmos 105 .8m0ereqcenoatsa tedto-
~tekwog vaited-,setieo. pset .wtetelse tot retto of Lewes
etif edi saiish setihasdorem -tedte (10 .socds mesoige ,stostixe
edd retits edtcom-eviewt “to -bofisq ssrotc1os tosttaeo ce fR¥ Fo
aqdiveel retts to» ,Seuso yae 10%, tosttmos ‘gids te maiteatmted —
aidt to moiteatmret odé tetts to e@ictsd rsdtenw "seivso “ync “Ket
to asttto edt at .vhisq tani cedd cto! volo sit .tosiinoo
",etomft{l[I ,edtootff{tdd ,yimeH ,noosd .SETOST 7
ond to egbsiwond it bed meetet]es tedt festsi'o itd ‘eit
,89tuor tsdto emo mo bas bel si doidnw etuor isit Mo etemotsve
otal bexetas. ond tosrtaoo edt fo nolbtsniimret ef noo! tsi bose
betioiloe bas setwor, saed+ sove belfevsnt bos sesntatd sose ‘ond
bas ..yascmeo edt to aremotevo, diiw eelobixs: smse sit nt sbert —
atotas, ot ¢dagyoa {lid eft,. .satbnsdo rem exit aremoteavo dove LLoe
mort adtnom oviswt rob taemestTgs adtite motteloty mort mid ©
to ehoavoxrp owt begelis ban .tnemyolqme aif to noitsnimret: ent
ae eved tom.biyoo. ymeqmoo. edt tact (yylomen pno ito tbet ret,
ot sidtesoqmt ed biwow tinsausosd ,welyds ybsmet etsy pebs |
ed tosatsigmoo ot begnofed doidm ebert doibm wodntstzsoes
oa
at ,br2o esenteud se betsivotio meeteted sent bewods: toere
fevel..ed+«%o-veuerenm vitemrot ec tleaemtan beddtoeeb: sa.
| It is contended that the oyder for the issue of a temporary
use the bill did not pray fora
yer for process | The jan Mela ee
injunction was erroneous,
writ of injunction in th i
the following: "May it please your honors to grant unto your
orator the Be pete writ of injunction, to be directed to the
said A. T. Petersen, Breeders enjoining and restraining him
during the pendency of this suit from" (here follow the ietails
of the injunction desired,) "and your orator further prays
that upon the hearing hereof a temporary injunction so issued
shall be made perm@énent." A prayer for process followed.| ¥e—
epiniom that there
—
asa prayer for a writ of temporary
Re
Iti c
injunction after answer d. That depends upon the nature of
eecatiewer , The bill ned @ copy of the contract attached to it
as an exhibit. Defendant answered that it was not a true copy.
He-did not point out in what respect it was not a true copy.
He did not deny but what it was a substantial copy. He did not
~deny that it was a true copy as to any part thereof material
-
_ to this cause.
& tot Yerg tos bir Ifkd ant caudoog~, avoenorie esw notte
Bees tatnos, [Seal set aesootd tot te ett. cee: sa Soe cae
moy otay tasig ot atonod. roy, saselig tL. ysl". +gminoLlf[o%
mid gointsitest bas satatotas. japanese fepistst 4 T 4k
affeteh edt wolfot sired) "mort tive eidi to yomsbhasq ers? x
ByYSs1a usdiii totsto wo0y-bas" +4,bemteeb> ngdteows patred
houest oe noitonyfal. yrstogmes. s tesren: gatasoenicedt genes:
~—s¥ |.bewolfol asecorg 10% asyerg Ajo"«snensmreqyobsacedclf
yrstogmst. to tirws
-txga ect at wud dgergsetsg oomsa &
of
bag agitoau (ns
ae
MS Lot Lobivergnoitoamins 1.8 60%, rebto eT :
esetsidw aay edit. .to Aree Sad ed bevorg ed:
—qs\sd ot jt tuose edt gotiufet ka Aik
I0T
f x
ogy yd bevoxacs _ ton a.sW Loes edd, todd, — wa ao yti
fAsous tosteb sit yLems phe woled. tx1u09; AY
ont: at
a S
to stusso odt soqu. ebaegeb: tseiTs. f%& rewene retts’: nottonu tet | 5
ms bSinsia eved fon Blyode tum Sent.
ti ot bedosits tosittmoeo. odd. to, yaoo:s eat {Iiev ad? | sWENiSeat:
sygos soit ston esw ti +t berewens. tashastsis. tididxsoms es°
ee
-ygoo suit s tom ssw ti toegqeet tedw atitwe taieqeicnabsbzeh>:
-—
| beteninret ssw tf tcdt bos PRS PA $0, ;acebakem Lestsh: be
| | and that he had gone into the same business and sought to trade
with the customers of the company, ot
_—
tion of the portions of ‘Wwe contract aboye quoted. The con-
tract provided that Petersen Nas thereby employed, not only to
take orders for and deliver end etcs but also
"to perform such other duties th rty of the first part
f nim.” The bill
showed that during the term of his employment and after a
may from time to time spec#Ty ani require
conference with the officers in Chicago, his duties were changed
from that of a wagon man and route agent to o’fice duties in
the branch office at Peoria. | Ps ersen contends that that change
- |was an abandonment of this contratt and that /ne was no longer
| bound by it and could enter into the same ttade in Peoria with
the customers of the company at — time After leaving its
employment. We are of opinion that the 1 houage last above
o
quoted from the contract shows that the | change made in his
duties was within the terms of the con eset and that he was
still bound thereby.
contends that the DO
on of this contract and
that on or about May 323, 191
5
then paid by the company to Petersen a
the payment for one week's salary in advance, "the aforesaid
contract of employment of the Jefendant by your orator was then
es er = Ss
and there terminated by mutual agreement." Considering this
ment for the company was eee by utual agreement ath
not that the written confra ct was ayo ogat
|
fo
is an effort to enforce /certain provisions of
j i ; \
and the company iid not mean tg charge that the contract was nee
F
in force and not binding upon Petersen, but exactly the contrary.
-,
sbhsrt ot tdgyes fas » agenteud AMAR (sad otnt qno5 bed od se
9 Et
=sloin-ercecw dcfitw To tie \xasqmo: OF oh PLP OR EP Sat. sii
=109 oil »,botoup ange Sostinoy 9pf +0 edo fhtog , eat to,
oteyiao tom ,<bsyolame _caussté 2gW aearetst tes hektvorg to
ie
obis-tud. «ots pasot 1D bas usvileb ins (tot. arebro.exe!
ry
trsq tdartiteedt to yvhipé oct ebvesttut usdto dove mri reasgtt
Poe.
—4
EGid scT |" emid te etiups: bas Te emtt ot omit mor em
s-1stts bas taemyolgme atid to mist sat oq tush. FORt garedg
besasdo sisw ceitub eid ,ogsoidd af eisofitto edt dtin eons te im09
st esiish sotto of daegs .atuor bas asm. sogew. s te tedd mort
exrnedo-tedt-tsedd abastmoo. mesxe et {astzoo% ts cottio donard ad
tegaoi om esw ed tedt bas tgentans gidt, to. taompobasds. S8uP AEs
ditim eitesd.at ebsit, emes odé otnt iustme blyoo bas tt ydbewod |
ati entvest sotha omit / /yns ds Ymsgmoo. sit. to, arsmoteyo.edd |
evode desl egsugtel of tect aoisige to ste oF sranyotane |
etd at ebsem ounsco \ of ésdt ewode tosrtaoo edt, mort. Betoun
ssw sd: ted? bose tostyaoe edi, to ented ont aiddty. FEM seu |
/
noitelleonso serit cease it add, tedt abastnoo
to Bevetler ydewetl® at shibas dosrutmos aids. to fofe
é... Te
og olls rotdeemmomi, ilid edt to dqanyersg. Sd), \..
4 08
tak ee
£9
® to foltersbtenco ai .glel .§& yell tuads- to Rei.
ae mid yo hetqooos bas. nsexrotsd, ot NANI
bisestotse oct" eomsvbs of yielse, alisew 270, 2h TES haa g
aedd esw totseto ak yd tasbasieh alt to taemyofqms to. tosrtnoo |
pidt satiebLenoed reget isutum yd bedgentmist.
-efis redito ott i dAdbiw agttgaeee rol apy ie Ow To ect to dqsigetea
~yolqme: ; btpoeretet ee ancag tt “testd\ ae ot .rs9 Lo. et gf .amotd,
Z
bits ¢asmeetgs Lauty Es betes sine asw Yasgmoo edt Bice %
yk
tfic eritae edt. be eae Bsw tosttaea metttow .sdt todd te
/ vs
ZL testtnos tect to emotaivo aiStre9\eor0 ise ot elit? tial 16
/ '. ‘ a
toa sw foaxtnes edy teit egisdo ot asem ¢ ton tb yacomog
——
‘The answer aenieg that the employment was so terminated and
teclareq that Petersen was discharged, and that under another
clause of the contract he was mxkikkiez then entitled to thirty
days additional pay and iid not receive it, and therefore the
company broke the contract andoc eent to equitable rbghis
under it. It : not appear that he ever claimed any additional
‘compensatiom or expected that he would be paid anything further |
and we are of opinicn *
t th¢ company is not prechuded from
enforcing the provisions her elied upon by the fact that it
has not paid Petersen something which he has not asked for.
ral
tersen suggest that if we do not reverse this
| Counsel for f
d
_jorder, the temporary Ynjunction will provably remain in force
till May 23, 1916, and She company will thereby have all the
benefit of a final decree in ite favor. It is equally true that
| the denial of a temporary a a el on would practicaliy preclude
the company from any equisdle weliet. Upon the admissions
of the answer and the shéwing aad tn the affidavits offered
y the defendant, as well as by he ‘gouplainant, we are clearly
f the opinion that Petersen is violating his contract and
that he should be Pentuaines from so ioing, because it is manis
fest that the damages which such violation wii inflict upon
the company will be practically impossible éf ucertainnens.
The order is affirmed.
Niehaus, J. tock no part.
_—
bas betaentimres oa vowi¢nomyotane sult, tedt hotaeb 3 rsWens
Pome
t
tedjeas tebau tect bos \besgrsdoeib.asw- aeeisted. pA sf
yiiind > ot beltitns cent Baktitzs. cow. od tosrimoo. eo, to on
eft erotorent, bre! ati a tom Olt. bas: yseq PSOE TES
atdodtr sidstivupe on stnecies ing bas tositno9 fit, sioid yas
fsnoffibhs yas bemislo reve: of ted? t8eqqe toa . Dd
\ \ redéardt anidivas Bisq sd ehigoew of tedd. uaruaaea | sto molteess 2¢q a0:
bij os
+
wv
sotaigo to ais ow b
Ae
mort bsbhudoorg tém ab oyasqmog es $5 the
Bidt setever’ fom obcew aé ‘tedd tasgaue ; Tearog "1. x0%-f feenuod
ge a
coasted: eat)
$0402 nt ntemor yidsdorqg: iw aoisoay (ai yIstognet ods «ebro |
Pe
efteLibe sved ydortedd.ifiwyasamoo odd. bos ,Ofel .6& vst. Lite)
tedt ebxt yfLeuperetid] sssovet.eté ct a est99b fectt s. to, suteaeg :
ebulositq Yolsoitostq blow ec tay a Yzstogmst S to Ealaeb, 23
iSaYO
io Fee thar ont: ogU : Heiler edb taps, NS. moxt er samos. 3s
beretto etivebiits dt at bes patnode sit ins tewens odd,
an S2UE | i
yitselfo.srs ow tasaislquog edd yd es L1Sy eS. tashas Tok paues
ie OS
Eas tosttaods aid 3 teLlotv ai meatstst tent gotmtgo . edt td
~ ee
einem af ti “savsoed J§atok 08 mort boatertass od £ivoda sd ‘ted
Se LOS =
ee
oa tor lta Lloe toltsloiv dove dotdw egpsmsb - edt tedt ia
staommict a6one! toreldisaogms yilsoitostg ad, tL iw yasqmog oat
-
2 dT res
ebemritisvelasehio, ed {bieq meds
sTISQ. of Loot. ab. eussiont
STATE OF ILLINOIS, yan
SECOND DISTRICT. (ieee
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOFP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of- ==
thousand nine hundred and
in the year of our Lord one
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
y
statlodg & wit to dselD xanud OH autoTeLatEe) it)
ebsoooH odd to saqeesl bas toatl to adele onli, 10 tomaeiAl hooree bine
edt to noigiqo adi to yqoo airtt 8 BL emiogotal odd gorlt YARRA VOTH ve
Maia
sotto yor at: Brose ta ry Holsiina ovodgs arly ied
odd «fits iis bois dower toe ofmuarierl I soma nv egounnea ah
ho pitdd wrwattO ds itu Arua bine ald ir ti
} Sabi pro. 400 te 189% odd aly BATH st cata, HIS ve Mee
ai)
TORE (LAA, BERGAR RPPUUR ve. sea baw, bogbaud an
Ae oe Wile
Pitas chee id neh
i ony ee vian
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Befun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
‘6p M
! CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, clerk.’ 20) G | A. | 7 me
H. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
ue
BE IT REMEMBERED , that afterwards, to-wit: on
FFB8 1916 ¢ the opinion of the Court was) filed in
the Clerk’s office’ of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
-TaUOD TAGISa9 | aa
a ae
wt
:eiagilll t6 adsth edt 1 dotniaid ‘apose adt LOT? one’
.oolterl aa ibieot4
9okde cot , BIH it auANG 108”
.eoitant -QUAHEIN Mu WHOL - 108 te
YTIUG 9 sauabTaraHo
am
-Vitrede ,21VAd ate ce
|
(
{,
American Steel & Copper Plate Co.
. ppellee.
Vs Acopeal from DuPage.
H. H. Bilter, et al appellants.
Carnes, J.
| On Bat aa, 1913, H. H. Bilter , his wife and two sons,
hg nats
Raymond R. Bilter and H. C. Bilter, the peut ‘geneiiees, Were
living as one family in a residencs owned by H. H. Bilter in
Elmhurst, DuPacs County, Illinois. He 2lso owned = farm of about
295 aores in oy, Same county and was indebted to oarties other
vd bts t f
than aspeilse in amounts agzrezating $34,550.00. On that date
A in fle re 4 ZL
sumone was served upon him aa 3 common law suit by the seeeticee,
\
American Steel and Cooper Plate Company. Four days thereafter
for an expressed consideration of one dollar he conveyed, his
wife joining with him, ail said real eatate to said two gond by
deed shat wae duly recorded. Tne common law suit brought by ap
1 a ae
petiee, Sant owtad Octocer 15, 19135, in a judgment acainst him
of 8443.32. Execution issued thereén, and he filed @ schedule of
~
his personal property shcwing a valuation of less than his exemp
tions of -~400.00. ae execution was levied on 211 the real estate
f
BO conveyed and gooekiee ‘tied its bill in equity in this case in
aid of “he exscution. Ixsue
Go
were joined, the cause referred
to the master in chancery who reported the evidence with his
conclusion that the prayer of *he bill be granted. Objections
and exceotions to the master's report wer
«dD
"lled and overruled,
and a decree entered setting aside the conveyance and subjecting
Methe property to the lien and payment of the judgment and executi
A p72
pron which decree this a peal tr prosecut
bs
cD
Qs
°
si
The svidence iueetud the real consideration
fyance was an agreement in writing by the zrantees to assume and
=
.00 eteld reqqod % Iosi2 89
-gellecase %
eenetIud mort LeeqgAé . av ;
f G1), ae ey
-etaslleqce Is te ete
,amoa owt bos ottw eid , tedlid .H .H ,S1@L .88
fs J.
Re Siesta
exew .westeesce wot edd ,tedLiG .D .H be tesla .f
mi tedits .A .H yd benawo eonehtest a at yiimst Tete) es priv
tuods oa meet e Deawo oels oH satemttil phawed cooked
testo eotttec ot betdstai esw bare ytovoo emse ae at ‘poxos
ie
etch tec it mO .00.028,859 gaiscvergzs COMME
¥. nt
‘nll
.secieane, edt yd ¢ive wel sommoo 6 ax mid mogu bevies sew
sottestadt ayeb tot .yaegmod ateld 19q¢,00 brs LosiB tte
gid sHayevaoy ed teallob sno to notterebtenoo beasezaxe. a6
yo Boos owt bica ot atetee fas btee Ife mid Ad iw gatatog ©
——@e YO tiguord tive wal rrommoo “edt -bebrocer qiub Baw tadt,
mid tenteve . tosmgout 8 at «elel ib xedoto00 een
to elwbsrios © beLti od bis .mberent beset aoldvoex LE
=-gmexs etd medi aael- to noiteulev @ galwode vtredong saneueean
states Leer oft fie mo betvol aaw notsupexe eit .00. 2005. Bb)
\ mi sesso eidt at viiupe ot iLiad. etl Sncht eeree Has, _beyevi
Hhettetert saveo att bsalo( sisw eeuect mo ttugexe ed? |
etd dtiw eonsiive eit bettoge: odw yreonedo ‘at retenn
saottoe{dO »betnexrg ed Lild sd? to reyerq odd ted ao.
«Motiuoexe bos taemabut edt to ‘taemyeq baw ey. etd ot yite
AY ; Ny ne:
~ epaaetennns Se Sanit gee 28
pay the before mentioned indebtedness of their father to parties
= Rarer
other ae RELL, that the grantees understood that the transfer
covered all the real est:
pe)
ite and personal property cf their fath
¢ tt7
jp—~a te oe os
Evidence was introduced by zepeite? as to the varket value of
/)
‘
the real estate from which the master found that at the time of
the tranefer the fair cash value of ‘he residence in Flmhurst
was $6,000.00 and of the farm $45,005.00 making an azcregate of
$51,415.08. Appeiisss evidence—supported the- finding, ery A
4h ro.
evidence to the contrary was introduced exce pt it was shown,
Bubjcct to objection, that the assessed -aelan of the voroperty
for purposes of gensral taxation was isss than the amount agreed
by the grantees to be paid for it, and the grantees testified
that at the time of “he Szansagkxon transfer tucy arrived at
‘the value of ths property by a computation as to its net revenue,
and the result was about the amount they agreed to pay for it.
The pr oferty had a market values. -E¥idence-18—t0_—ths—aepesped
| valuation waa incomoetent and imnatoriql (Lewis v Inglewood
|
Elevator BYR. Co. 623, Tll. 223; Ke lly v\People! e Nat'l. Fire
\
Ins. Co. 181 a Anp. 142.) Neither can market value be ascer-
ind
tained by philosophical computations of what droperty ought to
%
nm
te
be worth on # basia of revenue. Even on the question of intrinsic
4 Bs
Value net revenue is ‘only one of 36¥6ered-consid=ratirons. The
master concluded that the amount agreed to be paid by the
Was about 45 per cent of the value of the property.| A-seliants—
P ; ae
ingeniously argue that the evidence does not satisfactorily lead
to that conclusion. It \may bs, had they seen fit to introduce
Sompetent evidence as to the sarket value cf the cronperty, it
Would have anpesred that the grantees were azreeing to pay fifty
ive per cent of its value. The exact -er cent is not very
©
Ps
Hare
on
Mpcortant here and quite likely for *nat reason appellants
jot so further into the matter. There iano question but that
fair investication would have resulted ‘in a showing that as
‘) aa a ‘. 4 - s 4 es a
&
2
<a
k
gy
seitrss o¢ zedtet stedt to esaenbstdebni sami ape stoted edt '
— ARs
astenstt sdt tedt Sootarsbay asetaars edt tent jeelise-s anette
-tesdtset risdt to ytresqord canoenett bre otedes eer exff ie be
=) dutch Sh.
to eulsv tsx1sr sdt ot es rer: xo bsoubortal esw somes
to emit ed+ ts teadt bavot Terese act do idw mort efetes Leer > cit
tewdmli mi somsbieer sd’ to eulev dees 1ist ‘edt rotdaard Ye
—
oi}
to etegetsre ce pattem 00.009,62$ mrst edd to bas 08.000,.8) a¢
aus a ’
on bac ,gaibali od? -petroqqe—soretive seelisgian “0.
Se rh n
,Mwode sav tt tieoxs beoubotink ecw Ytertnoo sdf or? * sont
ytregors edt to he thakind bseacces edt fect} wtotto (de at feet
bsstge tovome edi osdt eset esw moffexet Letsaez to ‘eeeeg rg
ah
bettifes? esstnstt edt bas ft 10% bleq sd of ceotaets = oe
ts bevitre yet rstenccd aaitexennakt 9% to ‘enti edd ts”
~eumevet tea ett of ee nottetiquoo & Yd ydrsdord edt 16 eet
«tf tot yeq oc bestzsa yor FauOms edi? tyods esw danke” ot
bedeamen-sls- 92 e2-Sench lve. sed Lev yétrem 2° 65d ~ ve
~ Boowelgat v elwsd) iste: temrt + bine” ‘tnsteqmooai iW ) -
61it .L'tsi a "eLqoaV/¥ ies té86 oErne é&& 700 st Lt ‘to!
“is0es Sd euLev Heixee MEO ‘xadtd tent’ (.s3L5° iaha* de? ‘fet 100
ot Fifguo ei reqore tastir to edeltatuqmoes TSO taaoeoczai ca
“otentatat to notienp ext fo 0 «meve /OUMSyS1 to Waa
edT .emettéretiemoc-ieuevee to eno vino’ et rer: ‘ihe r
asesnany edt sc phape ed ot ‘espa “towome ent edt + seburbiob' t
eoubottat*ot +£3 asse yort ben ,ed Yam . “$1 Por
ti .ytrsqotc sdt+ to eulev dexze ut 08 65 abebae Heke
yetit yeqg of galsstze Stew abet 6. + seit “ borseas ew t
yzev ton et tnes 19° Fs eRe “ent ‘sbyev ett ¥ be ,
oth siaellescce moezet tiie ro ylextt 8 typ bhe ens: > oti
ted? tua abzewale on i erent setten aud a tot
ene wea are seat: eke od oe
a
— ~~
ximately half the-warket value ofthe property it-was a
to Sop
| voluntary
\ me grantees testified they did not, at the time of the
PCO Fee,
7
tranefer, know of their father's indebtednese to assehHe @ and
ae . ; a ; . ,
there direct evidence that they did then know of it, i
t rside “the ‘Telstion of the varties and the arvsrent-
a“
purcose to transfer all the\fathef's vroperty to his sons on
their a suming all his debts \¢xcept whatever might be found due
from him to appellee, it is ig credulity to believe that
the grantees had no knowledge or nXtiice that there was a suit
p Sading-by-appeties—against. their father. The+trenesetion-amounted
[to an assignment for the\ benefit of all creditors except apsellee
~| with a voluntary gift over to th- assignees at about half the
| markst value of the property \asadened, The parties continued
7 =
to live together under an arranzsment, they>rsay, that the
yr his ovoard. It-is-+enifest
—
oO
father should work for thse granitses f
| that it would be much against equity and good conscience to permit
\
ér
jot
| aopellee to vé in this way. defeated in the collection of what
| ,
we must regard a just debt, add we do not think
should have presented
\
1ere is any
ck
rule of law or equity that he chancellor
fe
from entering the decree which a commen sense of justice demanded.
It is argued by apcéllants that the grant:
Q
@
e8 paid a consid-e
eration for the land; \ that the fact of relationship gives rise
to no presumption of law against the good faith of the sale,
and that as a rule to renier a sale fraudulemt as to creditors
of the vendor there must be\mutuality of anticipation in the
fraudulent intent on the part of both the vendor and the purchaser,
_ and that the burden of proving the conveyance fraudulent was on
appellee. These propositions cf law are supported
It is true thet a cceditor in feiling circumstances may deal with
his relatives, and if there are no indications of fraud no
presumption arises rom the relationship. Schroeder v Waish
i
~ a
rf ‘gew-tt xekbab eg eat Xo” eulev reste ent ‘Seed stontxg
i { Bees bd: net Bikes
“eon avir0
ait £caR
edt’ to Smid oid te ton Hib yedt bettitess ‘sestaerg
SY anh 4 aoe
bos: leettsesa 6s esenbosdebat' et rents? tisdd ‘to one «rst
Pers EY S|
Sdeaaes to ‘woad aedt BEB yatt “tact ebasbive. *dosakb on et
aor ts hires
tnretscges Sit hte de tdtag sdt-to- agit, selina lersiee™ 2TISS-
eo 000%
ad .eade aid ot: vite qord ‘eM pedtet eft Ife Fe enESt ate
Nat “FF ‘Moe teaas ot oe
tive @ sew even? ted rere to ‘egbotwons on bed spatese x
Ay ou Ty seeog
eit Scents ‘Heit “teas ge—90-L qT Ye
inéty
eollects tasbxe’ erotiber [1a to HtTsked/4 ede tor “Yoommglees:
4 bf ead, Ta" ad
ents Maer: trode ts ascigtoee ch" 54 48¥0 3 Fits ‘vrstaulov a.
scot 46 oubE
beuntinoo e6itteq* sit rbengeass’ ebtsboag tdi lo sulev
cet |
fedd-tedd Oyyseryedt thomesherne” me Tebay ‘redtegot ev
NRE: 6 ame 4 be
- teetinemst th) ibasdd! "ert-t6t eeSdasig: odd 10% ‘troW Siuoag | |
timzeq ot eu8é2Gando ‘pea bag’ ‘gd Eipe ‘tenhaye foum ‘ed “ple ey
‘ Pe: ea
tedwetd” aoffesifod'edt” at \weddotb xen e etd af ed of ef
rtp fet £
eat @redt Was Fok! Ob ow - ‘bids F880 fext r breget tae
wel he
tolisonsio edt wetnersty ever hid “fed “iftupe ery Wel
-hebramned ecttsyti Yo eenee aoHinee e do fdW eetoeh™ ‘edd yatrotn
Fath % cy Tech ey ee) leh
~bienmo! 2 Stuy Seerrere’ ene tens evnel tease yo beugts et ar “it
,eeit eevin gtfenottels tr lo test ont Yan” bast edt sat nol
5 ee +uod
,,else ont To Htlet boos ene’ tentege wal to aoticavaeng | ‘4
ee oy yia: .
axotibexs ot as me rebeet ®” oie ‘* LKo8t of elu | es tec:
: edt mt notteqtotin& ts eeiteutol ‘of Racin’ exe) aobuey
* (TeeEKomdg, adt° bane tObmev ett *dtod te? ‘grag eit m0 ae
a | tO aasw treiubusrt seneysvios ‘ea gadvorg 9 vaobuid: ry
a sytinodiue’ yd! aden ners ets wat con ms ltteseore td
to dian f
‘ont ‘bust? Ro shales ote et “ich Wid P
MY hae
120 Ill. 403-is cited in support of that proposition. But the
court said in that case that relationship may excits suspicion
and may be considered with other evidence tending to impeach the
transaction. Perhaos the rule is that if the transaction with
a relative is one that might naturally os presumed if the relae@
tion had not existed, then the fact of relationship does not
matter. In the cresent case it cannot be reasonably presumed,the
conveyance would have oveen sad® on thoss terms to one not a
relative. The inadequacy cf the consideration forbids any such
conclusion, and is of itself a strong indication of fraud.
It is said in 30 Cyc 441 = "Inadeguacy of consideration is a
fact ca:ling for explanation, and therefore a badge of fraud
especially when such inadequacy is gross." This text is supposed
by numerous authorities of Illinois and other states, and is a
correct expression of law. It does not matter whether we say
fraud in fact or:freud in law, and it may be doubted whether the
.0)
fact that either or voth of the parties were ignorant of this
debt would be controlling. If the actual consideration had deen
\the one dollar expresaed in the dced, and the grantees had known
71 of none of the indebtedness of their father, the conveyance, of
——a
|
|
|
course, could not have stood azainst such creditors, and there
is no equitable reason why it should stand aeainsat sonellee in
this case even if it had been true that the father and hig sons
|
(all forzot about the debt at the time the transfer was made.
It aopeared that the grantees had paid some of the indeb=
| tedness that they assumed in purchasing the proverty, and it is
| | sugzested by appellants tat they ought to have been vrotected
Os
by the decree as to such payments. The answer igs that th
@
©
y agke
no protection from the court. We need not here determine whether
ap
they would be entitled to any.
The decree ie affirmed.
Affirmed.
ert Terlterw betdyob.ed yen ti bas wel at bustiy 10 fost ai bis
motofgqeaue ettoxs yem gidenotiels1 ted? S860 yedt at bhee
pad) rape & ?
edt dossqmi-ot galbnet sonsbivse isdto adiv bexebtenes oa? ce
diive gottoranstt ed¢t.2i tact aft, elur edt eqedred mottos
~Sfier, 60+ tf bemusetq ed yllewisa sigin teat 600° st evide.
ton esob gqidanottels: ic. to2et sat. asdt hetelxp dont bat
TOS
oc? benysery yvidsencaset ed. tonnes, iL. 9629 tnowerg edt al
& tom emo ot emirat.csods mo SBs masd eved Divow someyer
mV Sw S Ae Ai 4 wit itG > a
dove yMe ebidte? moitetsbianos edt to Yosupsbent sAT ovis
ot mit
‘sbustt te moitestbat gmorte £ tleatl lo ei ae trot ess
& 2 Se OSE
Bel moitetebilasoo to.yoeursbenI" .- Leb ov), og at jh e.
Sustt= -tovegbsd £ s1otstedt bas, .moitsasiqxe tot gatliso 3
> (L288 a
LOY & By
& ef bre sant ety tsdto bone alomitit to eofSlrodive avorsma ¥
“ tS +4
Yse sw teri tery rotten tom asob tI wel to potespeare’ bhatt —
beaogdie et txed eidT .".seotg ef yosupsbeni hove nedw Yiletos
e iift to tnetomgt sxew asitisg eit to dtod 10 sedi te sed to.
‘ 1 ¢
ased Sed noltetehtenoo Ieutos sat. t1 _agaLlortaos od | biuow |
betoetoto nesd eved ot tdguo. vend, teat _ntneL Leage ‘Gt bets
Sexec ysrt dais ef sewene 30T .stasuysg douse ot Bf eeroel
reitedw ectmietes ered ton been oY «tao et Ba Moito:
86
2e8en
| yee ete ioty? SR, of bestitme os bs
fibtiut dy exe” Ras ke bap hl “ncaa
As BS we
STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1 ..
SECOND DISTRICT. (oe I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, po HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of _ in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
stalleqg As Ri
abc oH eld to - raqganal , ae pate to oisl@ an se pin haogee oe
odd to aoitsiqo ait te yqoo oad @ ad gaiogero! exld deel é YUITHAD aaa oa
' solfto qatt ‘ti boost Yo ,seuno baltitne ovods aif int Hin0s
edd zie bas, head yor Joe otungsed: I mOga ynowmasT val | ;
a eidd 2waettO a 10D eg a bine ou To lesa
LS int
610 Dot Hote anoy add ct
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of T1lVinows:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.) |
c=)
fom
ae a
j
>)
A
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
Ei M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
the opinion of the Courtswas filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
itgastoo to ysb ati ts: i cusbeuu? ‘nO “ppyatto te bro
,Ao027}8 bas herby uu oui fn baseuedt e790 bred 0 9 103
:gboci bit to ated ass 6; igitdel G baovee ot 10% bse a
-Soitscotb ‘apibieert jaeta rouaagod “Aon edts:
| voontant /BHNBAD .t HAUT “90H
Ci.aot aut | GUARET. MMOL. pO
ae i
a)
%,
va
“itelo .Y8tua’.o amproraraio
wrvade jatvad™ Mole
|
|
|
Gen. No. 6132.
Ralph Jéster, appellant.
ve Apoeal from Peoria.
David S. Lee, appellee
Carnes, Je
Acpellant, Ralph Jester, claimed Bhat at the request of
David S. Lee, \the appellee, he erooured a Rurchaser of 2 businéss
property of appaéllee's in the aol ‘of a and was entitled
to $777.50 commis cae and Drought this suit \ to recover that a-
mounte <A trial — he couna without 2 jury Bee &® judg-
\
ment for the defendant, trom which this acpeal ia \taten.
y te property in question was in September 1911, occupied by
the Minnesota Threshing Machine Company as a tenant of Lee, and
by the Hart Foundry Company, a sub-tenant. Jester was not a real
estate agent, but was manager of the Psoria branch of the Thresh-
ing Machine Company and in charge of their business there. Som-
questionarese as to the use and repaiz of the building. Jeater
and Lee discussed that matter on September 61 or 66, 1911. Tn
their testimony tiucy agredd a8 to what was said at that meeting
and aiffer’Snly ag to the date whether the slst. or 33nd. In this
talk Lee sugzested that the Threshing Machine Comoany ought to
buy the property, and Jester replied that he did not think they
would buy it but that he intended to visit the factory at
Minneapolis soon and he would asuszest the matter to them. Les,
either at that conference or thereafter on that day - it is not
Material which, wrote on a slip of paper the figures $43,500.00 )
and handed it to Jester mwa as his price for the property.
Jester afterwards went to Minneapolia and saw the officergs of his
@
company and learned that it would not buy the prccerty. He
testifiei that he sot back from Minneapolis September 27, and
thinking that the Hart Company might buy the prorerty, he svoke
to Stacy B. Hart, an officer of that company, about it; that ]
eaeltosT mott Leecaé av
\
eddatend to Teeedorw fs Sequoorg Sif ,ellecoe edt/, get «2 bived
“J
\ to tesupsr sit te tedg eamtece ,.tetest dglet roghe
beldttas aew brs fotr099 to yite edd at eleeliéaga to uiregorg
-s tect ere Q3 tine etdé tiger bas aint eimmoo Oc. SG ia
~giuf s ah, aan Yivt «s tuond bw “hawoc od
ae | “ees ALGL redmetge? af eaw noltaeup at ere
bre .eed to tascet 2 86 yreqmod entdogM gotdeetiT stoaenntM ¢
feet & ton é6sw teteolL .dagnet-dve 2 yasqmed yrbavet tx edt
-destdT eft to donsxd sizoel edt to tegsnem eaw tud ,taege tet
‘ ang8 .otedt asentaud stadd to narane nt bre Yosqmod said .
§ 7 tetastl .gotoitud edi to siacet bas eeu ect. ot Gs evonhot
bt a .[f@L .S8 10 £8 sedmetqes? mo rettem dedd beeswoeth esd
on anlseem tect te btee sew tadw ‘od as perso yond yoomitest
* etdt at Mt tea ree edt tedtedw oe ah edt of ee isi hen
we Pd tigue yneguod entdogil gutdeerdT ent. dautt betaccque eed
ag vont anids ton bit fi ted? ostiges Tedeel bee .¥dteqorc oft
ot ts ale da Ay tiety of. bebnotnt ed tad? tod th we
esl . mers od tetien adt teacuve heraw: eff bie moos stloges
ton ai ti ~ ysb tedt no tetteeredt 10 sonets ino9 teit te
(004008 804 eestugit edt teqsq to qila os no eto ,dotdw Ls
-Ytrtsqgexq edt tot cotta eid en ee tetest.ot tt beba
aid to exeoltto edt wee foc ehloqesnniM ot toew sbhtewastis te:
oH .ytteqciq edt yd ton bivow tt tedt bearest b
bne .1S xedmetqed eLfoqesnatif mort toed tos ont adit
stoqe od WWiregorta out yd ¢ifgtm yoequne tulle
afterwards about September 30 he saw Leé and told him that he
thought he could find a purchaser for the property and Lee
said all right, if ne could he would pay him what was right;
that he then told Lee he thought the Hart Company would buy it
las they could make arrangements to corrow the money, and Lee said
a2 right; that he gave Hart the piece of paper Lee had handed
‘him with the price marked on it and had various conversations
| with Hart about it, and some conversations with Walter Wilde,
ae was acting in behalf of the Hart Company in the matter, and
| talked with Lee about it several times, and that the transacticns
{ended in the Hart Company obteining a loan of Proctor Eniowment
land punchasing tie property. It is true that the Hart Company
did bug it. The deed of conveyance and its acknowledgment bears
date October 30, 1911. At the time of the trial Stacy E. Hart
|
was dead. Walter Wilde testified that Hart called his attention
| to the matter of the purchase of the property and handed him the
| slip of paper with the memorandum of price on it; thet he went
|
to see Lee and told him he understood the property was for sale
for &
ci
at the price named, and asked if they could have credi
part of the purchase orice if they bought it. Lee ssid no,
he wanted to use the money, but that he would sell to them at
the same price he had made to the Threshing Company. Whereupon
7 2 EEE
Wilde asplied for and obtained a loan from the Proctor Endowment
and the trade was consummated. Wilde, testifying for plaintiff
Bays he does not remember having any conversation with Jester
about it, but that he sot his information with the piece of
Paper from Hart and understood Hart had been talking with Jester;
he See aot certain when he sot this piece of paper from Hart but
Be cones date. consistent with Jester's statement that hse gav
©
OQ
the piece of paper to Hart and interested Hart in the matter a
Hy
ter
he, Jester, returned from Minneapolis September 37, and st about
the time when he sage. ine agreed to pay him if he found 4 pure
ed tsdt mid blot base eal was ea 0¢ tedmetqe? jwode: ebrewred Be :,
; ; eoJ fos ytreqoraq sdi tot teesiowg, & batt, bluog. ed. tdguods
3 itdgit esw tegw mid Yeq, blvow sf biwyoo of Tt .tdgta Lie biee
; $i yud. bivow yarqmod dish edt tdguodt od, ged plot asdt- ed: tent
Hise sod Ore ,yemom eit worred of stnemeznerte exem Biyoo. yedd.
bebned bed ead, regeg Yo seetg eit, tue. eves, ed, tedt. gtdgla .
encittsersvmeo evoitsey bed bos tt wo. befzem eotte edt, dttwy ml
,ehllW sotle¥ dijw enottserevaoo emos) bas »,¢t tuode fuel dtiw
bue atedtem edd at! qasqued #3gB, edi. 30 tMaded. my gattoes een 0
acoitosensid edd dedd bag ,semtd fateyee tf tuods, ped: ditiv, Someel
'
+
tasmrofhags teotoor’: to seol: &. aieintleinaah Hanae be
greed ¢noemebelwontos at iy daw sonexersee he: beeb. dT: sae
taka dl. yostBodetat. oct» to emdt, odd dbews Li@L iG saree.
. ed¢ mid. beboasd bue. vtseaora. est, ton eeedore Ot» ZOD olaall
ae dite so dant. 4d ao eotxc: te mbmetomen, edt: atin. seqeq to "
A aap. Zot. BAY ytaegorg, eas, bootexsbaw;» ad mid» biod bas sed.
i xO Mbeso orsd bisoo) Yet 21 berlse, foe, bowen coisa
ef a
+. hom Stee god Patt tdgued yer? tL, sekre OBB OEpD ent), Thi
te mect et, Biba biuow. 2c. tedt. dud: yomem eit semod bate:
gil
aoovetsdy “egaaqmed’ urtdeondT ‘ent od open. bed, wiles
toenwobad togvcort) edt: mort kolo en healed do: bos to. be Nace a
Mitokele toh godytitest .ebitF, »-hedemmenos sen. abest- 6
‘tetesL ditw nogteetevaos) ye. galiveds tedmeme x tom eeok « , A
to everg edt d¢tn aodtenrolatiatd eta le,
tetie tetvam eddy ate tab Ssteoxsiat bagod tek ote
deme te byoes ca FB todmetaee siLogwenatk. mod, be
Chaser; but Wilde neo that he made the application for the loan
to the Proctor Endowment after talking with Lee and after knowing
that they could have the oroperty if they ~rocured the loan.
Lee, after stating his first interview vith Jester, and
his offer to sell the property for $43,500.00 to Jester's
company, aap that he never made any other proposition to Jeater
about seiling the property cr finding a purchaser for it; that
Wilde came to him the day after his, Lee's, rirst talk with Jester
and inguired about tne property. Lse state the conversation sub-
stantially aa Wilde did; saya that he suggested to Wilde that
a ican could be procured of the Proctor Endowment; that the mat-
ter was taken up and proceeded to the sale; that Jester never
said anything to nim about the Hart purchase until October 10
when he came into his office snd said sorgthing to him avout the
Hart
eing about ready to make a contract for the property
4
Oo
@
on
ople
that he made no answer whatever to the suzscestion, and that was
the oniy time that Jester said anything to him about the sale
of the property except what was first said about the Threahing
LA cy to
Machine Company buying it. Fach cf the Sees te corroborated
s * . = eo . > :
to some extent in his testimony. There #8 ,a sharp and ijirtzct
| conflict on the question whether the Hart Company wére moved by
co
Jester after his return from Mirneapolis on September 37 to pur-
chase the property, or whether they took up the matter with Lee
and had it practically arranged before Jsater got vack from
Minneapolis, and oefre Jester himself claimé’\he had any au-
thority to ac$ for Lee except to carry a mesagage to his own
awe
company of Lee's price on the orcoperty. There 4 2ls0 a dir ct
conflictbatween Lee and Jester whether at any time Lee authorized
Jester to find a purchaser for the property and offered to pay him
for it. Under the ssaleg ad or the variious.-witnesses and their
»
statements of dates as they recollect them\it might perhaps
% 1 \ s. / . 4 4
have been found that Jéster's statement was sustained by the
neoLied? tet!imotteotiqge edt ebem eH ted | eer tud preess
goiwomastis bre eed diiw gaidlet vette’ teemvobsl roteort’ ss
saeol edt betwoors yedt Bhoydtecoro sc? evd Blsod yes Hew
bie <tetest tiv weiviedat seriPetd’ gaitete tette” {eer ‘—
afrctgetcot 00,008, 88% tot ytieqote edt Ife of enti: ry
veteeL, ot mottisoqorg tedito Yoe eben tsv6n |d manera
a,
_tadd: gttoro? reeedotuq 8 gotbakt to yoseqorg edt SatLt ‘oa)
metesh dtin Aled terit ,e'oed etd rette yeb eit midoot omso sore .
-due noitdsatevnoo sit Rotate eed .ytiogqoirq eas tuodse ‘sortophtte
todd sbiiW ot beteanggwes sn itedd: jeyes jotocesi nw: es" lintdadda
stam enditseds opinemmobad tot oott sit ito hbemwoorg: ed bluoc Care
seven xeteot tedd. pelea srt ot bebsso0td bas qu) severe ‘een kee
OL wedotod Litany easdowg t1aH-edt tuodaomtd' od gnidt qits Bide
edt tuods mid of gaidtamoe bisa baa edilie gid otmt -ense ee ;
\ Weweqorg eft rotstosriaoe 6 sxen és ySast teods gated eflgesg een
Sew tedd bas molteosgus edd ot: sevededw ewes ‘oft: ‘aban Mle
a
efee edd guodse mid ot gatdtyme bites iustest sadt “ette? tine eat
ieageoaie edt tued2 Bisse tert? saw isdw tqeoxs etx egédc' paid
betarcdieess ap aeitiag edt to dows. ti gatyoyasymed eke
foot hi bose ‘qi6s: drt ja ‘oredT § .ynomivest ‘eid WP’ tisixe ondé %6t
Yd ‘bovom exw YasqmodotusH “edt reritedv woitesup edd ao “tonttiee |
-twq of TS redmetqe? no ellodssaciM mor? aiuiter a ld-red fe" aetest
‘esl dtiw -twstten edt qu doot yedt tedtedw 10>». ¥da egOrg out “Seale
wort aosd tog «usteslL sioted begnerre yiicottestg ti ‘bel
| aa ‘tisentd tevesh en tsd bre |
~—us Yoe bed od’
nwo aid ot @yaseom ie Yuteo ot tgeoxe sed rot foe of VF.
S
eens ON
—
“4 ;
gorrth 2 coals ee orediT .ytvteqorc sot no soitg eee kor
bestrodtue esd Omi vne te © weilterw reteset bre sod enrSewite
mid ysq ot bere tito bre yt relqong eit tot ‘teesdowg A batY
tiedd ‘One seesent bwr tastoph vi edd Yo ynquitasd ent reba
(egadaog tiigter th
|
|
}
|
greater weisht of evidence —sut—for-tie Teet—that|Fhe foundry
company's written application for the loan from the Proctor
Endcwment was produced in svidence and bore date September 26, |
4911. It also appeared that an appraisement of the property was
or the puroose of the loan, and a written report of that
appraisement, juiot Pead-date September 88, 1911, the avopraiser
testifying that he was employed and examined the prooerty three
or four days earlier than the date cf the report. | Tae-dates~en
these two capers maite it certain that the 4a e~Or the property
toxthe \Hart Company was practically arranged beby
before J&ster got back from inneapelia Septetiber\37, 1911, and
before ne, \himself, claim@’ that he ; Had 7. authority to act in
f *
the matter. Nith this unmistakable evidénce in the cage the
\
\
natural nclemebaek is that Lee Ais stasing te whole a cor=
J
’ f
rectly and is to\ve belisvedy’ It is unreasonable to sur ‘pose
that after Lee hac praotioally deranged a sale to Hart es eli
heshould contract ts oay Seater @ commission for f 1g 4 pur-
Chaser fcr the property ia aaa evidently took this view\ is
the situation and aig/not set in 30 doings
\There is some discussion in arpellant’s ief about the
law of f1 cas#, but thers is no disphted question cf law in-
\
volved. Jester is te be celieved he was clearly ent itled to
a finding
it 1s quite \as clear thuat he was entitled to a finding and judg}
\
ment in his favor. The plaintiff of:
b
law off the trial. Number 3 wag to the e fect that if the greater
Weight of the evidence showed a contract to find a purchager,
\
and the slain tift\ eee find a purchaser, and the djefendand gid sel
to the purchaser, tne plaintiff is’ entitled to recover the \usual,
ordinary and custonaky commissione. This the court held. Number
1 contained subst antidaly the’ same provosition but included @
plsiras sie pnts ter ait rot us—senathte 30 Bett
-gotoetd edt mott oeol eit rot molLisoiiqgs atett fan , 6 yaeg
(86 redmstqes? eteb erod bas ‘somebive at .beoubotd ae" pee
atqde me tacd, Herseqge : (e8is - tt .1fef
tsit towttodes aettitw ise ban neo auh-3O asorIwg oat IQh% es
reatsiqgs edt qLsel “8 yednsidaee . atch Sieh doidw themes tag
exd? ytiscotq eat bentmexe een peyolgne Ssr ed teat, _ patyantss
caveunaiiich [s#zoc0r eat: ‘aa stsbh. edt seat xeiluse eyed wo} om
quenty To7s anges ted?» atetres. tf. oheit BISGSQ. vt sett
asw ytreqotg ed: eo doousal
yirsget
ebiiW bane eb] nesyfed on viteotioesa & asw weeewis tr (on
bhe® ,ifer- -ys/aediretqse
ak foe o¢ “ystrodive ‘yore ber ed pedo
/
edt ee eit’ ont pcre emt etad pap
add. af mojédLongs, |
=r00 xeyier alow 8 gatas te ad aoa é
~
“eaognue ot eidenvuse tain bt v1 \ybove tied: ed/ od. et baw
ny ae aie ersH-ot, else we marin COA OY,
ae to/welv Bide oo’ Wit aebive: sould aT x
_. Fare,
ing 0 la 3 van koe 8 Boe 39, ton. sb sacha
ne
edt tuodse ae ite
-ot wel: 1 noitesyp nesiqa.te on wt etedt+ tud. .
Dane fiears nt doigeuoats emoe et a
ot persiipe vince lo enw: ad. bewetied: od iotnes, sotest. tf
mete sher: ad oF el ead tIos. covet sede os taomahyt.£
-pout ba getbart gs of beltiine ea od tact 1609!
to exo}¢ ibeqors ‘genie bereiio titd¢atelg ect .tovgt etal
retsety anit
}
)repedotwg « “pate od! $oaxtaos & bewods sia ia
ties big baebmeted edt bas ereendomwe tribe, bib sutatak
ia’ * ctaven) ei? cavoos1t od belttine ed vartotelg oe
ay : nsdn blew trod eda etait. sorte Le admuon! XZ
Wp
Soa epee aay ee noLdbeocore sadiadinp L,
a)
oh
_
™
\~
j
!
|
}
|
{
|
|
holding that the plaintiff had proved by the sreater weight of
furnished the buyer. This the court refused.
©
evidence that h
Number 2 contained practicaliy the same propvosition as Number 3
is
except the measure of recovery in Number 2 was stated 2a whatever
the services were reascnably worth. The court refused te hold thig.
There was no error in either refusal. No question of value of
services rendered is involved. There is uncontradicted evidence
that such services if rendered, were worth more than the plaine
tiff demanded either on a basis of usual and custorary charge
or of reasonable value of such services.
The plaintiff offered to prove that Les and the officers
of the Hart Company were not cn soeakinge xxm terms, and that
Wilde had never talked with Lee about the purchase before the
slip of paper waa given him by Hart. Ths court sustained objec-
‘tions to questions cailing for these answers, and this is as-
‘was no claim that Wilde had seen Lee about the matter cefore h
Signed as error. In trials before the court without a jury it
is, as a rule, quite as well to permit incompetent questions to
be answered and in that rabp te get into the record, as to sus-
ff
tain objections to the question 2nd let offera to crove vet into
the record, which last method is necessary in jury trials
aa
4h
Nee oO:
e
fi
i
where the offer to prove is usually made out of the pre
[the jury; but we see no error inthis action of the court. There
P.) 5,
@
‘got the slip of paper, and one would understand from his testi-
mony that he had not, and whether he was friasadly or urfri-endly
ito Lee he certainly did go to him and negotiate the purchase gx
oi the progrty. Finding no error in the record, the juigrent is
aifirmed.
Niehaus, J. took no parte
" ; a :
/ 4 ea tone
to tdgisw retasta edt yd bevorg = pattabaps | git fed?
. beautert trios sdt+ sftdT tewd ot bede tna? edt tet
é es as moftigogerg emse er 43 {ilecttoerq, bontstaoo, - ft
sonebive betolbertacoay Nees .peviovak al bexebaer ys
eotelg edt medt stom drow erow betsbaot Re: betas | doxe
aexisio yrsnodeus bas Levens tot atasd 6 0 | edt is bebnanee 3
racolvase | dove to oulsv efdsnoasex to 3 2
gteotito sci hae vod tett svorg od beretto Viitatelg e
4 ;
Fedt bas Meee mnt gnivescs to ton: exem vip sme, t1eH, te
+9 es
4 i
-ostdo a +108 ect. tree ve | mo roves asw seg ey
~ss el “eide bas SteweNs oaedt 10% _gatlieo enpiveoup, of .
ti vit 8 duodtiw twos odd “etoted eletst at stoxgs ae Bee
—_ ioe tt
“98 enol desir dnstsquooat ‘timre9 ot Llew ae et tup elu B, co
if
<I. 3
Py, -ela of Be “sbtoger ont ofad “tex ws ew tec at bas pevovens, S
on? ten evors os axette dei bas nmoiteeup of? ot saoitostd de a
eletrt yrut at yrseseos 78 et ‘bodton tess Motte “(brgoer ©
MY be r
x
af oe
etedT ‘Fiv00 edt to mottos eidiat “Wiaae on se8 ow tua ee
to $ocSeerq edt to te eben vile au ‘at vor ot retto pra
ef stoted tetiam edt tueds sod ‘gese bed ebitt teat melo on
-itaet aid mor? boaeterebay biuow emo ‘Das meqed ‘te ite |
yibdsitiany to ylbeaia few ed redtedw bas ton basi ed teat.
am cesdomd act etetiogen bag aid ot 08 bib Untetaes od 96.
Q fa]
ek tnompiut ocdt <bT00S7 ed’ nt zo7r7e ont a gottare as ae,
i
'
bomb Rh f #3 by a
STATE OF ILLINOIS, toe
SECOND DISTRICT. pee I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this a
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__ _
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
ee Paes Fe | ¢ erowedat |
sisltoqyh agit to $910. “e2iud JO AeHIOTSIMN «1 TOTTI
sfisusel! add to tequed has rabon iLT jo sini@ ent to sotideiCi hrooee bisa
edt to motuigo odd to qo |ntd 6 af Sumo: 6 rid feet YUTH ap Si ca Oty
ae
ald aifis bas bow! vos toe ees I fos na ‘Siosthatet “i
pint weddO ts nuod stallegg bina oils to Leor
ne
fh be
ono hol 140 Jo 4897 odd ie ok ral yeh
men bus borbaul esti ro
~ —_—
”
; ee tp AILS 7 , A
Ps a = Ove ore a ao ol a Bee ew Se i" ae i
a
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
i
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
“4
3
#
3
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice’.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice. cn a AN VO
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. wv | —
E. M.\ DAVIS, Sheriff. }
‘ Q
— : iene a (ae ————
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
FEB 8 191 the opinion of the Court was filed in
time Clerk’s office of said Court, in-the words and figures
following, to-wit:
oy 5
1
: bs yn ee oe : i 7
fy J r we ; ~ eee 7
(( TRUGO BTAUATTA FHT F
Maat A
§
we ae
ibe A
q hee y
TA A
stedofa0 to ysh Mttit eds ,ysbacwT mo ,awettO ts Ble
“A
;M¢2%%it bas berbdud sania bosevodd ano brad ayo Lo tsey 4
t . i a)
5
sefonmiifl 1o atet’ edi Lo sotataid baoos’ adt rot bas nid’
: ' : -_
¥°
es
; es Ba
ca9td , LEST FOMAHAOG \ oH edT--dags
-@0i2e00 grti
: os
vasttagt ,84#a@d0 .L aMAUa . 0B i
fae
ia
-
a)
—S
*
7) .. 2 soitent ,BUAHGIA .M “HOL .aok
Py
~*~
~
,
oy
PO oe a OM tee | YEHUC 9 ARAIOTATAHO: yk
ee al
VWireda ,AIVAd ):M ia
in
4 a Ps
ditt
' ‘ a 4
=! \ a
—! é re
: b, 4 tee
' “s
$ y ‘ oT Oar : =
2 vhf ir oaT, ts id a AbGe. eae) e
" oy : t f Ad ease
r , 5
-
”
'
7 :
Fn 0 i
tl Cie ae AEE tw, . © Saat so =A ‘ ¥ 3 a ¢ £4 A Ps a wf ‘se
: I Mawy atanwes 6% sh feset cabrawyedis tedd , CRAGEMIMEA, ©
gi belit esw..txuo0d odf to noigiqg sad . Ary F
,B97ugIT bos ebtow edd ai ,t1g00 Bise Lo, sorta as
Gen. No. 6193.
Laura S. Thompson, Pitt. in error.
Vs Error to LaSal
[ a
Ancient Order of Gleanzrs, &o.
Deft. in errore
Carnes, Js
The defendant in error, Ancient Order of Gleaners, iz a
\ a“
fraternal benefiddary society of Detroit, Michizan, A loca
\
arbor was formed at, Ransom, Illinois, in 1909. John H. Thompson
: :
the husband of plainN tf in error, wae 2 Binkex charter rember of
that arbor, and a beneNt sertificate for £1,000,00 was issued to
him June 4, 1909, payable én his death to his wife. He met his
/ oe
death by an acoident October 19, 190. Bis widow brought this action
to recover on that oértificate. Ou a trial by the court without
a jury there was 4 findiog and. jude nt for the defendant. The
plaintiff brings the record here for réview.
[ one defense relied on ari the insured was »efore his
death suspended for non payment of dues and assessments and
therefore wag not at the time of his death & member of the order,
The "dues" were payable quarterly, and ons of the nayments vé¢
u
Came
i ¢
due May 30, 1910. There was an asse ssment, number 90 the last day
oe
of payment of which was May 30, 1910. It 3 not Claimed that he
\
]
3
made either of these payments at that time. Under the laws of
the society the failure to pay duss or assessments overated as
@ suspension of the member, but it was orovided that he might
within thirty days, be reinstated by furnishing a certificates
ef good health from the regular arbor physician, which must he
passed upon by the supreme medical examiner, but that after thirty
days from the date of suspension h is tewyarred from further
Woe” -
reinstatement. It ts,not claimed that the insured made any efort
to be reinstated until the last of August 1910, but it aosa. appear
A
¥ aeaern |
that he then went to Henry Siedentop, the seoretary and treasurer
ens
i
ie
betcatentes
_# sat
as > 10 ae Pie
noitew eidt tdguord wobtw efB .OmeL et 19doso0 tasbtoce as yd dies
ers od (s ' if Ee re LA ek haa i” ~ dare
~6eL3
etotre at .itld ,soecmodT : st
sSileGed ot tortd bv
-O2 ,@teneslD To 19510 fas ont a
etorre ai .tisi rer ty
eb sented
e at ceteaesl0 to tebxO taetomA ,totxre at tneiaeteb eat. ‘aha
Leool A srenidoil\ ttorted % to ytetoos yrelotieced fenredert
moeqmosT .H ado .eoel abe tomk£ Ll moaned fe ‘bemrtot caw todua
to tedmem restiredo xetekKze « eaw \xoTTe mt 2 futsiq to bredavdiest
ot boyect esw 00.000,L% rot eteott isze0 + ie ned s bare todts tedt
etd tom eH .ettw etd of dtseb eid ng<etdsven .80CL ,s enut mtd
tyodtiw tyvoo sdi vd Isict.c oS sodeottttte9. tedt so. TsvOoeT. i
bone etmemesséss One esub to dneMyeq non tot sabaeean
etsbto edt. to redmsm & dteseh etd to omit edt t& ton aew oa
emeosd atnemyed edt to emo base ,yltstrevp eldsysq sersw "6a ee
ysb test eft Oe sree ~imemss s6e2 me esw or|edT .OLeL .08 yeu s
ed tedt bemfslo fon a tI -OL@L .0F YeNM esw doltdw to taemyeq:
to awsl edi cube .omtt dedt ts etaemyeg seed? to oii eee
as betsteso atnemessees to seub ysq ot emlist sdt vtetoos edt
tdgim ed tedt bebivorg ‘B2 ti tud .tedmem sit to nolansqoue &
steottttzreo 8s goidetaiwt vd betetenter ed ,eyeb ytitdt a itt y
ed teum dotdw ,mstoteydq trodts tefyger sdt mori dtleod boos” <
saeqad se0d tL tud OL8L Se * teal edt je
ae
of the-local order,. and offered to pay him the delinquent. assess—-
ments andirdues, vand asked to be. reinstated without furnishing the
required local physician's certificate; that there then was no
local physician, but deceased<was told that the company would
accept the certificate of another physiciam, naming». him.
Siedentop applied to the company to reinstate him under those con=
a@itions, andothe application was refuseds Plaintiff cteingand—
these—is cvisence_tendine te surport the cisim, that the insured
paid Siedentop the money re quired to gover the delinquent assesse
ménts andcduesée Siedentop tistified that the insured = did not
pay Him any money but offered-to pay him, and he-toid him ne
would ‘den.the vest hevcould for him, and‘ repert othe idues paid,
DUt “He "did “not thinkche could innthat way beureinstated and -would
not take his money until he knewrmore of the matter, or something
| to that sttect. | The-court—was-acundantiy justit ted -in-fiediag_
| Sdetentop!sstatement-of-tne—transaetion-true. Under these facts.
decsased- wie not-a-member- of ~ths-dcotendant--seciety-at—tjhe—time
of -his—dcath. His _fsilure-to-payducs~-and-assesstents autometicaily
Suspcnded—hims- He co
Ti with the requirements: or
d not become reinstated without complying
the order mayest somebody with authority
)Waived those requirements.\ And even/were it tooberfound that Sie-
faentop; As secretary and tr asuret of the» local, order, received
these dues vatoitheotime ofeth Aequésted reinstatement, still
| there.is°no ground for aie it operated as a reinstate-
ment. It i8 clear, whe ther Sieddetop tookothe money or not, he
aa
| Sdvised deceased at the Ame tna was: doubtful whether he would
be reinstated and it mist depend on \e ies action of the superior
ber ficers of the compsinys National comet vy Dillen, 216 Ill. 3320;
nas v The Protected Home Circle 14@\ 112. Aop. 574.
The contract’ of insuPangé in. this case, 28 is usual in euch
societies,. included the conet ution, and: by-laws- of the society
t x
*
—paseas tnoupnifeb edt mtd ysq of beretto. bons ,rsbhie:Leasole
P.
—
z
-
7
edt gatdetnsyt tvodtiw bstetentis:.ediot bedes fas opeeub “bas | wit
on Bew nodt ersdtitédh psteckiltteo e'meioteydg Leool betlupet
S{yow yasqmoo.sdi tedt blot esv+beageosh sal actotaydg-Lecok
emid agaimen ,metoteydq redtone to etzoEttixeo eit tqeo08
—100 esont teboy mid etstanter of yasqmoo edt ot betfaqe. qotmebere
~peo bated titthielt »dbsavtez eaw gqottseliqge sft bas emote
bowent odt ¢edd patetocertt-troqome-ot-cntbnet _ssncetive etceedt
~eveesce tneupnilet odt tevon of betiup sroysnome edt gotnebet@-bieq
|
|
Fon HLT hHowant edt stadt betitt¢esst! qotmdbhete doubshdasmbeee |
ed mide blot-sd bas “ mid yeq oftberetio dud yenom ynedmediyeg”
(Blea ssub- edd troqet bak qmid totcbhivooled te8Goédi> obobiasw
bigow bre betetanter ed yaw-deds ot biveoted datdtetonsbtbiedtaee”
gridtence to \xedden odd) do eros weak ed Litay yeaon aide edede ston
_padbedi-et-bettiven tp yitimebards—exe—tsseo-edT ene: tent: o
owtosi se¢cd+-roieal .enertowetdesenetd-oot- to tnesodets 5 fern teh
—j.
(iieottemeiwe-etiersteces ine-seub yoo-od-ersliet 21H - aihocbeba Se |
* eatylomoo tuvodtiwn betetentes emoose tom blgoo oH amid-besnsgaue
cee
Air etnonertuy et enti” dibtir{ ~
onbd ote oloos--taeiee reb-.oit-to redaew 2 tor eS
itivodtue dtiw wodemos’ sedhaw rebro: silt
-ef8 tedt bavot edvot tr! orem \eve bak Aecmemst 1p) saouty bevtew,
bevfteost,resbhbro Lsoofsdi to Yeuespas bone yrstetose ee .gotns.
i rte Homstedenter iain cou fo emit: edt te veeub: easdd
~otstuntey Ss ds! Bettereqo tb tani /atiee nto rot! Snore om eb exert
ef ,ton to Ysrom sdf soot qotigobete Senedocte ~reofo St eg -.tmeu n |i
biluow en tenvedw fe ttdvob eew + lope emit eft ts beaseosh’ beatvas |
|
\ |
fo bregeb tem ht bow betet enter’ aE |
tofrisqia- edt to nottozx en
Pasa |
“~O8G SLIT ELS .moLfid Vv Ltglased: [scott sh syaggqmos sit shows —
898 Gua" MER/SYL elo td woth betoe tex? ont w
—
foue ai Lave af ee (esco ordt at ! Sn
ee is ' hd
tebooe- sdtt to awsleyd ‘base mottuyéis edd bebulonh aed:
+S 51s tficete| The certificate was offered in svidence
Qs
by the plaintiff and treated as making a prima facie case. T+
WSS Asceseary Ses hs de Ffendentto- vet in-evidene6—the..constisution.
and oy-llws, ani verieus—-notiees-ané—deeunense. Foresceing—this
peaaeetty the Defe dant took the deposition of aomé of its superior
ficers and propounded various intsrrogatories as tobooks, docu=
ments and records, and copies of same that it wished to use in
egicencs. The plaintiff did not acpear at the taking of the
/} deposition, and objects here that a sufficient foundation was
|not laid for the introduction of the evidenoe. Before the trial
the plaintiff moved to suppress th: deposition. The court ovsrruled
the motion, but defendant stating in substance that it would
rather re-take the deposition than have any question in the record
about that, stipulated that no error should be assigned on the
action of the court in overruling the motion to surpremss.~fire~
-ecord thersfers-stands~—s6—though no such action. nad bsen—ade-s
IThe plaintiff,on the triel objected to various questions and answers
|
and moved to strixe out the evidenoe,| wR
-| would probably have been sustained as to Some/of the material proof
{
) if the evidence had been offered orally st court; but such ob-
jections to questions and interrogato rtea. annot prevail if
_* made on the trial. Thése ia an oid familaar rule and waa
applied in Hutchinson v Bambas 249 Til. 624,\ where the proof was
insufficient as +o the loss of letters, the dontents of which was
7
\
offered in evidencs. In I. 0. R./R. Yo. v Foulks, 191 Tll. 57,
\
whers the answer of the witness was improper as\a statement of a
f ‘
f \
conclusion instead of a gt atément of fact... In en case the court
&
cited with aporoval Balkwijtl v Bridgeport Wood rikisning Co. 63
Ill. Acope 663, where a ae was applied in cass \e: insufficient
j
@vidensce that a certain day was ais
“r
Qo
al holiday. Th t that case,
citing T. W. & W. R. A. Co. v Baddeley, 54 Iil. 19, i without
statins the nature of the interrogatories and answers passed on,
. J
eonebive ni boersito sew stactntvado!etr|
ae
EE .gan0 sitoet embtq 6 sdiden® e¢ beteott bos .thtiotele ede
notdihbdetos odicenehive—mi-tey/6t-tmebadtes :
roirsqua ati to emoe ‘to mottisogessdi door sassas nae estecanen
=vodh (efoodot se aslrotssotistat evotiev weravegstecken ersobito
7Tee
oN? ets ot Befeliwiti tedtcemasstoe @eeigqoo (ias sultgonen bas pcre
edd Yo yatdet edtite cissqsecton bbb tthtaleigcedh a
- asw inoitsebayol tietottive’ &-tedt ered eos {de bas gtottré
fatut edt e10%ed .eonsbive sdt to nottosho=tat edtviob: biefcten
belurteveoltios sdT smottiedcgqebieds spereqne ot Sevom vatatetqvedt
blvow ti tant eoastedve mt gattsts tacbasteb gud sontomed?
btooer sdt of sotitesup yae eved neds nodétesaah edt cietoon xedtex
ade mo Sergtess ed binge torre on teit betsisqite wtedd- teegs
OMSnt= eae igiss ot motsom eri: ‘giutiurrevo nt: twos. Site Top moitos
rveben-me0dbeduncisosuionelondauedse0co-ebime
NI he
etewete bore enotteosp evolrav ot bebset iio -fosme ed¢ ao, Thivodslge eaT,
eee Y
w | oomebive occ tuo. etittadode bexon-£52)
oa QR
Vr
tootg {stastem sit TON emo ot es bentetene 900 evan, vidadoxg.
=do dove tud ideo ik Lis 10: bexstito nesd) bed gonebive engi ;
Pie Lisevetoqodonts
[bey Sostelyt reblte
v] eT at
sew tootq sit stedw a 1a ene esdmed wv ftoantidotuH: af bet qos
eew dotdw to etnotaop add veredde tor esol oxft ot, 28s iactolt wea!
aL ay
Toe MT LOL af Lu0t v soB aD\ .Q.1 al seomebive mi bexedic
5 p<
e to tuemetfete 2) sescotgmi een Yasatte sats to. TeWens, iar
¢netottivent tof cabo. ak betloce ssw elut whe exer
Syeeso! tedh
tsortie ,erTe
i}
| the court ssid it is not the proper practic to make objections to
|
| depositions on the trial of the cause.They should be made and dis}
f
| posed of before the trial in order, if defective, the party taking
+
them may have an opportunity to remedy “he objection, and for ‘suc
ay
puroose ask a continuance. Statements that are oojectionabdle
| merely because they are secondary evidence must be objected to
t
| before the trial. Cooke v Orne, 37 Ill. 1863; 13 Cyc. 1020.
ee of course trué that certain owjections to interrogatories
en answers may prevail if first made on the trial, but we think
he matter complained of in this case is substantially a11 within
the rule that requires objectiona to be made vefore the trial.
‘There is no reasonable presumption from the rsoord before us that
anything of the kind sot in evidence that could not have bdeen
easily made competent by a reetaking of the daspatksndeposition
if the quéstions and answers had been held bad on the troticn to
suppress. We therefore will not discuss the questions raised
‘here as to the competency of interrogatories and answers that
should have been first raised on the taking of the deposition
or on the motion to auppress.
Another defenses attempted was that deceased made false
warranties in hie application as to his habit in the use of in-
| toxicating liquors, and it is claimed that he came to his death
| because of intoxication. It appears that his widow, the beneficiary
brought an action against saloon kespers under the dram shop act
for causing his death. The record is not sufficisntly abstracted
on this question to fairly present it, and while the defendant
discu:ses the question here, it does not clearly point out the
parte of the reoord that he relies on. We regard the proof so
clear on the other ground of defense that we have not examined
this queation.
Propositions of law were offered on the trial and marked held
|
A al bby 2 (0) ee eek ! Gee, | aay fh 24 ite iss JAN
Mee y ay ;
de Th phe nai
of ‘enoftostds sYew of bottostq reqota ee: ‘fon ei tf bist two0o
~sib tne ‘oben ee biyorfe yedtT.eeueo edt Yo tetié edt no soodt toga
Siriwet ting Sie “evitooteb tr ‘reboot Tatts od? eretags to Ben
dove rot bite nottostdo ert” ybsner ot “Yinudzoqae sa sved yan a wedt
efdsnoitostco ers’ ‘gedd etnomeded® - eomaumit aon £ fax ‘ecocaig
ot bstostdo ed taum sonsbive yrebaooes ers ‘yet playpie pee
S6c6E 54d SL sel Lit VE 8020 vy 98000 .feits aut cxoted
asfrotenorretal of anoitos two alstxrso tedt ours Soe ico te
Anf{dt ew'tud ,[eiltt sdi no abem terti tL tteverq Yem srorene bas
ai
niddiw “Ils yifetine sfadis at e880 eidt af to bemteLquoo ret tem es
ibels
eLelrt “edt stoisd ‘eben sd of enottostdo eetiupet tedt ely of
edt ey exvetsd broost ad mot wots qusaerq eldsnoace7 ost “a exes
ded evet ton blyoo tend eomebive at tos bats ot to ale
sottleoqsinetteyznk oct to galist~et & vd tne# eqmoo oben Sapa
ot mottor sct’ no bsd ‘Ste sf need ‘bed erewens base snoitesup edt se i
' sit eae ees,
‘bette: enottsenp eat “eauogtb tom crtw axonered? oW sao |
a! sat
tedt ~~ atewans bie’ e8trodegorzedat to qouets Sqmoo ent of as eted:
a0. HEROS has .
“nottfeoqebh ent to uaintet ait mo ‘bester tatit aeed eved piuodie
LOsacet ¥
eRetqqie ot nottom sdt 0 20
ive
“selet oem beaseoeh tedt sew be¢qmoite eansteb ‘redtomA ae
Wnt to eau edt at tided aid od 8s noitsotiqge aia os cotinerzay
ddseb eff df omsd od tect bemtslo et tt bao erouphL Beil 9
yrefotiensd sit .wobiw sid tedt erseqqs tI toiteotxotat Yo “seusped .
(OL sens
tose géde msrb sat tebnay aveqeed ‘gpoolee ‘tentege aottos rey siguord
betoerteds yitnetottive ton at Brovex edT dtesb etd gatauso te
|) S488
teeboistek edt effitw bas ti tusestq ylrtet ot notteeup bry ®
eis OFIO SE
etd tvo tuto yfrselo fom ssobh tt ,ered mottesup “eat B66: ae
oe tod1q ett Bretet eW .mO geilor eal tend brover ont to prac
‘béntmexe ton sved ew tact eens tob to babes. redto anit i) a
) os 0
— ™ -
w. 3
wo. aaa wi)
bied hetaen bus rahe’ act 0 Kt rg o13W val to anott.
and refused by the court. We find nothing in the court's action
in that regard indicating any view of the law less favorable to
the plaintiff than we have before expressed. Findine
€ mo error in
the reoord the judgment is affirmed,
Aifirmed,
- eT ee adit ot. gaidton batt ot { _ txmeo > edt xd are
et eldetovst aeol wel edt.te wety yaa ‘gabtaothat brese EFa te
ab ‘corre of BAEOAET RRS EIA TSS etoted | avai on nest: ted § :
phomzitie at _tnongout t edd be
7 LOG
- 7 rotpohtde rere veut
ce enaol*oet-» ex. pbemtptth. +. -Aoasuattage
a tt : is eG ; z Tei.*
pay Ls 4 . i wit y 82000 i eit
at Tots TUES fs 2 “ 7 to ¥ #47 6U4 $e
dnidy aw tnd ,Leit* - Lor favs £ ftaverg 3
vi ny ile wifettartede 9450 Git? t 49 Senielqmos
sfwiri sdf stoted ‘sber sd of anoltostdo getiupaz fad”
yoott er: mew? welicavesrq eldgnoarat on
7 ae
vor gain ad? t¢
~ inal 4 a. ‘J P ; ae: ° f ae wf ” ‘ “ P on _ »
oy Noits eas #0 oad ALaes. mea Pin @tawelin onc petceee
’
teredy ow
.
pee
ad
.
S
aa
o
.
wv
2
s
~
<=
c
4
t
—
=
uo
wt
£5
&!
ed
pnd
Lf
+
>
:
2
ea
o
”
pa
fos
+
fo
-
,
be
erw boecgmstts seasted sedtent
; ot ae
ant to ay ett alt tidac sis of sa solteultlage satd at eettnn
_ Bivot ott of emeg 87 fait Sevtico et tt toe .etouphe gatdas
wy rici#ensc 49 (ibhty gin te @teeace gf enotts strovad : SSuLD
; Saeskt
w SOG Meo en AoA @Btbeod aotseer Fealorue aot tos ,
F Ji Sryeey; vVirtea2d oF nottee
ef? és iy oa ebok ot , ete nolteeup “ed
oy te: Te 9S At ro vellar 1 ¢aa? budos
to oes
2 vy
centmerxre fon sveil oe fel? aeaat
i
ee ae “Agi
STATH OF ILLINOIS, )..
SECOND DISTRICT. yes
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFry, Clerk of the Appellate
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred andes
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
‘ ie”
ee) CIOUEIEL 1O 7
Stsllegy A edi to avers -orud Oo agadoteanmnHO 1. 7" | “VOISTT2Id AMOK
alrtesosT alt to secesal Das .atonflll to etal odd lo doitter boesse bise 102 boe pt
vil io golmiqu sat to rgos sid 6 4i puiogsiol odd isdd ¢aiTAaD YAaTAIH oa ,losTed
ie yoni brose jo .seuss bolftiae oveds and ai I1100 ote
sit xitts bus bol yas tee olaneied 1 soanahW yvvomyeaTl nt .
2idd wwe dn tio alstlaqg s bise odd to fsee
sim broad ie to awey edd of eb
bs Hotbaue ania basavods —
Se nes
ors ee: ails
ee
y, Aenea col kk: Cece, vier a
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
f
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
&
penn TAR ONG]
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Mastin’ ti UU s oie ot Q
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. /
i
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. }
ie
j
A RRR AR RS GS SS = = ae a = == == = — —————<—=—— — = = a
( * Jprmenegl ; , . f : , /
| [ {A ue? f /
| { / ‘ud om = j F; "Gi
Vos
\
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
atontiit to tale ods Yo fotasaid booed ait ae ‘Bre ai
a
sottack, gatbieerd AdGdld SOWARAOT 10H if? =,
“ ,gottestl ,2auaag t aMAUG , col
; ‘ aah
; “, é“f e
2 GOS Avi f) Ch Saveotseuk, .QUAHRIM .M WHOL .n0H
Ra te Bowes i
. (defo ,YTTU .9 SHBTOTe LAH |
A Wited? ,2tvad Mode
Yi
be ; ; ea
a | ‘” hy 4
os} : 7M os Sr a La 4 bat ” } ' WY
2 y 4
a. 4
¥ ;
: ~ Nal e
a wt
| Ma Pode
. Pat idiw- 3 abrswrefie ‘tsds
ak belt? 26% trod odd 40 ‘aoiaigo aie “ater
te ‘ Sars a ae “sf vi
gatos! bas Bet Oe git es petNee Biina 40 epitte 2 vine
aay i SA
, ’
Micrikeh > bi’ P re ny * Ayah sty iy
)
(LAN Y.
Gen. No. 6199
Dane J. Curran,-e4=21 appellees.
vs Apveal from Knoxs
.
lawyére, Qe
real estate brokers, d6oie*" business a6 -Cur-an.&Cunran,..ab Wacom
Onn
Illinois wm husd nd ana ‘ife. Soe A SAG UD MOTs ene
et ae iia
CELLONE ES OME BSE ONSEN OL OTUT LTS oe ce
B:
Ge ot
change wf his ‘arm of 1280 acres in Minnesota for a livery atable
property in Ottumwa, Iowa, belonging to Bosserman Frothers, .oa
i i prow Ee 1 = adler ~ nt Ln . PE aa on 1. Js ay. gst wana a aay pi mes eb
Retrial; iat {YS GLOSG... Os DS..eVLAGHSD, Re CcOuTrt, OY ZEresment
Pea Y3 Io.) Sneatrnunrted +r A tip eee ey SVT AT eye epee ores pan Goce ps
02 CGOBAG1y—1LRSADUILEO- pS - POLY TI NS Y 2 OUND Ser CNS “PLR IAGseer Ss
ies ENTS ah Cal “te eresecised
The declaration consisted of the common counts with an ade
ditional count in the form of a common count alleging services
rendered in exchange of real estate and personal property. The
general issue was plead” with special pleas alleging that pending
w
wu
cr
we
the negotiations in the real estate deal in question there was
OG
an agreement entered into between the pl intiffs and defeniant
that the plaintiffs should eff:ct the exchange of the property
in question, and should further, within thirty days, procure an
exchange of the Ottumwa property for farm lands in Rock Island
cr
Hy,
County, Illinois; that the agreed compensation to aintif
"
+
for the whole matter waa $3500.00 due when the whole transaction
18 Completed snd not before and that plaintiffs had failed to
5
procure the exchange for Rock Island County farm dandse. It ap=
LP pee! Pee e oh
v7 Aes pit pd —a
peared in evidence that; ssellant, who had never mst soceciees,
ce
had two sé6c
fon
hat he
@
wrote them on November 10, 1913,
land in Moore County, Minnesota, that he would like to exchange
for xsz other property, and in ‘he correspondence immediately fol-
= ; i - eS MIN |
J}
. : , . \ ‘
»esellsqus fe-de_inst0 wt
exon mort LssaqgA ev
etoeiisace ‘oat oR
fast ate ee saan
i PAD ¢: TS" ff :
ray stat id a = Bi an
an eo gl LElD- Obie TO-ee ebearerd hakos. sadelaaoen stetes ne
ie ; : ne ‘pdb dD WA” —* Ore Ty Tes
Saas Setter e te epee —yeT Sil Ons ah eS >
oa
a eldate yrovit.s tot stoesnoll at BS{98 O8ésL 49 mre? eid = C) aed
a
“ae .8tsdio ys msureesod Qt antedg so sawol, rant tO a eorecons
ne EAE ETE TI TO LEM EO LEE BAS STE OMB ELS CA
a> a ey
— tropes 140 VK: lisesi llaieed tins Si mee
—= ‘ we J sty he s SS ¢ % \
a ae 2s a nd |
ee
Tee het ot eae tbesteesy 20.0088) te 3 Beilin Gib Def eeceen od ‘.
; g "2 . ed
—besweseore et fess sik See a
~be me dttw etavoo mommoo edt to betetenoo aottereloeb edT aj
seoivios gnige (Le tesoo mommoo & to miot edt ai tooo Lanole EE
os edt .ytusqorc Lenoateq bons stetes Lesit to egnsdoxe at boxebaak
gaithasg tefit goigseiis eaolg tetoegs dtiw‘Sselq esw eves. Loxenes
sew otedd mottesup aft [eeb etetes Leer ode at enol teliogsn etd
taeinasteb bos atitiat Iq edt asewted otal beretas trenestza as
vsreqera edt to -egmedoxs sdt toe 9% Slyode betittatels¢ dt tad
16 etyoorq,eysh yiuid? nidt tw etsdtiwt Slilyode One waotteeue ad
boelel 2oo8 at sbael mrst rot ytreqorg ewnuttO edt to epnadoxe |
rergehidad ede eds Bs 3
attitnatelq ot mottzensamoo bestas edt tedt jeltontiiII uae a
nottosensit elodw eft asdw oub 00.0086} eaw tettsm slodw sit x02
; i$ Oe
ot beLtst bed ettitatelg tadt bas ,stoted tom bas beteiqmon | a
“ge $I -ebost mist ytowod Saeisl A008, toi egmedoxs edt omuoe x
> ss eee Toad bad,
cteetrecca tom seven Sed odw aellsaes, tet sonebive nt be
\
y - to enottosse ow! bad on ted? ,6f@L OL sedmevol mo nett 90a
—
eyasdoxe ot ext bluow ed tedt etoesaniM Ytoued ex00M a
ies
4
oe 4)
va
lowing this letter he. named a price of #100.00 per acre on his
: land,
property in Ottumwa, Iowa, valued at $75,000.00 to $100,000.00
1a description of the livery s*able
that was in the bred SF ede are an exchange. After further
correspondence = eee to go to Iowa and ibvestigate
the matter, and fesse him on December 1, 1915, sugeesting
manner of meeting and cakine the journey, and saying they would
(vQ
look to him for commissions at 5.00 psr acre on his Minnesota
land in case the deal was consummated. Dan Curran testifis@ that
on December 5, -he had a telephone communication with anseitent a Ape dact,
AL ae y eve a 4
in which he, sepé+tent, ssid the commission terms were s&tislactory.
AN b-3—-
Junk sented 20 saying, but Curran 4%,corroborated in his testimony
V +)
by his wife who was in the room when he was talking over the/uphone
and stat what he said in the conversation. Arrangements were made
nha
for meeting the ewe, parties, and Dan. Curran went to Ottumwa and
a sAnd Bk
met seseet = and those parties at the Ballingall Hotel there
December 6, 1913. They looked over the property and came home without
effecting Bap ee beans but imme diately thereafter seecliant Atfire het
ea
[pueves rs
Wrote Senciieds t 1at he had been considering the matter and a
ede might be consummated if "you cut your commiss rove in two
A nf} «Ceuttr ie
making it $3000.38 Two or three days afterwards PSS tele=
phoned Dan. Curran to meet the Iowa parties at an hotel in Gales=
bugg, Illinois, and on December 9 they all met at that place.
After considerable negotiation an article of agreement was that day
prepared and signed, stating the proposed terms of the tyunuustion
transfer and giving each party a stated time to examine the other's
property and approve the contract. December ll, on RECS and
Dan Curran again went to Ottumwa, Iowa, where there were further
negotoations. They returned home, and on December 17 asnsilant AtfS“**o*™
|. a ‘ a a
A AA! Phe Patter iinet a ans
wrote 2: offering to approve the agreement if appetiess”
A
would take as commissions $1000.00 when the deal was closed,
q $1000.00 when they disposed of the personal prop:rtym and $1000.00
ie el ay ee re ieee v Ta i jee el: vn :
EEA HAEESE serait at Se Bi
aid. mo e@tTos
e{dete yrovilt
00.000 ,00L#
tedtiut retiA -egnedoxe as ie tetra edt ‘at oro sh
oO ew
stepitesvdl Bas ewol ot os ot bsbulonoo 3
.
gaitveeqouua ,clel .f retineoec nor ust BtoTH a i
Sivor yer gatyse- ds yyentmuot ent patitet bie” Pet i
etowennil! eid mo eros t2q 00.83 ° te" adoteetmioo tot mit fete
edt peittteed merawo’ near .boysumiemoo 88i feeb on) rere roe
thus aheeteace! Atty no tteotmavihmoo exbiigele: > ae 3 beat ads 4 xedneoed 1 oe
j ; oy sides '
\Yrotosteltés erow ainre? motseimmoo edt bige tuatthgee
ee be ie 4
yaoustast etd o£ Bsterodotros, ef neti tod * eeieee 08 se hae
enodaltents tevo gattiet ecw sd ned moor edt Ab eew ‘ett étiw @
<sccbuneeinaiieaieanieaedininabie ail nb btes ed tenw Ag tate
4 ier ice 4
dB awn SO ot tnew aarwo.med bas paste teq sew st gates
bec LOsoH Llagatl lsd oc it de eettreq’ seodsd ‘bre sa
‘ lean : ;
tuodttwemod “sted Bae ydusgora sd* tevo besooL yedT t cecbh™ oy) preeene |
352
oh \os eatreges resteeiedd Ylexsts Simd dad nispted Bes aaldoe? .
‘8 eas tottem edt sattébtends ‘need bad od fad sbetted:
sof es 4
‘ows “at noteetmmoo txoy tivo voy" tL betemmyanoo ed idgiat ebort
rarabnd asad Gotb dey
~efs? Siellssee abrewistts eysh “ssidd 16 ow? #.0008$ ‘ht —_ ;
~osied mi fetod me te estireg swot edt? teom od mers) net ‘ber
| on
i eats
eosly tect te tom {le yet & redméood fo bas be ote
eh tatt eey toomeetge to elottie as moitettogen siderebtenoo ‘t8t
ngttexenuxk edt to emtet beacqorgq sit gattets beagte bas Sale
a
a'rofto edt entmexe o¢ emit’ betate » ytreq dose gatviy bie wele:
nA. mati § he Ext) |
bie. deetiedes” ff tedmeood’ .toxrthoo ant syourgas eh ytueae
tedtiwt “erew eredt etedw ‘Sawol. ,bwabt tO 49° RoW AER Rarer
aimee tretfeqan Ti toémsood to bie ,emox bentwtss yeit yeaottood ,
td De Arey Par abel
es tupmeetss edt ‘evorads Ot Shaeat
i 4
bere R
a (1 f
when they should dispose of the Ottumwa real estate. Avseiicos—\/ Ow
answered this letter under the same date, discussing the nast
transaction at length, referring to the terma as to commissions
: lo) REBALK btw AN
%
first proposed, and refusing to vary them. Asseszia Een anere? the
‘next day by letter, saying teat the commission was too much and Zant
he would not co on with the transaction. A day or two thereafter
’ ‘
S 7
@eeetless wrote him enclcsing a letter from an Iowa party who
was talking about buying the Dowa property, and shortly after
ESOP DOK &,
wards Dan Curran mét aps S p, at an hotel in Galesburg Illinois,
and Curran say they then again discussed the matter of come
aie fam A oo Pies a
mission and essellent, asked if they would charge a further
commission ‘or disposing of the Iowa property. He told him they
would, and that sefetisnt said to mo ahead with it, he would pay
the commissions all right. Afterwards, January 19, 1914, the
varties again met at Ottumwa Iowa, and closed the trade. Curran
teatifieg Junk ther: again, before the trade was closed, told him Wa
he would pay the Coane One if the deal went through. On their
et Ba
way home aesditant paid Curran $500.00 to aoply on commissions.
Plax “\
4 were endeavoring to dispose of the Iowa property
At fe ee yey
rave ,and there was some correspondence about that. They
wrote SNsrlsat setters on February 7, March 4, March 24, and
April 11 demanding further oayment on commissions, which met no
response and no claim that no commission wee due, though Junk
did write them on March 328 urging them to do something about ths
Bale cof the Iowa property. a
a yaveve uy foie
¥
There #8 no claim that aevretees did not work fairly and
“A bfiandat
faithfully for as eli. » cr that there was any fraud or wrong
a tt« Fee Sree &
or loss in the transaction, but appeiiant, testified jenying any
agreement to pay the original commission charged, and sayine that
at the time the trade was consummated there was an acreem
4
tween him and Dan Curran at the hotel in Ottumwa tha
ry
should trade him in and trade him out of the property for $3500.00 |
: a ay \ ~ “#2
wo \)—~seeticcteh °Vetetes Leek ewaut to edit to saoqeth binéde yeild ned
testy oft gabeswoeth yeted emsa edd toby’ o¢teT a tat betewa
sagas cower aaa att) ot: yadivreatopw <ditonet. te ee
edt berewens Seve tbocpenh wwedt ynev of gateuter base, ..bseogotg tenet
ALON bas ‘Houm%ot sew motes imnoo edt hase - gat yes astied, NG BS tte
yverTeeredh ows ud” yeh Aviottosens rtedd tin no op’ ton bL
odw yitseq ewol nevmortsrettsl «s gnteolone mid. storw 2soL.
fSFTS YF rode bre Vebra00 Tg ao0 Mh eels esas tyods- sasat gy a
cetomtlil grideslad nt’ Levon me te taatilage ‘tear ter two ma Tab
“ROO de ret dem: odd “beaeuosto atags aed sapecyshtee Mali ex su0 bk
| ~ ~edftul s°eotbio ivory’ “anne: tL: betes aellesce bore estat
: ysdt mid biod SH .ytteqorg swol ent to gniteoqeib sol ro tek Gb,
Ford Aer sal
-btiew eo $2 Hdiw Seeds on ot biee’ #4
se Tedd dae! bivoy
okt (SLL Aer yrancal jebiewred tA .teyty Lie enotsatmmos edt.
HTL” “SY ebe rt” oft bebo bi bois’, ewol “swaurtto,, te a9 unt eee aicn!
ttedd #0 oLtgvotit: torew Leob sd at ponent, 1 XS bir:
-snoteetmmoo no Ylabe ot 00,0084) nenzsd! bases emod Ys
tol virsgory Bwol ent: Yo seoqath été ht why anos spans
YouT Jtailt tuode wonsbroqes ize’ smOe exw aus? bas.
Dire ©, S8 dorbM 9h ee ee ate) amet ts te 5 7 ae
on ‘tem dotdw >. snoleaimmoo mo tnemysq redtrut gatboemsd, £2 Linge
wavt' ‘devon eub vew sotesimmoo on dadd mislo on bos senogast
edt tvode ytidtemos ob ot merit gatgry 88 dors! mo, medt odtxw BEB”
, vattrejotg swol edt to efse
a3 Prd ld reir oa “ru,
bas yYfuiet drow tor bith. eestierde dtedd miolo Ae, STsaT . ey
AR ind ad Ray
gfotw Yo brett yae aew etedt tadd 10%, ine LOT, wee
§ ce Pm ds Bh, ie
Yas ‘galytteh boLitteet
r , tud »moitosenett edt at.asel to
tact GHEVBe Bre (beyradd motsatmeoo Leatgiro edd wed. de. dasmes
-od tretesroe ‘na sow Stedt betemmyenoo caw | ebett ‘eat. aatileai
SS laeae teat aswrmuttoO: of fetod. edit! tevasriw). ig bos .md
a”,
and that nothing ghould be paid until the whole transaction was
complete. His testimony Pies cok ees his plea in not gonfining
the trading out to trade for Rock Island County lands.)
| This a a sharply contested question of fact for the jury
to determine. \e conclude, from a reading of the evidenge in the
‘|record, that the jury were not only justified a that
) Currants original proposition of ¢5.00 an acre as gonm mission
was accepted by annpellant, but they could not jepecnabig reach
|
‘a different conclusign. The question still remains whether jif=
) ferent terms were agreed upon as testified by anoellant at the
| hotel in Iowa on the any 2 he contract was completed. The tes
= o
timony of appellant is very clear that there was, and of Dan Curran
| @qually clear that there was\net. The fact that appellant immeé
diately afterthat meeting paid curr £500.00 to aoply on commie
BSaions certainly does not auppert his thecry that no commissions
were to be paid tntil the Towa preserty ‘aS Gisposed of, and his
| failure to answer subsequent lettets from appellees demanding
further payment on commissions by ciyiming that no commissions
were due, seems inoonsistent with rah dada he is now making.
\
We are entirely,satisfied with the veriiot of the jury on tha
/ \
question, therefore the judgment should Mtamd unless the record
diseloses material error of lawe
Awth-2—-
Error #@ assigned o- giving, refusing and modifying instruoe
tions. Plaintiffe! seyond given instruction informed the jury that
the burden of proof was upon the plaintiffs to show a contract
fer Commissions ani that the contract, if so shown, stands until
a, ‘ , . : : - .
a recision or change is shown, and that theburien of proof is upon
; A, S : :
defendant to show a recision or change. isl
objsetion_te—shie instsuction,—but. +i —there- is .2ny uncertainiy
AG pe
LCi (
> Seaman [> ae ‘third given instruction
: ee the jury were-—tead if they belicved from a preponderance
“\ “a —|
Si -s , “qe 1 , 2 | 1
r ve ' ;
“a > , ,
~ “age Re RN aetna ee
€
° L re > R
iy ;
eaw moivocenstt efodw edi tit biseq od pivode gatdion tedt, bas
aataitaod ton at eslg aid mort “arotith yoomitest eLH. etete o
pee <}
Nee ~6hosl ytaved baelal Ago to% ehsitt ot tuo gatbert.edt
Yrut dt rol. tost to noiteeup betactooo .ylquede £ t36L efdT. i
\ : " * ‘ _ ea A
edi at Sonebive edt to gatbesr 2 mori ,ehylonoo sll. extmreteb ot)
dent sathgtt at bebitseut ylao ton esa yxuy fs Sat iah gay
motee inde as estos Me 00.8} te wots teacotg /Lsatgtro ens
foset yidanoee ‘ton. biyoo ~yedt tud tHelleAce. ace atqezos war
_ pe tbh wodt.sdm enhbns fLite aoitasyp »-sdT +ngkeutongo, ¢a97eTREs | 2
adt ts toalleags xe beltttast as now & — SxSW. eatsi tenet
-a9t edT .betelqmoa, aew toattnoo eat ‘ Yad. ect, mo éwol ak. Ate
meri) asd to bas « (a8W >rodd tedt.teaslo Yrev.at tnelleqgs | 20» omit
Senunt taslisars tent | toa’ ahh ston jean. ered? adt .teelo. ybSeupe
~tumoo a6 ylqes ot 90.0049 ae: <0 /btea gattesu tedtzedte yledetb
ante fee tmo0 on dade ‘ytoodt aid Syboaus Tom aso9,. Ylaissis9 eeatte
, eid bas .to beaogeth esw xtreag3d, ewol edi {ling witness Os S48 y
gatbnemes eselleqqe mort ofostel tasupsedue tewkoe ot ote
>, -Stoteetmmos on tact aatmtgio yd emotes tnnoo. Q taenvgg, ted 7
egoivem won et sd misdo fat dt iw tasdaberoomt cutee. aul 23s
ted? mo yi; 9 te solhzev ot. dtiw te ena
Sroost edt eselau Siete Sivote tasmgbyy adt arotesedt. «matt
ewsl to tonre Letredem aeeol
-ouitent gatyilbom Sas goateuter.,gaivig oo a sbeaphase ot BAB alo x
tedt yuut edt bemioint mottourient covig baovea tats Litatels | "
toattnoo £ wore of atitinielq sdt+ noqu egy -toosq to vnaiud ent
{tinp.ebaste ,awols oe ti .hebsdingo oft tect fos emolaeimmoo is
moqu ef Toorq to mehiydedd dad foe ,mwode sl sgnsdo 19 0 bat be: ot
_Lattaetedueon—ese oi yegnedo to aotatoer, & woe ot ‘tnebaet
Riba hve ns. tes) Ad dnd —ynotteuatentathe—ot no. te ee
t a teh ats oy! ree
fottoyitent mov x git ition @rbkotaa ab octabh '
, " OER, see hy , AS a
a soferehnogeiq 8 mOTy bevatlad yadt tt geese ee
of all the evidence thd facts (reciting them) claimed by the
plaintiffs, then, uhless they further belicved from a preponder-
ance of all the evidence that the contract with references to
commissions was rescinded or changed by the consent of both the
parties thereto, they should find for the plaintiffs. By the
next instruction they were told, in substance, if the criginal
contract relied on was proved by a preponderance of the evidences
properties
and the proprketkas were afterwards exchanged by the defendants
through the plaintiffs aa resl estate brokers under the terms
of the agreement entered into with reference to commissions, then
the plaintiffs are entitled to recover "unless you bselisve ‘rom
@® preponderance of. allthe evidence in the case that the said
contract waa afterwards mutually rescinded or changed."
By defendant's first given instruction the jury were told
that if they believed the parties had a contract for commissions
still, as matter of law, there was nothing to prevent them from
making a new and different contract at a different time, and if
they belicved from 2 preponderance of the evidence that they did
make a new or anothsr or differentcontract in respect to commis-
sions, then the new contract would take the place of the first or
*
original contract. : = =
2d feta dadnrd
the jury-the-vontrovertsd.guestions tia Palate a other ine
; f
structions which—amounied only to an-—amottftosttor-ot “ners.
that the..court--bhad..stated te-the—jpury-sdout-2- subesceentditfierent.
-eenvrent, stating in detail if they believed there was an acreé=
ment ostween plaintiffs and defendant to trade the Iowa property
for farm lands in Rock Island County, Iilinois, "or elsewhere"
and the undertaking was not performed by the plaintiffs, then they
Ss
could not recover. The court struck out the words "or elsewhere"
Avo Aho ear .
and this action te defended by aeeebiees on the ground that it
was a departure from the pleadines to instruct the jury that
there was an agreement to exchange for lands elsewhere tuan in
—
-_ gp@lt ud bomtalo .(medt gattieen) sates tdkdd: somsbive: ost 160%
-tebsogsiq 6 mors bevetiod redtast «yedt ee ates med? elaltal f
ot eonoistes itw toettage edd tend sonsbtve iorttal is tte on
odd tod L0 tasenoo edi yd begasio ro bebatoast exw ado basin
sid YS. eatidvatelq ed? 10% batt olyode ysiho, ofersdt sek ted i
Lentgixo ait th .semetaduq wt .bfod..orew yodt, sottoyvrte nh woe
eonshive. sd io eoneroinoqeig 2 vd beverq.esen mo betiet toexta °
aetirsqorq :
atnabae tab) edt. Yd begnaroxe ebrewistke: sxew eeiteisuoxe i? bam
amiet ecturebou etedoxud etstes deor sau | stkttatelo-edde dguondt — :!
nedt ,anoleatumoo o¢ eonetstor dtiw otat boretne tasmecrge: 859-30 > t
930% evetisd, MON. seetau" rsveosat: ot boLitines org Biyitotelg «
bine edttedt easo-sst mt / epnebtve. edtdie.-20 scien cain
",beonedo x9 bebatoeet! Yihertum ehtartsthe 5eW doestno6 ©
SLot.sten Yawt. sat aplinictane: mevin terti 6 tneboe ted: ya ieia fh
enotesimmnos 9% tosrtnee & bed settrsq sit Sevelled-yeds- va made ot
moxiimeds tneverqo ot gaddiom aewisrent! wel fo tettem pe te” ;
ti bas, yemddotoertellib <evteitesrtm0o tmeretI{[D Snewen & gatwenr
BLO yedst teddy eomsbive: edz! to sometobnogerg © mor? pevetied yeas:
~a Laoe | ot toeqsst at hosttnootasrstitboto redtons=10- wemsaiedan
m0 text? sddyto) eoslq edt exsds bivow. tositmos wen oc neg Rea
-toatsnoo Lants
Ss Ue oe vad
-at tedto beretto daellegcn caaitanns-teacheetsha peg
aticechd crore tibetan “peo yino besaucusdotdw: scanngste
insretitbtaevssedve-e-tede-yrrt~edt~odbotstsbed ienan!
-sst3e me esw etedt bhevetisd yadh tt Listebomt gaitsita ——
Ytreqo1g Swol sqt.eblert of tiabasteb- bone wtittaieslg weswhad'y
"“erecdweele to" yatomikiil ,ytmued baslel aloo a4 ebnéf med 20
yods seddt ,etitatelq edi yd bemrotveg ton edw “abletrebar of a
"ertsdweele 10% -ebirow sd? duo dtourte tiwoo ‘sdT “.¥evoost ve ox“
te SST jas
. S STUN Pi.
+4, dedd | bovemp isdth mo es Seabee oo Bases) rs
ee—mesy » 2D me jury had been several
clearly and catinitely told tat if there was a later and
| different agreement 1dde the piaintifts could not recover, and
lat was entirely unnecessary to/give these instructions, and cone
sequently not reversible oe to 60 modify them. The court
'refused other ins trbctioné ° a by the defendant which we
| have examined and regard p erly ceeeeees There were ne
| difficult questions cf law involved, and insofar as it was nece
essary to seine ce jury about the 1a governing the subjecot, th
| instruct tions given fully served the pureed.
The mouion for a nsw trial was accompanied by an affidavit
setting up newly discovered evidence, but not the affidavit of
the witness whose evidence had been discovered. A motion for 2
ne w trial founded on newly discovered testimony should be sup-
ported by the affidavits of the witnesses by whom it is oroposed
to prove the facts relied upon, or some excuse should »v¢ shown
| for not obtaining them. Janeway v Burton, s01 Ill. 78. But aside
from this there was nothing of importanes in the newly discovered
évicence.
Theré is neo question about the amount of the verdict.
| fp As we have before said, the jury, by agresment of counsel, were
| instructed if they found for the plaintiffs to render a verdict
? for that amountm, therefore, if they found anything was iue from
| the defendant to the plaintiffs they had no choice but to adopt
| those figures, 2nd neither party could complain. Ths judgment
is affirmed.
Affirmed
LZLTirmecde
&
=
a
=
>
-
é
=
‘ve
bb t2uoo- 3d3—Ao—rotter BINS Tinton ose reine wnat
“orlrebmy-yetdtestabescr— di omvesrto sw fremgetse ta
fetevee mcd Bad yrut a Sa eft ed tye ©. eueet |
bee tetel © sew sredt Tt $3 blot 1 aseanen hae yiteelo'@
gre ,tsvoost ton Sivoo etitentedd edt obi tnemsetes tS
@noo Boe ,emottourtant evedt me aguas: vletiiae
tryvoo sit .menlt ytitom~ o& o¢ e eldlersvet toa ftias.
6w fotdw trebnstsh edt yd bet: a age niet xoitto &
om SiswetedT .beautsr ¥Llusyoxrd- Brags bas’ pentmexs ©
-oen sew ti ee Ystoanl Sere
fe
Lovnt wel YO Ssottesup yive ot oY
edt - wtosidue sit Sitwasvog Met ott -tyodsa yw a eR) *t
oebeing sid bevise YLivt sents eno i fo:
tivebiitte me yd ‘be Ecdnesds acw Istxrt Wen & I9F Pree oer
to tivebtits edt ten tud (eomébive berevooeis yiwsa qu gal
“S-10% sottom A .bersvoceib assed Sed sonsbive saodw seontin: wie ,
=que @d'‘biyode yoomitest bersvoosi6 yiwen ao bebnavot cebgetl *
“besoaoto et tt agaw te asesentiv edi te ativebitts edt yao bats
nmtwode ed blyode eevoxs emod to ,noqw Bstler ‘Stost ett evox .
ébtas tua .69 .ffT “108 otra Vo yswenet Vnent ahimtatde | on
betevoosib ylwen edt nt Sonetroqmt to ‘snidteoa esw Si1edt efit.
280
etotbrsv sdt to t¢nyome sit tucods notteerp on nail
~
.
? ‘nen
Pac
ore ay
etew ,[6enyoo to fnemeetzs' yd yt ent ibiee eroted eved ow
totbhrev & tebme1 of Stiitnteia ed? rot Bavot yetd tt devo ident
“moti sub sew gaiftyne bovot yet? tt .siotered? .mtovoma teddesot —
tqobs of tud sotedd om bed Voit etitdatsiq: sit! of ensbnerebreHt
=
tremnbnt eff .atelqmos bluoo Ytteq tefidten bane \eemygtt
'
+e Sg
* Tevoour ree e Dm pee:
uN ;
“", Demir lTta-” -?~ md OAH erde
D Wey
+ 2 sever? re
pmenb: acthdon of auukbants edi woe) 2 eat a
STATE OF ILLINOIS, |
SECOND DISTRICT. ;SS- 7. CHRISTOPHER ©. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TesTiIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this _
day of _in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__ ee
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
gialfougs adi lo ayefO .yaiud 2) agm@otemam® © he
zhtoueH ala jo hikcan: Beara pea lo sia adi to dointeid. Rago Biss “oh per
out 7Aebos: Sond ror toe iota A acwany ynowrres'D we |
rid ewaentO fe bri00? ‘otallody A, bise dt to bnew
_ 90 biol 10 io tex odd pt ae ee ae to web
oo ie Hor bers el solid basanodt “i
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Lilinoets:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J, CARNES, Justice. j
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. &\ kf 5.540 BE
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
rt 104 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
t
£0 MART
'
/
3 ' : i iv ' 4) nts i er. -
‘ : " aye bp
Nat ‘ ome rr,
| radoto0 Yo. ysh Adtit adi ,ysbesuT to ,swsdtO te bled
a 5 ¥
49ettit baa berbeud sain basevods ono Brod s0. 10 {SOY ef
7 4 *: “5 Pasty.
pte safomilil fo aiei@ sdt Jo totrieid baooed oft rot bas atdeee
ay .eoitaul gnibtastd , tid BOMAMAOG ..noH oAT-+d
.eetteul ,dRYAAD .0 SMAUC wool
—~/ _ .eotteut ,QUAHTIM .M WHOL .moH «i Gs
ROO .A T AiO ,
Gey eu EF Lp ph GRrOID ,YaRUC .9 AEHIOTSTAHO
‘4¢ived@ ,gIVAd Moa
SS Se = deeply tearm spe) a eri pera ren pe erry err —— = a = =
mo :dctwerod .ebrswroetits tsdi , HARAMIMGAR
oi belit sew tripod sdf to aosinigqo st
eatpsit bars ebrow ads at ,t1p00 Bisse
J
Gen. No. 6308.
City of Peoria, aopellee
vs Aopeal from Peoria.
Western Union Telegraph Cc.
appellant.
Carnes, J.
This is an action by apvellee against
Telegraph Comcany, of the same Kind and character as its suit
against the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company, in «hich we file
an opinion herewith. (Gen. No. 6207) The samé counssl voresent
the case here, and. practically the same questions are raised and
argued. For ths reasons state
i
‘
tne
Qs
in the opinion in that cas
@
judgment is affirmed.
Niehaus J. took no part.
(ure ms ;
ra SO MER?
rl Ts *
nwee TO te Mi ia
; . - , p : ‘ e ne
geltecce 2 160% to
eélios® moxt TesqoA Avsds. yo? Bis ae
:
;
De
' .00 dqsrgelsT sotaU mz
-tisilegas © .
molnU mrstesW sdt fentegs, selleqgce yd noitoe se et etd a. a
dive sti es ustestsio bas bald emse edt. to Yaxomed dqstgel
ee
v
elit ev dotdy of ,yasqmed eldedmgqsrgeist Leteo® od am
tusesra Leanvoo smes siT (T08s ou sited) Stlwered not: :
bo: bestet ets enoitseup emes edd YLleoltosrg bose ,ersd ses
edt eeso tadtt mt aotmigo edt ot betste encessx eit 70% - beugs
| sbomtitie ef tH
~Semritia ee
ne 7
«tisq om dood .L sxsd
Pr Ay iW;
y y S
HMIMBS rT 3a
-
i dvotdg
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT.
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
oe: I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFy, Clerk of the Appellate
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the cpinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this as
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and _—
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
{ ATO“ tIT 0:
i ToINTEelad ©
atellong& vi te duo) ,yaaod .) aansoTeisHo Lb
ebioosd sii io usysed bes .zioailll. jo ste oft to toiveiG haoostt hise 103 bs
edd xifts bor bre: wna dee otavetsd | soa W rnomiterT “ul
aidd scdd0 ds d10D sisilaqgé bise odd to Ise
+ea0 biol wo to 1e9y edd at_—___.___________to wh
bs borbasd ania bawevods is
a
= d
on ee eon a ang eR
wrilacuehk add ea Anal) _ ctf air
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
f
f
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, fhe fifth day of October,
i
mm the’year of our Lord. one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
PY
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, ‘Justice.
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
» A}
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. () (} 9 f). z
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
_—
| xi pS Ane Wpryi [Tle
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
1016 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’?s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
, ight er Preis
Te aoa to wsb dttid od, ysbeeot go: swatto:
ial bas betband sain baseuod) 90 btn 10.
satomi(II to etsi@ odd to Abtite ieebansse ‘odt 109 ‘bas
-sottent acibia aoa dIGELG FOUARBOU .coH edT:
Loottaul. ,2SKSAD UL HHAUG .coH,
me (QUAHXIN. .M MOL .dok
a as CRI |i a A Ce ;
AES VAL OG saasdio xyaaua .9 sausorerano.
<thkited?. ,2IVAG Me
’
SS conan rele
‘ > é \
:
a
f h .
7 H a + Oa? 7 ™Y a
- sont . ‘ aG* 9 pe
ay CR a) hae as ifs u af ft Sel
: “4 we t ea by Ode shee 5 ’ i
7 i arenes - - :
"
|
We
x f
ae ; ; hed itm
A fio Sin tig 2 eaiket me) pitty
: seats taldledty Un tee Gey te tere Is b :
i r
Ky
‘s
7 H|
pa
1
,
rot
10 :tiw-od _ebrswiatis tedt’ -csaH9uHa ©
nis bolt? eew tru0d edt Yo soiaigo od} afer. 87,
7 e9tugii bas ebrow odd ai ,drgod bise 0 gortto |
Hl
ay
uo. Nn
1 “i iy Hi ,
'
F A MD i ith
t a
h ios Bs as
Hi Ce, ar tau
Gen. No. 6109.
John H. Gibson, aprellse.
V3 Asoeal from City Court Sterling.
Niehaus, J.
His case,
a written contract
£ June 1913, by which the seesllant agreed to convey to the
News aha qj
68, by warranty deed, a farn, with a dwelling hougse thereon
y : ?
in the sounty of Whiteside , in consideration of the payment
as pf
by 45 of $18,000 as follows; $200 cash in hand; $1100 |
| aid
rm)
{9
Hi)
cfr
10ote made by J. W. MeCready, to be endorsed over
ano the balance of the consideration to bs
at ~he time of the delivery of the deed to
1914, by making a further payment of $3700 and by giving another
- . = al, . A
f@ on the premises, for $4975, with interest at 5% per annum,
It was exp nereed, in the contract, that assellant would
os 7 .
deliver orn @& warranty deed, and give him possession oc
x
he oremises on March lat. 1914; the premiaes to +6 as focd
cr
condition aa they were at the date of the contract, ordinary
wear and tear exocoted.
At about the date fixed by the contract for the < 3
Ps: ) DL pr caoeedsp oa
of the deed and the PORBEES LON) oe eer went to-arnis +, who
wag oashier of the First National Bank, a Sterijing Iilinois, and
S tt QR PP ESO Tes
demanded of aposssant, that he carry out the terms of ths contract,
al
by delivering to him the deed and the possesazion of the premises;
and offered to perform his part of the contract, by paying the
weeiisage «moedio .5
i. spaitrese tiv00 ytid moxt LseqgcA t a av..-
»stosileage ,yeatid d
an ie ate Fe
nx} Ae Os -
otal as eee
ites edt at
re Ee:
sit ot yevmoo of beerge ¢
~moe7sdt eevod antifewb « dtiw <mtst & ,.bseb yiaetien yd r
notterebienoo mt , ebtastid® to ytawes 2
ss
am
taoemyeq eat to
OOLLe ybaed mt, deso 00S$ zewolLot es 000,819 to Sete
eek skiky
ptaeitieggs ot xevo bsetobas 6d ot ,ybes 100M ow ov Yd ebam oto:
iS ;
ERED, xd beltteae ed of noitereblenoo. edi, to. seautcta
pied doce no ,mid ot beeb at to yrovitel edt to emkd
ooveh te promos yeddwt s gotten we
7
redione coivis yd Sas
MOMS Id Re te teototal dtiw arene rot woe tmerg ens mo ee
bivow PaelleGcnc eee ,fostinoo odd of ((beetes ylesergxe 8 ow a
to molseseaog mid eee ,besh Yiaetisw &
we a wir 8 ee a
Oe
oO
op
8
©
ot eeaimerg edt ,alel etal. dorall ap aes
boog ae 67
yrenibrzo ,foettaoo ect to otsl sat te or08 ye?
bet geox® rast be
eft tot tosttmos, edd yd bexti etab sat tuods: a
}new ‘esttsaee fotsasssod edt bne “peed 9.
Yrs =viteb
odw ,
tet terit ate to retieec
Tundws} ;
to bel
~toettmoo edt to emiet ait tyo yITes ed tedt ,
Snz2 pstontlit gailres2 ts ,dmsd Lencl
yasetmexg eft to noteseesog exit foe Beeb odt mid o¢ gnisevt
edd satyeq y¢ ,tostiaoo nee tc treq old mrotted “— ro bn
Aaw
eM gatizet2 edt moxt enab bad od dot
mes
bed Dae gnsa Lanotts
Been ee =e
ial i yd one (eeogtwWg tedd tot
ag
was ready to deliver the warranty deed, but vractically admitted
——
that he could not carry out his agreement in vegard to giving
~.
o
ei a, * :
@osecihe possession; and it anpsarg from his om téesatimony, that
he proposed tc obtain for anpettese, some other dwelling house
to occupy, until he could put him in possession os the dweiling
house on the premisss in paige which of fer aspetties’ refused to
accept; and thereucon ti contract at an
&
demanded a return of the part of the consideration
a feta het Ader balm :
+ es $ J o Tear | !, > pa a a ays f
which had beon paid to aeeeitemt; scnelient refused, anid sesediice 7
A
commenesd this suit to recover the sum paid. |
oi resulted ie ee aaa ais Or-...
end, and
te ocived byvacgellant, ane term
et quaqued onthe versfoty Tuer upem— ~
24 by the aseettent < Auge rAnerthtnn
fea VF}-
evidence, apseiies had no right
that under the fasts
to recover; and that the evidences fails to show, that appelles flaw tf
tendered porformanoe on his part, or 2 willingness and ability to
perform; or that the aetual performance of this contract, which
cy abe ve. ether, S
Was mutual in its character, was prevented by the acteiternts
os
ry
©
te]
svidence olearl alld that appellees cffoered
o~
id
to peri 15 part ofr the poor
1;
tims, the ability fo pattern it; that he had the\
for final payment; and the notea /and mort
iY
gage for the balance of the purchase price, in accerdancs wit
t&
oi
"NE
©)
oO
Cc
fs)
0
x
Kw
D
rr
Q
me
los
the terms o the contract / Acpellant\ admitted his /inadility td
carry cut provisions’ of his sontragt, réquiring him to turn
Over the possdssion of “the premises on Warch ist’ 1914, by propo abi
Ce
to procurs f opéilee another dwelling\place.| There pds —
evidence tending to show, that the premises wers not in as good
Condition at the time of the making of the contract; that the
> wi
Welling house was quarantined, owing to the presence of amali-
: as
aROLS ada? ae
bettinbs yilsottostg tud shoeb y fast edt _revite’ of
gaivig ot bys20% me jnomeptge ain tuo yt160 Fos peal
tedt ,yoouttest mvro aid vole gf ‘doe ino tseses0g
savor ee ahi taste SMOG _Obsbal rot aistdo ot "peel
gatliewh sat to notueseeoq m mb tug bluoo ed Lita <eiiee8"
SS eam
ot beeutes 's yet 0 ite ite geen ee ip mi eosimexy sie*ho |
fy Sn en) ey
ce ee
y _~ =
ne te toettnes 4e4 swnetbis Lend mocwstede- sik Ra
f- c
sottsiéhienos ef} to ¢teq ert to mister 2 B SbBEE Eheb sae” 4
=a CF, oo a, oe + Soo nGhghs Ned
Son petienée Firs isa tol Aaa al me a “Bide abe
Sts a! mre Sad ‘revebor oF
8 sao aent esa Ear “Ya Bevere Tones ~bhe al ue
Petraes “#83 Pee St “note angie: berebasr Sass P
Fionn piecsntae | ed} qe bes ed th :
tdgit om bed seileage oséars iva: at perasas7g afost Sa? rebdu 5:
A
WES sind iar badd fast .wonds ofariss sonobive éd+ ¢sat bas”
7.
ot Uilids bate eeeogaiiciw sc te . dred ‘ait a9 omen tog £63
GA a oS
do Fotw .ostines ald? to eodemrotteq Lautoe sa? Fact “soi
Tarte os a) are ; -_ ani te
strsiteisa ‘si Yd beinevera sav itefoeteto eft at ald ut
ad tto “esl led Sb At aa ee edt a
pd neds bas ,dtiet boosy at/ ie ae edt “to fisq ‘aid a
bets phe on tent ME — ytitide ‘edd | “emid Sef
x :
Y sa bre\, saton adi ate it fomead erry ‘oT wast vende ‘ai oof
‘ igso. ame
i dd tw conspire os at eottd sicauitenis Yoon 0) Sanaeed | ay aa
\ r -:
t ytilicent, etd bet? raibé /idetted-h ; \\toetdtoo. ‘ait
irrot o¢ mid anetiupet tyertaoe etd “Yo mote kvaitg ”
gafeoqorg YI 4 PLoL ates doit mo sea imerc Nga ‘to yee pee
: oft ten Be
Came), erent -Soali/gsthLfowb xsdtong sella eHrot 21.
; eee sate) a of ton ‘stew gealmerd silt Yan? “\wode’ of git Saad
. « peid
ve ede tect itoettnos ont to “gacblein ‘ed ad ‘ena at te
ck ah
oe “erfome to eorsesta ent ‘ot ‘oatwo. wen
|
=
tb
eee
pox; that water pipes had been frozen, and were bursted, and had
0
dampened some of the plastered walls of the house, and had caused
some of the paasterine to fall; and that vecause of the bursting
i, ~ ~~ oy
6a, there was several feet
of the water nin
S
or basement of the house, which made it ver
circumstances re ees Rg aposllee had
he ntract, and “edover bac . “ae considera
oO oo :
"It is a familiar principle that at law the time fixed for
he performance of a contraot is deemed the essence cf the con-
t
tract; and generally, if the seller is not rea@y and able to psr-
form his part of the agreement, on the day, the purchaser may
elect to conzider the sontract at an end." Morgan v Herrick
Admr. 21 Ill. 481; Tyler v Young, and. Soam. 444. The same orin-
ciple was upheld by ovr Supreme Court in ths case of Guerdon v
Corbett, 87 Ill. 374; Wilson v Bauman, SO Tll. 493, and Bonnettv
Glattfeldt, 130 Ill. 175. And this sourt held, in the oases of
Bernhardt v Trimble, 45 Til. App. 59, that where a rarty fails
or refuses to comply with the tsrms cf a contract, the othe
party may rescind and refuee performance on his voart. The facts
and circumstances in evidence, clearly indicate that sarvellant
was not in position, for a lonz time after March lst. 1914, to
Carry out the terma of his contract; that at the time required
o
He
@
-
i contract, he was not able to turn over to anrellee, the
> 2 >
fad
Ossession of the premises; and that the premises were not in soo
uo]
{»
habitable wamdxkkan or sanitary condition, nor in the condition
ef repair required by the contract; and that appéllese, who was
able and willing to perform, and offered to perform his part
ef the contract, had a right, therefore, to rescind it; and
tO demand a return of the amount of the consideration which
a@opeliant had received from him; and that uson anpslliant's re-
fusal to return the consideration, had the legal right to sue for
hed bas betters aTtsew Dae cTesoTy mod, bed Brig retew
od
beauso. bod bas aud ort 40 af f Lew bersteoia ott te amos
: ; { 7 aoe 1 Gal of DISS
anitarsd ed? to sausoed tease bree (ile? of “gatredesty edt
teliso edt at 1s odew to test Laxevee: BAW oredt eect xotew
t+do. od ¢
+ sa jyred fneasi yrev tL sham dotctw | Seu08 eat to taomee
baer” «tae
ane: gt -titgty ert? bad eer ieaca see teeth soonetamuor
a ocf bee
Pais oe ;
oer
ie GSES
-noo edt Yo eoneease ‘ait comsee at ‘tossiade 8 46 9 somata ee
$5 ys *)
-tsq ot aids bas yeast ton at rel 28 ond u Uitereneg Raa 4
ae Lane
. aah roendowg odd eb odd no «toemest tae edt to aq
‘Bots eH v regrow "bets us ts toexsaoc edd <ebteao9 oF
ae
cnded wane oft eyes meee bee saawel y aeLyt {8a +142 18
Fy neta =o ee
v aobreud, Xe eeeo edt at 13109 me rque nwo ws Roney Bets
vit ennod bas "eee Ett 08 enone Vv Pn0sL8R wave Lil v8. ad
~ ; Foret! ,aev
v fo cane edt nt bloc ttien eldy bak aed. -L1t OeL tbLs
packs
“gltet ts fs sxedw fect (82 or £17 ae veidnis? vo tbe
: L TLC
nedto edd footing: . s to emret ot Adie _vignes ot
ni
- btost od dte0 eid mo some seceveke. eeuter bas ‘Datos 1
jaatiogce tadt etsotbat yluaelo ceoasbive ni seat
ait bn 3 oe iF
| ot ICL tal doweM testis emit sad 8 ro? hold teog
bsitupet omit edt te tadt itosténoc abst 0 emzed edd tho
edt oeileg: “6 of tevO MULT od olde ton aew ed idoentage
; 1 PONS.
Pha} & ¥ ‘
Bortlénes edd at tom «Mo it tbaoo yretiane : x0 wakaithieles oJ
LY OT ‘pu
er odw ,eelis eqas ted bas jtoettnoo ect xd peziupes
Pe ol Sapeat
tre etd mrot1eq ot berstto bas a10 800 ‘od gotite
i @61 LSG8->o4. ce
yo fe batowen ‘ot cosoteredd atogta 8 bead stoadimoo, 2
Wolk - -
* dota nottaxebteno> edt 20, Soom edt Io pall ag:
a x hae it ag 19 qnkt @n ne 3
des nor e*¥nerLeque mocar todd bre inde mort bev ft .
' ‘Senid,
si uaiva chewene
“Feet or oe ay a eee ee
et ae BETS Ts. CF be By pals ool “
Fans
¥
a “74
the amount dhe him, in an action of assumpsit, _
nt ghould therefore be affirmed. 7
Affirmed. —
s
“Se
4) gs
iim hy
w Ged f write f
SBSH ttLe ed emotsteds Etwode’ ine
; geaav UU. oo) ao he “V Beri tts iy pat ws OS : ifverz woke
we Spe
«
.
a
€
ec
»
s
*)
<.
»
“Zee es
Bn
i
. 5
2
‘.
Ot wg de pg —— Le "
eet OE Ay Bae
=
Fe 4 }
ar ' fe f <
te} ¢ nt f ss "4 ‘a
bey Wr Ay Te he PES LE. Sb
\
-
a
i
5
ty
Ee
ie
&
=
- Lt eH POT Tel one ~ ee NEI
Ce re
- ‘ > ” *
7 CAM Toes Xe » tre gat 4
fefaren
ini : , se ryt ¢ 7 n i
ke ; Pa ¢ I36s ant
; z ih; $ { ‘4
: - ga
" v , h vi a
: ¥ GOnVe gz) Bp He 2 xt Pj Boys fe Tuo ve
< Ww Ya
: Yd :
“ene =] 5 < b 5 aa
‘it eG LL) atasee FOEL aR ¢aPe
s tate ar Of MN ip pape i f iy
< & fh. a iy m @ hid
: PLES 7 a ug 4 i i f *
; eu .. * A 4 2% [iG
a ‘ > + hp - ; ‘
ash <8 Ost Pera7 ts Pe iene 5a 4 My * rm f 7 pre
7 i § Hua iS ne ¥, ae fe iH
wr *
i ra ace syih ei TJ we F is a ee » > > Don ‘
: * 4 : : NP ied A ao eae 2 SAS: br %
+ & inj 5 ,
, ¥ TD 8 , Bon Wer gi
.
> Ts + ae i
~ os ‘ A ‘ Nfs the Ly, : atl Ota
’ i
P. : > ’ ) { pe we
7 aa fi " {% % ahve
4
r f ' : ¢ BIW BT
r
de - @« if tr
s 4 BE ah Met LY id
: 4 + a eb CL ee
4h ww ¥ dal we Poet ah oe koattexer, & Ca
: ; aay n4 {
Ge v7! Pe Liye «4 } iP fer ~ 7) a F)
‘ % uh y eo de cea Da g Yu bea Lipo Law
f oe
s ¥
‘ Vm ey o
OTE ; a) oh ae TO tte .¥ ot waked “
@’
pee t pent oe ‘ae
mt § 1 oO 3c: 3 Fdylx 7 bad: ‘ toant Fey
fe ft ie v4 Wi? J 3, Ae An aR 9
iw Goltaedisagas elt Yy cw Oss SAT To. say RY
f ‘i
Ot Bt tnel feces
Brad
Roi 1 ib
Sb s PT NP ne
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )..
SECOND DISTRIC?. ;°S J, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of ____in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__ et ——
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
vw ke
4 plow 40 @
ate SOMTTRIC —_
iS
aigileqy fd odd te areal yadod J) saadorenn) oD
abrooelt sid lo vageval bins etowilfl Yo etsiG alt to dointerG baouse. bise tot bus it are
edd jo gonmrtyo vad tu yyou ound Bt epioysiol ai} jadt YWITAAO YERAAN Od josvod le iF
otto tnt ai Loser to .pa009 beliivas avods add ft Suod ods lag.
aril | ound V7 yuowltan'T “ud Pog -
old xifte ban bead re doe OG
aidd weiiO de wrod atslleqa?. bise oxd to isoe
_ to Yeh
suo biol Wo to sway ods ot ——__._.___—
_bow borband asia basenods
J
_
=
_
<n er NR
nadie? akathenct’: Vk ‘ey days : —— tinoecalil
Ve
: f / 4 dite
f - d
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
;
within and for the Second District of the Statesot Lilimors:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding Justice
i
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
2 + iS A ys
a A ( = of wb
2
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice. .
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. “ ~~
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
B
FA
&
§
F
== —— ES
K
£
hi
¥
&
a
é
i
ie
that afterwards, to-wit: on
BE IT REMEMBERED,
FED ¢ ihe Opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
:aromilIl to. siste an toitieid baosse odd tot ‘bath ey
i
-sottant gathtaert ,JIH€IG ZOMASHOd .aoH sAT--t.
i ;
i bi -cSMAAS> .L AMAUC , oo
Shs a - 9 ae" pkveal QUAHAIM: .M WHOL 0H he
~ OS dal yaad .9 “AgEGOT2 1AHO :
ia | Aired /21VAG Md ae
eater eee:
4
t eerie
. ) i if eukd
‘m0 ttiw-od pabvewrsile “ted? ,QEAESMEMaA ‘TI fa
at belit asw try09 edt Yo'aotnigo sdt °° Sy at te fe
: ey
serait Bos ‘ebtow edt init’ ,trv00 bise to s0ttto-a" ATED
:tiw-od}
A ‘thay ’ iW
wi
ai
oe _ bel ho Ee RE ee eT
Se Te etre a A pee. en ER Te ie et
Gen.No. 6138
Anna Koepke, Admrmz. &c. appelles.
a ( vs Appeal from Rock Island.
ra prt
eeoi” ¢ \
Bea Ry I, & Pa,Ry + Co. appellant.
Ne
:
0286 conmenged in the circuit
on i
the sappsl hee, Ann Koepke,/
f X f \
£ hér ee eee Koepke, de=
if \
a } \
a aan the &/P, Ry. nee ‘gon ellans, for \neg=-
4 f \
E i : _ : mS
ligenfly causing the \of her husband, whe wos-an’employe of *
eof rte?
liant. t £2 alleged in the Jealaration, that the deceased
was killed while engaged as Car Insp ectorts helper, in ths lings
ey ICEs aCe An
of hia duty, by the negligcente of sepedtient*s, servants; and the
) ar? A ae 4 \
liability of appellant +e based ucon the provisicns of ths Federal
f
é
Act telating to the liability of common carriers engaged in inter-
: Pan pe
Btate busineas, to “heir enploysa.
= the fe. Po Atle Ps oe
The negligence charged,, say the acvsiiant, by its ser-
vants, 30 negligently managed a awitch engine anc the switching
ifn Shoes
which was done by zervants in connection with the
distribution of a string of cars, around some of which the de-
he fe athe tig
csased waa employed; also that acosideant's servants, who were
“\
managing the switching and the ewitch engine, at the time in
gucsstion, did not excercise reasonable care to ascertain whether
the decsased was sndanzered by their work, nor give him any wann-
= F J
Arfere od. te
nz of the danger incurred; and
gently failed to set the brakes of the string of carga in question
and that thereby they got into motion, unexpectedly, ind ran into
the deceased.
There waa 2 trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict finding
cr
A
Qo
3
appellant guilty, and asseasing the demages in the sum of
$7200; and the damages were apportioned equaliy between Anna Koepke
‘
is oe v
=
é Cas Ea iN Min a ae
is ) A 7 , ay
a “ ai } : ” a.
i ; }
1 yy
, .
s bred Se
Sele .
,oellsqos .o8 »mimbA .eitqeo)
ebosfel Xoo mot? LesqcA ‘avo 3
stnelfequs 200 .yfy
=
tinortc add mt beomammos seso edt ao mottos’ md
/\ ae
/ \esaeor: mcr Y aie acaed¢ yd .ytavod KnsLlel
/
?
Ye <axqeor ASixts
é \
a he an ae
fee v io etetes/ sii 1 xitds
Yareqmod .Yi AS al ah ae edt geniog\
r
ea eer os aot es r
edt bos ;etmevise ettnefifiercs to ebaceiigan act yd pr
hy ; te oo aaa)
fetebeit edt to enotetvorg edit moqy beasd pais to ¥é
Wistal at begsgae atefriec MOMiMoo to wiltdeil ect ot guite.
-eeyoLque sted? od eeeaten
say See
-1ee att Yd .gaetioues edd Bacall as wegtcdo soneniigsa edt
motdotiwe sdt Ene enigne dotiwa s Soren yitasrilysa wo
: edd déiw mottoesanoo mi etmevtes KY yd Snob aon
-eb ast dotdw to emos 5: wots Aree to gatite © to BOLT,
Si dane). t-
atew odw ,etnevisce ettaslt chaos tedt ane idevodane ean,
at emtt edt ts ,satgae pai eft bas gatdotiwe an —
a : ce ie
tedtedy mistirsoas of stso aldenoase1 satorsxe ton bib ottes:
: : sak" 4m
-amew yor mid evivn tom ,datow afedt yd betssmebas esw beceaern
ears e aaah ;
-tized etmeviee aesiiheg: ed bas j{beriwont teyneb ould x
molteeup mi exso to patite edt to aedserd sdt tee ot bette? w
giant act Sor ,ylbetoeqxenu ,aoitom otal toy vent ydoredd te
5 to mye edt at eaeganch edt gxteoneos bas sytkbay,
as
eC ainea. onak wnoawterl tl Caren Phomaed sicmabeiad We eS
widow,
| the
the jury made a
of damages suffere
for contributory negligence of
Judgment was rendered
and Helen Koepke, the
only child of the deceased. And
cial finding to the effect that the total amount
ad was $8000. and that they deducted 2800 therefrom
on the verdict, and uson a peal,
principally on the ground that the causs of thse death of
intestate was a part of the risk and danger assumsd by him, by
Ante, =
his contract of esmpioyment; that the damage, wee, Sxoessive; and
LAL. bettas oat al oat oad
that the jury who found that the neligela 4 intestate was suilt y
“A
of contributory negligence, did not deduct a sufficiently large
provortion from the whole amount of damages fourd, on account of
such contributory negligencs.
The proof show& that the deceased, in the carly mornin
hours of the day of the accident which resulted in his dsath, was
engaged in work per
ant to the
oéing
at Rock Island.
mail cars and four
Station. These
ceased was assisting
Lr
-
cara men
Br fers
fat
“
tioned,
atts
a
y, Missouri; he
road engine, which
and the engine had
that had been left
been coupled to
testing ths wheels
car inspector in®
situated opposits
At
Soars
ts Loerheme r- OOS
aay passenger service,
“4
among various traing
the road sngine, +t
taining to his Sree i ist=
“
railroad yards;
a3 helper or ass
the yards
the tims there was a atring of three
passenger tanding on the side track
fourth track north cf ths
anc coaches, in the regular course of a=re
wers to be inspected and distributed
to waich they wers to be attached. The de-
in inspecting and setting one of this string
a mail car, ready to be switched and attaohed
z Now 39, which waz bound for Kansas
had just helped to couple this mail car to the
was r @ady to switch the car to train No. 29
moved it about 4 or 6 feet from the other oars,
After thems avail
as
standing on the track.
he deceased beran tne
ct
=
a
3
metal pa
er other
boA .beeseosh sdt to blido yino sii ,exqsod aelsH bos qwobiw, ed¢
tovoms L[etot sit teadt tostte oct ot. gaibaltt Estoggensiehenuaateti
o-
mottsrsat COS$ beteybsd yer tad? bas .0008$ ecw beredive oonenat
pe:
to dtesh edt to sayseo edt tedt bavorg ant. 10. > lsatemts i
e mba yo beawess “‘regask ne Hatt eds +@ freq 8 eew etatee
baw jovieccoze ae Bs
ep
SNE ‘edt edt itmemyolque to ‘eertaod"s
Sesh
XY $itug: esw ots teodat edt ted bawot ont vue ene
ys
egret vitae 4 aol s toubeé ton bib .cbaeghigen coca
own ~
to tmuocoa mo bata? “eegemab to tevone eLodn edt. “noi. ole
~— tne
eer iteeb eff af betiueet do tin “tnebiecs, eat t0..eb Nie Hig e
— oh tit
ctetece <0 redied BE secercos are etd of anintedreg ‘iron ga | bea
eA n.p Sa 2 iT iy tsloz @
abzsy edt jebtsy baosl ter ettrefices at rofoeqent 180 edt ot 4
raf ok sue
noltsie regmesced sat x6 dix0d bre s08 etteogce betaui ie
Ay
om °F oe
sect to 5 gnitte 8 eaw ote rt? .benoitasm emtt edt 7. -boelel Tack
L etn
Moctt ebte edt mo gatbas ve 2edouo0 regnesead 107 “bas € ered Len
edt to dtx0n Zosit déuyot odd eaw sotdw t% tedmun 8s pede oy
—ferve to eetLoo teLlings 1 edt a: weestoeco ‘bare eIseo “seed “nottede
eh ee : ‘bavos : he c Hi
etudixtett boe betosgent ag od stew eolvree Topaseeey alll
J gtizentss 5
~eb siT paceatte ed of ezew yedd do bctw of arisit ee e
gaixte eT to eno gnttter bas gattoeqant at guttetess obw hen
ysece0eb eit
bedostis bas bsdotiwe ed of Yoset + TAS Loe 8B sbenoitocm & 3 Me
peed Og ne meet o ''
eeeness roi bnuod exw doisw ,8S .o atert repmoeeed vay ri
eft of Tso Llhem eldt+ eiquos ot vealed tout bed ed iwoseht
at ane
@S .of mtett o¢ te0 edt dottwa ot bes ~ asw dotdw ‘enlgai
.eteo BAO edt mort tesi 6 10 & freee tt aba’ had catgae 2
Ss” «¥en Lisa taalie
to xxow edt asxed becesoeh. odd weatpae beor end ot beLqu
Ware re Maint Pale eoahein merit” aie ant ee
bad te0 i TedtA toot edd 0 aotbaate tier 2
| etic of the hammer which he was using for that purcose, had been
heard just immetiately before he was killed. At this time, ancthe
switching crew was operating at the other, or easterly erd of the
string of carg, anc? coaches mentioned, nearly two blocks away,
for the purposé of detaching two coaches therefrom,
Gg. .
+ Suring the operation
of "outting off" the coaches inquestion, at the east end, the
switch engine, which was doing the work, mesammeee bumpe) ocainst
or pushed the
SAYA es that 7
the whole body of the remaining cars emdthemly moved towards the
car at which the apsellee's intestate was working, who apparently
did not notice the aporoaoh of these oars, and was caught betwean
the buffers of the approaching cars, and the car around which he
was at work.
i ~ -
rs caz=bhat fhe setting of the string of cars in motion
wae the result of the action of the switching crew, at the east
6nd, and was an unusual occurrence, and ~herafore unexpected;
Gg proper and ugual prosecution of the
ewitching operation, of "cutting oBf" these coaches, would not
have resulted in setting “he remainder of this string of coaches
and cara in motion. | If the setting of yaaa ia motion was _
it
wv
Q
lear, that the deceased\did re assume the risk 2nd danker
hereof; it was only the om ni usual risks and dangers of
his employment, which he had ags unde And if the accident was
Caused by the act of tre engineer of “Nhe switch engine, in
x
ee
*
Striking the body of the ¢ars in question, with extraordinary
and unsecessary force gnd violence, and sucK\force 2nd violence
Caused the atring of/cars to be set in motion, \and the deceased
Was thereby killew, such act would amount to negligence, and the
eke
need bag saogtrg tad? 10% gutsy eew of Adidw tented ste to as rree |
. eedtcna omit eidt tA .bellid esw’ sd Steted 5 etetet? ommf tau t* ery hs
end to 56 yirstess ro ,tedto sift te anits16sqo 6@Bw wes aiidotiwe®
: ocans exooid owt yiress .benotthes si esfosoo fins jetes" “Toe gatrte®
«mottered? sedosoo owt eniidosteb to e860 ‘tq ent aot
nobtereqs ext patty ded}_,90087 retat od8
ont .bae tease ed? ts wetbuenntt asdosoo sii” “ttd galttio” all
tentene peqmrd meres TOW edd gniok ecw rfotiw bo tye’ Hod tweet
1o-ceneloit epnesaia—faveia atin ets0 “oithast: ent ts to
edt ebrewos bevom ahecqinbens 2TBO satatenes oh to: ybod’ elodw ae
3 Jtr.S frm
yitaeteqge ofdw .gatdtiow aew etstestal ‘bleetlecss | ‘edt nto idw ‘te nee
igeriad tfgueo Bay “pas yao" ‘seeds to degotade eff ao¢tfon “fon bib © 5
si doidw bavore tso edt bae (ateo gzifdosotdge ‘sith Yo’ erel td otk >
fs . witow Fe aew >
ws : ‘sbaeav beovl tes ae OTS aron —- +
aottom aft axso to gnirte edt to galives od} dactdeee lech ee” onan |
tece odt ts ,weto sotdotiwa sdf TW adifos sai 16 tivets each eew
edt to aeityoseorg Leavew bas reqord $heh-,06 13 tnsbise et 3F ©
5 wenge (.e .
ybetosqxeny etotered bose ,sometrs050 Isusinu ae easy bae (bos ” |
ton aiuon (Bedoeco eeed? "$ho gattivo" to ,mottsrsq0 ‘onidodiwe | |
eedicaoc to gnittea ality: ‘So tebatsmst ed? antttse ni betLuest* ove
eew Moites-aé-ereo edt to natitee sit 31 | Vmottom nt exe bite
| datcadot lore to aArow ae taobionyY Teveuay 16 yrsntbhrosr sxe ‘ne
regast bac dety edt emvece ton bib Argeseost sit Fait} .tselo St FE.
to erepmeb big avety Lauav has rranibze 6ct yino @ew #f {tosierft | |
esw taushtoos edt ti br’ Merwe bed en dotdw cfneityorgae® ett |
oe vontgas dotiwe ody” %9 ini aif to toc sdf yd” ’ pelatiay }
yrenibroartxe ny ao tteaup at ated edt to Ybod ony! gantette |
sonoloty hase sorat lowe bee sports Lotv 4 Ok “goto yreaesosanu bre
deceased did not assume the risks and dangers of such neglicence .
Devine v C. R. Ie & Pe Rye Cow. 185 Til. App. 488; affirmed in
266 Ill. 248; Mattocks v C. & A. Rye Co. 187 Il]. App. 52893; Mondou
vN. Y. N. He Ry. Cow. 323 Up. 8 13; C. & HE. I. Ry. Cow v White, 309
111.124. Nor does the law impose a duty upon one to antiocinate the
negligence of others. It is a presumotion of law, that every pere
son will properly perform the duty, which is enjoined upon him
by law or imposed by contract. MeFarland v Jackson 189 Til. App. 453.
It. is hardly necessary for the puroose of this decision
to discuse at length, the question, whether or not the deceased
contributory negligence, by being on the railroad
ty
was zuilty o
track, and cetween the mail car and the remaining string of cars,
se
at the time he was killed. But a proper determination of that
e
question, would involve taking into consideration at least two
elements, namely, whether the deceased, at the place where he was
killed, was performing the duties of his employment; and, whether
he could, by the exercise of due care, have anticipated or noticed
the approseh of the cars moving towards him. There is no direct
evidence to throw any positive light upon these inquiries; it may
properly be emphasized, however, that there is also no evidence
from which the inference could bé justly drawn, that the deceased
was not, at the time he was killed, acting in the line of his
act
ry
employment; snd from the nature of his employment, the wm
a
re
of his being on the track, and between the care, would not, of
itself, be negligence. Whether, as a matter of fact, the arrellant
was guilty of the negligence charged, and whether cr not the de-
céased was guilty of contributory negligence, were questions
for the jury to determine from the evidence. (Tulo v O'Gare Coal
Co. 183 Ill. App. 433; Devine v C. R. I, & P. Ry» Co. supra.)
The matter of contributory negligence, under the
Liability Act, does not bar the right of recovsry, but simply
a
» eomeztiznen dove to exegnsh bos sdetx,odt emees ton biti boasepebs|
mt bemriite ;88) sagA .LLI €8L..00. «yp .0 # «142.0 veembved
yobnoM .;@88 .qcA..{LI TSL .00..¥A.A 2) .0.v- esloottel 4886 i aLilwese
COE ,etidy v.00 .vH .I1 .% 2.0 gh. .8..U-888 400 .yd-sHiakes¥roy
edt steatotings ot sao. moqu. ytub.s ssogmt wel edt.esol ro -sSSis£LT
“rec ytove tedt wel to sottqmyeedq « ei tI. .atsdto.io soaegtigen
| mid mnogu bentogns si dotdw ,ytub edd mioireq yLrsqorg-ILiw 08
»Sch “ag -fiT S&L soetost v PasltsioM .tocitaoo yd bseogml to wel yd
“2
motetoed eidt to séoqiuq edt tol yitseesosa,ylited: et. tees5s ae
~
beessosh edt tom to redtedw .Moitesup eit. .dtbasd ts) a ak oF
beorfie: edt no gited. xd Sonegilgea Yrotudieines .ioe XeLiwg: sew
.eteo to pattie goiniemet adit bas res i[iew edt asewdted sp, eae
vedt, to noltsaimrstebh tegarg « dud .Ssllit eascw.ed omtd edd its
ows desel ts Motterediesoo otnt antast sviovat Sivow aottesus
esw ed sredw sos{q edt te ,bsessoed sdt rodiedw Wlemaa ,etmemsls
redtesw Ons jtasmyolqme eid” to seitus edt ontmrotreq set a belts
Deoltom to heteqicliag aved ,eteo sub io setotexe sdi yd ,biyoo sc
toetib om et staAT enid abtswot safvom atso edt, to dozorcgs exit
yem ¢t zeetrivpat seeds moou tigtl evitieog yas, wordt ot . somebive
eonobivs om oels ef stent tsit ,tevewod ,desiesdqus ed. vfmeqora
hsessoab renee wend yiteuvt, sd biyoo sometetal silt dotdw. mort
eid to emtt sdt+ af gaittoe ,bsllit aswed emit edt ts ,tom sew
fost etsm edt ,tmonyolgms aid to erudsn ect mort. bas igaomyolqne
to ,tom blyow, ,atso edt, moewied bue .Aoart sft oo gaied sid, 20
tasileccs oft ,tost to rettem c as ,isdtedW . -sonegilgem ed: ,tleadt
~ob edt ton to tedtedw bose ,bepisdo, sonextizen erg, io, xt Livy. sew
enottesup etew, ,somegtizes yrovudiziaoo to yiliug gen, be9880
fs00 s1ed'O y olyT) .eonmebive edi moti eaimreted. ot yaug edd, x02
| ied ous 700 «V9 .9 2.1.4.9 v saotved 4bee vad -LLT, €8L_ 09,
\ fershet ed} rebosy ,eonsgifsen yrotudistaog to stettem: @dT. ono
a
ylamte tud .yxevoos: to tdgiz sd sed tom esob ytod ytitt
—_
affects the amount of damagea which may
4
oe recovered; and under
this act, damages are to be diminished by the jury, in provsortion
to the amount of negligence attributable to the employe. If the
deceased was really guilty of contributory negligencs, it must
have been regarded by the jury as slight; odut the extent of such
contributory negligence, and ths proportionate diminishing of
damages, in consequence thereor, were questions for the jury to
determine; 2nd we cannot say, that the jury imoroperiy determined
either the question of contributory negligence of the deceased,
thersfor in diminution of damagespe
y
Q
or the amount to be aliowe
wo
We donot regird the amount of the damages allowed as excedsive,
under the facta and circumstances presented by the evidence; nor
were the damages improperly adjusted between the parties to whom
they accruéde
There is no substantial error, sither in the verdict of the
jury, or the judgment of the Court. The judgement is therefore
affirmed.
2.
Affirmed,
wo
¢
r=
ee
w~
*-
} a | y ) rw veut, - ‘ ‘ Por
nee ib ie A ay’ ® Loe J 4 7
(- “ ’ Se }
¢ I M ry | a of :
rebay) bas. jbevevoper. od: vem doldw: eegemehu to: tnvome: oot, owes
mottrocerg, at ,yint odt yd, bedataimib od, ot ete eezemch) .F0gy
edt TIpseyoleme edtvet oldsjudiitis pousailuen: So tasompi eH
teum th ,gonegifigen yrogugizinooy 2 tt LivgoX Lest, seyibe e299
«fous, to, taesxe- silt, tud. gtidgtsa, eg, wut sat yd: bebiegset asec ey
yto, gaéideinimib etenoittoqore, edt Sas; ,eonegdigsa :
ot: Yiv{. edd tel. snofteeup orew, « 1ostedt. eoneupesaoo. at: 490;
_ bonipred ob: yLregotgme Ung eddidedt) aYeertonuso: evokes 16
beacsosb-sdi: to esenestigen yrotudiziaeo: to.molteeue eit
_sa@sgemsh to soltiunimib.al totereds bewells sd ot tavome.ed
wevichooxs. ec bowolle eeucmeb. ott. i0 tavome: edt -biszeT tomo
“som jeoushive. cd?) yd bedneastg eegnetemuorto. bas. stost sat ae
. modw ot eetiusg: edt. asewited: seiaainnaei
=
ocd fanei fe acliaereblers ofns tad. evloval _(ebesteses
. ve
eedits tostotbhisy,: odiost rzredtier «sorte faitnetedue, eee if.
ctexotered?d; at-tnemgbhy fo odfT ie tawod. edd: to: stosmgbyt. odty 1
bectiscn to betoetisiiog eval ,eteo 4: . gbloxeaazs. esis
oe x
gos7i6 on at erect ,eid ehicvr@bomr2t3h aizo eit to Kosoxqa@ sad
Yon 5 ast J
as, tcl 6. bpongyélgen: -
7 i.
—eo Bu! om FO Tengen whi »HEaRIELS POMS, Li56G O18 SORE saad . i.
f .- a oe, a ~
@rolyve OUD Skai ~<COAPaL LBA YRo tydixrtroo to yi Ling) ft i r
faod ereotoO vy olwT) .eomeliye ec) mot} eninzed eh, ody, rie ‘a
eS10GN6, » Ov VHF % wy I .H J. Vv. salived poee *4% cA. ose a ok:
| i eee
[axefs® od: seboy_,pomegliignen yrs tugtztaes 20, et tame
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )..
SECOND DISTRICT. (SS J, CHRISTOPHER ©. DuFFy, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Hlinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOFP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this =
day of : in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
; | ww) @LOMIGIE FO ATA
atelloygé ot to dae) svaiud . agutorancnO .. “") .. crottrert anogde.
ebsonest odt to tecqael bee wtorif{T to ata act to doigtai honest hise tot bow of
aiid te noidiqy and to yqou suid 8. eb wnfoggro orld dudd are auD Yaaset od 109 7 {se
Solito yor ai biwast to »eneo baltitas svods edt ai true otelloga
od? zits bie beg yon toe otuuered 1 “ouAAHW yuomirea'T al pot Se ean
rae Fidd .swaedtO ds iis00 sitellogqA bisa add to leoe
~ on0 Bris nua to twoy odd oi. Se tO ERD
hes berbaud onint brpevodd 4 £ }
—_—
ne ae 2 a eee.
_
-
Sei eae ma RG emt a
Rem, at eee ta A kee TN
A lt hs ae ee | 1? TST
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTQPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
BB. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 7 A 1
2)
16
¢
the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
‘
q
figs to veh divyot sd ,ysbesuT co ,swettO ts blod Bas
?
; ; . Rey
,assixie bas bsideud saia boasevodi sao brol 1u0 To 149%
satontill Yo steis adi Yo toivteid boooe2 ad? rot bas au
*2aditepl edibiee a ,QUAHZIM .M MBOU- #00H sit <5 eam
-oofjaul ;@aMAAD .L ATMAUd vaoH ~~
sottewl ,JIasIG SOMARHOC .a0H
VO © a eee GG ,. ofelQ,YaEUd .9 AEHSOTaTARO
7 ~ <= a <a * cs 2 ag < ee ¥ ee a £ taeda, ey eLVAG M > a, *
: j
aust = 4
= = j -
“é
- = i
= as, id a
Fo tas
ee Fi
: 7 4 Fs
. S38
ee a
ao :tiw-of SB brawretts fedt ; C3agEMEMas TT Se
| at petit asw i100 edi 36 moiatge edd * “APOE _
_ astugit bas “entoe ot ai, ig0d ‘Bise to editto stint 0 sf
te _ < tive “ot sewer
—
-) ——
Gen. No. 6150.
The People ex rel John Pritt,
anvrellee
41.8 + 7 Anneal from Stephenson.
Wf daak. flo. ¥F% x
School Directors petes appellante
Dibell, P mw es - ere Le The, iv bop pba 6: AL
= John Brit t,/ae—reteter fited—in—the.
4)
cirew pire a—petttton against the
oo
school directorsa,of District No. eigutynine in Stephenson
AE\ At Ar whe ,
he) vegies said directore to aporove the sélection
fl S
made by him of the Freeport high school in district no. one
hundred-=and—Lforty_nina—five in the same town for his son,
John J. Britt, and to
Oo
pay ‘he tuition incurred 2nd to be in-
curred for the attendanes of_said child at said ni h,. school
EA ho,
+
; pen - : ie
during the current sohool year Ame pétition alleged that
Britt was a residenod and tax payer of said district Ne. eteney-
trevre and was the father of said child and that said child was
within the school age and lived with him and that h
a
was
resoonsible for the core, nurture and education of said
child; and said petition set up the statute of 1913, entitled
"An act to provide for high )BQhop} priyilsges for graduates
Uap i?) $$ 4 2O— 470 & , (02 BAG As cd f
of the eighth grade "9
The petition alleged that district No.
one hundred and forty five Med south of and contiguous topaid
district No. eighty nine and had a2 high school therein and
affordéthe nearest and most convenient high school accessible
P Ba Fe - oe ee a
to pupils of district No. eighty nine which offerds full
a
four years program of study, ond 46, the only high school
in said county with such program accessible to pupils of dis-
trict mkkgk eighty nine; that relator selected said high school
for the attendance of his child and obtained ths consent
+
of the school beard of said high school for the admission of =!
‘
OArwana-mw Reg AAADetr i Bae
1G +1014 3 Yes 1014 a9)
»
§
ry Oe = \ t WhO
\
a ay oe
1
n _ er conarny ren ad "
ta m “« dX Sones v 35S x a — + - yw, 4 «el | etledid —
nt Pear 4) —
(oe LA SIT SeY
esifsagcs
efroensiges? mort LseagA WE OT. MOL OF MRR by by
“te bay , SP ne re a, . (be a4 ‘ Fc
.\ 8 “ oot ee \
etaslieqqe -o¢2, erotoerid Loodce
SR prs
\ =e aeiek ee aanien eee
ent at—beti=: scteier—as ftir adol iti, S—reducevot—n10 | i
edt tenisss notriteae venved-noenedget tortanee-tiveate
Sy
mosnenqet2 at eataYidets of totrtetd " yb TQe Oo zLL foofoe
gottosi{$e edt evotces ot stotosaib bisa extupe'r wel
Pane -om toirt¢elh at Loodoe dgid diogssti edt to mid yd ebsm
.moe ald tot mwot smee sedi al out? snii yirot -bes“texuauie
-ai ed ot bos bermont mottius ed? yeq ot bas vttirg .l ateh ee
Utcuroo *
Ftonctgen gtd bire te Blido fise to eonsbastie edi 1oi bere
rd a athhy ti
py
tact begelis moititeg ant, vxzey Loodos tnerwo edt antwb
72
4
—esaete .oll toftiath bise to-teyeq xet baw énebtast « asw t+bxd
aew bitdo Btss tadd bane bitdo biee to tedtst edt eew bas sain
eaw ef tedt bas mid Hétw bevel dna exc Loodoe edt atdtiw
biee to motteoube bas etutwa ,eteo edi rot eidtenogest
beltttas ,of@L to etutete edt qu tes mottiteg bias bas ;biido
eeteubery tot sean tEt NS, Soordge dyke ar ebhivorg ot tos AM ie
air no arp0F P ag S4|, je A
oon foirteth tedt begetis noititsq edT ba sbers dtdgte edt to |
ay
4
bisgot evougitnoo bne to divoe bets evit ytroi bae bstbayd eno
fy
boe aisredt Loodos dyik e fed bas entn ytdete .o totrt)elb
e{diesecos Loodos detd ¢tnetnevnaoo teom bas tastssn ot abxotte
fiut 2 “Aretto dotdw enta ytdgte .of toitdetb to aliquq ot
ora A
foodos dain yino act pe® bar «Youte to mercer BISSY myo?
-eth to eftquq ot eldteassoos mergoig dove dtiw utayoo bise at
Loodoe dyid btee betoelse rotaler tadt yeas Vtdate katie volid 7
toeenos edt bentstdo bae bltdo etd to eonabnetits edt 10
= soteetmbe eft tot Loodoe dytd bisa to ne? Loosdoe edt
dao
| gaid child; that said child ys graduate of the eighth grade
in said district eighty nine; that the tuition per capita
Oa ll
or said high school t# forty doliare per year, payable
Bor
¥
semi-annually in edvance, and 4ees not excesd the oer capita
cost of maintaining said high school; that there see ampls
funds in the hande of the treasurer of district No. eighty
nine, and Gace eutzicvent funds in hie hands on Juby 1, 191
4
to pay such tuition, specifying the amounts, and in- addition
ther-to said district Noe signhty nine levisd a tax of five
hundred dollars for thé general expenses of said district for
the current year, and that after paying said cxpenses there
will remain a sum in the hands of the treasurer; that though
often requested the dir ctors of district No. eighty nine
+
refused to grant the transfer of said child, refused to aoprove
the sslection cf said high school, and refused to pay ‘he
tuition charged relator or the attendsanes of said child
at aaid high school and did this witheut making any objections
to the sslection and without designating any other high school.
The directors answered, admitting many factaand denying
some of the facts alleged, and stating what sums they had
contracted to pay during the said school year, and that on
July 29, 1914, they ievied a tax of five hundred dollars
for schoo® purcoses for the ensuing year, and that they anvro-
pricsted said five hundred dollars for certain soecified pur-
poses; namely, for salary of teachers four hundred dollars,
for fuel fifty dollars, for painting school house forty dollars
for incidental expenses ten dollars, and that ssid chiid 3
in attendance at said high school. The relator demurred to
certain portions of said sanswer end the demurrer was sustained
roots were heard uson the other issues, and the mandamus was
awarded as orayed,
Daa ee vie: in ee a
ebers dtdete eft to stevbhs Tg al blido bise tseit ybitno biee |
sttoso 125 edt besoxe ton sees bie ,»eonavbs mt yilevnane-tmse 2
elqme ese erod+ tert i Loonies ‘dgtd bise ‘gnintednten i taco a
yirinie «ov mpi agate” to° rewesort edt to sdaed sot at abou ¢ Z
- " ete oo At ge & &*
aiel .f dul so baad sie at ebay? taelol tive Bee tne. venta :
neh! bose api: toa -—~edauoms, sidé. gatyliceg. aftoidiug foue Meg & pt y
ewbbcltouxet «18 bevel eata yhigts ..of totrteth btAa Bo i cae
tot tobttelh biss to asencqxs leienes di 2492 exe Loe bexbaud i
eredt eeeneqxe BSise gaiysg.isdis dace bas ,ra9y dgeTwe edt
daveds daddpremvesetd oct lo ,ebass edt ot me 6 atemet ti tw ie
sate yiigis.oh tolxteio to.etote-1to edt betseuper Agito rs
evorgoe oti beduiex, .bltdo; bias) to qetenext dt, tastg. ot. aeedaes be
sed? yeglet heextes,bas toodoe datd.bise. to, fottoeles. dt a
bitdo?bise. to somebnette, edt. 302 toteist begtsdo motting —
anoltosido yas pataan tuodtiw eidd BL. dae. Loodos.dgtd bies,te vie ‘
> Loodeay datd! reitonyne! gatteagteed: tuodtin. bos aottosiee edt ot
gniyneb: basetosi yaem galivimbe, ,betewans, exovpertb eT ;
ben yedt! emwe tedw gattete bos ,begeiic etost sdt to. - em98 se
eee tect base «teey foods Disa, edt gafiuh Yag of, Pete Ree, the
-auelLob hewbaud. vit . to xet a, betvel yest PEL eS vivt 4
morqca yest ted? Doe .ssey gotuens gic, tol aesoctug fogioe wt 4
-tq bettioeqa mistitea ol, arei fob Apmbpugl avilt bisa. _ betetzo Be :
Jgatellob bethaut wei, etedoset to caste ytet Yemen 88505 —
eo >
eu el Iob Vitel eavod looses giitateg toh ,atellob yttlt eS
e, Atiide Diese edt bas saxellok ast asansgxe Letaebtont rot
od setiumeh totelex edT -Loedos aid bise ts pagebnetts at :
Lobentstaue 6aw tetyymeb cdi» Das tewens bise, 40 agoitiog oe
enw veumebnem edt obas peovact Toto ect \moey
4
No reason was given in the answer nor 2poé¢sred in
evidences why the directors should not axcprove thse sstection
(@)
f the high school, norr jJid the enswer deny those parts of
the petition which showed that it was reasonable that said
high school should be acproved. | The der directine the
oder nor asaid high school
f
Dropere /)\
Sicers to anprove the
w
was therefgr
<
rue statute in question says that the tuition of auch
pupils shali be\paid by the district in which they reside
\
"from any funds not otherwise anpronriated." We are of op-
\ | .
inion that it was not intended by these words to confer
uoon the dircectore of\a school iistrict the same power which
the legislature and cities have to anpropriate specific funds
\ /
for certain purcoses, but that the reference ia to the oro
‘
vision of the
ua
encral schol law ‘which authorizes such dir-
‘
\
‘
ectors to levy a tax annually of/not exceeding a certain
per cent for educational and\s certain per cent for ouilding
‘
urposes. Therefore responienta in our judgment were not
4
authorized to defeat the right of\ the relator to have *he tuieg
xe)
>
tion of his son at said high school, paid out of the funds of
the district by dividing ups the amount levied for educational
Ourposes, so as to bs Aporopriate to other purvesss all the
gum levied for educational purposes. Moreover, ths school
directors could not know in advenos what the salaries of
oO
the teachers would be for the ensuing yean. The er oof
o
was that the tuifion charged by said high school of forty
taining said /high school The proof indicated\ that payment
in advance was recuired by said high school, and that at the
time of the hearing of this case said child was in said
high school by sufferance 2nd liable to be sxpelléd at any
noivosdses eft evotacs fon Slvod@'etoksedhs sat "edn eonsbive —
to sttaq soodt {yesh “tewere-odt BIG 6H inedaée “agin sat 8
blige. tedt elfdendesst° asw PP ait beworde to fdw persia =
sit
.cedd comttosttb ‘teb
foodce duld bise to mito
Howe to sofiiud edd tect eyce motte at
ebtser yodt aotin af tofrde td sit ‘yd Btsd/ed coi eens!
te
=qo to sts sW¥ n obetabigordds seiwredto tom ebayt aie
\
eboyt ofifoege etetrqotoce ot ever eyes ast davon ae
ot
an
oxa ent) ot et piace te tent pwc (eeeootrg nistree ee
fevank xst s yvel ot aeetbe’
-1ib dove eosirodive dotdw\ wet Lo ‘foe Latenss * ett ye) motety
ftistsea & sitbeooxe tom So sh
ontbiiud: tot adaso. 169 aletxeo Wb Lenottsoube tot tase sey :
(oottometew: tremghut xo" mts denennogeer ovoteteat® .eseoquwy | |
-iut edtusved otutotalat edt hy sige edt tasted o¢® ‘peabiouebe
to ebnut edt) to duo bie Decweina dg hal bise- ts moe! std 289 a8H9*) s
Lenottssube toi betvel Me edt sa paabrvis' XG forabere eae?
dtefls OAR EEEG nesiyo ot scenes as'6e” eal)
Loordse edd A TOV OGROM sessoqma Lesotteosbhs rot betvel me
to eelrafes ait /tedw sonevbs al woaxk ton Biyoo- exod6dzib!
too 19° °edT seo gaiseds sit rt ed’ biigow eben OEET
ytrat ito foodoe figid bkee yd Seyrsdo' ‘aotdtos ‘sdf ‘tady ‘eg |
-nxtam to tsoo aligns 1s0o0d¢ besore ‘ton “6ES Beer! ‘req ‘ersf168
eval ee
tremysq thet / ‘beteothat Yoorte ea Loodoe sdgid viel pages:
oo
——~
acid te tas fs —s tigit Dise yd bertupe Bs
ae ens ote er ioxe 6F oF eldatt bas” cheat re fod :
a * lag ei |
time for non payment of gaia tuition. The judgment only
| reguired payment for the current year. An act filed in the
l office er the secretary of state on July §&, 1915, neither
signed nor vetoed by tue governor, repenls said act of 1913,
and substitutes orovisions somewhat different therefor, but
that act does not affect the judgment of the court below
_in this case.
We find no error in the judgment and it is therefore
afvirméds
Yin tasaghut exTesmotdud bles vo taemyag son os
odd oat belt? too mA saasy tasriwe edd 10! -sasmysd,
Lo gedthem p8lel 4,8 Erbe sedede 20 .yRetenaas dt 40.199
(efeL to soe bias. dais gromzevos edd” Yd beotey som.8
; qua protereds! trexeta to. tadvomoe: nine
| /O8weLeg Freee sit | ote duampeut/ oddotoes ta: Fog gsehote6
: PIOCO TT 4980, 2
; Coueyoteved? let fh bie ¢oomphetredte md, sores om baths
ehiees yert dotdw mb teftedaly ecf vd bisa/dd fiddly .
Ss
—qyo to eta s¥ “.fotattoordde eaintedto tom shat vos)
“metnoo ot abiot weed? yd ebnotmt tot sow Fr edt %
: ,
P on hf : ~
; : foldw sewog emme. e:* Gofastet® Loodos a/to etotoriui eng
fia’ Coat led Het ©
sioyt obiicede vratiqetore ot evet esiiic ins emtslatgely
exe wi ot ef eomerete-y ef? ton? ¢ud ,epeoctyq mist 760 aoe
, P o& m m - & fe 7 :
tit dove-sestionive doldw wal footoe Lerentp ~ od? te tolel
: } |
thetiso. # satbeoore ton to yllevane set 2 yer ot a
oatiltud to? ..tnas 2eq Alaetieo k/ bis Larottzouh8" to% toso Teg
Jom atew drsmghst tO mt. sone Lmogqaet stoteréent -abadgnae
~-ig? edt avad of rotaier ent | ye viget ad?! taeted of°® bsEtaoe ios
to wba? edt to duo Stax ouses dg da bigs’ ts hoa’ ald ad
- ianottagehs 20% Ssivel sngoma ad? aq yaabay thi¢d chennai
ftvile sescouvg tsdyo of eteirgonga mm og $8 se” |
fLocice ex ,tevootew 6809 Te] hero btecdfs: x01 besy
| "o aeltztafas ait ‘stadu sonar if wot Kort biyoo >
: tec «> #2? .tany gatowaw ocd tatod bigow
7 : ciao” to seodoe agin thie Yd Segtado mos shut *
_ ~niex to tsoc ati¢ao 13 sue berdte Poa SL Teey’ ‘neg sited
P a al
nemysn test /hetagtins locrm eT Leordoa dgtd’ ota ate
Ss
td te dade hee ylovdooe agit bhi ed bovine ‘ie 24
tag mt aew bitiin DL8e eax 1 etd? to gecky ,
{ 6 " ‘ 2s ee ' Cr
1 NA Pie Eee of Or eldwrs etn. ee ice i
ei, (id Bee aL in 21a ve ; ue Th ar ogni
STATE OF ILLINOIS, Vee
SECOND DISTRICT. aes
I, CHRISTOPHER C. DurFy, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
JN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and a
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
sislsqg/ odt to diel aid O awmgoremmED 1 28} TOUATZIA a
ebtosaH aii 16 ‘sqsed bas .2ioaillT to ols odd to Joineil hroose bise ot ba
add to aoiciqo edt to yqoo sudd 6 ei paiogotot. sda dedd yartaay vaaaaH od lc
soifio ym ci brose1 to .seiiss heltidas svods edt of dtu0D.
a
add zifis bos: bosd or doe ofuusted TL womAsH WY yvomireaTl ul
. aidt ewattO as s1u0) otsileqg’. bie edt to [sea
eno bial ive to wey odd mi to es
~
——-_—_———bas betband oaia Dasevodd a 7
@ felerty © SE
5
—
_
ee a
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the ‘State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
f
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice!
=
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice — fr
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 1 4 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
,mestxie bas ida snoid basevods aac brod te to 89Y ¢
F raronkifl to ginte 2a to toixvd ard baooeG odd rod bas
goitsent qorbreert , RBUAHRIM .M “HOt 00H ire
sotieul ,23MGAD = Ll AMAUG .n0H “a
mi; t? f ory mm pp estat ,.dagId SOWARHOC ..nbH eae
“ “"" 7axsio ,YOWUG .9 AWHIOTeIEHO
\ : i
| -itived? ,BIVAG .M .@
4 Moe ~
' 8 S yoo he Sie
=. i b
f y i
mo itiw-od vabrawred is badd anere
te
ai belt? esw tripod sd ro noinigo sds
t
-
: a - .
- ’
a
>
~
: e
™
J a ; t
- ae Pe
vs
»
Gen. No. 6175,
Joseph W.Maple, Admr., ectc.,
Appellee, )
-VS- 5; Appeal from Peoria,
Stephen G,Lawhun,
Appellant. )
i ae et
DIBEIL, P.J. | pao
( a
amit: ner wag, ayn 8° section etshty—-oene of.
the Administration Act , “ean ae Joseph W.Maple, es adm i Se :
CFU AA aA }
trator of the estate - if Margaret M ve saamaeps La deceased, agoinst
pee roe an A et RA
Stephen G, Lawhun, sesulicd imean order against respondent in
aa A
the-probate comt—of Peopte Commty;—-emdy on his appeal to the
el Fee poe tomot, ie
circuit court en a trial there de novo, pon ae
* ee es +] Awt
aA oe te Oe re veqnired to turn over to
the administrator a certein fund of $4000, aoe from the sal
parnnrctils
of certain ’¢ pepers, hevean colled the Denhart.securities, with
“\
certain interest charges thereon, and a certain hote, executed
by David Slaman, for $6,395, end a mort aBs seppring the same,
eden wae, she
and certain interest charges in connection chovowi th, . —ke-a=.
aw 2 SPEC Lespondent Tor-interest neck?
x BAS Rae
/n e bere stat stern ; od but tiet tie pro=
rorrect if the order is
one Siemen-note, —Ghis.
OD g ~~ Pree arrte
/ a
nortsare were by “agreement ~reeed--in.the honds..of..a.f.4drd party
to..await..the..final.result...cf.this.suit, ond thas the amount
a
“aera on ides ole
‘ary &
*
a zoo ,.tmbA ,olqsl.W dgqoeot
, oS Be cerk |
e8txoel stort IseqyA : il ae
| Tiweal. Dd codqet?
wtralLeqas ee
- RTS, SA pal obo « RnTC
to pea Tee nottooa Tegey pegericcconone |
ie oe as ,olg sh. rovot xe} ‘ruaged RK hod nottetke Ltmba ont
seueras ,beuseosss ,Ylvenmel Mw tepmigigaat to-etatae oft-to scot ett
mem EY tees NS oa Jeon Sor my
ni toobnoqaet tanisgs tobyro ‘nant tet Loaer | mie »®) Moriqet2
ot of Issqqs aid oes snd 290 #100 otedoue elt
- tee eS
—SEorks teh so —Kent-en.8—Lot ey ‘ eae ‘Tabst 8 ina Vento 0 tinotto
oman) PoP nd rnd sn FoR~W2
ot rove must of ii hal diai ; ns
ofee oft mort eee ,000LG ko “peter nistties 2 notonte trbmba ast
Fae We SANS se St, a
ad bw oliinuoos dzainododtpettao scheme (ETOESS ; nistres to
betroexs ,otorn oisires s bas ,fosrtend segrsrdo tnowodet ftkstixreo ~
,OMSs oid areant pa drom se Boe ,8@8,35 sot ,tsmala Bkvad
<e-ea- afi tworedd pee ba oon hE sexnisdo taceretat niedreo bre
foor-teorotnt ToT Fao hioqast bes She Laveen sito devon
song oitt tat} tand-Sontor tag os ax as ebadste omod od dost) ae
BF tebto off LE Foorx0s ots FaoteshY ot-en~sebtoodd_to_amotealy |} “i
a EEE . ct0m- tameli~erid-od~920 508. AINE 000i; oul ot as toetr09 si,
“eee a ee bato hed ara ro Artogns zd enccre fe
_Riseg hrbt..c-to BBE 60 beer roncerra yd otrow onserront
towoms ot ast Dis. agit brea btid. 3o.-tiure ot Lanth-orittbewe of
a ‘* : ~ [a ' .
—
Ve
f-
Wenelin Henmmerly and his wife, Mergaret, owned a
building on Adams strect in the city of Feoria, ana
upper story thereof, ani owned other property. He
business
lived in the
dicdém March
1, 1912, aged seventy=nine years, and she died on June 30, 1913,
aged about seventy-seven yoars. Whether-the-ti tie to tire
real and >ersonal property wes in-hin-or-in her-is-inm tertet-
3s ae edee Before his death he hed vested the title
to all his property in his wite so that she became the owner
thereof, They lived in the second story of said Adams street
V5
property for some twenty-five ycars,. Their heirs a
\
re XJ = ” \
four married dauchters and \
then deceased. Apyotinns ie 1 the husband of one of
daughters, and at the times norelin question he lived with
family at 611 Frye Avenue. Mes. Hemmerly owned a
4 ji g ws i ‘
=
to cease living over the store, and a dwelling house
ape known as 609/Frye Avenues. The Hemmerlys
% law were
tne, children of two other daughters
said living
his
lot uext to
decided
was built
for them at 609 Frye ‘Avenue, Thé construction thereof was besun
in July, and finished in October, 1909, and the Hemmerlys oc~
cupied it. As the Hemmerlys became\ old and feeble,
their
ummerried daughter, Martha, who then aes her home with her
Lanpeesppeieitoes”
perents, same.
under a power of attorney. Under the persuasi
that, power of attorney was revoked and frm tha
TOW a
petinnt collected the rents end attended te all the
affairs of if. and lirs.Hemmerly. His contention co
vo
2 \
: fp tae sD + 2ichonon, collecte® the
business
meerning the
$4000 $s- that it was proposed for 'a long t ime, culminating perhaps
in the spring of 1908, that he should build a house f
le
yp ee oe _
aeewtiand § honwe ,loregtel ,etiw aid bre efronmeH nkfersW ms:
ecy mt Bevii fos ,sbrood to utia oft set teotie easbh xo exibliod
sfo veld mols ef ss YWreqoxy tonto benwo — tooradtd Grote segs
(Orel , OS enmst oo beth ede bees heii ‘onbreytrio ves bess * SLOL ak
on” ot sitter seston ' Vober novea~tineves-tuoda beas
_Extret- em e+—reaf- nixon et -eow <wirocore Eames req ba Leer
eldit ot betaev bad od dtseb abd oxoted) seat Tehoomoaetth en
nonwo ont omsood-ode tact oa eiiw a kel nt yreqouq aid Its oF
tsorts amsbA Bise to Yrote oe ort mt hevil yout ., hoster
stew wel $8 axiol tte Ag 2080 1 dane mo tot yitecomg
atetdgrch odio ows to nox hLisa,, att (bose ested inane hoiyrem sot
urivitl ‘Bise to exo 0 basdecsd oiyake saa 7 . 7
piel did tw hevil oxi Kottnosp pe. jenge veinds ould ts das ,protigesh
ot txon tol 3 Hoan Se Pick sso ow! rae te. .mu pas
re bobLoe aul rommol ont | oe ow e02.. as exons RUTISTIOEE
ti tesd esi Sasol SikE Low. 8 bug toda. ast tOVO. emiv: f£ easea ot
cured enw toererit mo tours esto oat spe HRT ROS. os. moc. 20%)
“90 aylremmed acid Bae 2208 Lie sodotad ot baie bad bas tint. tho
stocd oLdoot Sng Bre, fomsood ayixemmol, oa QA. att Sotqwaoo
cot Ad de emot srond eight aos ba Pensa dr
pe geees Softremans
* Rofo elt i
aa. etsot od: d#oeltoo
Sa
—trs£ dere to aco beget ont co had oe to ‘sewog SoeBomrs
“Es MO omit o srit nee
eit gitersomos m0 Edapitaro 9 ali +ULs ommol. anil hos, 2h to, £20 aaa 7
aged og suction tet (ort atol 6 Tot hasogota gow cz: te at, ODN)
0 mercd rot caro £ BLE Hivoste gsi teil 9808 to. ottime edd ab!
Doe th..a@be vio wae ot
Brie Beslowes B.cir wage. to, Tewo pings
epontsud sit [is ot bohmetits baw einer oft bots ol fos tmmmiieg y
f
so
wr
+
( this vacant lot, similar to his own house, and should pay for
it, and tha! when they died he should have the house and lot,
He eee from July to October, 1909, he did build this
/ house &t a cost of $4000, and paid for it himself, and that
afterwards and after the store property hai been sold, he asked
Mes.Homnerky to pay back to him what he had expended for tho
. house, and that she authorized him to take “34000 of her Denhart
securities in payment for the cost of the house, and that he did
\ so possess himself of said securities, ani afterwards realized
the cash upon them, and that he thus became the lawful owner
_ of said 4000 in satisfaction of a like sum which he had paid for
\ner. After the Hemmerlys had moved to Frye Avenue, aP% 3
negotiated for them, in part through an agent, a sale of the
Adams street property for 325000 to David Slemen. The sale wa
consummated on October 50, 1911. The consideration was paid as
follows: The purchaser assumed a $3500 mortgage upon said
premises; he turned over to the Hemmerlys mortgage securities
to the principal sum of $14,000, which he had obtained from
the Denhart bank at Washineton, Tilinois; he gave a note to
Mrs.Hemmerly for $6,395, and secured the same by @ second mortage
on the premises; end he transferred. to them three certificates
of deposit issued by the Commercial German National Bank of
Peoria, ageregating $3352. These sums amount to $24,227, The
balance appears’ to have been paid by some accrued interest on the
Denhart securities, less accrued intcrest owing on the $35,500
mortgage assumed, end perhaps some commissions paid some one for
conducting the sale, and possibly some cash, A tin box was
obtained and these securities were placed therein, and (rs.
Hemmerly delivered the box to respondent to be placed in the
- =
Pig
Sate te
tol ysq bivosde bus east! awo ais of talimta ol dusoav eldy |
mn S +
«vol bas earodd exit ver 5 Luodle el beth yond most Nita i
‘ trrs é
asd BLted bib od 208L Tage rd ov vist mort tady fels
‘ec
te i brs. ,Heamkt $k rot Bioq fre 00038 to da00 s ti ea sen
doles oat | ,5foa mood ha yrtecous exote ont xodts bee abrawrette
ont tot Bebaegxe bed od Fad sel od Sood we of wir onmot eat © ay"
tradned xed to 000) eiat of mis hoatworiisss ode ‘Fait Aree eomod | k=
5ib ed dedt bas , evsrod ont to too oxtd rot ‘taourgad mk ae td bersed®
boxilect abxswietis, hrs goidituooa bise £0 Teoma eneceod 08
<a
‘ono iurey sl, galt orto of aut ont tant ioe edd ogy ess ent
tot Sieg bed orf soisiw awe oll s ko noitostettss sit OOM! Bree 7,
. ounevk oyrl of Bevou ed evtonmil ott sooth” | 4
i aa. :
est to. LBe s THES, ts sigsorss Stag at +o tt vot dete hronon
—
asw else oft _ semale pived ‘ot 0008s ‘rot ‘Wrosoxg toorta aba |
as bisg esw ao iteteblaos ent “fer os todoto0 S10 ‘bet: su 2 OS oa
Size n0gs 2acgttom o0zag g bonstaas nosatiomg ‘eat ” pawoLLOt
ao ltiuvess ogsgt rom ayfzonmel odd ot revo hemrit at yooetmety
motkt bentsido hei od tlo ielw «000 Aly to mia Loqtonts ant oF |
ot. oton 8 ersg ei jakombIti .sod-stiteal ts aos dusinot “ond
eaeat ton broo92 8 vd fase edt boumoen ints 1688 og rot spf onerelt a
setsoititzes cord sod? ot Borrotenstd ott as. _igeetmore ord 110
io Hose, fsnoltell remo? Lstowsnm0d A ap bese) dreoceb to
on... A588, S88 ot toons erate “eau “\ssed aattegorsys * ,siroet
ent mo vasyvodat besmtoos ono 8 ed Skog pone ovari eT ‘gonsted
008 eos ait m0 et tio. daotodmt Homrooe aul .eottivnoes: Precis
. x0% onto onto east enotaa kno. omos _agaitreg as , bémusan.s oscettron |
‘gaw xod alt A deco onto widtsa0g bas ose ent” ‘attttonbaes icy
/ 2 atti! has ,ftioredt booslq ot Low aokdiwtrooa “ened Bae’ ‘horketdo
ont tt Boosig sd ot troiroqaer ot xod oft berevifed wrenmol
a1 _ woes
p SD - EN
safety vault of the Merchants National Bank for safe keepii ne for her.
She had a key to said box. He placed the box in the vault of the
pare
bank. There eT hia proof that she over efterwards had access to thet
box. She was not with him when
by?
6 placed it there, He had no ine»
formation that she ever went to that box after he placed it in the
benk, The trial in the vrobate court was some eighteen months before
the trial in the circuit court, and a all that time he must heve ©
kmown it was important for hin to ascerte vin if any officer or employee
of the bank had ever seen lirs,Hemmerly go to that box, He produced
no proof on that subject. She geve the key to him at his request
Whenever there wes any business of hers to be transacted in connection
with the ae nig tae box, such as collecting intcrest on the se-
euritics. dae claims that near the end of her life, lirs,
B
emmerly brought him the Slaman note for $6,395, and the mortgage, and
pave them to him es compensation for all he had ever done for her and
thet he thereby became the lawful owner of said note and mor tZage.
He had previously testified in a way that implied that all the securities
for wich the Adams strcet property wes sold were placed in the tin box
end taken by him to the bank and deposited in its safety vault, and that
he did not remember taking anything out for her except intorest coupons.
Beins se confronted with the inquiry where she got the $6,395 Sleman
hote and mortgage to sive to him, his only explanation was that vrobably
he did not put those securities in the tin box, Lt further sppeared
he intended to do so, nor had they ever before offered to pay |
my thing. He did not show services of any such value. He testified
hed hed frequent settlenents with lirs.Henmerly before that time,at
ch times she would naturally have peid him if she had owed him for
Brvices,. in the latter part of her life and when she ws ill, her
ughters, other than Ifrs,Lawhun, came to their mother and tried to
A
— =
fs ‘
we omit ‘to - dinev edt at xod edt boosly oH w xbd bieo ot ‘yoat_ 8)
J Beem ae =
: 7Bat ot BBe00s batt abrawt otts novo ona tastd toorg AES ne oxoaT ati
smi of Bsc. of sotorit et. bessia ed ost ideal at bw es asw. oft,
: ; GOS Ort if
ont ct dr Booelg ef cotte xod todd ot dnew ‘Tove ea todd mosis
‘ati. a
eroted aflinom seotdébe eee as tur 00 etadox ost ad Laks oat ba
p ssh eae mt
evsec deom od eat kt ted Ife gabieb Sas 47 Tu00 dino» oct mee K:
‘seea ams <0 109 tho wis tt nhadrosrs od Aa tot inst cron
‘ e ‘bas cot tot ooh Tove “had od Ets ‘0% “motdoonocmes as mid (
+. sins Tee £00
7 + egsgt tom bas oto bee to ranwo ‘Eafe ‘ori entao ed Worod:
* "0 r
_ solttarocs ont Is dasdt bebigmt dost we s ot botkitnet ciao by
“a tntes
7 xod ait ont fal ‘beosty orTow aloe BAW “wreror toons amSBA ont
tedd Bae .tiay Yotsa att ak bet taodob ‘bas ined atid od mbt w
ee Pers f raha
sBOGSOO ‘teovodat tqooxs tod tok: iso 3 anbiigrs arcklos rodsomor
;
Lt soe ¥ yes 6 -
1 memele 8e&,53 ost tozR esis etedtw Welopstl “eit atin foduorta oo x
> ek # Pa
tl ded ow jadd asw Pay) ers Gino. ‘eit Peas! od ovis ot ‘egest Tom
} sre & to.
heresqqs voitant $I ° .xod aid odd al neitinsoea onorit ce Ory
vi
255 Cod
t dom ,ceotvres ald cot on tdiyes aylaonol ot ‘Boge: ado ‘oton bert of +
mid Ya ov beteito eroted teve Yous bat sor 408 05 ot Bo! nErovD
fod
pene
' { i
o bo ftitaot or on tsy tiose wise to acotvres worl 8 tox ‘BAB. ‘oH vant
rors at cert Or
ts,ontt teat exoted YLrommoH saul fdtve ainonottton dmompert Bs
i re eres
: 0% iid bowo hod ota eee ‘ont Skog ovat Velden Bisrow ‘ke
e) bie os a
‘ wed itt ait “ola oct ‘ba ot tt tod “to deg Sota
wee or ey 2 $ i % : }
Oe “borst bas ‘tortor hed ‘ot a0 “aout ot “'noutt rordc
ascertain what had become of the ~roceegs-of the sale of the
Ree |
Adams street property, but aan cat hed acquired such an in-
fluenceover her that she resented their pune aes and some es-
trangement resulted. After her death the adi minis strator opened
the box and found thet about $11,000 of the proceeds of the aie
of the Adams street property had disappeared, and as Lawhun was
the only one who had had access to'the box or.had transacted her
business, the administrator filed this petition against Lawhun in
order *s pooge yen where that vart of the estate had sone to.
Re. x
bopeleant ak at the possession of personal property
| Ww yt
aN sey able? of ticle, and that as he had possession of this (34000
fund and of this Slaman note and mortgage before lirs.Hemmerly
Aare :
died, his title thereto +8, thereby established, and that the
case so made has at been overcome. He stateg| the—-enrai~rule-
z= correctly, but in ‘uz pinion 1a% is not the law where the re-
t
spondent was the cohfidontial agent of the owner of the property,
it to his own possession |
/
ee lawful access ther ad hs nd abundant opportunity to transfer
| thout the knowledge of the owuse, but
f\ | that in such case the agent who turns up with the property in nis
| pESEHEEG LOR after the death of thea owner through whom he had con-
| eiaential access to ‘tite property, % the ability to sot it
secretly into his ow possession, is required to assume the
‘burden of establishing that he came by such prow rty in good faith.
Adams.v Adams, 81 I11. App. 637, and 181 Ill. 210. The fiduciary
“relation existing between appellant and a MrseHemmerly, and
“vetwean appellant and Vrs,Hemmer;y after her husband fied, is
|abundantly shomm in this evidence, as well as Wis agmess at will
to these securities; and his supposed possession does not, in
\
| our opinion, ostablish 2 title in him thereto.
em.
+
ei
oid Lo eise orlt to-wheeoore Silt 20 omosed bart dantw hraeokee
‘plan. cows, - 4 Y stat » . i.
enti os fove hetivpds' Bat earth: tid Wreqot tootte emrebA”
eo emos ines ,pelrinpnt ties Sotnensx one Sond <6 Forth Shute
Soneqo sodartelnimbs orit theo 6 tot TOHTA “bot Ipeet Snomosmend '
eis: ent to aboooory off To 900 Trp’ tiods deci Siok Bre ye
aad
ong
8aw asdwed 26 BRS j[botseqasets bed yhreqota: teorta amsBA out to
wort Bétowantrd Had ro xdd ot: oF ageoos Bat Sod on efto” vtin id
siguiiweal torteds mobtteg eiag® ides tobetis Enimis” ott +88 tt
2 OF OSITOS bet ebeteo oa to ther ‘Perit ‘Srey Sthadzoves ot “eébeo
toore of
Yhroqoxy , Lanoa‘teq zo no tsveanog et bast Me. y deotieges 2
O00), ist to moiaso7aod- Ast od ‘es. tend | One etens to. hooxg
eLrommai se! exoted ogetron Bes otor ‘aus. aidt to bes beurh
ext tacdt bass ebodaifdstac ‘Woxedt & ie. oterroxtt elti eis boi,
obsie-Eome=citfectet 2 of _ semtootevo seed ton esc oben: 0%; OBBO)) ove
-ot odd erect wel edt con at tad rotate suo) ack dud .YLtossroa: |- 5
tired ox exit to. Teawro oat. To daogs I saoBEtsfoo: edt asw dmobsoc
tetanext ot wtinst sogqo tas hess io gg000s Intust hte
tsrd Saeed eit to egb ofwomd ead. Jyous ry cotenes20g owo..2fshod aby
eis st Yreqore edt diiw an ascurt ost ya edt, 98so stove st ‘iss
-m09 bsd of mow cswordt temwo gig, to dtepS sdt telis sofsasageg
dt tog ot Wilkds odd dtty..grexor oer ot becooe Lettnebit,
ont smyaas ot bexkaver et efto fseoavog vo ald otal ylieraoa}y, «|
witiel boos af utr alox foe yd omg o orl Seis a to moebusd. tag
qistos5kt od sOL8 fT L6£ San ,V82 .agA -ifT\ £8 cagebé vamgbA o9
Site VitommeH. exh Dee El bas tusiisqqs seowted ‘ete bia ns iia |
ef ,beth busdasr ‘rod rovie yy stecmel, et bas a.
44
Liar ts B2emes eifi es [few as sPgehtve . aict ot
ak ,tom ae0b poe Mek eld Det peobt hs
(Rrefn om bt eak
Ree ereeee, Dae for many years worked for en electric Llisht
company at Peoria at 370 per month, or 3840 per year, He Mda
family to Suporte He received some rentals from certain real
estate in Teoria, put he owed lerge sums Secured thereon and had
intercécst charges to pay, as well as repairs, insurance end taxes,
By a will of his mother, which had never been admitted to probate,
he claimeé to own a farm in Xentucky, which he nad nof seen for
twenty-five years, but from which he received 100 rent per year.
By the same will he claimed to have received five sharesof stock
in a certain loan essociation in Indianapolis and that he teal-
ized something therefrom. At first he testifiedthat “he head
received some $2000 therefrom over twenty years before, After-=-
wards nis Memory failed, ani he was unable to testify anything
about how much he had received therefrom. He claimed that by
an arrangenent with his employer he only worked about five hours
per day and was allowed to take electrical jobs for himself on the
outside, and that he did so and had done hundreds of such jobs,
and thought he might have made $1000 per year thereby. When
pressed to name those hundreds of jobs he was eble to name but 2
very few of them, and he hed no books of account by which he could
show any of them. ees The superintendent of his employer testifie
Ak 24 So, ee)
hat sepetiemtts hours of labor at the plant were from seven aM
to five thirty poem. except two-thirds of Saturday af
8
fa
and that he knew of no arrangement by wade <a oAtiass wos_permit
to take outside work on his own eccount. ee nor ied the fore=
man with whom he had this arrangenent, ani the superintendent
testified that that foreman hed not worked for that company for
fourteen years. It-is evident—that enppclliant did noet—ccqnire-—
oe
Freshmen) =
"gua sot.Ssd. SORE re =
cy rie <0 5 Df he
ONG ds alKo9S v8 pisqni09 fi i
thes .
OO IVS em iy ce 4
ou. .«foqgse od meagan a
TOO" ak ofesse al
arntoote fre “tot foster BEBOY
; wracy TST “ORBS ro ig ccom: wg
nisttes mort vtottret etroe porksost
Ty BeTw998 emre ogtel Sewo on. dud ak
droll
86s oF
fIsex
fent bas ‘qrooredd
bvkccet Be [Loy @S «Wu, ov. sega: i
xod of
vou Sad gokaw , codon. edi! zo LW Fs oe tt
rox mae Kort ‘ped of Moki yyoombinel ah argh, 8 WO, ot Semtslo. on. acu
sovtodsoxy 9 oa Hokie moh dud. BLOT, ovEieyinent sic
‘oposite evi bevisost ‘even ot Bbamislo, of fiir enee ots ee on
~-Iset ad ane Bre arfogenstbit mt noitstooaas, nso pictx09 6 ee i
peio-ed tadtboltiveo! ad satkt ‘ta .motrteerti ad BR vc eri
ey Wrew owe osteo o00s% emo bevieoe Or.
dessus aw od. fis: (SOLS eroment ald &
is bovioost bad ‘edt sown worl hire
eves tyods boson etc od ‘xo yo Laine ati dtiw frsrogsares 2
ony: fo ELoantic. cot adot, Leotatoore oxst" ot “powolte aswbas Cc ,
~adof slosra To aber in eso batt ‘firs ou SEB ‘oft Farid: bets: 1908. ad ae
onl, _aesorostt soy TOE oooré ‘ebst ovat dia ter est anighiee sid
ext of adot to ‘aborrbortnt endid emen ot Beeas
8 tod ema. ov efds 8
pisos. of dois ee $auss0095 ‘Xo astood ‘on ‘edt ‘et hors —— to welty NX
boititest. ssyolame eid to probrodsit
2B mort oxsw ‘gaele: one +s ‘cod et a)
noxst ‘bne sosetwant™, 9 sacred, 1 al
-
osedoxd os be d¥imbs tread te
S9T OC ‘$net oor
_ qoote =
srotth. »gtoted ats
oii digas yiiteos of of
yd .dasit. Somisto ol smortee
a yos,
-
ogKre: ont , agate ene
eee
ated ,easn arrests yabutoe ‘ro avectittsomt dqeoxe | att oytuisy Panna |
sets Sot SE toLsiw we $ romegneEs ‘on towered tert, be
.druro09s = esl mo° sow ‘ebiadwo ood ' os, ios
Ss _SwonoAe ere ght Bed se noth side
olla nove
ae ont Dower +
drabrott soni ont it
Wh youre. sont ot boxtzow to
ae o
1 Schlag ~yaranore Tae
R Bid PoP bem he eG.k0 PeO9 '
ee 2 a
odexes bi 2
sors os si at Ade Aik AB; gle Lid ot ep 102 ct
pty a ‘i Se 2
OU
if
fom -thete Sources $4000-wi-th-wiich-to-putht-sakt-oue. He had
a brother, Samuel M,Lawhun, whom he had not seen for some twenty-
five yoars. He testified that this brother came to his home
on @ visit in larch, 1908, and stayed a week; that he told his
‘brother that the Hemmerlys had proposed that he build a house for
them on their adjacent lot as good as his house, and they would
give him the house ond lot at their death; that the house would
cost 94000, and he needed money with which to build it; that on
March 10, 1908, during said visit, his brother took from his
pocket $3800 in bills of the denomination of five, ten ani twenty
1
dollars, and loaned it to him, and that he gave his brother 2
promis°ory note therefor, payable in fice years with interest
at five por cent per annum, peyeble annually. He did not deposit
said money in any bank, although he was accustomed to car a
deposit in a bank. He testified thet he had in his cellar a
sheet iron receptacle for the safekeeping of money and pepers,
fastened with a padlock, and that he placed said $3800 in that
receptacle. The contract for the house was not made till one
year and three months thereafter, and he wos paying interest on
various debts, yet he kept this money in tha
ony investment 211 that time. He testified thot hebuilt thet
house mostly with this monoy, though he drew some small checks
therefor on 2 small checking acéount which he kept ine bank,
and tha? seid small checking account only contained about 8200
ih
2s
at a time; and that he neid $4000 for the house. S. M. Lewhun
testified that he left his Kentucky home when he was less then
ten years old and had ever since shifted for himself; that he hal
9
been in every city in the United States; that he became &
photographer; that he wovld go to a town ond estsblish a gallery
and run it two or three months or two or three years and sell out
9 7
si
ing
_—
as
Pe
rah
cA
.
bent oH comme! Sta0-hitut-of ost 900 +a sce O
fe 8 epost ata od ome “sgect oxd abst ‘aut, + peltitaes, OH » - yatsot ‘evit :
an sa
loos effet’ BFot ort sate loom g heyeta fas 808 asset sh dtaiv s 4 x
a tor s#vod se SIEvd on deste boaogomay Bact eytcemol. agit tose moti :
7
een! bivow yertt fies e0auorl aid ac Boog ae. vol snepahbs pedis tO
pga OBEow sarod oft ‘tedd jadaod x oxid ta or. Aga, ensod. ost: abt ov:
8 O° Basho ZTE BEd od afd ist adtw WED, Boboon 2 Brig ne
qo0y Oo ski mort soot ‘real ond ald tty Skee phish «808. ae
7 joogiment fire ‘ned cork to rohtembones oxit, Bo allid sub 008E%: teat
~Lset % teiitort eit eves ex darth Beco vi, od. Bh Ssmsol Ars,
— tteoge Fer bth op “seitemnns ecg mise ca. chs00.3 tog. out a
Song OpEd ‘od beuodaxoon asw on segodd ts. ered We, ai wouter
: ne S° te fto9 aks at ach esi ‘ted Soittreos, SH, athned. 8 ak $280
7 aso (eteqar “bHS wputom ‘to gutqoosioteg oxi 02, pLoatqooon Sa asi
ia ) S$atPORE do8sd: Bias ‘boots oul tarid bags etoolbsg s atiye bon
6h ! “s¥te open You saw sewrort ait rot tsertaoo, oft . ,eLogte y
: odpovedat- snivedt ae iW ot ‘bus « tottteo ost edinom e9tas tao
21000 Od OLE ea Sods bottiteet of, nots teid Ife due suownb
Veslgdio ETsite omos ‘wes ‘ot sicsron koron, hte side w eats
| fred 8 “oct tqoat ost otdw tanoboe ‘aitilossio | cn Pei me Tore ee
(0088 Swords bomtetnos YLno ‘$rsr0098 pitalogdo fama Bisa: saa) i
hs ardwet M620 “sBawou!. oct rot 20084 biay os. dtodd bore) jomid ot
ment’ wedL’ ‘ap ‘6 nestw ‘omoct ‘plomenex aks ol od teach &
fad | ‘ent "Seat EFoam “wot bodes oon.ta so¥e, Savi he Alo s
iad Bt
= wom te soa8lq en Eb tet dertt nt Poutost e isi dqe, es FOG atdeb s
:
he bre BTS9y sorts “to owt xo addccom oes sap
t ; I ae r\ : ‘ i wv
,
then go to another town and start another; that in that business
he sometimes mate $100 por day, sometimes $100 per week, sometimes
$100 per month and sometimes he worked for his food, Ue testifica
that he had a trunk in which was & private receptacle for pavers
and money; that in April, 1908, he came to Peoria to visit his
brother Stephen, whom he had not seen since early boyhood, end
brought in said trunk about $4800 in currency; that though he had
with him a wife and child and steyed a week he left this trunk in
the bagsage room of the passenger station at Peoria; that when
he found his >rother needed money with waich to build this house,
he went to the bagsage room, opened the trunk, took out $5800
carried. it to the house, loaned it to his brother, and took his
brother's note for oP years without security therefor, No
witness but, seat ont his brother testified kim: to ever seelins
this money. sgnodtent Uosti fied that he sent his brother once
$190 or one year's interest, and another time $380 or two years!
interest, and once he paid himsome interest when his brother paid
him 2 subsequent visit at Peoria, end that this was all the
At
interest he paid, and thet he did not remit this $190 ené $580
t
by check or draft or express, but that in each case he did up a
package containing the amount named in five, ten ani twenty do Lar
bills and sent them to his brother by registered letter, end
received in each case a registry receipt which showed the amount
of the renittance, though the officer who issued the receipt did
not see the money. He was unable to produce any such receipts,
5
and he did not call any one connected with the Post Office to show
2
that any such registered mil was ever sent, Se Me haere testi-
AM a ae oe ae
fied that 53580 was once sent to him by -ail by peeidant ae in=
terest, but that he never had to sign any receipt when he received
it, and that the rest of the interest was remitted in sums of five,
ten and twenty dollars at a time by mail, and that he had received
=e
a ee . Bigs
eeettend todd of ted yredtons drete fas sarod vedtons of 8 Be a5
asmitenor gtoow ts¢ OOFS comttomoa web xog “O0rg eiier aomkt omoe od
boMtbtged-aH ~JhOct eld vot Solow od “eémbdanion bas ittlon 204 ‘00r8
etecer stot elostqeset etevirtg s enw slo Ectw ni anced s bad off test bas
cit dinkv of sbroat of ems of ,800r Tech mt tact venom J ein
bus, ,hoonyod yPrso eonte teen tom Bett ot moztw etoriqots “rentord
<“¢ oe ct
bec edt dasodt tadd yYyoret ro of Cogs surods sinrtd bise ot Ssguped ;
ni ano etod Proll on deow 8 boysta bre’ itte ire okie B mbsd sore
nodw tadt. gSivoot ts no tists sognenang edt to moot ‘ogezaed. “outs ;
“~s
caved aint Sited of dot dw btw Yestom ho been sedsén! aid Bass od
. 00888 tro toe ~diten? oft “boto qo «to or esessed “odd ot ; anor
ais dood Ans: (rodtond nist of ¢£ peieol “oemon one ot ‘tb botrzes
OU wtotsred? Whousese trodtiw Mies Pe aes, efor 2" zentond
amréeo a wove ot mit bo Mhitast- -roritord eit Bae ri: oes te sea 7
Qotoy-tedd oud Bhi tne e of tect satires § ReLs ee abst
'eyeoyond to OSE? exif roditons hrs ats ibes arcane ‘a0 in Ere
hisg weiter’ aitmonw dearodtict serodnbet Bist ‘on eatto ‘His’ deoredat
ont oflecaew atst dent bos ,atroot ts* tiatv taompoadsa 8 irkt »
O8Se bas CCL aiid timer For HES érf dant "ies bier dct pipes 2
&. Gu Sbbied eases tose nF ted ed pabetexe x0 Fterh ‘x0 fp apy: ae
celtob yhrewt feos Not -jsvit af bomen detsronre out attik tet 00 Bon rn
- fas 4tettel botetetsger yw rodtoxt! ain of ment ‘hea ‘ins aria 7
touome edt bewods wdohiw tq¢kesor Yrtatgot s oxo toss ray ‘oviooos
Hib, tq isost emt horeet ofw toottio ott Hatodtt” roomed tne « aa —
.2tqtesot) oflose yte’ Sorbo ot often usw of oe ‘odd eas pe
WE eee Bac
wide os ieoktt0 teoTeet? Adin betonnmos efo yas Ifso for sis od p
roe -
okt netgpastonl MOE Ptnee SSve “aaw Tran bowetalget dota ys tert
a ew, Sto aysey sear:
mitt 28 betel tenes: xe Ika: td mid of tron domo new “088 sing Sox
beviooet of: mosiv tintabide: vas rota of ‘Ess teven od Fost tid som!
, Os
.oTkE TO ames we Hot iimet kew teerotat test to Pies ole deri bas ott
¥ hovitens’ bated Pous BAHN ST tsh Ye ontd s ts atattob ‘wiowd ha not
x
As pe uve “NS
over fifty Seu te ie da of into rest by mail f alae ciel e The
a Aha
sum in cecetamits iron box grew the longer he was questionoé
ebout it. At first he stated that there was some other coney h
the iron box, and thet wheh this $3800 was put in that mate about
$4500 in the iron box. Before he was through testifying he had
stated that when the $3800 was placed in the box it made the total
therein about 37800. He did not explain the change in his te ti-
mony from 33800 +o $4500, nor from $4500 to $7800, nor did he shor
any source from which hecould have obtained this extra 54000,
None of this money in the box was ever reported to the assessor,
CLUS. Men—heve—hicdon—large _
sums of money-ant-teve transmitted money very carelessly. She
visi The narrative, however, e-excectingly Inprod DED.
Chrono was not
.cireuit judge. They saw these’ witnesses and observed their de-
BS
believed by’ tho probate judge nor by the
meanor on the witmess sieiby Ne have not equal opportunity with
J
~- them to judge of its tryth, and wedge not feel celled Yoon time to
‘.
| eredit what they disbelieved.
+ this (sll the evidence péariveon-that- subjects —
On August 10, ray Ls peOrly ter the erection of the house was
i Pik .
begun, appertant procured for “r. and lirs,Hem erly a loan of
$1000 at a bank in Peoria, and received 2 check for $987.17, the
discount va. of said note; and they turned that check over to
Aeaftannelen At
Seo, and he deposited it in his own account in the Merchents
vl
}
National Bank, Bour days later, on August 14, he paid Duf
Hy
8
Brown, the contractors who built said house, a check on said account
for $200 and on September 5rd another check for $200, and on
' VO
September 21 another check for 6200, meking $600 + that ~were clce
aD
—s + ; cact
cs OF of mode
an Kiya . ee
X: stl, a imate. Mort Lism w taetotat 0 cout yeaa SO
honoisassp ; aw oa ‘repro eid + wor xod pipelldmrcestsa 5:
. ost Yomoy testo emoe acy ete sit tedd bodste ax dared fa" FE .
inode odem.deit st Se act 088 ‘eis Mody ted? Bee 8 ee ig
hated. guigtite ot Aguows acy ef Sroted yxod mott Sit a a
[ _ Istet edd Sam ti.xod ot $ ot boats an o08s¢ oat cotw Fhe
~itso3 ais nt. ogcato edt batexo Sout BEB. eH Jooete “tod! me
were en DES tom ,008TY, oF O08 mort Ost 008s of dosee baat
s00085, audxo 2 tei Sontatd o svsd SIsooed ‘dotaw mort estubs %
| ssogeesas ont oc Hotrogex isvs Bew xod odd ick Yes abit Bo
omaindeiipianhs dial: 208 _ robe init i Or eh bet
- acide aeeEB, > stisasleiss % Urey Youn = hehe ReRE vet athe
| Riieabiabuibigititit —— — op peed:
| sti tet moraine Sone bia eae
fF ecw Sarod oft to mokitsexte one nade yen
. %o meor « Ylrer moleun bop yetl Tok benmoong dfs a : r
k | ont YE.V8RS tot aiooito’ ¢-hevisoow ban pskrooS xb aired o $2.0 |
| od rove iSedd seit Seton’ yoMtiits setom Stes. to outer tre
: . ‘admadorelt “ott xi tnso0ss nwo sid miodk botteogos of bag A a ae
mB Ox , oe
& Vea: Hisg od, SE tases so {reds eyed: x0, «tied J fsnottsi
PENS =
Fs Biss 6 “odio & ,osnot ise tend oxtw SPORE EPR
we TE c7ie*
iad i a0 = 0088 0% aAoedo rentone ‘bx8 cadmetqes sites: | 7
nm wxaold 5: sot taste etd ie 008% tok at aes IS rod a
hi aE.
aS ~ th
7 a ‘ é Qa hey hed Ome ¥ ; 3% heh. fs Ww
one 4 Sat ‘ han Sah actos Yai 2,
ft
paid out of money the “enmerlys borrowed just after the house was
\ prec A cou
begun. Ssh J could not find his other checks on said account
‘
nor the stubs from which they were drawn, bet itis—feir-te-nsemme—.
~$+000-- -Obtainet by the Henmer Lys~ ER deposited
in saebtiesits pank- account Was..used..t0.make D&S ymMents on this ——
eee “Nentioned thet whertheAtems street
i apieran ms. = al there-vas-a-nortgage.on-it..for.$3500. Dat
Baan (ed! dbisined by the Hemmerlys on October 26, 1909, at about
the ae of the completion of the house. The man from whom they
got it understood it was to be used to vay for this house, though
he did not vay special attention to that es his security was on
other real estate. For that loan Hemmerly received a check to
his order for $3, aa He endorsed it in blank ani delivered
AL HM porrdine : eaten
it to Teaco On the next day fone cet deposited thet check
a
in me own account in the Merchants National Bank, and on the same
day drew a check on that account for $1,003 to pay the loan of
$1000 the Hemmerlys had made in Aust, snd also drew a check to
P,
WL wF Lahey Agia
Duff & Brown for $1000, Appetbant,testified that Duff & Brow
Aetpmrr dnc ;
had done nothing for which +ent shovid pay them except to
Oo “<
ene Ce ee
build this house, Bacs
2 trehot Ne
farmts—oftire Hemme sLys. ae iia not produce check: to
show what he did with the rest of their moneys, deposited in his
account, ble-eoncluston thst they borrowed
that $3500. to~peyx-fer-but hai? bis hous By and
applicd_by—appedient. bicaler hers
that he deposited the $3,495.00 ia kis own account in the bank
10s.
3 ; aa r > ‘ ’ oi Ro) OMIT so “ 7 et ge od
easy gayori ont rots test Sewo rt00 agit ‘i ony : ».5
: viscous ont eae ee ae
CUFODOS bse ito asloetto ‘codto eid bank ee Sino a +5 sangad
_~pemarates od tee teddies omecch o1ow youtd slot cur mort adits aid ane
bet teoqes Sue aelenrelt orth yd horsbuitcig OOOLL:
Seat dee ee
a at mo 8 doomed cust ot boas sou tegoose saad
yout “mosiw moxt fs0 oat ey edt ro xobgetqu0> ¢ edit it 40 pes os
. sigsrost _s9auort eiitt Ot wer oF boas, ag oF aan ot (Agere rg iam og te tee
fo a8W Ghunee obs an bed oF nobtnes ts fs teege Bg acy
ot toed 8. _5ey itso" pt rome sno pont sO, perpen
boxevilod ins saga st dt Soasoine cH Pee x
io gsfo ‘teat Sotteogss crs
emsa edt 10 ee 2s Isrobtall lh i ost sod - $aro99 sa ek ae
ro aso! ‘ait yea ot 500 a.) 20 dsr0958, set xo dosdo 8 Wot Yh
of aia 8 worth oats bm tres itt t ghar 2 fast aytrenmol, ott 00088
word & Tod tedt botiitest : feega ,000L8 tok mwork 8 vw
“Teettoage doin dt setter sted Bad
a ae aliy piste
~ hemor rot yon Sari
6a BEY TEE Gadi Hite. &, aenort & ahs
ae ie ae va 3
So ttiact tokoag : ‘cen \ pekceane ss tte : |
"Sete. erie tek ‘tattoo air ‘ends Sagenien ‘ost settackgen i gaa?
as &
9 rn
because ites, Hemmerly was averse to having a check, and that he
paid Lor her that sum in cash out of the money in his iron box
in his cellar, and he left the impression that heyeid her that sum
in money at once. Afterwards he stated thet he did not pay it
at once nor in large sums, but that whenever she wanted to pay a
bill or wanted @ little money for her own use he paid her in smajl
sums from time to time, and had frequent settlements with her, and
in this way gradually paid her the $3,495.50, —In-+>is-stete-of
rn
the proof we apedetistied that the I Hemmerlys borrowed bue 1)9500
and _— At in ths hands of appéllant ta, bay for tite puildins.
of the” ‘house, and tied epost expend ed thet money for that
PULDOSC awa
Ité-is—worthy of note that -in searcely any-—matter vitai+o—..
this case is sppellan+—-eorroborated by any orei testimony--exeept—
that_of his—beether; amt thes-}iost of the checks and stubs of
In 4
check s and receipts which might throw light upon this case he
ial ee Ach we
eA DGD PEeenGut. achat hed oak cath whee he was ace
customed to keep such pepers. He feet nos shove, that he mde
thorough search in all places where such papers might be. In
his earlier examination he indicated that he meht find them by
further search. His last explanation was that his wife told him
that at a certain house cleaning event she destroyed some of his
checks and papers. ransactions with the-Hemerlys
anounted te-mexy-thonsemie—otepiters MM kept, or at Least he ). >.
ef bce TA ha te inno A AL 7 tf tT
produced ho book account eens His claim that lirs,
Hemmerly gave him $4000 of Denhart securities to repay him ~hat
he had spent of his own funds in buildings the house rest#solely
on his ovm testimony. Ho-mjst-reve-knowh that Tt wowlt be
oi iy
- of todd firs oeco e gitverd of saievs esw qirommell eat é oBre
xod mont oho mt venom sit to tro dass nt care, tad ait Soh
ease tant trod Bispoer tedt moles ert edi tt of od, hae VBI Teo eu
SE esq ton Sib en dene Betsie sit sbusrtod tA “pond te exon t
: 3 yor oF bodnew sta wovensdw tsit ‘tied _omttra opzst RE
Ifene mi ted bisg end san revo Ter “tor Yortor! 6rivtr 8 hodtte = tr
foe , te dtiv etnemsittea ditexpett Sat Bus omit ot ouikt no —_ wr
Lo-stete-eist-er— 08 80h, ei Silt vend Blay Vinlliene + nt
“00 ee oat Bewortod: ain bat tals betkatts fate
“ee tbiied he Ot we, Ax tml fcags Yo Hbien pit ot tn
A tate YO yorom mx ips Selmore $ enicongs A fant. tite an ms
ties damn East atop 8. \aidxo
—-teeeko Yontteot Esto WE: Der ofornes ieee r
a Yo Bdute Ins ealoeds ost to, taoflf te —— jae ti
* if Estokats) akite stogyy Ripe Fegicn Fife ok Wr gH Seipok
~ Nich Ae
s -08 Bow olf ecogw ‘lot sire aor ee oi seowborg §
“eber! oct teat sororte torghadt ‘on, * | <3 Togs oie “qoet ‘ot Be re
Rt Ved: bres tet Bere qeer tose vee Beoela' ths: ok ‘Wor “208 | haar soon
Ce ee dt Sid ont Hartt ‘Bere aei | of mofteniumxe ‘es i .
mit Brod otiw ait dead dew nottene frre esr Gin <> .orepe on as
eer i ‘entoa Soyorsach este tmeve £ qraromid ‘seinost trie tee A
ayt wy Hiv snot ssEis
* whet ‘od Taso E ve to tgs f eckers~ a0 Ysa ais Ly ati Re os ci
. Ment ft QI Ag SAM TID, brea let ce
~ aut tedd mtsf> ati who Siosos stood ‘od Boor
: deny mit yeqer ot dolttrrpoe Fired “ ‘00RT mit vey iia
og 2 Ss fa
yfbredande ot oasror ens > BELL hf soar wo pif “to th
—
-gction,——He-tit-not tar “ay such’ wi mess,-em-these~ securities ~
————$
a!
—
were in a box to which he alone had acinel 2ecess. That—ho. kmew-
+ wa-bythe-feet-that Oh July 12,1912,
he induced iirs,Hemmerly to go with his wife to a lawyer and there
have a paver drawn in English, a language se
of -the-evideaco_shows She could not read, in which she certified
Cespinn diviks
to her confidence in apeekbews's honesty,and that he had transact-
ed the business of her husband and of herself fairly and had no
Fh at od
money or pavers in hig hands belonging to herl There <= nothing
except testimony, to show that she kmew then or at
4°: .
any time during her life, that he had taken $4000 worth of the
Denhart securities, or that he then had the Slaman note, We
approve the decision of the court below as to the $4000.
That the Sloman note for $6,395, kept in said tin box in
the bank, was given to him by lMrs.Hemmerly to pay him for his
4 RQ tefor woh G :
services rests wpon o2set wr capported testimony, audwiess,
sll the circunstances his..cloin ought not to stand in view of the
NN 4
fiduciary relation in mately e stood to her and tae fact of his
access to the tin box int the vahk, and of his evidence that the
proceeds of the sale of the Adams street property were placed in
that box, ond of the fact that apparently no one but himsel? could
have taken it owt of thet box. AN
There are numerous other matters in denee which tend to
oO
ereate doubt of the vali adity of apfollant's aims, but it would
Qs
unduly oxtorid this opinion “bg diseuss the evidence further, There
are many notes, checks and othe documents in
rule 16 (/ 137 Tll.App. 625) requinzes
heave on index which shai sive Bes each\ such exhibit
will be foundi Hach party filed an abstract. Heder of them
\.
baat
wees outta Javoden ‘Temtos “bait smote vr tr Si
SfOL, Sr yeNt a Trahthest oct yd swose-ai-oomed Br
eroded bus ‘xeywel ¢ of oLiw ati dittw dg ot eixenmei, wl Ss uliee a
ee fo Lin wali & ae ‘ot ootentb asin’ (2 ovat
efoaeneid head of tails bre, Moco re
ont Bax ‘Bas Urrbet {foster Y0 ‘bre Beddnit eit to" aaontend off SS
ogi t Pree = ‘ents acti Teor oF grtator od Bbsran” ets 2 ee" Rebar sg haeohe - i :
‘$e to Keds Worst daa Godt wore ov omens parton 9
ett to divow OOOM moses Het Sat tort Otte rod Sekerd’ “eueee was x
‘ow ovort sential bait bet weds of tant! to {eettieroog | deateot fees
| .0OOM$ oft ot as woltod tus0D ect to no tatoo b ont ‘ev
Ri xod ait Shee ue het (aes, $8 vot: ber regs om Yast
“GEd” 0% mtd yo OF UtroonoH ext yd nike OF Hiv esi ined ‘ort
eek ass sss: stttomidaot Bedtogai is at pt Be
odt to wokv mt brave ot Fon ‘Pilpiro foCi0! ale baie ey
akd to toet exit Bae cect of foots “pKa it tet md tiafot ou =
odd tent oonebtve ais to Bie jis ote xorf nit edt ot ea6o08
nt hedsfr etéew wysreqorg sos “eid oil Bo, ‘else 6th to _abeesorg
bigs “Lowiatst ted ato ott ronsdes dhdid FoeY Oe +6 Bers" Lee sod f
YO OES NE Se head tO. duo > ear aga
ot hoot dotcw ‘gd 5 yro mi hina “coAtto esr Ovo nt ‘bia ‘Srontt it
BYuow ot dud bat Es Yo atime lTohgs Yo qethnto off Yd tdstob eteezs
oved? ,torideot asighiza ott batons’ oF otttco aii hoi Porirr ‘lad
a s18) * St008 axis ret avttronro ob “sete fret enldedo Beg ULait ‘ets
“Etsile P3behhds 684° FSkF Soktives ‘(asa ga. tft ver) OF Stas P
thie * “dora Mowe etodw oRac ent ov Ea “Est otew' mo Bett se oved |
morit to cotton shite an ‘e me bpd then fost” “inst of “rr 2
“Tt Gh cyepny hah : GTVE! wa o Oc. atts: i Ltagtery j
aay
P|
'
~~,
indexed the exhibits. We have beon put to much unnecessary
labor by this omission to observe the rule.
No question has been raised here as to the authority of the
probate court to take this action unéer section 81 of the Ad-
ministration Act, and we therefore do not discuss that subject.
The order is affirmed.
-15-
—
eiehel
a ore Thee
tein nie guRonkivet Bev tog Pinath Rees ‘ete a ‘aoeir otaet cose
ant
Aa
Be
tice: res 0.
“sont Sast eeyeers tee. ob. erote ost on Sue toh a0
balan ek etodt Sued od yatedete: /SRaame aT 8.82 eRe
®
$ &
ers
id
a
a?
ty)
to wekv Ni Daeg od ee Pitino o ‘pert gaortace rte Sy
Sit
ti
rr.
pe Ee
lp
het]
-
Se.
ad
+ ¥
4
wTose. ot Fo
Ke oe
é : i . Le oo a1) A +t ay “
+R ack AUB vor’ Ot foote cat dotiw et we brerer er
codcy, oases +E Gis kid Bese cate “iy As BN Seviaonetts a9 otcortt! rae
fe
i
Qa’ Fame
mac to tin you
rE er ore
3 x > 3 -Sae : « hy A Pf ah. me _ alt + ae ba ' “
= 32 Ad tow CONS? Meer OE srt tans ,eall xe
Ri
*
20L2 oft ot as wh)fod dog ot to mofloes om
} Osa ef dyst 7OCS.89 ok eter ang t® vet Face -
<O% Mid yoy of Pies iet, ea od ube St seria RaW ene ee
: ome ead owed 2 eee
Hod ett of Bet Aerede a) Rodd Gok Gay To few nod
id, utils ts o et bate ect ‘pepe
“ oe wa
H ee elite 1 a Ody
erecta fis: tah fees cosrer cues overt for Ste oat
ae one Laeees eee ana Sarat ar Ov. ao 2
: ry aut o7
*
aieialat Ra pea rs Pe Wh ‘i na? ae
>
c
‘
wort ade Yacd wore os ytomtited
on ot Fah to cot? ooo eating
bx eee
Age
. |
‘i * aa i Fg, * Pe &,
eonesito aid to Bee ie! catia sod mht “drt? oF + add
teu wihcecota Fae aswhh ofe Ta oles or ¢5 :
— 2 *
é " , "
tod “Pans Yo vw tt onlay
‘et pore ~~ ott +4 $asds
ay swe exec baz ‘al ae Lo has Heitebw Shep ij AY
toatl de ft head yxay dont’ “gavineit .
fe ae! aR ae ver wie a
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ea
SECOND DISTRICT. ee I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFy, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and a2. _—
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
N fis
erowidat 140 T
stalloqg/. ad? to d4ofO .ytaud .O ATHICTAIHO a _ .«TOLATeIa GHOos
4 ebtossSt ant to r9qooad bos ionif{l to steie ort to joiner froset hise tot
ods to roiniqe adit to ¥goo suid 6 es gaiogawt orl dust YUTHAS YAISAH Od ,to
é eoffto yt ai H10991 To, #69 boltitus evods edt ai 109
adit zffts bun baad yor doz otavored L sompadHW yvnomireaT wl —
: ——— aidd .aweitO ts wtu00 atallojq A bise odd to ise
on biol wo to sissy ont fi___ to yeb..
See eee beni ontia basewodt
. i J ih. =~
iv
2. ~ ee ae es ee oe aa sare
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the Pourth/ day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hungred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the/State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presidiftg Justice.
Hon.
DUANE J. CARNES, Justige.
/ AP a 2 E>
Hon DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. 2 0 4 a 3
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, CFerk.
E. Mj DAVIS, Sheriff. 4
Bue REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AFH Adin
fei A
the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
(Tinga 20 yeb\dtrw0l od? ,ysbecnt 00 -ewsttO” hoch
-asstxie bas bhetheaod soio basevodt+ sao brod rd “¥6 Dts
ca 5 ote
ats pas +0 jointerd baoss2 bak. “ot bas
«>
seronilil ito
7 aul Baibiserd SUANATH M KHOU “GOH at
-seiteut BEWAA L aMAUC £08
oh 2 ot = a “A - 7 eS “aa
>i + , « 4 =
eas er 2 Paes uo .sortevl ,ldsaia TOUARAOG noH
axs¥0 .YTHUG .9 SEH@OTeTAHD
Bt - =
no ittw-ot ,ebiswreitts igdt czaaawanaa TI
im alates a a - “at K r¢
at belii.gew ized sdjio aoinigqo edt.
ieee ty begs
= = s
getugit bas ebiow sii oi ,¢1y00 bise to ssiiie an
Gen. No. 6180.
Mary Virginia Maroy, Exorx. &c
| avpellent.
vs Apoeal from Peoria.
Milton S. Marcy, appellee.
Dibells. Ps de
= R. Sumner Marcy died in New Jersey on March 5, 1894, owning
real and personal estate in New Jersey and leaving a last
will which was duly admitted to probate. By his will he gave
his widow. Mary S. Marey, hia personal property and the use
of his real estate so long aa she remained his widow, but
suthorized his executors in their discretion to sell his real
estate during her lifetime and invest the proceeds and pay th
income therefrom to his widow, and dirscted that at her re-
marriage or déath the exscutors should sell said real
estate. The will cave legasoes of #100 each to his son, Milton
S. Marcy, to his daughter, Hetty O.Miller, and to his grandson
Sumner M, Miller 2nd his grand daughter Anna Miller, said
@
lezacies to the grandchildren to te paid to them at the ag
of eighteen years, whith they have long sincé reached. The
residue of his estate was given to his son, Walter EF. Marcy,
and his daughter Lucy E. Marcy, both of whom were blind from
birth; and said residuary clause contained certain crovisions
if either or both of them should die without lawful issue.
m
The will nominated Mary S. Marcy and Milton S. Marcy as
exeoutors, but they declined to qualify and an administrator
with the will annexed administered the estate. The widow
never re-married and she died on January 27, 1907. Durinc
her lifetime the administrator and each of the beneficiaries
joined in a deed, conveying certain real estate left by the
2 ny
deceased for {£3,639.47. By consent of all the bensficiaries
St a
-O8f5 .of .nsD
of »xtoxE ,yotsM staieriV yrs
»tosllegqas
{=
»Sitoe? mort LIseqqA ev
d
ssetleqae ,yousM .2 mot Lim |
fen
-% ited 9
gatmvo ,$e8f ,@ doreM mo yeatel well at beib yoreM renmud - oa a
tesl eg goivesel Snes yeeret | vel ot etstes LIenoatsq Dae Leer
even od {fiw etd yd .etedorg ot bettimbs yisb asw dotdw Litw
sey edt bas ytreqorg Ienoeteq eid ,.yoreM .2 yrs .wobiw eld
tud .wobtw efd benismet ede ss gaol os states Leet eid to
' tebs® aid L[flee ot moitetoelb thodd ae etotyosxe aid bestzodsus
eat" ‘Yeo bose abesoorg edt taovat bas emits tif asd gab etetes
-er red te tedd betosrtb bas swobiw eld o¢- mouteredt smoot
_ feed: bie ttee bivode etoduoexe edt dteeb “m0 egelrtem
motitM .noe td ot dose 00L$ to secvenel eves LLtw dT -etetae
noeboatg eld ot Sar .rel LLM -0 vitheu tetdgush eid o¢ . yorelt 2a
bise ,xellil anak reddgush baste atd bos tef(iM .M tenmua ~
exes edt ts medt ot Slsq od ot aertblidobnsts edt ot setoesol
siT .bedoset eonte enol eved yedt déidw ,arsey asetigts to
roreM .3 tetfeW .moe eid ot nevis asw stetes aid to publest
mort baifd sxew modw to dtod ,yorsM .o youl retdgueb eid boe
enotetvorg atstieo bentsitndo eauslo yreubieer biee bas ydtxtd
seueet Iutwel tuodtty eth bivode medt to d#od zo tedite tL
es YorsM .2 mo¢tliM bac yorrM .2 yxrsM boteatmoa I[itw sdT
tetsitelmimbse as bae vitleup ot benifoeh yedi stud etodyoexs :
wobiw odT .otetee oct bevetetmimbs bexenne [litw edd d¥tw
eatwa .SoeL ,Ts Bonen fto beth ede base ba heaeiee reven
under the will, $639.47 of the consideration for which said
real eatate was sold was paid to the widow tc be used vy her
ag she saw fit, and the re:aining $3000.60 wes placed in the
hands of Milton S. Marcy for investment, and he was to pay
Over the income and gksaixkeukixe skhaxa distribute *h= principal
in accordance with the will of the testator.Under this arrange-
ment the four legacies of $100 each were not paid, and the
interest on said $3000.00 was divided equally from time to time
between Walter and Lucy. Afterwards Walter conveyed to Lucy
whatever interest he had in another piece of real estate
left by the testator, and in payment therefor Lucy direoted
Milton to transfer ¢80C of her share of said fund to Walter's
part of said fund, and thersafter Milton paid the interest
on $2300 to Walter end on {700 to Lucy. On February 15, 1912
Walter died without issue and left a will which was duly voro-
bated, whereby he gavé all his property to his widow, Mary
Virginia Marcy, and made her executrix of his will. She claimed
that at his death Walter owned $2300 o7 said fund in the
hands of Milton, and demanded it cf Milton, and Milton refused
te pay it. Thereupon as exccutrix and in her own right she
filed a bill in equity against Milton S? Marcy in the circuit
court of Peorie County, where Milton residedp for an accounting
of the investment of said $3300snd for the payment to her
of the principal thsreof and interest thereon since the death
of Walter. In said bill, she claimed tat the exoression
"die without lawful issue" in the r-siduary clauge of the
will of R. Sumner Marcy meant dis without issue oefore the
expiration or the life estate granted to the widow, cnd that
when Margy S. Marcy died while Walter was still living, he
then became the abeolute owner of said $1500 and of said $800
and she therefore was entitled to the same under the will of
7.
}
ich
1 A
biea dotdw rot mottezebtenoo edt to Th. Cé3g lbw edt tobms
ted yd bsey od ot woblw sat ot blag asu bloe ee etstae Inez
edt oft bsoaiq exw 06.00088 goints: st -6dhbme Git wse ore es
yeq ot saves Bas. ¢aemtdevat tot yore .2 movPiM to ebasd ©
fagtontrg od+ etudiitelh ezeNa axitiusixtarte Sassaoonh sdtomeve!
-ernetre aid? tebnU.totetast sdt to {[flw edt diiw eoueh roo0e at
vit bos ,biaq tom etow doses OOLF to aoapagas 102 edt ‘them,
emit o¢ emit mort yilaupe bebivid esw 00. 0008} bise so “testotat
yous ot beyevaoe redo abrawzed tA youd bas sed fel Pe i
tilkve ve
ststes ere , to soede eedtons at bed ed tesrstat rsvetedn
i
i od
betoertb youl soteredt tremyeq at bane ‘totatest edt xe owe
e'ysetisW ot Sout biee to eteia rod to. 908% fetenort ‘ot notch os
testotat edd bleo mod {LM reise redt bas (bast btee te ‘tieq a
egret ,2f yrayrdst a0 + youl ot OOTS mo’ bae “wetLat of ‘oes iad *
; ; em19 ;
-OTd vib asw co idw £Lem & eter bs eee: tuodtt te bete ‘totlew bd
Sisal pwobly eH ot virsgorg eld ie eveg ont yderede “boted ny
vee.
bemtselo oif8 -fitw eid to xiztuoexe rod oben ‘baw .youal statgttV
efi at bout bitae “%o o0es$ koave ret law dtseb etd te edt
besuter qo¢ (iM bus ,aesii to tt bebnanet bas «mot it 0 Stale
ends edgy wo tod af base xltivooxs as moquets.!T Bd er of
tivortos edt at woul we mo3 Lt hl yd yehupe nt [ito £ hee
gattaves os ms tot gbebteer mo? (IM ero:dw ‘ytawed shros% to sco
‘L
ted ot tnemysq eft tot - bas0088 + biss to toemtesvat edt to
rig en
_ Adeeb edt sontea mostedt taezeda! ben tooresd Leqtontq edt to "I
tL...
moteeetoxs ay tart bentelo ede Ltd brea aI “rotLeW to a
pst to eeuets yrawb te > + edt at Neuect Listwet tuodd tw enbt
re fuOSRe 2
eit aaaked euast isrorth in ete tnsem yousl ream2 Al to ‘Thin
atiw
tect Soe ewoblw edt od bedaery etetes stit on to mottertoxe z
ian = £3¥Sh ~~.
ef «potvil [ftte sew setLel eLtdv belb oral 2 varall sodw
2
008 btse Yo bas eoert dies 0 Tenwo eduoecs out oraood at at
£7@ 9 168h SF
to TotW eds sebnus emse edt ‘od beldteae ‘asw stoteredt
a
Walter. Milton answered, claiming that under a true con-=
struction of said re
19]
iduary clause, it meant "die at any
time without lawful issue3;" that when Walter died without
issue, the whole income passed to Lucy during her lifetime;
and that when she should die, if without issue, then by
virtue of certain- other language in saii residuary clause,
making provision for the death of coth Walter and Lucy without
Jeawful issue, the fund wouls first ge to pay said four legacies
of $100 each and ths rest to Milton 8. Marcy and Hettp 0.
Miller, or to the survivor of them if only one was then living.
Under an crder of reference the maeter took the proofs and
reported trat Milton should pay from said fungsm the costs
and the four lezacies of $100 each, and should divide the
residue into two squal parts, and should pay complainant one-
half thereof and {800 from the other half, and should pay
the balanose to Lucy. The court sustained some and overruled
other execptions to said report, and held that all the funds
vested in Lucy uson the death cf Walter as well as the income
accruing after the death of Walter and dismissed the bill
for want of equity. cupladadeh—beiemcapeeeie, 25
Complainant claims that she is entitled to the entire
$2300 to the exclusion of the four levaciea of #100 each.
(e)
Defendant slaims that she is entitled to hold the entire
fund till the death of Lucy and pay mer the income and if
she dies without lawful issue the fund belongs to himself
and his sister, Mrs.Miller, if they voth survice Lucy, and
the court decreed that the entire fund belonged to Lucy.
The only persons parties to this litigation are the complainant
and Milton S. Warcy. On this appeal the court is isked to
determine that Lucy has no interest in *he $2300 and ‘hat
the four le-aeles cf ~1CO each wers abandoned by the legatees
4
afk
-moc suit « rehou tsd? gatimtslo ,bstawans fotliM .tedlew » |
: ’ a 1 : 4 ino Waa Fs am es
yos te eib" treer ti ,eavelo yrsublesy biss 30 nottoutte =
; ae e i1ks A
" . duodttw beth tetleN.mecw tect "yevect Ivtwal tyodtiw emit =
-?
comitetif£ red. potiub youl ot besasq smoont slodw edt ,ersal -
yd asdt. ,ovest tuodtiw it ,9fb-pivode sde nedw tedt das
“eeyelo yreubteex bise at egsygnsl isdio atstreo to eutaty
tyodtiv youl bon retLeW dtod to. déesh ext tot aotaivorg gnidem
*
setongel mot, bloa geq, ot op tazti, bivoy. baud odt .sugst Iytwst
m9) wttsk Sos yotsi 2 motlim ot test, edt has dose OOL3. to
spatvil sect eaw eno yiao tt med? to soviviva add. of 10 .mel ity 2
Sue atoorg edt. Xtood, totsan sit eomexsiox, to xepto a8, r9baU
eteoo edt ment btea mort yeq _bivode not iy tact bettoge:
edt. sbivib, S{vods bas dows OOrt to selosssi wot sft bie
~8ir0 daanielqmoo yeq Siuode bas. .,@ttaqg Isgps owt otat eubteex
YEq bf{yode bae vied redto edt MOT t O08) bus tosred? SLad
Delurrsvo fone eos deniateus tiwoo ef? *. youl ot eometed edt
abmyt edd, [is tedt bled bas .ttoget btea' ot atottcoexe redo
emoont edt as Ifew ae tetLeaW to deeb edt moc youd nt betsev
x
_ £itd odd besetmeth Sue zodfe to Etaeh edt notte gaiutoos
oa bfiesges woted -taatadqued “Vd iupe- to REM, Pet
extine eft ot belttine et ede, ted? amislo. daantelamod.,
efdose OOL% to astoscel mot ett to motarfoxs edt te
etiins sit blod ot helttinas at ade, tags emtato, taebasted
if Sne.smoont sat ssn yeg bas youl to, déseb edt lirt ost
ifsemtd ot egmoled ast of? euest futwel tuodd tw aetb ede
bas ,youd sotviue dtod vert iE, «tellin, eM wtstete etd bac
%
-Youl ot Degmolsd Bayi ertine ed? tedt bestoeh fruoo, edt
toentelqmog sdt exe, mottegiti£ atdt, ot settrsg snosreq vito edt
ot Bbexes at tirvoo ont Lesage aid? Beceem + Yo raid a moe LEM bao
tect Sne 008K. ed’, at teoredat on, asd youl tedd Sabnrss
» Best agel eds xd benobasde exew moss OOLy to. asiog si Ot |
when they consented to deliver (639.47 of the vroczedsa of the
ay
uo
al est°te to the widow of R. Sumner Marcy. These leratee
and Lucy were not parties to this suit. In equit
q _
117]
very person
having equitable or légal rights in the subject matter of
the suit should be made a party. It is not necessary that
the lack of proper parties should be set up
for wnenever the court finds a lack of proper parties, it
“will, ex officio, take notice cf such omission," and will
ed in the suit till the pleadings have been
the omitted varties brought into cour
eS
amended an t
v Kimball, 19 Ill... 319; Granquist v Western Tube Co. 340
Ill. 132; Conway v Sexton, 243 I11. 59; Nolan v Earnes, 368
Ill. 5153; and authorities there cited, to which might be
added many other cases , and 50 CYC 141. We are of ovinion
that Lucy E. Marcy, Hetty O. Miller, Sumner M. Miller and
Anna Miller, if they are still living, and the pergons who
lecally represent the intezests of any of them who may ve
deceased, must be made parties to this litigation before the
court has lawful power to decide the questions reised by
the pléadings and evidence and argurents here presented.
The decree is therefore reversed and the sause igs remanded
to the oircuit court of Peoria County, with leave to anvellant
to make parties to the suit the persons nexskmusfans herein
above indicated, and to make such amendrents to the pleadings
as may be proper. If appellant should elect not to take sush
course within reasonable time, then the court is directed
@
to dismiss the bill. Aopellant and appellee will each cay one-
half of the costs of this courts.
Reversed snd remanded with directions.
Niehaus, J. took no part.
aa Wnty Mania &
if ¥ " | ; i ms y ; ( . 1 ”
‘ ’ vie i - , } 4
* / oe i aT
= ee 3
= edt to abe eootg ed? to. we. G&3 reviled of. beteonmae vod se! w
ae esas TM pti Y,
estenel seenT Yotsl TS AME fl to. wobiw, edit; ot eted etd
' moexeq: ¥reve yt iupe. at tins aids o¢ eettreq ton: ote: oso DEE
to rotten tos tdua ed? ot etdgis fsaet. 10 sidetiupe satved
acd Nreasscen ton. at. (aT “UPISg, € pisn, ed, blvode. vaHe,
ht unienea segorg he thal aoe ie cae
itiw bre " co kee Emo dose. to softog sist SH9 TBE, &
eoltier? tues oft tiguord esttred. batt imo edt Car bet
Ons Sd eduT azeteel v ceteRne ey (ete. ofil waite
.
ed sagte dotd fw ot bot to exedt, aelitrosiue daa. ge
; notatgo to exe 9M fae ovo OS brs. epago, redo, gmem J
bas well oM ronmw arpLLB +0 ystteH, Motel, «2, youd:
a ont eroded mottegttht etd fot aribeigee ebsn Pf. aun nase,
©
.
7
betoerit at t1u00 one feds pre eldenoaset, 6 : Saat ae
a4 ~em0 YEG | ose fitw eelleqge bar trellegaa efitd, odd. as toe ib ot
ha
-
_stiyoo elit To ataon. sit. Yok
rw)
ee
235 Oy
2S. “sanobtoezth att bw Spbremes. one Dearevel 8 nett M
54 ed’, at soonetat*Gen Ag, 9m, Sooty ak '
: ' f
i
Pe ape eee ; to ast as Te.
, eepsmmes, ott xd benobaagn sae doen, 9008 bees! Betos: 2% aud
J id ee y z . ie t vg
to
ere ‘
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ! '
SECOND DISTRICT. oo
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and____ eee ae
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
me ‘plOMIGEL* 10:
sjatioggA& ods jo drt) seansd 2 smpdoysiaHl) 1 POX Te Td “OP
eBiooes! sit to toqenl bos «ionifll to o1eie@ odd to doiadei booos@ bine a4] hs
edt to aoisiqu oft to uqoo oud £ Zt puioysiot odd todd YHITHAD YasHan od hos s)
soto ver ar btoxa7 Jo GEMS palditns svods add a cy
= odd wits boas bos yes doe otrarsisd © sonanW rnomitesT “b- Pit ae
- — == — alt gyvenO me .t1v0) otsllaqqé bise odd ty leon
eno bral tuo to isey oot ti to as
oe is DoTbond scia bows
7 ip age ; 7
ee in anit once ne ner wale ee
Bia Ccehh. As a Givalt\ Wee Foe
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of PLlinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. _
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. ..
g®
—
og
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
A
E. iM. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 1 Z the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
a ‘
,fiitqA to yeb Aiqv0% ed3° ysbesutT a0 aneiio ae
yo A535 ‘<
mestxtea bae botbeus soto bosesods smo fess 10 rae TS3Y_ -¥
mas Ie |
sn
splonifii to aiaFe sit to #otrheid dmoose eds 04 bas aid
sobtenG satbtastd |, QUABATH M WHOL .cok oft-19g
1 .goiseul ,@8KAA9 .0 TMAUC .moH. » 22
-».goiteg ,J0adId BOWARBOW .a0H
“ adaef0 ,YUTUC .0 AdHGOTeIAHO
: » he : te Me ae
_. . -Bttved® ,2IVAG Ma
ek Seeeee eeee
a Sa 4
—= : r zs
¥ - =
> ~ ~ = rae -
7 '
“a ‘
& bs
‘ ee bs ES Does
BS * +
»
i
@
* . mE zs ay ae, FS ya
= “ a : #5 i = ~ % eta
: PY ike te) 4
m= bog oe
= + e ae
¥ os oe =
: -
ao :fiw-ot ,abrewiet%s ted} -,CSagaMEMaa°TI GH OE
Si belt’ asw ttuod edi Yo motatqocends = saick hf AGAS
Betusit bas ebrow eff at ,}1p09 hise-to seriYo e'arel
Gen. No. 6184.
James T. Burns, Admr. etc.
appellee.
V6 Acpeal from Kankakes.
Neliie Clark, appellant.
Da0es Pie ds
On September 7, 1915, James T. Burns, Administrator
of the estate of Carrie Langdon, deceased, brought an action
of assumpsit against Nellie Clark in the Kankakee Circuit Court
and filed a declaration consisting of the common counts, with
an affidavit attached thereto that defendant was indebted to
plaintiff in the sum of $3,779.90. Defendant filed a plea of
non-assumpsit, accom-anied by an affidavit that she had duly
atated the cage to her attorney and was advised by him that
she had a good defense on the merits to the whole of the
plaintiff's demanda, and that she believed that to be true.
There was a jury trial and a verdict for plaintiff for #3179.90,
and judgment for plaintiff therefor and defendant aopeails,
9 Mrs. Nellie Clark, Mrs. Carrie Langdon and Levi Benjamin
wsre sisters and brother. Dr. F. R. Langdon, Busband of Carries
Langdon, died at Louisville, Kentucky, early in February 1913.
Benjamin and Mra. Clark went there to the funeral. Mrs.
Langdon was suffering from an incurable disease and after
the funeral her brother and sister brought her to the home of
Mrs. Clark in Keankatee, Illinois. Mrs. Langdon had money in
@® bank in Louisville, and befor= they left there Mrs. Clark
was in possession of the amount Mrs. Langdon had in thse bank
in the shape of a draft or check which she brought with them
to Kankakee. Shortly after they reached Kankakee, probably
the next day, and on February 13, 1915, Mrs. Clark opened a
eheckin= account in a bank in Kankakee in the name of "Nrs.
Pee sa tey’
819 .om sed
~ofe .umbA ,aniwd 7 sual
eélioaad
~99exetneN mort Lesaok av
etnalleqge “,Xrel(0 etifem
| “7 fied
rotertelninbA ,e@nwS .TeemeL ,8Le@L ,T redmetqe2 a0 a.
mottos ms tdguoxd ,beaceoeh ,aobameld stirred to etstes edt to
frsod divorlD sedevaed edt mt dralD etliet tentegs tteqmuees to
dtitw .@tmuoo mommoo edi to uniteienoo aolttetsiosh = belkt bas
ot betdebnt asw tnsiasteb tsdt oteredt bedostis tivebiits as
to selfq s Ssitt tnsbnastsd .08,@T%.83 to mie odd at titaielq
yinh bed sde tedt tivebitte ss. yd deine modos .fecmyess-non
tect+ mid yd beatvbe sew baie yemiotts ted of sexo edt beteta
edt to sfodw edt ot atizem odt mo saenstsb boon « bed eda
-eutt ed ot ted? bevetisd ede tsdt boe ,mbasmsb e"tti¢atel¢
.OC.O8LS$ rot tittatelq rol tothbtev e bas Latitt yt 8 esw eredT
»alseqos tasbasteb bas rotsiedt tilftatelq tot toemgbut bas
nimetasd ivel Dns mobanesl olrted) .erM ,ateld efile au ae
etrre) to beadeug ,mobgned .A .2 .10 .tedtord Sos ateteta stew
-ELCL yrsurdeT mb yltse .ydoutmeN ,elliveived te beth .mobgmel =
e@1™% .Letenut edt ot sted? tnew Atel -arM. bas animated
tetts bos eseeetd s{deivyont ms mort gairesltive esw nobgaed
to emod eft ot tod tdgword teteats One redtord ted Lerenut eft
mi yenom Sef mobgasl -6iM eétomt{II ,sevedasd oat Axei0 .ai ay
atsid .arM etedt titel yedt sroted boa ,elfivetwold at Sivist a)
Aned edt of bed mobgned «ail tnvoms edt Io noteseaaog at asw
med¢t dtiw tdguord ede dotdw Aoedo to ttatb « to sqede edt mb
yidedorq ,sexecaned bedosexr yedt tetts yvitrod® . -eexetnak ot
e bensco Araeld -em ELL. 8L yreurdet mo bas ,yseb txen edt
.67M" to emes od} mt sextedaced ot Aned 2 at tnuooos pa
P. R. Langdon or Nellie Clark" and deposited on that day
to aaid account said draft or check in the sum of $3,179.90
and received a deposit book in the same name. On June 5, 1913
Mrs. Clark drew out that sum of money and closed the account.
On June 8, 19135, Mra. Langdon died. Thereafter appellee became
Administratar of Mre. Langdon's éstate and brought this suit
to recover the amount of ssid deposit. Mrs. Clark, in defense
proved by various witnesses declarations by Mrs. Langdon; some
to the effect thatshe had given this draft or this money or
ali her money to Mrs. Clark; and others that she wanted o1
intended to give this money or her property to Mrs. Clark. =
Mra. Clark had kept a housd of ill fame and is the party mzxe
named as appellant or plaintiff in crror in People v Clark
187 Iil. App. 613, and 2368 Ill. 156. Avcpellee in cross ex-
amination of appellants witnesses and otherwise proved that
the place where Mrs. Clark kept Mre. Langdon till her death
was cr had been 2 house of ill-fame, and compelled ssveral
of her witnesses to vive testimony tending to show that they
4
Ae 5
(
were or had been inmates of tht house, and it is conten
by appellant that it was error to permit this kind of cross
examination to defame the witnesses and aopellant, and that
thereby the jury were greatly prejudiced against appellant,
and that but for the great stress laid upon this subject by
appellee's counsel thex jury must have returned a verdict
for appellant. The keeper of a house of ill fame is entitisd
to a fair trial in a suit involving property rights, and
it has been s serious question with us whether the rights
of appellant were not unduly prejudiced in the minds of the
a
pi
ty
we
Le}
jury by the course prusued by appellee's counsel; and wh
& new trial ought not to be awarded for that reason. Thsre
Q
oO
>)
}-
ct
pe
oO
3
is however, a } appearin near the close of the proofs
g
which satisfies us that no other verdict could have been rendered.
12 ee
-
*y ysh tedt ao hatinoant bos “"Ateld etifen x0 ‘nobansd ae
| Oe.eTL,.63 to me sit at xosdo to #tézb ‘Stee favoods baa" ‘6F
S{€Ll ,2 onUt nO .emsn omen edt at dood tiedgef s bevieoer bas
~toyoooe sit besofo bie Yemow to mye tect tuo wetb Ateld exw
emcoed ssf{isccs xsttssredT .belfb nobnited oul “sieLr Az) ead 0 a
tive eldt tdayord bos etstes e'nobgnsd .e%M to Tatentelabmae ve
sensteb ot .¢ts[0 .erM .«tlaogeb bisa to tamome alt smevooet ot r ‘
enos ;mobgasd .eiM yd emottercloeb seaesatin evoitav.yd bevomg
zo yssom efdt to dtetbh eidt osvig Ded sdetedt toot, sat. of |
{ 10 betasw. ede, tsdt eredto bas jatsl0...am™M o¢ venom rod iis -
xs -21sf0 atl ot ytregetgq ted .To .yecom atdt ovis ot bsbactat “
pan ytitsc edt ef bos emai [ft to bevod s tqex bed draid «2 .
arefov efqost at Zorts af Yilttatelg -xo tnelleage.ee bomen ;
—x2 eeqto of eslisqcs. .deL fLI 808 bas 18L8 GGA oLiT SSL 7
tadt bevotq esiwredto bay sssasntiv, ctaellsqge to nottentme
dtesbh red [Ltt mobgnel .e1M tgsdt aisid .es siedw ovals eit
_ Dsteves. befleames base yemet-Lft To sevod .. asad. Sait. nel
yedt tedd wode. os gntbned yaomitest svc o¢ esaacadtw ned, pie
Bsiastnoo ei ti doe .seved d-d% to aod amas need bed to exew
gaoto to bata side timreq ot torre eew tt tedd taslleqas yd
tedd Dre toelleqas bos seasentiw ed? emeteb o¢no)iaaael
.taelfecos tanisse beolbujstg yites1g etew yt edt yosteds
yd tostdye eidt nog Sisl aacste tes tgedt, 10% oud, tad bas
totiiev s beniwter.eved teum yiv§ xedt, Leosauoo a 'eelleqas my
beltitnas ct emet [ft to eevod «lo teqesxt edT saslisqgs toh
bae ,atdgit ytreqotc. gatvioval tive s mh tatrd thst 2 ot, .
stdyts edt tedtedw ey dtiw mottseup evoties .2 sed eed th . ‘
ef? to eboim eit ot beolbyterq yiubow ton stew dasileqgs to. :
tedtedy me ,Leemvoo, a'sslieqqe yd beseurg. ee two0 edt ye yt :
eienT | 0ego7 tedt sak A bobtawse sd ot tom, ‘true datos 4
atocrq edt to s8olo sit. n600 BAATSAN YE BOLE E90, 2 <8 »wod, el
»
~— A few days before Mrs. Langdon A ee Latimer, a daughter
of Mrs. Langdon by 2 former marriage, and her husband, came
from their home in Springfield, Ohio, to Kankakee upon a
telegram from Mrsx Clark and remained there till after the
funeral of Mrs. Langdon. They had a converaation with Mrs.
Clark after the funeral concerning this money deposited in the
Kankakeé Bank. They testified that Mrs. Clark at first denied
that there wag any money in the Kankakee Pank pelonging to Mrs.
Langdon, and that when Latimer told her that they had been
to the bank and ascertained. that Mrs. Langdon had monsy on
dsposit there, Mrs. Ciark then admitted to them that their
mother had about $3,300 on depoait in the bank. In rebuttal
Mre. Clark was called ac & witness in her own behalf as to
said conversation, 2nd she placed the conversation at a dif-
ferent hour of the day from what the Latimers did, and
ave a somewhat different version of it, but etated that she
in that conversation said to then: (memmx "She (meaning
Mrs. Langdgn) gave all the money she had to me to pay her
bilis." { This was entirely—in hermeny with her-opening the
aooount—in the -bvank-tn the name—-of-Mre.-bangdon or herself
piecing Ure. -Langdon's name firet. Mra. Clark had a savings
ceposit in the same bankm, and if she had posssssion oc f the
draft or check from Mrs. Langdon -¢s her own property by
sift from her sister, she would naturally have deposited it
in her own account. The form in which it was deposited was
consistent with the idea that it was still Mrs. Langdon's
money, but that Mra. Ciark could check it out in payment
1)
acta disclosed
|
of Mrs. Langdon's bills. Under the state of
by Mrs. Clark's evidence, if it was true she could not be
> P
7
permitted to retain the entire deposit as her own, but she
t
would have been at liberty to show vy competent witness
tb
8
what bills Mrs. Langdon incurred during the four months
me .U 1 i, " ¢ ji hee OPy Ra ee 7
) 2. ah; t ’ fF Oe ; aid e
tetdgueb s ,remitad oe nokgsad eri exoted mak lets a
emeo baa dessa ted bos ,epelrren: remo? £ ye coheed nei he
‘B moqu eetedaeN ot ,0£10 :biettgatsc® nt omod ‘leds oz?
edt tette [ff? eted+ bontemey bre i219 texM mort mergele? ta
vex! dtiw not¢sexevaeo 8 bed yoo -cobgned -amM to ers? a.
ed+ at bettsaoqeS ysaom eidt gninroonoo £ (steqyt exit tetis “Hxe10 :
betneb tertt ts Arsf[0 .airM sedi beltitee r ved? ined codastnat
ETM ot gatgnolsd Aned sexexnet edt mk venom vas aew overs teat
; c ‘S Savoia
esd bed yedt tedt ‘red ‘blod ‘remitted ‘ecw tat bas aobgaed
~ it 6a
mo Yerom bed mobpiel eM fect Sortatrenun Sie ‘aned edd i,
ttedt tedt medt ot bottimbse mec? frerd axl ered? Fteoges ; t
; sdect
lattude ni * Anes edt ot tieoget ito 008, Br tuode bat xedtom
‘ot es tleded mvo ted at peentiw . 6 OS belizo egw 15.10 ae
-tib s te nmottpetevaoo ed} beoalq aie ‘bas ao ttae rovm00 bise
foc” .BIb sromtted sit tedw mort yeb edd to ‘wort ‘fnore
ede teadd betste tud tt to fo tersv tieretteb tedwemoe b ‘ova
ontmsom) ede" xxxEx) tmedt of dise aoitaerevnoe “fact at
ten qed ot em ot bed efe venom oct {le eveg “(ndbgaad “ont
ett gioco rete owned -yseritas eaw eit KM el ibd ae
eae
- Heets¢ ro notgmad sent to-ones cit m>tned-od? mt tauooss p
egntvee © bed atsld a teri ence tnotgand_venk gatonig
edt to moteceeeog bed se oF “bate woiied emes rg at shoe
yo yYtxreqotg mro tod es nobgaal .etl mont Aoetio ‘to ys
+t bettsoqeb event yYilerutsn bLuow oie .tetate tsi ‘mort ett
ssw betteogeb eaw ti doltdw mt mot dT noses a0 red at
a'nobgned .otM [ftte sew di dedt sebt edt td tw taetetanoo
: wee
dnemykq at tuo ¢£ Loorto biyoo Hts L0 sam tend tud ‘Venom i
beeoloeth etoet to etete ect tebaU saLite é trobyaed war oe
tom biuoo one sort eew tt tt .sonekive e't80 at eo
ede tud ,fwo tod en tteogeb atitne odd nbatex ot ‘bedtimteg if
io Letud wen aa
assesnt tw treseqmon vo wode oft yixodkl te tised eved bivow
‘y ERP y's 4, edtnom aN far ontmub Poxsvonk popenen Va guated
she lived in Mrs. Clark's home, and the proper amount of
such bills, and that she had paid them or become liable to
pay them. Appellant contends that the court refused to vermit
such proof. This is a mxuaxgsp misaoorehension of the record.
Ber counsel did then ask her: "Did you vay all her bills?"
and the court sustained an objection thereto. Under *he
statute Mrs. Clark was a competent witness as to the conver=-
ation with the Latimers aiter the death of Mrs. Langdon,
but she was not competent to testify to what she did in the
lifetime of her sister. If she nad answered this question
by “Yesa* that would have been immaterial. Apvarently the
idea in the minds of counsel was that if she testified she
had paid €@1l1 of Mrs. Langdon's bills, that would entitle
her to retain the entire fund. No effort was made ade Ar
to prove what bills were inourred nor what suma she vaid upon
any bills for Mrs. Langdon. Arparently~-she- theught croper
+o-rest-her-ecase sotely upon “he claim that the fund was an-
absodiute gift.to cer. Dr. Brown, a witness for saepeilant
attended Mrs. Langdon during the entire four months. He was
not asked the amount of his ocroper charges for his s-rvices
to her, nor whether he had been paid, nor by whom.’ As anosclant
concsded according to her own testimony, in her conversation
vith the Latimers, that this fund was placed in her hands
to pay the bills of Mra. Langdon, and as she did not chose to
prove that she had paid any such bills nor how much she paid,
the jury could not do otherwise than return a verdict for
appellee for the full amount of the deposit.
Hs
. ery
@
fy}
ct
ry
Lu)
The court cave an instruction for appellee that .un
i)
Pleadings they had no right to deduct from the sum, if any
¢
due plaintiff any sum defendant may hsve earned by caring
4
for Mrs. Langdon during her laat iliness or which she may have
~~
Y=, mca te We L a
~to tayoms reqgorg edt bas ote g?axalo “iM ot bovis ade
6+ ‘Sldatt eeosed so met hieq fod Waa ited) bea ee eee
timzsa of beevter ¢avoo add tect sbastnoo tnalleqgA .medt yeq
-baooet edt to moltenedstqqeein quxata e el etd? “s toomg tone,
"fellid ssf Ife Yed yoy bia red Lae nect bib feemioo tea”
edc..reboU .otaxsdt mottoetdo ne bemtetaue txuoo edt bae
=tevaeo oft ot es gasntiw t29t sqmoo & 8aw iseL0 ek etutsia
obgael ei to dteeb edt tet te exsuttel edt déin noltes
’ ede at Dif ete ¢edy ot yittact ot tneteqmos tom asw ode dud
nottesup eldt beteweos bed ede IT steteia asd to emttettl
edi. yltnetsocA -Lebredemm ased ever Sfateot tact “sey# yd
ede betiitest ede i tadd esw Ieenyoo to ebatm edt ot sebl
eltites bivov tect ,alitd B'nobgaal “ai to Ils bisq ‘had
se
t
opines Yo efen Baw trotte of - bast exilins edt Bieter ot Sen
moau Stseq ede ame pepsin Ton bormwons Siow allio asin evora ot
reqots —driguerid-ede~yitawrrcoA +mobgaed eM 10% alitd vas
—TS = SRW. pont eit thertt-misre-en” ROW Yieiee-seee-red_tean oF
PWNS dnalteces Ioi esentiw 6 .aword id iss 0 $its etudocde-
ae
een, oH.»-adiaom met eritas. edt gait mobgaed voit bebnetis
esoivise aid tot segtao teqoze etd to. #nvome ‘oiit betas, “ton
ma eepedg er 5
tosifocs.eA.*.modw yd, tom bbe need bail pe ‘reddastn ‘tom ted od
motteszeynos tei of ,ynomitess nwo tec of nribbennie bebeonoo
-aboed. ter ai beoelg 88 bost aidt tailt “rental edd ad tn
ot. esodo. ton Lib ode es Dae robagnet .6i1M to eilid edt vsq ot
»bteq ede doum, wor som eliid dose Yas bieq bed ade tect vera
tot goibiev 2 awitert seit seiniedto ob ton bisoo ymst “edt
etteoqsh ent to trvome List 3a! 103 eofteqae
edit rweboay. tocdt eelleqqs Tot setéonkvhat es sven fr uoo edt
-yos tf ,mme edt mort toubeb ot. tigix on a best yodid egatbeoie
gaiveo yd benres eved vem tnabnoe tel me Ys tildntslq eb
2VaL Sivow iP. S
eved vem ede dotdw ro Bagatlt tect red paw mobsnel em 70
st Pe bh oa
expended for the benefit of Mrs. Langdon. We conclude that
hh
if Mrs. Clark received the fund for the purpose admitted by
her and had made such expenditures, she was entitled to
recoup the amount thereof. Recoupment is the act of abating
a@ part of a claim on which one is sued, by means of a legal
or equitable right resulting from a counter claim ariaing
out of the same transaction. It rests on the principle thet
.it ia just and equitable to settle in one action all claims
growing out of the same contradt or transaction. It is a
reduction of the damages ciaime
Q
by plaintiff by oroof of
circumstances connsoted with the transzction on which the
plaintiff's claim is based which show «nat it would be con-
‘trary to good conscience to permit plaintiff to reoover the
fu.l amount of his claim. 34 CYC 623, 634. hie can ve done
ie)
under the general issue, whioh in this ease wags the o 3a of
non assumosit. Higgins v Les, 16 Ill. 4953 Babcock v Trice
18 Ill. 420; Turner v Retter, 56 Ill. 3643; Murray v Carlin
67 Ill. 8863 Cooke v Preble, SO Ill. $81; 34 CYC 643. For
statutory reasons this lack of necessity for a special plea
cems not to apply to a suit on a note.Waterman v Clark, 76
Ili. 488, But as there was no evidence from whieh the jury
could allow Mrs. Clark any 3aum for services or disbursements
on account of Mrs. Langdon, the giving of the instruction
in that form did not harm appellant. The instruction should
have said that the jury could not do this under the cvidence,
instead of under the pleadings. In the view we take of *he
evidence of Mrs. Clark and hee failure to kmaxxued introduce
any evidence showing what, of anything, she had expen
[2 )
Mrs. Langdon, the other questions argued by appellant are
immaterial and need not be discussed, further than to say
that Latimer was a competent witness to what he and Mrs.
Clark said in their conversation, and he did not relate wha
By Rat ' q i ae:
t! ;
atayp ’ ( af Bevis oGe
fedt sbufeomoo sW .aobpnal sail to titened edt ‘ret bebnegxe
Yo Bettinds seoqimg edt tot baw? edt bsviecet £2e10 -erM tf
ot beltfine asw sda eatutibneqxe duit Gian bed bas wedi
““gaftveds to tos edt at taemquooef . toered? tavoms end quoost
Lagel & to aneem ad wait ei e110 slotde mo misio s to tteq £
goleits mtslo tetavoo A mort De cael tig efded.tupe 0
ted? efqtontirq adt no atest tI no sooner? mss ent. to, tuo
ehtsfo [is noltos sto mt eltice ot efdst tune bas taut at (af.
set tI noltfosene ett TO tosid¢aoc emge edt to tuo gaitworg
to toorgq yd tiitntela vd Semtslo “segensb odd to Rottoubss
eft doidw mo hottos enett edt ad tw Doe penkey Seonetemyorto
-100 sd bivyow tt ted> wodi dotdw bowed at mielo elttitatst=
edit tevooer ot Tittintelq timreq ot sorte Loanes boca. oF Nasit |
snob sd nso stdT .4&0 ,&&9d NYO ke". inketie bh bet to tavoms £3 A
6 Se g edt esw £680 peiee nt dotie evest cares ost, rebas
soir? v toooded (aes +fi1 aL eel Vv antgg th -tleqmease mon
aifzs) v ystTmM :298 Wee: 86 todtor v peat. Ose .fiT Bt
TOY .680 OYO BE 88 eLfI 08 eidert v_ axoo9 (O56, efit TO
seig istcege- & Tot vi teasoon to fost add BHOesoT yrojudete
ay a v nemradeN ston & 10 tue 8 od viqce oF fon emsse
vw ect ‘doidw mort eonebtve om aew oredtd aS tud .8Se .ffT
@Fnsieetdeth to seolvise Tol mye yates fred orl wolls DLuao
foftourtent eft to ganivis ets mobgnal er to tasooo8 fo
Blyods noltourtant odT etoplleqge wired #6i hth mrot tends, at.
.eomsbive ect tebou etdt ob tom blyoo ye eft ted} bise sued
ed? to sxet ow wetv edt aI .egatbsetg edt rshou to beetant,
eoubortot temxtant of eruliet gor be a1telQ .artl lo eomebive
toi Hshneqxe bad sie ,gatdtyne to paste gaiwode poneb typ. NEB.
ete tnsefleqas vod beugre enottacup tedto edt “obgmed .erM
v
Thu. «&
yee of edt redtet sbensuoate ed ton, been bas fatretenst,
oo. . ee 2 Se Ne eee a Pe Ma ate ae eee Ave PES Se aes: s a * thee ‘Satie i i ee ae ice
his wife said in that conversation, We find no reversible
error in the record, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
+
”
: + f
i a ta ei ae CE Aly BO) peomite ee a
Pa
1 he Bt aI pd ro, my : , a =) ae ie ;
} s : 4 Being ' f a
ary 4
im au j Shs 7 a
3 aa " ‘
y 4
oe 7
0 Te ms ve
> oar ie :
cag. @igteneven om Bat? ott. mittee aaa me
eer Rte ot Mapai dup ebtg0% 2H8 5 pur o
2A eDi-4
a
a q
vy ei
7
Ot belittns sev ode ,eemt tbe me dove @bam Bad Bite ted
gueteds to ¢oe silt al Paemgroles tooredé _ Povome ent <8 abe
' Lal '
‘Lapel £ %9 siteem yd ,Bese at eno dotdw fe ie) mio lo s to. frag a
paliesits aisis reiawoo © BOT” gals iuees tigks eidas ype o
fax? elatonixns ect ao eteest +t +o tforenart $nes. eutt 29.) 10
ee
a oy
pa
6 et et -nottosenett to tbaxtnoc Be edt 29 tye , .gatw ys)
entefo Ils noltor. smo mt elites: og eldest tune bas fevg. ae
to toorg Wd Yiltatels ud bemiaio eegenan. oud te ES a wis =
vag
ed? dotsdy fo fottosenert eds ddtw betoengog seonster
fs
-n00 2d Siow +k ged’ wore doidw bheead ef misic ormaeah ae x
ats
edt fevooet of Ititntely tpntea oe gonetoanes booy of,
adi ba iad otat .o8B [888 CTO 26 halo sts Yo trwgm 4 ie i ,
td ss q edt Baw eaco std nit dotde sues! Lorene aia: Ap
sols? v Focoded : :ees Satete Sf es! v sata Ie a
niizad v cori (256 vert 86 totter v ‘ten? hae
“Wor .ba8 YD be 5186 efit 08 sider? v e009 8
abfG Yaresee c x08 v2 teasoon 5 toni ends Se if
“BF aretp v nanzeset. etoa B no thu a at Vigge of fom ems 7.
‘YIut edt colds ‘mort eonebive Om Baw exe a8 ud » ate a a
#eismestudets xo esotvise 10? sh yas fred vem wolle bg fy ; |
“nottoutée ant af? Yo itty rin eft wobgaal emu 29. tuo ona.
Bigoda notfouttent odT sta io. saa mrad Jon bth mra%, pie
wooaetive 63 tetany eldt tee Lisos emt ox? tad? J haa aa
ef to atet ow weltv act ‘al segatbael@ ads tobay. to .
eoulortal SUSEAARE ot exuliet Bod bas. x01 ie Hi ee ve
bot Bebaeqxe bas ace gabe Yo tad gatvods, soa
eta thacteqaa” ro beuga ‘enolttasue tedto edt ,
:> ted * whe
ae “Ot Rell? xedeact \beemwouth ‘ed tout
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
SECOND DISTRICT. \
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
aS I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFy, Clerk of the Appellate
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this —_
day of 2 in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and aes
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
: | aie Lowi TO HT,
sisilagqé oft to dash) .yaaud © sgadotrewpD J -TOLTeIG a%O08e
abyonesT alt to ssqoud bas ,eiovilil Io ots adt to dotateid broosd bisa 10% bas ai, ‘i
ans Io noisiyo add to 7qgo9 sutt 6 at gaiogetol odd dedd yartaao yaasan oa josred
otto yor at btoset io SBiED boltitas evode ond ai J1s00 oti is
. spd
odd zific bes basil yor toe ojnusied L aomsaanW wnourreaT “1
+... 21dd .sweNO ds 100 stelloqg A bisa odd to ise
‘ono ae 100 40. 1ssy odd aj_——____________to yeb_
=. berbasd oni hasessodt
En 22
Pt et
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present -- The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice
Hon, DUANE J. CARNES, Justice
Hon, DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk
E, M. DAVIS, Sheriff
Snr TA ant
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On April 14,
A. D. 1916, the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's
office of said Court, in the words and figures following, viz:
Gen. io. 6025. ’ Age Now le
542
ELIZABETH POOLER,
Appellant,
~vs- APPPAL FROM LA SALLIE.
PLINY OC. SOUTHWICK,
ee ee ee eee ge ee ee
Appellee. ;
CARNES, J.
In June or July, 1904, the appellant, Elizabeth
Pooler, was riding on u publio hirhway with ber niece fn
. @ horse drnwn carriage... The horse became frightened by
en upproachine automobile driven by the appellee, Pliny C.
Southwick, mn appellant was thrown from the cerriage and
seriously injured. July 6, 1905, she began this ection
to recover for that injury and filed a declaration charging
only common law negligence in carelessly and negligently
running end >perating the automobile upon a public highway.
On February 27, 1907, she filed two additional counte to
the declaration declaring upon the act of 1903 to Regulate
Speed of Automobiles ( Hurd's Rev.Stats. 1903, Chap. 121,
Par. 269a ) It was provided in that act in section one
that an automobile should S08 be driven along any road or
highway faster than fifteen miles per hour; in section two
that when a horse driven upon the road became frightened
by the approagh of an automobile the driver should bring
the machine to a full stop; and in section four that in
an action for damages proof of the violation of either of
va}
tid *
yen emsat tz enco biuose anotetvory a
begetla sha eeowgll
esmotga sti gist’ of 6 afioct.@ Paso Fanord) pbs certs edd
‘id
gn pte? its gag so? ugd eatot oft gextwoqovea Thaw 4 OF
J es ra i
es BE Ledqgs 6 fa The Od? — anfasat ear bnvnee arid cehY
en (Bards PDnk oa erode “brian ~iwornie) settm song" tt | ts wa
7
Ny Steer tan Savory ets: ono:it oF OF aot te
_
(tetooet
ot sige’ fatejey ed? bao’ y Faadmete b wot heal e 1adg
mace « 5 t# Laine i as " $its' (wal aor: uty 1, iantg tx0
et ebetiataye & F tm urmebh doliw ,etaues [nxt iter » ih
afd oj ancttnTlakl %o esutala levee, ot aft «bool an
wea © Be-nia dove zs? F sud? rows saz a6 etn790 ee
sou aeiq etdt of serztameb A emotion TO earnd tas ret ehhh
bewollot [att? ytal 4 mete ait q bebide et baa bontegs
Taabae'leh elf a0% sae kt bun #2: eve at sas timer
3 - " 7 .
piso qi itately
, v
eoneb +e oad sebuo gad? eoffeque we heatsalo be 7]
br oo tond er! t
oa
sucdgiw ~berebnex eidnaocaet weed avad
squoo eft 9? 8a satiate Gil thee
edd Xo Pigtew aevirnty
“2 ebule apo 6W er
une f' gedf ftooory silt to qn lboez a. 5c
Wao% ret a OF allo gue alttétne, oF 66 axetostado | dows
22 haw ,yrust edt Uf ntoat Bottero tem aera
fete? ef? ao Serts000 wal te hued
Ded Tedgo
biunda eseo off
aelieggs q betetke eaolts
’ ¢
ed? nevig bre
bate
qeban y?itidartl *2 vo Mwesp e@@, 6
@
aoct S enoh § -uoitar ond aad’ mr
y
oT ko aottoa aha? ao bungtees ol xe 2
=
ye
bh»
544
court and appellee answers that neither one of seid ad-
“@itional counts has any place in the legal consideration
of this casejy that there is but one count of the deelara—
tion before us and that is the first, or original common
lew count, because he says the counts were filed more than .
two years and a half after the ceuse of action accrued and
_ efter a count charging common law negligence had been filed
as the declaration in the case; and also that the act of
1903 under which the two additional counts were drawn and
filed,was repealed expressly and by revision without «a
saving olause by the act of 1907, and therefore the right
of recovery for violation of the former act was lost by
its repeal.
‘Appellee raised the firat question in the trial court
by the plea of the statute of limftstions and obtained there
an adverse decision, which he does not here question by
filing a orose error. We do not see how it can be said
to be before us for decision. Our supreme and apnellant
courts Have many times disposed of similar questions on the
mere statement that no cross error was filed, often without
any discussion.or citation of authorities, but in Pelouge v
Slaughter, 241 Ill. 216,224, the purpose of the statutory
assignment Gt’ exons error and consequence of failing to
observe it ie fully discuseed with citation of many au-
thorities. The court said- "If one party appeals the
opposite party will be considered ag# acquiescing in all
rulings of the trial court, unless his objections thereto
are presented fm spme proper manner,” and pointe ont
ee co. i> cetieiien Sea i
=
=
hte =
7
Be bras lo oo tsi7loe Tald “tegmes sofingga: Baa
7 -
a
aotfetebeaoo faye’ eft mt woaty ¥en and) ogavos SAROR TE
ae
~2viters oft To trig eto Ninl at erode Tadd j[etan Re oe
* : ae
mormoc “aelaheac = tar’S wtiinwt dats Soe ne etoted wee
ton! exon Sell? eaten alaifcn ef agen ef aacunced ,taudol ge
Soe Bagrroe. gehdos ta eesuso ef? verte tlad » Bin eee
belt’ nee’ Sot esneytigam wal agmmen golazto danoe @ gent
Yo. Pon int Jattvonfs baa “goseq 40) 2 gottwrstoeny ‘7
Aiea Gweyh orien ata, Asi tthba owt oF of tm ai AS
& feoditw actelve + ud San Uelesetaqre bolamtors eon, Seth
tigtt aft mrotevad? bua ,fORL to bea arf? ed ieavete 208
= Pree
GF fo! saw dou teo7Ot edd oO walteclote xok qrome
aloes ie
&
fates ey me RL ee centy aig or ed Cs ama nen A + ab ee
aa Yael a
fcoue Lelad eile at wo Peers pacth add Ssalay ae
orad? baaied4o ban agoltattutt to etuteye. ett Yo cate ot
Wt moltheup eset fort ewot et Aoide totuitoah serewSa i
‘
tua ed ano ¢! wod o4< Fin ob af »totte BAotO 5 pal tee
- -
*mMlilenw.« Bra ensigquve sO -Solelooh tot en sxoted ef oF
— ae
ev? ge adcidcsup caf'alba Yo Saaodrn bh wenly (net ova y sia '?
dup ttre meste def! anW torte neotn om Sent Faeced a.
* opwolel at tud .wa!*hrcdsua to goizagio to. erry ath x
eeotweese aft Yo enoy tug edd O80, are ofit 143 etottgcal
of qirtet Yo senerpesann tus aria onto Yo. ono be
ae “te «nam to oottarte drtw beavsicosth the ri 12 eeeeen
: edt olaengs Yita eno 1" ~beae oxu06 ett | ie o
fifa at peteoretapes ba Boxed! v0 od uN oq *TBOY
efeated? egoftcetdo sid ealom tm90. te, ode So
tre etatog ban * TeRCAm TOqOTG,
-
Ai a AR on
040
the nécessity of assigning cross error in cases where a party
Sian tach desire a reversal of a decree or judgment. In ad~
dition to the authorities there cited see Stowell’ w Spencer,
190 Ill. 453; Provart v. Harrie, 150 Ill. 40; The People vy
Sholem, 238 Ill. 203; Meyer. vy Meyer, 247 Ill. 535; City of
Hillsboro vw Grassel, 249 Ill. 190; Porcum v.Brown, 251 Ill.
301; Village of Shumway v Iéturno, 225 Ill. 601. © But
whether appellee was at the time of the judgment entitled to
recover on proof or admiseion of the facts alleged in either
or both of the two additional counts is perkhepe material.
While the trial court held them good on demurrer and algo as
‘against a plea of the statute of limitations, still if there
Was no statutory law making the conduct complained of aotion-—
able they may stand as immaterial allegations of fact upon
which a oe could not be entered.
The Motor Vehicle act of 1907 was no doubt intended as
@ revision of the act of 1903. It repeated in section 12
section 2 of the former act,and substituted for section 3
different regulations as to speed at which a motor vehicle
might be lewfully driven on. public highway. It in express
terms. repealed the act of 1903 with no saving Clauee. later
in 1911 an act om the same sudject was passed ( J & A. State.
Par 1301,e¢séq)which the court held in People v Sargent,
254 111, 514, was intended to supercede all previous legisla-
tiom on that sabject. That act conteined a saving clause,
and it is not contended that it affects any question arieing
~-4-
ri © 2@apa
gs. 139 pai ¢. The pHs Hy ak ‘Ke © Cd Ot. tinh Fea
. =9
ee ee he) ee rT | ii, 4007 GGA. 8 vet a | 62 @oOF
:
we Pa a sOAT ru iL ,eitial! «oJ ety) Te Pee
sf .£6,aubw? ists © Aye” oe ee Aad
Le eet © sa rer Oe ae ee an Ve ge Onn a
Pie > iy ee © Gee , myial » anmegk, Fi *
a € wit) 7, Bal wees Tio mei hi wis » guy) tute 3h
Stigte er iwi b*3 # acl bv bickeals [a oe . m0 re
just tadan Sap ent Camel PRM ed like: 2a ated
e Sie ta qavree. +. S904 mane Blaney: Cees ‘ed? ¥ ‘
ied Oy eee we a “2s CONT etna” he anil & ant |
ete Ls : gyalanied Locka aa surtherwre ay Sra a
aane 618 Th aan? haga babes trans iy Loomd@ Yan qe
tecetaw oF) #6. (hernia sraagt nh we a }
o> be seas thew ty «<8 TORE Fe Boa oi ‘ortele TORGM net”
fi A, bot S Pelowqey GE wt Sh ee eG SE eoke
Ropu’ ee TY WORe Ee dae 508i bee haerrot att Be @ wef
elolfse 1 tap w@ detie de eage ot do aon ea Cies On )
rer Lee ee 2 oP 9.) © 14a wee ote) eh Ef wat od
SCOR) >.Sa4 be aceite wat ey bie: SoUIod mite belasden
nei sh 4% | bdvgad 660, Pye ane ole od beach P
pioemind vw, a fqtel! 0. Ate dh sone ante ke Fe |
w@itigel ¢--ieer, .l> abase oem 08 ‘ahnerie se oie , Lh
eat tae, 2 BY Me TOR tant Poettom, oath we
QAR! cH e).1 feed we ‘ine tte #0 tadt be hapdaen
546 sf
in this case. The question is whether after the repeal
of the act of 1903 a plaintiff may recover under the pro-
visions of that act in a suit begun before the repeal for
an injury sustained while the act was in full force. This
question involves the consideration of many cases of this and
other states on the consequence of the repeal in different
ways of @ statute, and on the effect of the provisions in
relation to repeals and saving of rights of action acoruing
theretofore in chapter 131 of our statutes ( J & A. State.
Vol. 6, Par. 11106). These questions were 80 thoroughly
digsoussed in Merlo v Coal & Mining Co., 258 I11. 328 and
the authorities in this and other jurisdictions so extensive
ly refiewed that we need not extend this opinion by a repetition
of what 4a there said. Bor reaepnes there stated we are of
the opinion that the sot of 1907 repesling the act of 1908
-‘gannot be held to deprive appellant of her cause of action
under either of the sections of the act of 1903 relied on in
the additional counts of her declaration. As we understand
the law, we are not permitted to disregard the two additional
eoants or to consider whether the court erred in holding them
Pood against the plea of the statute of limitations. The
injury complained of occurred and the suit to recover was
brought and additional counts filed before the statute was
repealed. The defendant raised the question of the exist-
ence of the statute ana rights accruiag under it by demurrer
_ to the. additional counts, and then waived the demurrer by
pleading to the counts, ‘and no question is Seine here as to
the action of theo ourt in overruling the demyrrer or sus-
taining the plea of the statute of limitetions. We are of
—— Shh lll
Taeqe% ons tott: contadw ef wohtaeay od?
a(ty of9 vebun vevonetr yon Tdi votatg # hOeL tq te
rot fasaqer od «voted surged Pte ® af Fos tadé we
eidt «oxo SIN ut enw toe Os? wetdy bentgrame vines
bre aldd 1d KeBeo Yann To mo! te TOA RANA ant aeviovat: ‘motes
Pao rettth ak Lueday ode Te wominpemnon out sx nus .
at enofretwor’ ed? Yo porThe ad? oo bra tatate a te ‘
LY,
pafartena aptinn To Gtidat« Ye pose bur istanney ot ioe 29a
ebrate Aah ) ootmtate 200 to rat Be ee orc beets
Tidy tedy ao eto anottanry @nowt BOLLE Ct
boo 2% »SLT BAS ,,Ob antec 6 teed. » olay at Ave
~eylaney2e WG nao sto tb bath ew ita baw mine, at aot. abi he
preg
BORK Ko Hod OE Qaklacger WEE Ke fea! fede? t' io
goidoa to sense qof ta tralfeqye: swbagen: o? axed.
atad belles goes to des. oct to pan itene ont so vant de h
dbastorebmer ow ah a0 thane food mod! te ediaren risa bob Me
faxohvibbs owt adt duayotwlh ot OEE ne Oa tom mn td a
eect petifod at berty tro ant. ‘coditqdiwe tobias. of 9 ro we
oft .uotrattmty %o otutate’ ott to ‘eon nad dontage ny.
edw ievdowt of thom ont dee beriseoo te. potta oa
paw etudete edt erotead wally sence ae 928, ‘
~tetxe oft to gotdannp of han tare tuabastes ost
Torcumed qi #2. xed sebunvge Fa a atin oom
| qe <0 tamed aad bev.iew aent bra Aba )
ean 6? me eved a ol anitnenp en Date ,wrar0 ont +
~an9 «to rertemed oft pat Lencieve ak 0 0 I gee a 8
a A
fo em of = -tmmtTsthatt to orutase ont 3 i awl
- i Pi ae a Ry
. i oe . x ik ¥
_—— >
547
the opinion, as before expressed, that appellant's right
of action survived the repeal and have not considered
whether the court erred in holding the additional counts
good acainst the plea of the statute of limitations.
Appellant also objects to certain instructions that
‘they left the jury to determine the materialtty of facts;
that they did not confine the —— as to negligence to
at or near the time ard place of the accident; that they
left the proposition that the plaintiff mst recover under
her declaration, or some count thereof, in doubt by the use
of ambiguous language. There is some ground for these
criticiems. We conclude that the judgment mst be reversed
because of what we regard the principal error in ignoring
the two additional counte in the instructions to the Jury,
and will not discuss in detail other objections to the in-
structions.
Appellee cross examined @ material witness by calling
her at‘ention to testimony that she had given on another
trial, which was claimed to be in conflict with what she
was there stating, and in his argument to some extent treat-
ed her answer that " she did not remember”, or something to
that effect, as equivalent to an admission that she mate
those statements, and perhape was permitted to go further on
that line of argument than he should have done without making
proof ty fray of impeachnent that she dia on the other trial
‘make those statements. The rule is that when a witness
~6§-
fia at taal Teqye Jat ,homoorgxe eroted BA «tok tog
Serebisnce toi evad bua Laeger edt Sevivtia ae? |
Bfusoo lamehtthhe eft go lbford nt Berze ¢xo0 5 689 tedee
easolhvailoull Yo wPirtagte ent 6 #o° 9 odd teataca
TH57 BROTTOIIILS meteoo of stoeltda sefa’ enact
peerey Te Ee alvedew at! ewlatede B53 Ctal ed? ete, in
‘Of se segt igen cf wy Grlapaxl ed? enl¥neo FOis, eto ws |
post fede Geaehicnad ads 26 eonty Asa ewk) wat Tan tes
tein Tevooet soon WY bowrtily edt dad iobttswaeeg of? ]
ee ef! qd tdueh a) State") gagée eaoe ve olgarate
weed Tol bas ty emma sf axed? .enncacal epor
bearers: od tux Jne ight oft 6d? abnlomon of wen
> y ;
Wrtsaayl at wort Cugloetyr edd brages ow Jodweee oi Re
6000). 200. gt oa | torr test ‘eaten ates Bees BeBe
fa”
“AF oN? OF anoldooida sedte C2uted ot escoeth fon itiw ®
«tant
Pal tiso yt aeeatle Lv bregam os ber liar encore wellegga |
4en° 5 Rav Dy bi mT Mase Kite it Tue? o7 a0 $3 test, rod
; \
ote tadw allw ferltron wt ed ot Dee ta. Co aw Holae oi ake
~2H809 TsPxw ec doy SOW YIA OLA at koa anttate ord
ae
UF Qaltomon to.“ einenen Soe bieda * sant roWsae bad
e°ot etn tatd aclnutaha ga og taelewtune: th \toatteed 2 ”
ko ZeiPret oa of Dettionreg saw egqadrey Box pide nll
- Bitkon Jaodiiw egos. evan ‘bles ust ‘Had? fomairgta to
faste § todSo eds we. f*b arn zoitt 3 vem dousy a? t veades
’ od 0
GFE (e',
88600 LW & aedw tec?’ at afer edt .inenntade por ‘93
; * ae re. ae . 7
=
ah
7 ae ‘pet Lore
o ‘ aa uf
548
ios understand that without 9 proving the affirmative:
» should be permitted to assume that such contradictory
t i statenente hed been made by the witness. We need not 6°
Reversed and remanded.
.
.
ion?
| at .
» ee
na nti Ri a ’
‘/ - . - 7) ‘ =
OK y f
ely ty
‘ gt ew haa
ibe Re ie a |
ts ie ho an = Rees ¢ he ; ; j ;
ware i! alee .
oy } - 33
Mi ny
n
=a ea rT Le
*
=
sisi Bs rate
CAR
LI 2
" ‘
: 2 }
ie -
cf
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine byndred and sixteen,
Wituhine and for the Second District of idl dtate of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, sey | Justice,
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES. Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justige.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, ceri, w MM holhe
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. Z
i #
= \ Fi
\ 2
\ ;
\ /
\ 2
'
4
4
\
se
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 74 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
a ! 0
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
te
‘ y ; - : ey ‘ay ihe Pi ee ode
we
ar
a agevay HTALINGGA BHT 40 usa? A ta a
4q : -
-litqA io y¥sb dtene’ sd} .yvesbsenT so aa ts bled baa
,nsstxts bas berbeyd sain basayods eno Bc! 100 to 180% rad
- & . | oie
. :etontifIl to siste oe to Stujerd boos we edt ae bas aidtin
. es | :
svitenl enibtes1d .2UAHaIM. MW MHOT 0H edt -ane
‘4 . oe thy .- oe
sportenl ,e84AAD lL TMAUG. con
he H
— .Seffagt . Gal FOWABHOT .cok #y
t} Lie sae “fyeld ,YITUG 19 SaHIOTeISHO
\ttited2 ,gIVAd .M
£05 5 f >
= ~
2 Proud j
- t
j
~< a8 e ;
weete é
f
a a
oss ri
me 5 = EA Rnd, e 4
= EOS — Te + 32 x
i‘ ne
!
wo > Se 2 e bd “ cx = ae -
= a ae 2 a a ay
+e
h i od <a 5 2 = on =
Pee te mo :iiw-ot-,ebtawreits isd ‘ QUSMEMINGA TT, 9a ++
i vi fit asw ty aft to moinigo sit. . -
ni belts asw fru0od of g f : ist t yah
‘as1nait bab -ebrew sdi.ai-,i1ucd bise to sottto atdreLd.
:tiw-od antane
id
: =
>
——
a =.
“*
P be ‘.
~
~
———
@gnexKha. Gen. No. 6108
Michael Dinneen, appnellee
vs Aopeal from LaSaile.
City of Ottawa, appellants
Carnes, Je
Michael Dinneen the appellee was injured December
a
29, 1910, by st qping into a hole in a stheet neer the side-
~S Pa
walk in the city ok Ontene and sued“the city to recover for
that injury, and nad \ verateténa judgment for $725.00,
The city proscoutes this\agpeal and relies for reversal
solely on the claim thet evidence does not show either
negligence on the fart of the defendant or due care on the
part of the padinti fs. No error is claimed in rulings on the
evidence, <r siving or réfusing of inétcuctions, or as to
\
the unt of the verdict if appellee ia satitled to recoverg
¢- Qe ere oe bere! = i
Was at
Aepelles
he time of the injury 2 man about sev=-
enty years old. He had lived in Ottawa a creat many years
and had been, for a number of years, 2 member of the city
council, his last term of office expiring about eight months
before the accident, = part of the time serving as chairman
of the street and alley committee, and a part of the time
as & member of the sidewalk committee.
At the northwest corner of Columbus and Joliet streets
‘there was a hole, or excavation, near ths sangle made by the
sidewalks where years before a catch bpasgin for the sewer had
been put in there and the hole left open. There was no
guard protecting the hole. There would be little danger from
it in the daytime. A pedestrian would not fall into it if
he kept on the sidewalk as he turned the right angle to
cross the street. The accident happened at about <cleven
otclock of a dark night. The str¢et was Jark at that place
eelleted mort LIasqgA
recmsosd botuial baw sellecce sit meenaid sl
.00.d8°% rot mia ba totbasy fbsd bos ympat tedt
fsetever tot eesifer bas "Leogh eidt astuoseorq ytto sdT
vedtts wode tom ssob sombive ye fede misfo edt mo yLeloe
edt mo erso Sub TO tnebne pet ait To treed no sonegtizen oa
sit mo egnifur at bemtaio“et torrs of .tittateig ait to t1eq a
ot 6&8 to vanotvouzeat to ‘yofeuwtet to yoivt i qonebive
gtevoost of iia ef eslleqgqs Ti totbrev ie 20 trom _odt MG
“vse tuods aen“s Ywpat edt lo emit edt te one octane | a
Stseey yosu tsers s ewettO mi bevil bed sH -bLlo stesy vine E
ytito edt to tedmsm 2 oS IEOY to isdaua e tot «need bed bos >
“Fe
Es a A
edtaom tdgis tuode gairigqxe eottto to mirot teel atd wftonsos-
famtiedo es antvises emtt sdt to tusq s ytmebtoos edt etoted A
emit edt to trsq 2 bas ,eetiimmoo yelis bas teexte sdt to oi
seettimmoo ALewebte ed? to tedmem s ans oe
ateotte tetlol bas evdmulod to reno teswitrom edt tA
aft yd eben slyne eft teen .fotteveoxs ro ,slod s asw eredd>
Sed tewee oct tol atesd dotso 6 etoted atesy etedw eilswobte an
on sew stedT .meqo ttel elod edt bas erst at tug need
mozi ropmeb ofttil ed Siyow exedT .elod edt yattostorg breug
tl ti oftmt Lfet tom blyow asitteebeq A .emttysb ed? mt tt By
ot alegre tigi: add bentut ed ag ALeweblé eft no tqext ait
4 bn'yd
aevels tuode ta bemeqoed tnebtoos eiT rtectte edt esoro
“y eannla t¢el&4% Ae Seer eaew +6074 2 FT 3 .£ Ata be pd a oy .
ti
(2 yer at a
Bupedeee, wae walking north on Columbus street
(
and intending
to turn at a right angle and so cast and walk on Joliet
street. He mistook the place, snd turned jus
the walk, falling into the hole and thereby r
jury complained of. The ground was hard and l
place where he turned, and he thought he was
Be had theretofore been accustomed to walk to
this direction on Columbus Skzga*# 2nd Joliet
had habitually used the other side of the str
argued that from the fact of his long use of
he must have known of the excavation and there
t before reaching
eceiving the in
evel at the
atill on the walk
his home in
streets, but
cots) It/ is
these etreets
ees w2s5 bound
to avoid it. This was a question for the jury/and their con-
clusion that he might not have known it or mi
exeroise of due care, a forgotten it, shou
urbed by use It is urged that because of his
with the city council he should have known of
and that he is suffering from a negiect of h
a member of the council, snd should not be he
The fact that his cast duties were such as te
ledge and notice of the conditions of the str
jury to consider in letermining whether he wa
exercise of ordinary care/ There ds no founda
reason for an assumption that a pene of 3
must, at his peril, leave all the strects and
city in safe condition when he retires from
clear that the exoavation was one that in the
ordinary care the’ city should have covered on
Inpermitting it/to remein at that place for\s
it was guilty of actionable negligence and 3
notioe of thé condition. Whether appellee wa
J
of ordinary care for his own safety was 2 fa
ght, in the
ld not be dis-
connection
this defect,
is own duty as
ard to complain.
sive him knowe
eet was for the
a8 in the
tion in law or
city council
walks of the
office. It is
&t cuarded.
oOo long 2 time
harged with
3\in the exercise
ir \qu-stion
,)
a
tetfol “no alew bas tese op bae blame tigit°’e te mit ae z
onidoss: stotsd tev~ bentut bar ,8oeiq edt xootetim sH tooxte,
nt sdt gatviecer yderedt bue elod Bit otnt gntiist Labawhe
sit ts Level bos bred ecw pavotz sit «to benteLqmoo mh ¥
Xiew edt ao fitts, asw sd tdguod? sa bone bens oi erexdw poeta
at emod etd ot ALsw ot bemotevoos mee g, Sstgiotered? bad oo 5
oe
tud eatse tse geilol boxe susate ayuda loo Fs fe) moits eiib eid —
Lae Ls
et fT |pteeate od? to ebte redjo sd? beew Ji leut iden, bad
etsorte oe eae to esy gol eld to tos eid /motz. tedé bouase
bayod aew esxotereds Das Moiteveoxs sii to pon vad Feum od 7 <a
. [mt 610 ; “a a
~foo tisdt bas \ yxy { edd tol moitesyp s Bsw etdT rot btove ong. 9
weit ven —-.
edi mt, qtigtm xo tt iia eved ton propia ed tedt moteuto |.
-eth ad ton pivots .dt aettogrot eyed 48TSo Sul “9 estozexs Be
Mottoennoo ald ¥ eevcoed tarlt beam. ei #1 0 BY ve pea.
-toeteb. atdt to awon eved bined ed Ltonuoo ytio ‘edt astw
es Xtub awo aid Ao too lagen & noxt gaitsiive ef ed Sed? das
erteigmoo.ot bised od ton Sivode bag eitonwoo edd to redmon 6 Ses"
ewood ain avig o¢ e6 dove stew aeitub vesq eid vadt et oat
odd. tot aew toartts sedi ,to a apt aft to eotton bas egbel
edt al aew ocd redt odw/ lantgtnretes at reitesoo oe out ART
ro wel at nottebavol on at ezedT \etso Ntanthto to setorsxe
Ltoenuceo ytio eto zedinots & tedt noltqmecs ‘ms cok Soa
edi to eilew bas etegtte ade {le eveel ftiteg etd te .teym
el tI .aoltio mort seriter ed gedw agtttings tse at Xtto
te salorexe ed? gt tedd emo saw notteveoxe ede tedd a
eLebiriug kao beteveo syed biuede ytto\ eat: 8180 Be rte }
exit s.naol o8/ fry sosig dedi té atemet od\tt ae
dt te ventas bag .eonegiigen eldsnotitos, t \vitling « asW., He
estotexs, ott at/uan pefleggs. redtomy. rtottkbaoo | re of;
\ _. mottecup! the co sew. ytetes awo etd 10%, eso |
for the jury, and we are of the opinion that their conclusion
was not so unreasonable as to permit cither. the trial court
or this court to disturb their finding. The judgment is
affirmed.
Affirmed.
aotsuloios thedt tad? motmtdo edt Yo “eis ew baa iymt “St
tuvod Laine edt nsdtis Pimreq oF ef leiacdéeddims ide te
pens: ‘fnemgbut ect? igdbint? tteds: duut ep %6d Yt too wie
nt edt gatvieoss ydetedt baue siod $r2 bt mi yaiitiat” y |
sit ts Level base brad ocybeneEena ooT 0 beateiqnos fe
iiew acdd.ao itive sew od Psigyond sy, fap, dent ad giedy scelg
aismed elds of tLar of benoteycos ave prgjotezertt badd
tud ,etoerte teiiol bnc, dumxte avdawlod ao mottops tp am ; 7
ef tI ptsorta edt te arte red} 9. eit, Seey viteutided £
eyoarte HBOS ¢- to . gau gaol, eld 9 tos? eds mort said, aes
bayed sew axotaxed: bre. Aoisaveoxs eft to prons evad tem od
~moo Tisi? bre yrs; anit. Or nottesyp B Baw etd? ott ses | am
af! a2) 4fsgtm 19, 2 owood evad tea Jdgia ad stadt soleus |
; =
eip ac fon Bistttin Ad HOI ARASS 4VEL 4 OTRS oul 30 Seto: 9x is
i aT |
fotioeanes elu Yo epiooad dat pany eh tI sey yo bear ane
stae%eb aids Yo, nwons eyed blyods od Liomos yiic en? Asin
se yduh ome ain co toalgsca a 293 , Salistive at od Jaet
eatalgmos of bress..90 tom Dives baa, aettonves edt to xedaen 2 ¢
erood ald evig ot ef ious 310%. setter, teas eid tad taRF. 2 ie
ed¢,.. zot sew, teoms ads she eqoat thugs ont yh2 eotion “a ‘
itonsca eo & 2o 7edmee 2 § oh canes a as as gi.
edt Sa: edlaw fag atoetie adi ike eT 4a eh lae ag etd ta re a ye
ot.#I, e@oftto moyk Sextter od gedw ggatsbage . atsa dys! a a:
%e,eaioxexe elt gt tagt.9cg an cottepaore edt ede reel
/
ebebLirug &a0 bexevea Qo eyed biugds Nitto’ Shee S799 43 e vn
anid 2 nael se/ ‘0% soulg vadt.té atemet hgh, aapitlg |
, tin: Sopte % Bae, apmeyiisen elidscottos, te xt dg en Ce
7 eatoraxte ect mt/ ge POLS eSSt, redtody. . spss tbo9e. tod ? Sahih
+ 5 | fottecup that ¢, oon, ydezes. ano pid xob, ex oe eels
STATE OF ILLINOIS, Iss
SECOND DISTRICT. -
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
I, CHRISTOPHER ©. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of = in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and eee
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
on ae PLOULIE 4
oo ads to Wield hat aha ce) ATEOTEIAUD mi Sa an
ad} Io goigiyo odd to yoo ound us af unioveiol add dadd YUTAUO yerusirt: eaies g
29offto via at Door 16 9469 haltitne aveds edd at sso
aij xifte hus baad vor doe onvetad | aoa W yuomiteaT “AT bse -
— gidd sped tO dn druo) oiellogq & bine add to Ieee
gio biol tue to tesy odt mk ee ee Saree
bas ba'baad onia baganons
4 7 f ns Ge
4)
PP;
_—
Ln
. iy,
ee ae ee
Fe <ApA. dee pe ia DES
C) 2 ae
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
4
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
2
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
ve
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
a
me
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. SOA A >
E
Sa
q
i¢
{
I
e
4
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
— ‘ f | fr ‘ i =
q Kf 3) ene Af)
/ \ if % z
NOLS ayy
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 74 1016 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
,aoséxie bas Berbea i ania bosevodt 9a0 brod Tyo. to bd
tarontill torstaie axl to dotrdard booose adé 104% bas.
oifeol yaibtasid ,2UAHGIM..M WHOL .o0H odT
essiteul ,@aNAA0 .l AMAUC nok
(—- a) f, €2., -gottest Mgeta sowagaod 08 a
ae *
adits £9 vita av "SaHAOTE LAO
ee oe tired BIVAC M5
ae eR eESEEe mn xr ewer
¥ A f oo
i ad : i fe ie =
7 _ : sar “tgs se Big ¥, » ri
me Ne SE = Tae ei A ate a tin rs SA. aA ae
: ¥ - FAG, A 4 _ a:
: : ee aed y
j { ‘
cc aaa uA oa oles a + + ap .
sap, j Boe a ao
J cs
4
j
# Z ¢ ‘ é
i =
: . : J
* “A ‘3 -,¥
Fs re ee wo fa at t es “
: * od weet ee eth ocr)
wae - 4 2 Ua aie es
: ’
: : gs Sad use 28
: : . Ree
: 28 ng
“a0 :tiw-o3 abrewretis tedd”
st baltt asw trad ods Yo motnige edt cape ae
peTnst? bas abrow edt at = ¥6p70 bise To. otto" ee
&
7
7
re
i
:
! ¥ * Me. st PVE
;
a } ;
=
_ ne Bet
co = =
Gen. No. 6149
Richard J. Blemaster, apvelise
8 Aroeal from Stephenson.
<4
Thomas Rogiey, appellant
Carnes, Je
In November ee the eeretiee pohard—ji-Bienaster—
ee
purchased from tne scbsilent,Thones-Reskexy 2 residence pro=
perty in the city of Freeport, and in consideration therefor
conveyed him an equity in an eighty. aor é tract of land in
; Phe 2Ff-
Michigan, and paid him ¢3300.CO. Ropertes, obtained a loan
of the $3300.00 by mortcaging the Préscast oreperty. February
Bas raitoastg he executed a warranty deed of that oroperty to
a4 AEG Poo ;
J -for an expressed pe eae of $4300.00. This
Oar
Ly
=
deed was never recorded, an rig ces ‘testified that it was
executed as a oe for a $300.00 epee tion incurred for
havte 1ee em 29 4€, scoricin oF}, frm
him by the sedeiiant. In May 1913, ROE EH A, executed another
warranty deed of the premises, which was delivered to the
Gr de ae Veo’ Ue .
a aie ate The consideration expressed in the deed was {4500,
and it recited that the grantee assumed and promised to
pay mortgage encumoranoes of £3300.00 and #100.C0 respectively
PLE FAs AAO :
Asseiteels claim ve that this iast conveyance was made in
pursuance of an oral aterenent that he would convey the pram-
ifn rbtio® ,
ises to assertent and cay him $400.90 in money, and that
ar Ge aes im \
pe + should as3ume
“\ 4 A nt
po
nd pay the mortgage indebteciness
Neg
and convey to wesetrse , the eae in ee ee acre tract
of land in Michigan and cancel ascelleetstwo notes of $100.
\ ale
\ os ! baect 1
and $200 respectively, which ‘eeceliant had discounted at a
RA AA
q- A
4
bank; that he executed and deliv: red the deed and afterwards
A eS uy ee &
tendered aopellant $400. but aspelians refused
to acces
fy
‘Oo
the money and refused to convey the Michigan property, and
|failed or refused to cancel or cause to be cancelled the two
AL 4 |e
ies | dich uses supetucs orougtt—tntc—ox r4$—ina2ssumpsit to
é
opt eate pelisones ed ot eauvno to feomas of beauter x0 .
ead .of .neD
{Io
o
©
Vie]
s ,retesasld .U bredoth
3
2
sNosmenqe*? mort Lsesack eure Biel
etrallsage STosyet senodT
.
a
oL sent)
Avni hs
~ =
—~tetesrsis. t-bsedebh—, oebiegae sad ores tedmevolw al
“org Sonsbhicset 5 ~xeteod.eemont_, taatlsdee, eit mort eetafowg
rotersct mottershianos at bas trogesrT to ytio edt at vreq a
mi Sasi to toart eto8 Yidgte fe mi yiiupe ae mbt beysvaoo
~ Se prey asa | vi
aeol « fentatdo- Sebkerck .09,0086$ mid biz bne tagiolM
yrsurdsl .ytvecotd Frodeeke edt gaigsatrom yd 00.0088# edd tan
ot ytuscoro tedt to beeb yinertsw s betyoexe sd ,1Llel 8 ha
adn
sidT .00.008S% to noitanshte soo beaestgxe ms x02
esw ¢i tect petittesd pversont boas ,bebtooesit reven asw Ree
i
mot betmwont mottsyildo 00.0083 s rot Wihauoes & as betuosxe
Ae dh ay Fo ae = wen ¥ fa
tedtons betuosxe ‘\sefleqge ECL ysoM al tees. edt yo moet a
mn sa
edit of betevilet exw doidw ,seeimergq sit to besb Wastrew : =
; nth. %
00883 eew bosb oft nt beesergxe notterebtedoo eT . a i
ot Deetmota boe bemysee estnors ed? dedt bettoer tf bas ee
\
ylevitoecest 00.0013 bos 09,00E8$ to eeonerdmyone egeattom yeq.
Ie SF)
ecare 7 E “a ve
mi ebem aew someyevnoo teal sid Sedt <o stato
Sane tap
ged+ bose ,yenom ak 09.0089 ae YaC we ot ae Kh
sesatetdebat egestrom 63 yeq Sus smess bilyode
PELL S i fi
toert etos yidgts edt mt ytiupe edt eetteqce of yevanoo bas a
ANI waa % ;
eOOL8 to seton Ont heoLiegns feonso bas magidolM at bael to |
pated ee ‘ a, bss ‘
a te betnvooeth bad teeeissce Sotdy «YLevitoeqser ous} bas |
ebhiawietis bas beeb add Bex orbleb bas betwoexs ed tadt plans) ’
Co es, GA a>
tcecor ot heeutet ‘nabtbans sud 0083 toelleqos besoiase
bas «ytrecotg magic ik ed? yevdoo of beautex bas 1
mexof the conreyance x Vey 19135 /fand had verdict
a
Spun’ oe ~~,
and he was endeavoring to aid him
land for that purocose took the deed of the Freeport property
2 aa = 5 wy A, oe
and assumed the morte
¢ indebtedness thereon that the creditor
.
‘might have the benefit of his responsibility; that nothing
) ‘wes Baid about thé Michigan lard or about
/him $400 at that time; that he had at other
to convey the Michigan sroperty for $400
j@ deed executed to ve delivered on payment of that aum, but
ithe money was nevez offered him; that he hel the deed of the
\Freéport propetty ee 2 mortgage and there wag never any agreement
pike aad purpose that it should o té as a conveysnce—
ar dencing a bargain and sale. He a not deny
2 | statement that the prior deed of February 21 1511, was intended
as a oe but insists that it cp#rated 2s an sstocpel
aenrenigd
‘on ‘to cleim that the later dee
2:
We3 %O convey ths
title. ground for thie—contentions
The ae comoelled to choose which of the radically
conflicting rents she tranaacticn was entitled to
to his version of *he matter,
facts and cir proven. There was an attemnt to
\
«
4
4
impeach acpellant as 2 witnsss by ocroof that his reputation
for truth snd veracity was bad,
by him to prove a z:04 reputation.
taken tocether, wapranted the jury in looking ‘with some sus-
picion upon appeyleant as a witness in his own behalin They
.
evidently believed appelice's statement. The trial court\was
edt to Sse edz Biss ed fait “ amtat pesecse _ Eaves aaw
THSmMesIgs YAS. Teva saw exert fas sgogt tom £ 88 Yoteqors
bebootat easy ,ffel LS yravidet 0 besb rots sit tedt taemets
2 hm
toibrev bed bus 26L8l yom | to ho Yemdt, edt» df
oe a ane ry) 2 xa, gd |
ane aN es a
stdsb nat bevilovatasw Sarre ke
mic bite ot ynitoveshae eew oa bone eett ie tetie Letonent? bas |
o& <* STte Ths
ytuegqotg grogestT ed? ‘te yam edt toot #200 ay had —aes baa)
“ he
aad
todibsis sdi tisdt age edt seonbotdebat Aes strom ‘ent bomieae &
leks} ¢ [
Boks ot. Pegs iydilidtecoges ein to titecec edt oved tig
mrhaber aN : ¥ ttog
natysg eres tyods 19 bxel mentite: M edd twods bise
bexsito asmid ive te bes 9a $e »_iemey. tedt ‘ts “oon8
“oe 7 : : i : ~ aasidoiy
bec smit.eno tis bes OChy r0% yzegors ney hfe i exit . vey: Oc
[2 BS4
* iL“ V0. OD8E: :
a y-
ted .mus tei. to tosmysc mo boreviteb 9d ‘ot beduosxs: ‘beeb
HOSAS 6: ees
i ater
; Fy
- es) «4
Oz i. te
aS Bay 5s ;
ghosts 2 WARD: 2,88. etaredo. bisoda, ti dadt seo ws to tm
ahh ane ‘ Ji -Urixvese 2 es bety axe
= , qdab “tan font, oH plas bas sebeatend, 4 ee
: 2 =? = ws a
“TSW Meh)
feggotss os ac etsreqo $t tad stetont td, stgegt ton 2
edt yevaco oF ssw Deeb retel ent tect mislo of
~ 4A
4£Of% cE .
msitasiaos-eitt Tos “Baiorg Boo on —sewof |
soles ec . sont?
Aas Basu er
yiisolbat edt to doddw seoono. ot vetieouge crew AtuG set
ia cord iG Ze di lest a ea
ot beltitns ecw Sbtgeeness as ct 20 .stne tate gat hike.
ake, *% J 9 207 TZ We Lo er :
«zwettam scdz te noLexev ete } bettitags “ises dost ,tei. te ;
‘ , ne = of eeat
baz .,eoushivs tsdto ye betas odor o taedze shoot ape Be ‘!
epee oe : Pe ERA Su re.
ot tamettsc as asw etegt eSo%g Seomstomworte bas a
ia o- ae
foitatyger aid faedt too7g 16 “aseltin 2 £ as ‘taaltegas teas:
; nf ‘bavt a
beouboitai orew eeecendiy bos ,bad Beh, Yitoarey bane dturt ie
see Ay 63% 0&3 re “ €
eSoxshive naldesstmt sAT -roltstuges o3 2 ovata pi q
“tin asmoe Atle we Ties at Yi edd, betas Bw “(tedtezo!
west fiastes awe ald ai seatin £ bs ta .
VOes ‘bahe 4
ent 190 Leizt aT, stnemetete a'eeiieags be ‘bet
¥ 20 as! wit
. of Khe opinion that they were’ within their proper province
| in so\finding the facts, and entered \judgment on the verdict
We oanndt say, from a reading of the record, that epror was
committed ‘by either waxky the jury or court in passing ucon
| ae ey — 4
' the facts.
The court at the instance of the plaintiff, gave the jury
the foilcowing instructions<= "You are instructed that if you
believe from 2 preponderance of all the evidence, that the
plaintiff and defendant entered into on oral agreement whereby
9
the plaintiff was to convey to the defendant a11 his intsrest
in the house and lot in question in this suit, and in adgéition
thereto was to pay the deSsndant fhe sum of four hundred dellars
and in consideration thereof thex defendant afreed to convey
to the plaintitf a csrtain eighty acre tract of land ir
Michisean, and if you further believe, from a orsponderancse
of all the evidence that the plaintic? did convey the house
and lot in question to the defendant and in addition thereto
offered to the defendant the sum of four huddred dollars iegal
tender of the United States of America and it
a
‘
you further
délieve, from a preponderance of all the evidenos, that the
defendant refused to convey to the plaintiff the said eighty
acre tract of land in Michigan and refused to accept the said
sum of four hundred dollars, then you will find the issues
ay
for the plaintiff and assess the plaintiff's damages acainst
the defendant at such sum, if any as vou may believe, from
& preponderance of the evidence, the fair cash market value
of plaintiffs interest in said house and let in the city of
Freeport, at the time of s¥Ych conveyanoe thereof, excecded
the incumbrence thereon.”
We think this instruction\correctly stet
@
w
€
Co
a
oOo
a
wv
i)
oO
was the only instruction exeept as to the
th 6 Nesta ge | —_ ‘ on
ECein at. > 2 Le Remi i
5 ie n
somtveta teqorq riled? mtsit tw rarer Yeudt tedt notatqo 99 ‘eo
/
' 5
ToLhtae edt me tremgial berets Bag eStoet ont gntiad L928 a
e.ow rove tadt Sr098 en+ 0 emtbaex SNe a¥se d6anso 'oW
coou sataesd at ion 0. Yust iestt team tect2e, dBetstamoo (ee
S|
at : ovedoet edd
i,
vw sit sveg ,ttithiteld 4dtito constant edt otavtiwsoo: eaT fone
woy.tl tedt Botoustanisere sor" aitebinertent gutwoLior ods
eat todd. .eonet tys edt {fs to sonarshaogqerg s mort, evelisd —
ydetesiw gnemestae 2 Lexo ne ot mt betstms ‘taskusteb/base cthtdateiq —
teetetal eid Ife tapbaeteb edt ‘ot L era ot ‘esw Pitvaisig Gia)
=
nobtitees at -boe. ,tive ara mi aottesup ie tol Dies saved: ‘odd ai
*.
arellob berbaudsesvot° to mua sdtotmshasiteb edt yeq ot sew. otersdd
> t
} eo
yevaoo ot besrts tashasteb xedt hoatédt aoltsreblenoo int bas
atibasili to tosrtt eteos ytdgte alstirec. 6 titatela-edt set
eopesebseqens 8 mort yeveiled rectal woy otf bos qasetdos
‘
4 ~
sefod ad¢ yevmoo Bib titinte(q.edt dade eonsbive edt: (bipto
otetedt noitibbsiot-bne2 tasbas tes edt od softesup at toLibas
: q
Legel-eteliod bexrbhud:avol to mua edt tasbasteh gdjrodrbetetio
wedti voy Ti £o8.o480f temA, To bated: bet tau, ont. to- xebaag |
ae
adit tadt ,eomshive edt fife “to abuawehnogeeccn: mpxi - aevetiod
yisgis bites edt tiitetel@ edt ot yevmoooot beauier ‘teefastes
Bileacedt tesocs ot beeutex bree uae me ‘bar £ to to21t 2198
sowect ect batt Litw voy nett erBLiee pexbonid: mot, to: me
tontess eenemed e-Fiitntela ext severe bos Tittatel edd saat
moxt ,evetled yem voy es yne St mes dove: tes trebrsish: ect
eulev texrem daso’ tlet-: eit somebive ent.. To sonsisbnocetg: 8 m
to vite odt at tol bare eavod. biser:mt tesretat aiiidntsLacko
bebesoxe teotendt eoneys vaio folte,. To omit eatets ae
form of verdict.
Appellant's contention is based on his version of the
| transaction. Assuming that to be true, he insists that the
:
<
cage should have ceen transferred to th
@
.o)
by
hancery side cfthe
court for an invsatigation there as to the amount of the in-
dsbtedness and the right of annvellee to redeem. Hse endeavored
during the trial to have the case so transferred. His error
lies in the assumption thet his statement of faots must ve
4
aken as true. A vendee sued at law for tne purchase prics
ct
of real estate cannot transfer the astion to the equity side
of the court by pleading and attemoting to vrove that the
deed was given as a mortgage unless he sucesceds in establish-
ing the truth of his statements.
A query may cccur whether the measure of damages was the
market value of the equity conveyed by acnellee, or *he value
of what aonpellant agreed to give and do in c&nsideration of
the conveyanoe, including the market value of the Michican
ot
as
is
er
land. This question ig not much argued, 2nd acpellan 3
it is not in the case. He plead the statute of frauds we
suopose with the view of meeting the allecation that he
had agreed to convey the Michigan land to apnvelles. We sup-
pose that agreement was within the statute and thereforex
unenforceable. Anpellant trested it as such. At least he
refused to convey the land, which, under the authority of
Booker v Wolf, 195 Ili. 365, terminated the expressed contract
and permitted a suit to reoover on 2n implied agreement.
Evidence was introduced as to the market value of the
QO.
Freeport property at the time in question. The opinions, as
is usual in such cases, varied; but taken xkkhe tocsther the
x
evidence sustains the verdict based on that testimony as to
There is a great amount of speckal pleading in the record
Ce, Le eta ek i)
NAA iM “jt potion cea “ Lac, Pik sie
“= ’ / ry 5 ad aie a < hs re ®
; \ el
stotbtey to 62,
r Shy a2 g psig ocr. bev aC
ect to motetey eid no beesd ef. no ttns#n00 csimacieagh
edt ted? steteat ed <ourt od of. tect natmwerA -nottozeasrt $
sdito ebhte yreoasds edt ot Setretenett. aeed eved. ~Spsoee 2889,
-ni edt to ¢ovome oft ot és ered? nottsstisevat aa tot trios )
TS |
berovesbas eH -mseber od sel legs xe iP agtt edt bas _ssenborseb 0
' Tarrs pth bere: eaost oa enze pat ered, ot Letxt gtr gat
ed taum atost to tasmedste a sacs 0! dames ait, or. vereae rE
colt q eesdoiug eit rot wel +p ers eobney A souxd as, erie
ebis yt ives edt ot sottce edt 983 Sedext’ toause ptetes, £992
Yeva da
8a tat evorg oF giitome ts, ‘pas. gatbeoty ro. +2a00, oss nT x
it; ie
agp ifdatee a} abesoous ed eeolms epegtzon 8 8s novia Bow beet |
ctet
satnomet ste. eld to dturd sdt.
7472p. ioo-a<
sat aw sepemal te eivesem edt rodtecw mwo°O Ws, yreup A
eA ha :
sé 2
eulav 9:(3 10 .eellegae yd beyevmoo vtiupe edt 20 oulev texten ‘
Bo gottessbtsa8o, at ob, bag ovis. of beers, susileqos, rs 4 ees
nepide edt to eulev terlzem pdt gattuLont <gonsyevnoo ef?
eyse taeif{scoe base ,bevgis fous tom st notteenp stat a
4 28 Tae
ew ebyet? to etutate ent beet cH .earo edt ni tom at tt fe
teblg a -
ed ted? mottene tLe edt giifvesm * to. Lk eds atte Ets
-qe aW .esileqgs ot bast segisdo lM esis veynoo ot _Deptae bes
eroteredt Sas etudets edt td ty saw dromeoxae tedd + ons 8
of tesel tA sfous be tt beteett toalleqck (sdesorobaes
~ af 3
| See
to 48 Modeun eq? reba Horde baat edt Yernoo, of beeute x
toettaon beaaetgxe ont betentied (206 ae aeL LOT x qoseed
¢? SiS
«etaomestge baitqnt ose ao Tevenex, ot tive s piace
_ ot 39 exlev tedtem ad? of} ss beoubortnt gsw, , Seep ty
ait
feta
at reddened ant pare: tud :betrev e820 hies *! rife Migs
«NPStex sons ISMoM :
of 86 yaomt tees tad? mo beaad totbrev edt pn ay ace.
190 nelfoustens’ e idd J
ic i yee » ete nk, fests sottoviitent: qin { ae sé
Per aT aera eee ee SS eee re eee ee
ana arguments based thereon that we have some difficulty
in following. The common counts and the general issue are
in behelf of defendant tnat could have been admitted under
any special plea was permitted to so to the jury. There
may have been error in refusing defendant leave to file pleas
and in sustaining demurrers to pleas, but as aopellant was
not deprived in the introdustion of evidence, or in the in-
struction to the jury of any legal right to which hs was
entitled under the facts, we are not inclined to discuss tts
action of the court in ruling voon soecial pleas. He was not
a
Ps
injured ard should not be heard to complain. (Hartford Fire
Ins..Cos. v Olcott, 97 Ill. 439; Harrison v Thaokaberry, 248 Ill.
518, 516; Toknelim Manufacturing Co». v Stoyles, 143 Ill. App.
198). Finding no reversible error in the record the judgment
is affirmed.
soLbxoy to. pias
Yiivotttib emos eved sw teadt mosredt besed atne ‘bas
» On we taxes ome sttnstnos et tnalis
oth Bhakti’ Latency ox?” ome etasos mormon ont agnkwe fot mt
dt tect peeks ef , out ted’ bone: i ,solicpenss
' gpmebive’ Ifs e08 eo ow an 8 o8 sage baelq ont to +
Sleoue ese
“hobhus beddi nba mosd Svad ‘tiboo tant dasbast sb to tisded ml
, otiz evai na tot favog
*sxoaT “et ett ot on ot ‘bovtinace abe ae ie Leiosce ym
gtr ett bus eeenbetdes iy
“pbstq ert? ot evast Shobnotes: amteuter nt torts aeed evar yen |
— LF 2 } > aig ait eau ¥ :
“ pBW that reqas bes ave eselg ot erermumeb sakasnoenl at bae |
eit me aeil fe
~Ri 6H? ai r0 Sonebive to nolteubortat ate at baodapdiicse ton |
ear ed doldw o¢ ‘tigi teget “te So aut. ont ot } acktouzte
‘et abuoeib od Siaitone ton ers Oe Eee d Med 9 S07 bettita
ton eew “SE ecole "Estosca noon oW anki at #au00 repeat
“exit rotdzsH) sataiqnoc of breeit 8 80 ton Etuode bos borat
ef{I @3€ ,yrredcetosdT v noeitsal -eEh ESE: vel toed 09. ae
ances
vogh gL eceee selyora v +90 gatudostunel ateneer; ete ia
TOD ¥ e eit to aulev sexta
tnempeut edt ‘Bro0et ‘odd at rots eidtetevss on “gatbalt (8
Be molttetebianSo at ob bar eviz of betrge tnelisqde tage ae
sbemtttts at
esuiev tevten ed? auaibufort ,sensyeysoee eaa
pbhomri tra
Reunites dovua tom el solteenp slat biel
$rtat haetq ai .pesro ott af ton Gh ates
tteues £: ‘ ueiteem to .weiv efi Atiw. ssequge
of bael meotdgo i od?t yevaos oF bestgs bed.
. ine A * | SSG eee
stutete odt abdtiw ser toemeetgs tect | eaeg:
‘. -. ae
“t GoalleccA .eldaesotoigeage ay
~ eet
wt .fotdw ,bual ef? yevnooc of Segeies
¥s07J dee »Lil el (xLow v tetood.
~ Ov * of tive BS Suttimas¢q Oae
t a er
ex hesytottal caw sogebiva
Bin ia Yr regorc
(QQ Re
‘ «“
5 | in nia ——— oe Yn terrane #*o0e0 2 Bh 6080
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ..
SECOND DISTRICT. eta I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this vat
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__ pases
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
se 10 2
sale eit te gdaslD cravat Oo SHOALS sid f en
oct afte fon beted Yu dou ee us auieee yomtea: “f
_#idd .pwedtO ds dao atelloggé bina edt to leo
| sao Dtal aso to teo% edi fi web
ee ~~ bas borbuwd arin basevodt
—
_—
te er a mR ne Pt . St
Jaro) otinllogah at yo last)
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justicé.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, susie.
i > hy h*
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clérk. 4
e
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. 4
Z
¥
= = = ee — —=—— oe
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 1 4 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
»ftrgA Yo yab dito ad} “abet hea ae
etonilit to ee 19. foixfeid paeend edt
softest ‘eatbraed euANEIM | M, Hig? nog edT-
7 Oe ee -
soitesl ,@34HA0 +t aHAUd .noH
f so ttait elitazd sowAGHOd 50H
a la = 7 ae ene 2 % 4 ee
' Fs Rs yaa 2 aTHIOTISHO se
rd Ores Tireds, B1VAd M MT .e
0: tiweod abt rawietis tend: dsaaastua
act he fit CL poe eyes “Yo nataiqovedtec.* So amQh Bee
Ge
asTugit bie apdon adi ai ,#ys00 bise to eotiio 2fate
&
~
Si a
>
— oe 2
me = |
x K ase © Sa
X ~
: cat F
$9; 3
+ *
Ps :
aie es, ee
oer] y eg le
= i Ye
: {
“4 ‘ : "
“= - . er
i é
6% ec el ype .
oF a al PG i ods a Grr
a) 4
bag eyo eee ee ee
Gene No. 61768.
Evalyn Kingman, appelles
v3 Acosal from Peorias
Louis Kingman, appellant.
Carnes, Je
This ig an appesl from an order committing the sppellant
Louis Kingman, to jail for contempt of court in default of
payment of installments of temporary alimony theretofore
ordered in a suit for separste maintenanoe begun April 9,
i913, by his wife, Evalyn Kingman, the aroellee, and from
the refusal of the court to set aside or modify said prior
5,
uce the amount of payments to ode required in
Q
order and rec
the future
Fb The parties were marri
@
Qa
po
Ha
Cy
cS
3
i)
e
CO
oO
O
ty
re
@
Ou
i)
or
o
oO
ei
@ maintenance in Septem
.
bill in chancery for separa
r
©
1908. The rscords in that suit and two collateral matters
were =efore this court and opinions filed in October 1909,
reported in 150 Ill. App. 456, 462, 466. After the final
Getermination of those suits counsel say she filed another
vill for spparats maintenance whioh was dismissed by her.
Then followed the bili in ion for tem=
rs
ce
Lez
te
tial
a
py
«2
(a
3
»
so
{2s
we
Je)
m
cr
ct
porary alimony. The court after ng on the petition,
on November 13, 1914, ordered
ods ed
and maintenance of’arpeillse during the pend-ney of the suit
ctr
oO
ce)
a
«J
4
oO
4
rs
ta)
«
sucport
G230,00 per week until the further order of the court. After
SI.
e
&
wards May 27, PO or ese filed a petition alleging
a)
that said weekly payments had been moje up to April 24, 1915
ani that none had been made thereafter, and asked
a? ft ae
On sepedidan+ to show ca
Q
, w]
n
Dy
=
peg
em
ra
«
a 1
oO
c
=
Qs
ha
oO
cr
o
D
)
r
Tr
w
Q
“
as)
2.
for contempt of court. The rule was entered and sesetlant
on June 14, 1915, filed his answer stating in much detail
» ee
Ge Vea,
8feL ,@S L[fagd ot qu shem meod bad tawaten yitesw biae teat
eoliedas tomgokd sy!
ni td a
eS8i1t0aT mort IssqoA ev
stoslleage Memeo a
. ab ‘a
tosliecos edt aatttimmos rebro me mort Leeags os et etdt
to tineteb nmi tusoo to tqmetmoo rot Ifef— ot emer lt |
svoiotered? yoomile yrerogmet 20 stoemiletent to «3
@ LixvcA ouped sonmncetnian etorwyse rot tiue s at f
mort bos ,welleqas edt ,mempnty oyisvd ati eta yd
sotxq bise yttbom to ebtes tee ot tro eft to Leautex
at Bbetivycex sd ot atmsmysq Io tayvome edt soubss bas xe to
| venti
beliimwrtseewd .S0CL gouL at betrrem erew soidtes edt
tedmetqe®? oat sonenstaism efsregqes ro2 yrsomsic nt i
aretisn Laeretelioo owt Oboe tive tent at ebresst ed?
~808L rsdotcO nt beltt emotniaa hae Pros whdi rote: et a
Lectt edt restA .88h ,882 88 .qgA -LIT O8L at betrog
wedtome bolit ede yee Leenwoo ative ssodt te sottertorre
«ted yo beecimeib esaw doidw sonanetatem ststeqge rot If
-met soi noititeq ae ban sean e@lidt mi ifid edt bewollot med]
oltiteg sit no gntsased a rette tivoo scdT wyaoutle yretog
Sons. 2, » tte s
trogaye edt tot yeq ot feed on. om berebre el@l Ok Tedmevol 20°
~~ ee eG
tive edt lo yom bneq eft enitub sabieger ‘to eonencintan . boa
: : sv -
tettA .taoo.edt to rebto tedtiwt edt Lttnw Ateew teq’ 00.083
en -, . me,
gnigetiec motttted & belt? soicerye\ ,amer .vs yeu abt iit
elu £ tot bedee ban ,rettestedt sham mesd bed eels
hes pecuniary condition and inability to make “he required
payments. Briefly stated, it appears from the answer and
the evidence that at the time the order for temporary alimony
AAAI LOR Lae:
wag entered apr wag in recéipt of a salary of $1000.00
Q
per year from the Kingman Plow Company, and 2 salary of $1000.00
per year &s a trustee yndsr the last will and testam-nt of
his father, Martin Kingman, deceased; and that it was uron
“Sur
pe
@
casis of that income that the order te pay $20.00 per
week was entered; that he then had no othe source of income
and no property excernt his interést in the estate of his
father; that the estate had become much involved in dept
and financial difficulties; that the trustees of the estate
L
and memoers of the Kingman femily hed been compelled to ne-=
otiate with creditors and arrange the affairs somewhat to
ha forrvesid ‘
their diotation; lay Aes OCI was obliged to relinguish
par
his two salaries and join with the other members of hia
family in incurring personal obligations for the payment of
the debts, and that the whol:
ia
family were in a struggie to
ry
preserve the Kingman estate from destruction; that he had
no means of complying with the order, and therefore had not
made the required payments. Hs asked that the rule arainst
him be discahrged and prayed that the answer be taken as
=
@ petition and that the court should vacate ond set aside
or modify the order theretofore entered, or at least reduce
the ameunt of such payments to be made in the future. The
court, on a hearing of evidence, which is preserved in the
record, entered an order July 18, 1915 (computing the weekly
payments to the time of the order) finding aoveliant $330.00
in arrears am ordering that he pay that amount, vhich ap-
peliant failing to do he was held cuilty of contempt cf court
and ordered committed to na
thirty days "and until he be discharged by due process of
law" or released on complianoe with the order from which
betiupet esd* sxom of yttfidsnt bos nobttinoo yrainuceg « e.g
: bas tewens ed} mort eteseqqe tl sbetats yitelza ae ait
E womile yrstoqmed rot webto edt smtt edt ta teit” “eeneb ve” Yoke
: 00,000f$ to yrsisa 8 0 tqtsosr nt sew were "Fenians a -
00.000L% to yrelss s bas .ymeqmod wold feud? ede* ott nee!
to toemstest bas Iliw tasl eds sebsy seteuis © Ba et,
cour aew tb teri bas jbeassoed .memgnti aktzel atedtst
req 00.08} yeqedt teh1o edt, edt emoont stadt. to eisad
emoott ‘te sotwoe tedtto om Qed oodt og tedt pbetetas aon
eid to atetse edt af dastoc;al eid tqsoxe xd teqo7g on,
tdeb wt bevlovat doum emgced dad eteteg.ed? edt anal
etetes edt io aseteutt edi, tedt.pesidinvottits obghangat oat be)
: -8a ot Selleqmoo.mesd.bad. yi dust, memgatX , eit to stedmey on ba
ot *admamae atistis adt ee, bas atotibero Atty ote
cee See
‘defwpnifer of, begildo ecw demitecce toot. jsottstoth ai Hee
aid to stedmem sedio, edt Adin. atot bas eetrstse owt
to tnemysq eid tot smottestido. Lenoateg patiivoat ot y Fs
| ot elgguite’ se of exew ydimet slodw edi. tadd bag atded : it
batl of tent ynoldouttash moth estates aengat® edt 8) pyaeagee
| ton Sed etoteted? baer .tebto avid déin gatyigmoo to seen, on
| tentese slut ect tede besides oH, -atmomyeg Asxtiupet s edt s bem
es cetet ed tewase edt tadt Beyetg bos begtdeoats wa Whar .
efilas toa bras facia ei fivoda tives edt ded? Sos aptisteg.#
soubet tase Ll te to * haabias stotoseredtorsbhro edt, atti gon ue
$iT .@twtut ed? of oben sea: odataautng ifoue to, tautome ci a
edt af Devigeetq ef Agidw <eonebive “te gnttesd. 8 m9 sa
vixoor edt enttuqmoo) @LeL, 6i hat ashr0. 1s bexetas
05.0884 tnalieqqge gakbod? (xshx0 ead. to omit ot oF ap
~qys doide .davome tedt, yeq 9. tect, pattebso, is 4 PEAR
tues to tqmetmoo to ytiiug diet sew, ed. ob. ae ;
mret edt rok Lief xtomoo sit ot aed tge mt ssaaiil
Naa a ene RE Kee wo
‘g
; ‘ aes
order this appeal is prosecuted. Fe
The court refused to act on the petition to modify the
order pnarently on the theory that appellant had no standing
> =
to ask any relief while he stood in contempt for failure to
comply with the order to pay the past due alimony.
puted great wealth, pe eal in 1904. He carriei life insurance
eee —
from which “aopellant Got @ considerable sum shortly after
fowrnclathes
his father's death. [We Soe had other proverty at kke ££
ia
that time which he had quite likely acquired becsuse of hig
connection with a wealthy family. He had an income derived
from salaries paid him 18 an officer of thse di’feérent com-
panies in which his father was interested. The fsther's
oroperty was placed in trust and there was sunposged to be
a larze amount coming to termination of the
trust, December 19, 1914. At the time of their marriage
ee ee at Ae. Poe A aS
apseilee “supposed that AG EAE WAS 7 very wealthy man, =nd
he with aoparent reason, bélieved that he was. They each hed
- at % a
extravagant tastes and the available funds of acveliant were
soon dissipated. The trust estate left by Mar*in Kincman be-
came involved in debt and financial difficulties, and passed
largely under the control cf yee” & Sree the Kingman
nest estate is of any value cannot now be definitely stated,
but there is no question that it is in a condition that
ev ery party interested in it as beneficiary or creditor must
be diligent in its preservation. Under such conditions
salaried officers whose services can bs dispensed with are
not permitted to hcdl their offices and draw their salarkes,.
We_areof—tire opinton ~nat-avpetiant—vss net-deorived of -his-—
salary and wans—-of-—supporting hineelf—and-his -vife from any —
add yitbom of toltiteg ent ro ton ot beeyter ete tee :
petorste on bed tneiteqee tact Yrcedt. edt 110 Nitastesq~ rep a
ot eiritel rot tqmetnos at boota ori ‘ert dW “yetTet ye’ tee
riers ren
sompiyvent stil befaras eH .S00L ni beth ort tiesw tesrs betye
tetts yltroda mya eldatebtenos 2 #03
tt ext de ydrecora rete bed Vdtseb at zentte® aia
sin to seucosd betivpos ylextt fositiaph bet ed do ttw omts te
bevireb enooct me barr oH oyimet Ytisew = atin wot#eenne s
~m9S trete* tlh sift 0 treo kio 1 ae ge Raced bitsy eotnelee 107
efrentst siT \beteerstnt | “Bsw etter ets dot at ve fo a
ed ot besoqnve esw sirédt iv tevtt nt beosig ‘esw Se Pay a.
2 ; r ae oe, > MP: be ~
edt to nottestmot off ‘ts saree “Ot ‘gn Emon {Boia atebhine tl
a >
egaitren ‘xted+ Yo Smit sift FAO VALeL er redmeosd “(i
DOAN ae >> Sem)
bas ,m6n yitirew Yrev > eaw & tsdt seedade — :
bad foxe yecT .saw sf ted? bevelled ,mosest trereg: bh HED
ss tO abn sidefteve iff bie ‘actert tnegavettxe
-od fannrid attire yo tiel atrtes tavrt. odT - betsqteets Se
‘bested bie ,settlyokttth “Ieforaatt bas tsb’ at bovlovit ee! a
asinar kX exit rode svn wernt re oe Lotdmoo edt reba! weeonee i"
betate vletiatteb ed wom tonnes eulav yas 30 et etetes J tie
fecft adttibnoo e nt @f th ted Molteedp on el eredd’ wes i
teva todibero vo yreétottered ea ti tt betsetotat © ytrag vie v eo
erolttbroo dove’ reba mottevresetg adi nt thogtitb ‘ed
ere dtiv beansceth ed meso vootvree seodw erectito belrel.
_e¢trer—than mat 3 a3.motives. So far as the record
shows thate are no children born of the marriage and in the
present condition of the Kingman estate it is not only proper
but very necessary that oeth of “he varties to xhaa thia liti-
uld léarn to live in a much less ¢xnensgive manner
09
9
ct
}~-
.e)
+e]
w
Bs!
©
than was anticipated at ths time of the marriage or neces-—
Bary cven at the time that the order for te porary alimony
oor
wes entered. While ¢20.00 a week ig no doubt a very moderate
allowance for tha wife of a wealthy man and may have been
a)
er for the wife of a man with an income of $2000.00 a
Q
O1
“9,
year and no other proverty, though it ia beyond what
is usuaily given under such circumstances, it should not
be expected from a man of no property and no income struge
gling to save a large estate from financial disaster. The
wife is entitled to the allowance because she is the wife
and shares the fortunes of her husband, and she is under
23 muoh duty to fit herself to changing circumstances ag is
ths husband. On the record before the court an allowanos of
¢5.0C a week was aufficient under the ten existing circum-
stances. The rule is that the allowance should be made with
4
u
é husband, and when it will result
rip
a view to tne income o
in diminishing the estate from which the income is derived
it will not ordinarily be permitted to extend beyond sroviding
for the actual wantesand necessities of the wife. (Harding v
Harding, 144 Ill. 568; Harding v Harding, 180 Ill. 481,532.)
There is no question that the order for alimony isa under
the x@nkxegz constant control and supervision of the court
and may be changed from tims to tims as conditions c ange.
In Welthy v Welthy 195 Ill. 335, Cole v Cole, 143 Ill. 19 and
authorities there cited, and in many other Illinois cases
$
the power of theo
oO
urt to sontrol and change orders entered
pal -) tibgiediae srebxo vata ‘bab ‘Potties oF dn
brooer eft es tet of Veemitde scsatert ote
eh
regotc vino ton al +t etetas dadEP oid ‘bo adtd Penee 3 tnees
tit ‘eeds exit of ¢etitse ed? “to dtodd ‘fedd Yiseesosa “cxev “hid
OTR .
wonnem evfeneqxé east doum @ at vil of ‘greet Bigode aot, ae
~esoer ro-esctyier StF Yo “omit ent ‘ta S bedagtet is” ga me
sae hia
5 ; ngs ae : red : e tetas benny ae
-yoomtfe yretog ef “tot welts ‘etddeds emis “eat ts seve a
> s (to Sithe RRARS. si spyieite estes,
stereabom yrsv 2 tdyop “On pr cew's 00,054 ettay “bere ase
Need svat yer bae mem sadceccl é REE He conned
si tare cv
tedw broyed at ft faut Terex ‘tadéo on bor ox.
~ todd
ton bilvyode ti (geonetenmuorio dows Tebow Teves et di ay ed
i bee a notte ‘eATree.
~putie emoont on bas xPxeqoy ‘oa to neni Z ; mort bet osaxs &
<f eatite
A a5 4
x aa
eN@ teteasid Latoment mori estes patel B: eves OF
eiiw eft ei ee’ eaucoed bomewolls ‘ede ot bettisag: at
tebay ef ede das ablisdeud red’ Yo asosf102 oft gorse b
at es eeonstemvorto gatgnsite of Lfested #21 of yiub doum as
to eomewolls ne tivoo edd stoted frogs: oft a0 oUt Se
-moTio. pottetxe ne-+ edt reba Yaetortive sew Xeew & ‘
ddtw eben ed bivodé sonewolls ett tadd et ivr “eat —
tivess “Ifin 2 nedw bis baedeud eat to emeont ‘oct | OP wety” Ta
beviteb ai smoont arid do iw noth uate? aes Leper
galdtvoro booyed pik ae ped ttmreq ed qbrentbze Fon Eb ae
v gintb rei) -ettw oft ‘to eetiressoen banat nav Levtos, ‘ae “103
stetae f
(,88@,188 . LIT O82 ygntbrst v ‘gdbbasit 7808 ge 3% ay cgntbrs
&t ote id” aa
teboay ef yoink ia Tot aabito’ edd tent ‘nottaayp on ab ssedt
Bee <e at
tiyoo edi 6 moltetvrsaye Dis ‘tentang dnatenoo fax ci je pe
: = i oe + Re L108 a i ae £ fio wRELb” De
eeqne”"> srolitinos as emit ot omit oT? bepnsdo ad yeu bas
bra @L .III SbL ,efod v elod 185 ViiT aer \atlew v eae W
‘be ee 4 TE]
agecs etontiil aedto yen at be ghetto. ‘eront 80t 2
ah mp) SOP i Vr a eee
for payment of permanent alimony is recognized and discussed.
and with some exceptions that need not be noted here, it is
4
settled law that the court may, from time to fime, make such
orders as the exigencies of the case requirs. We assume that
while it is true that appellant is now earning no salary
vation of ths Kingman estate with the hope cf enabling hnin-~
seif in the future to have a considerable property and enj
a substantial income, yet that he ie a man of sufficient ability
s0 that he can in some way earn something for the seupport
of himself and his wife. It is to be preaumed that she is an
intellicent woman with soms capacity to contribute something
to her own sucport. She must at least in this period of
financial misfortune make sacrifices that are required of ail
people under such conditions. Acpéilant nad paid the install.
mente of alimony > April 24, 1915. He filed his answer
rey,
and petition for a modification of the crder June 14, 1915.
There was then eavout seven weeks or $140.00 of paymenta in
Asfault. Whether the court should hsve relsived appellant
from the ap payment of installments due before he asked for
relief presents a question that we will not decide voecruge
the amount is probably within the power of acpellant to meet
within some reasonable time in the future, but we are of
the opinion that the court should have reduced future pay-
ente from $20.00 a week to $5.00 a week from and after
dune 14, 1915, the date of the application for suhh reduction.
We ere eiso of the opinion that ths reecra does not justify
the order committing appellant for contempt cf court for
and the cause remanded with directions to modify the order
for\temporary alimony so that appellant is required to pay
U
= “yaq ot betinpex et thal Legge bade? 08 yromiie yrexogn et! t0'
“pbeesueetb bas bostagooee-eb ywomile “FAshBittse toes
éi tf (ered Béton od tom boen tadt-anoifysoxs éitoe cttw
_ fiowe avtam. (ombt OF Smit mot? Yyent Sassoo edt ‘ted wal BEERS
dsdi soweés eW -Otfupst saso eit’ oto! ‘selonepixs | 6a2 ee) e080 ;
yteies on gaintes won ai dasileqos sad eit at #2 onan
=tsaetq sit of eeigreme sid gaitoveb et bas lemoont On” eed bt
“tid yatidsns to sqod edi Adiw etetes AawSabX “edi Yo mot
YoENe base Ytteqory efdexsbiedoo #& svent-od Sidtut oad in: Rten
ytillds toefoittue to mem 2 et ed tactotey vengout Lettaatedye =
troqguve oft “tot anidvemoe ates Wis#Oemed "nbidaoosd wagRt
as Gi $fé tadd: “bemuseetq ed ot akieIooeuwedta bie toattd
guidtemos sfudizinos ‘of yttosqso emoa “diiw wimadow ueghet
tO Botied ebot mi tasal #8 teum ede stioqare Awe? eonded
tiie to Bétivgper ote dass eGOTTitoge SAey cence
ee
yr?
-fatent edt 'bieg Sek taelisqeh-eatioltibaeo: ‘fous vebas eiqos
~qéwWane cid DéLEt eho Van@L ge LLegA- at? ynoms£a tke ‘ataen:
1aL@L* {aL enw tebro sat to motdesttibom s to1\ ae :
nt etmaotyeq to 00.0817 to edeew meves duods medi sew st
Ral Songs bovisier evel biyoda tivo sid todteaw® tine: :
tol Bsxbe sh etotsd eth etmemlistent’ to: ‘esa ag ‘ge ea so?
Ssycosd ebiset tom (ftw ew tect moitasep’s efmees1g® ‘Wifes
tesn ot taafisqoe to trewoq' en? ‘aidtiw® yldedorg- ‘eke er
to etc ew tud (emttut edd nt Smit eldenosset smo’ nad.
ayaq stwtet booubor svad Bivode tiyeo sds teat modatge ott
setts bre moxt Meew 6 00.84 of aeow s-60.088 wort aon
scottoubet dive tot actteotlgqs edt to eteb ones aren! eae
Yttteu~ tom seor Lrowse en? teas fotatgqo: edt r6realesend's
tot tiwoo to tometmhoo vol tirelleqas gmsitimmeo yen x66
heetevet si tTehbtO ¢acT sedmenysq berretsd eit oxen\od @autte
tehire 4rit Thibom at emottoorlh- dtiw bebtanet sete ot
Po
butte . Ba
eniy $5.00 a week from and after June 14, 1915. The enforce-
ment of the payment cf the amounts here indicated must depend
upon conditions hereafter arising from which the ability o?
eaopsllant to pay may ce shown and ascertained.
2
Reversed and remanded with directions.
oy
ie ib gh A ) oe as ht a
1 . Lara es Ben ty i : a 1
‘ ‘
“aveoneacbartssatentyatcanves natant
baeqob tev betecthni ered™ sbasimbtateat: tosaysqoed? 2
OSSe yttLtdse edt de betw' covt pubes! rertoetid ao testa
dad eotredy oF bonteteves: onotawodeseoysmiNag: of @
praise on sBnOttoerth! dtiw: Sebasme bia" beareved! tntg :
aréaéty S48 of egtexrsae ain gilt: ‘veh et bas dadens or ent
tit wldi@eans is eged @47 afty stetes daneaeE ead io + Ke
falte ka: viteroty eleavebcunos #& evad of ‘bis sut 3a ae
:'ff@e @#ene2 tus fo aah ot oA sant’ tee: 8S at Latenatedue oe
Treqzye ei) Xt gait? odes TAO Yow -9itod as Wet esd secton |
a2 Qi Ste tads “benyesto o¢ Of al PT eStlw als Bata: soeate Ro
onde tamoe -srudiztinos ot yr igaqss nos -dtiv Sasow nail
“to Sorte” aifit ai tasel te taut edd whiogese ‘AiG settee
2. _
Set hecoet Sta Cat? awe sited Sata wsidie ian ietodmadt ie
eilfatect ett blag’ bac tuel SoqeA- sano hiliwos iioua vebad otdeeg 4
Gowen ald Lofkt aH’ .3£0L (be Lirqh ag. yoomt latte eres
"igh
Penn
s8€OL {ot veut Zebra sdf %o wdldaoltibod a tot) moLeieeam
ef ataetye> Yo OO. Gbis té e@fatxe -Meves iuede nodt-eaw eva? ae;
24) Lec Aeveeiéy eveH SBkwoka fasoo edt Yottonw dinites
Not Eetée si etotdéd sub efaedllavent to “snemyad - qu? 2a et 7
eeiceed eh heet eon iffy dwoeect aolieerp’ 2 in
{tr of Sdatlenze te téWeq’ed¥ aldttw! ¢ldadores Pere il
io eie be S59 yatututr- edd ot omlt* eldenoszes amoe ‘ntildbe i
+Yeq @tety? keovist swed Bitete dtuGo ect teht adtatgs- ade! 7
i Oy ae
ce?Tn 2 nas daew ew OC.84 6¢ osw 2 00.08% wor i!
igou'se? ddue Yo! seddenifce’ 6d!’ tO end‘ tnt) .-BZCRL AE
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }..
SECOND DISTRICT. (ee I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ———
day of _____ in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and___ serene 8 ==
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
sf atsllayge ott to dol pew agagovemsD 1
zbioped alt Io reqaed brs tionilfl to stsie odd to doindeitl bose bie 3 f of
aft to notuige od? lo ~qos susd 6 ef BaiogS rol odd anda yurage yearn oq ost
wed
ot xiftis bus: uoed yur de beatae L : Koei yuoulrrenT Pn 4
aidd .2watO ds B tee reli hs iste oft oe jase
iy soa bora auha. bas
> adndixkch 4AS Yow ean, ae oo
r
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. ;
_ 2rIAQC
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice) () (% o> ed &
5 wp SV
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
i
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. e
i
— ——— e ——— —<—<— — SSE
€
A
eR a Fd ,
¢ \ ? / D dbo voor ; ff ") rhs
\— 1G —— a OA i ff foamy
| :
i
% i
wards, to-wit: on
BE IT REMEMBERED, that after
the opinion of the Court was filed in
s
4
UL
the Clerk*s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit: .
4 2
raront
mt belt? eaw tryv0d
~ittgA 10 ee dtxpot ed
-ooetxia bas bstbestt Ssnig 5asauod? S210 bro! 10 Yo 189%
ESToart
{(T to
o Waa *
> 2
yay
—
" Nas ; Fe .
_» sav09 arAdJagtA GAT YO MAST.
rise
YsbesuT £10 _swatt0 tab
4
Te
he ae
efere otis Yo. foltte id bfoge 22 ort? 10% Sis, at
,sotteut yaibteers
bias ae .& SHAUC a
ee a Se
roost
ie aR RS
PEMBAD.
| :
woiteul- ,ddSs1G@ SOMAHAO nH.
-SIVAd Mid
tired?
= ois file ren eS ee. SS a A Ee
. 4
mae % e
an Se aay So * = ”
i
iy * by
- 7 eget. aM = Dae ers
Lent ee ey ats
be t en
* i ra
~ 2 es = -
- = a ioe te i
y 1
* BOM, ee
2.
on S| os
° : . : . ae:
'
= alse 7 a =<!
? &
I
ene
mo.:tiyrod aby awit rt6 ret |
oe z san a 7 a a se eens
re = Sis
ont Pi aokdigo od fs
ashe eats vesions ia
abrow ar is mi 24809 ois 2 “he eortio oars)
be: i rs pa 7 ks
i feweod
bas
ec.
= 7
&
4
bane ae
‘
.
= = a
= 2
Gen. No. S158.
Me-tthew Donaghue, apnellee
Vs Aopeal from LaSalle.
Edward J. Fraikin, anpeliante
- _ mee Ps
Thi
fs he ufo
| jet
ee Matthew Doneghue, the Passa, was riding along a
Carnes, Je
public highway north of Ottawa just after dark July 8, 1909
driving a eingle horse attached to a top buggy. He was in
@ beaten vath a little to the side of the center of the road
because the oenter had doesn recently graded. As he was pase
sing the premises of Edward J. Fraikin,
usgy Tam over & cow lging in the road and was overturned.
a
ae Z
was injured quite seriously, both bones of his ankle
were broken, = & compound, comminuted fracture. He was con-=-
3
fined to his house for a long time suffering considerable
pain and incurring considerable expense for doctors’ ills.
His injuries are to some extsnt permanent. He brought this
action to recover for that injury and had verdictand judg-
ment for $5°0. 0058 from-which judgment-the defendant enpeais.—
The issues of fact were stated to the jury at the instance
of the defendant im the following instructiont-
"The court instructs the jury that before they can find
the defendant guilty, theymust believe, from s preponderance
of the evidence,
Firat, that the plaintiff received the injuries complained
of by him by having his buesy upset or overturned by a cow
lying in the public highway:
Second, that the plaintiff himaelf was not quilty of a
want of ordiinery care for his own saf
Third, that the defendant was the owner of said cows
Fourth, that the defendant carelessly, negligently or unlawfully
»&8Ld
1S Fe
-of «SD
es{leage ,sudgenod wedddsMu
eel{s@slI moti IssqcA ev
»tasilsgas ,atfierl .& brewba
Wy %, * at Art Yee 18)
s
‘ & smeis gntbit esw Phe... edt ,sudgsnod wedtteu <)
SOCL .G ylul a1sb stzette test ewettO to dtron yewdetd otiduq
ot eew sKH .ygaud got « ot bedostte setond elgaia s aoivintb
bsor sxt+ to retmeo oft to ebte eft o¢ elttil es dtec aetsed & =
~saq saw ef BA .bebsig yitaeoet meod bei tetmeo edt eausoed el
atd , edd .midtertt .L btewbi to esatmerq ed? gale }
-bomiutrevo esey buns bsor eddy nmi gal¥l woo #2 téeve vgsud
eixas etd to sanod dtod ,ylevoirse etiup beiwtnat eew ;
-mec eew SH .stutosrt betuatmmoo ,bayogmeo s - ,fsdtord esisw Ly
eldatebtanoo galietive emit gnof s tol esexvod aid of Ssatt
eclitc ‘atotooh 102 sameqxe eldstebteanoo gntimwont bas ated i
eldt tdguyord sH .taensmisq ¢tmetxe emoe ot ste estiutet efH
~gohut bastolorev bed bas yiwtat tect rot «zsevooer of mottos
— efsecce tashasish edd taempbyp—tetdy-mort 900 .0°33 tot tom
somsteni ed+ te yw, edt od betete stew tost to esuysel saiT
~tnottourtent gatwoflot edt at ¢aabmeted edt to
matt ameo yedt stoted tedt yuu edt atourtent truco edT*
. oF
SS a
,oonmebive edt to
% eo io. &
eonstsinogergq x mort ,evetied taumyed? ,ytlivug tasbaetsb sdt
bentelqmoo estiutat edt bevieoer tittatelg sdt tedt ,tarit.
woo s yd bentytrevo ro tesqu yegud eld anived yd mid yd to
| syswigid otfduq edt at antyl
a to Ytiivs ton saw Ylesmtd tittatelq adt tad¢ ,bmoos?
tytetece mwo sid tot stao ytentbhro to toew
swoon bles to tenwo edt eew tmoebneteb odd stadt ngs
ioe yilwiwseios to (isdnegtigen .ylecoelereo eed edt tad? dita
a
LEE.
permitted said cow to run at large on said public highway;
a .
=
Fifth, that the injury to the plaintiff was one which an
ordinary prident person should have foreseen would likely
hacopen as a consequence of permitting a cow to run at large
on a public highway, and unlsss the jury find from the evi-
dence that the plaintiff has proved cach of said requirenents
by a prepondsreénce of the evidence, the jury should find
ctr
by
@
on
@
bay
fe)
SS.
5
33
ct
>)
(@)
cr
eulilty."
-There-can be little controversy thetythe evidence sus
tain# affirmative findinys on the first and sacond proposi-
tions. There was a decided conflict of evidenos as to the
third whether the defe Pre was the cwner of the cow. The
evidenes showed that Press deny do anumber of cowa kept on
his premises; thet at different times osfore the accident
they had been pastursed in the road. One witness that anoeared
at the scene cf the acoident immediately after it hapnened
testified that thers mas were two ta in the road there that
OS 140 at
he had befors seen in apseliant’s herd. ‘The doctor that was
=
called to the place said that cn then and there said
he felt ry te think it was his cow that was the cause of
a
Boe ayy a)
ax idgéte creaking hia leg. It was 90 dark that appeites /
cident, but
; ; ; fe Pb ta
he testified that he a a conversation with apoerien® afer
afte words, yhich a pelians told him that after taking
dic not identify the cow at the time of the ac
nim, KA home that night he saw two of his cows coming
down the road from the north.This teatimony was sufficient
if beLieved by the jury, to support en affirmative answer
to the third prepesition. It is true that the evidence intro-
duced by appellant indicated very strongly that his cows were
in the enclosure that night and that it must have been som-
e
cd
«€
my Win)
F iyewigid offduq btee mo eyreal te ays ot woo biaps bess
: *2 ee
* ¢8 AS i ies yi S| + a veel r
; ‘gs detdw eno sew Tri tnield¢ ved Jot yw iat edd teddy eEET
yfexil biuow meseetot oved bivorle: noereg,. taebarrg wantin
eptal ts aut ot woo Wnwe: + twsq to Soneypsenoe 2 as ~— =
: -tvs siff-miert SAf4 «~iwh oad waeLay spits evende fo Vb
aye eonshive ortty c oi
~1d0qor8" broote: bate tert odt a6 agabbats ovitanxiiiN
7 edt ot ar eonstive to< toMttirad gedtood. 8 ROW: ue |
‘edT Swoo “eff Id ténvo.udtveewodnsbastob: eds: redteth
“to tget Bwoo- * te enema eae its hewoadey sonabt
berabade Sead? @@ontiw onOnecbeor! edte ithe dhe tains cone be ‘8
tedf etede” beot! eat mt ergo: 0
eew ted? totood. ofl -bred etaeileses:m fe, sugentil
re Nate * SSR | ys
biee srect Sue pee HORE tacts ise: Boslg « oumeakt, osspelt
\eettoece | Rect? Deeb os seew gh ’ cael abst inloalic aaete
tyd enetiogs “edt oe wordt sat oa WOO eric vethtasbs ston bb
ee PPP 0S INTE pe
wsixe-trsrreeqe dtiv noliserevaoo s bac od dat; heliiieed « AP
caine
v6
eifttet teste! dau mint SLot eho, aol ae 24 poremred
5g FES eee need eved teum it 889: baa ten seins
1 Te! Ai ae ee
body's elee cow that occasioned the injury. But ve sre satis-
fied that the eviience sufficiently warrant supports the
jury's finding thet it was appellant's cow to fo-bid the trial
court or this court disturbing that finding. We think the
jury were warranted in answering the fourth proposition in
er
he affirnative. Acpellant's couns:l tried the case, ag
indicated by that procosition, on the theory cf cases decided
under the act prior to the present act (J. & A. Statates, Chap.
8, Sec.l, Par. 322.) holding that a domestic animal that has
escaped from its enslosuré without the owner's fault is not
running at large, and they argue the case here as though the
ct
presen
statute, which is somewhst changed in its tsrms, did
not change the rule in those oases. It is said by apvellée
that decisions under the prior statute are not arplicabls.
Without deciding that question we will assume that they are,
and that finding an animal on a public highway, unless the
owner knowingly or negligently permits it to be at large,
does not make a case of negligence. 0. & M. R. We. Co. v Jones
64. 11 472; Myers v Lape, 101 Ill. App. 183; Morsan v The
People 103 Ill. App. 257. Under «hat view o° the law, which
appellant is responsibie for in this case, the court properly
permitted proof of the custom of appellant permitting his
jomestio animals to run in the highway, and that they had
been seen there unattended at other times shortly before
the accident as vearing on the question of his knowledge and
care. While there was a conflict of the evidence on this point
we think it sustains the finding that appellant negligently
knowingly and unlawfully permitted the cow to tun at karge
at that time and place. The fifth proposition was not suse
ceptible of dir-ct oroof or opinion evidence. , It was a
matter for the jury to determine from their knowledge of
common affairs. We are entirely satisfied with their con-
~altse ete 9 tue -Yumpit ate bonatasoge tase won este ;
} rst ottim tog
ox ities Sanne “tine obtiwe sérehire edt “teitd bet t
ee
Isitt edt bid-ol of woo e'tmelieqgs sew tt t2dt patbatt ety
fF YET
‘ odd aorkits eW eentbat’ ted? gnbdrude Eb 580s ata} to roo
Fm
at mottZsogorg dtm0t odd gatrewens ok ‘bétnettew sabe Yat al
sia he
es “(8860 oct ‘betxd L-éauoo aldnsiieggA sovidenritie ed ;
bebtosk aSERO ‘to “yroeds ed? no 0 fd Leoqotg fake ue betaotball”
qadd eeiutes® A .D) fos tneeorq ‘edt od r0btg ton eit E
= asd tedt Lentoe offasmed a‘dect “gniblod " 6Sé tet PT. 0
tom ei tins? e'xenwo sdt dwodt iy erbeoLone att none beaacd pre
Py = ae are see ge ms
» Htaabive shies aa
edt dgwodd:.a6 ered eebo exit oupre “yet bas vegzel # “38
. BLD vamrsd, Bd Ee ai be grec tadtwenoe, af “folie eivtete “soederg
sae
om
ve a \
reldsotiage tom exs etudate oltg ent reba enotelosh: te cP
‘a os,
a
ry
eeileqge wd ples at +I .eeaso pica’ ator asi sastad’ “
a elnorizes Z fo eons ‘es
«STs vend ted emyese iitw ow nO ETRE ‘badd gatb took tuod
LiGe ro.
eit ee Law cendged enter rs ‘no ‘Tanine as gntttt tact b
YS Tse a
septel te ed of te atiors q wtaegttgen ‘0 o visdlnond
Sex
geno v .0D Ww a oM $ +0 veonegilgen to e680 & eden ton es
edT v “neprol :BGL qqh + EEE 10S, « ‘ ed Vv erey ists oH
doliw wal edt “Yo mek pais nebo: «Yes vaqh stiT SOL vidos
Wee TEENe e*
wirecens | tuyoo edt —— eins ab sot shakensante ie ‘tialteeae
ip ee:
chron watt ded bie \ Wordigid edt nt ant of SLentad 6. oiteenod *
Sia Bb $\4 ‘oe
_ erohsd vit rode eemie todd o ts bebast deny cred “eee ‘ae Ri
2 te
base egbe fron aid to soltecupvedi, me gabxeod ae trottece |
tntog aiid, ao eomebive até to toiLtnoo g enw 8Te! etd 0! ;
xita extigen tnall eqqe tant gagbazs od antotove FP Satie’
egrsi ts nuk o¢ woo edt be¢timreq vitutwalau bis "ton
“ae ton asw oltieoqorq adEY edt “eostg er “sah fade
B Sow aT , »somebive agisige ‘to Yoors bie “hb “Ye oie, ¢ ony
‘tals a te Tet {ox ;
ans to ‘epbelnond tiene nom ‘ontwzeted ‘ot yw “ed? to%"s “os
Boe —n00. ‘ated! dein boitusean vioxkene S ere oW want
clusion that a cow permitted to run at larce o
highway in the night time should be reasonably
lie dewn in the road and become a danger and =»
travel.
oe@llant complains of the instructions
In pleintiff's given inetructions the jury wers
substance that actionable negligence would ari
defendant's "negligently and carslesgly permitt
cattle to be and remain uoon the publie highway
te
ig
time" at the place in question. It
2
na public
to the jury
informed in
sé from the
ing his
4
in the night
~~
Said that the deolaration
charges wiiful miscondixt and the instruction warrants
@ reoovery for mere negligenoe and that the in
not inform the jury what the facts must be to
cattle running at iarge. The instruction does
¢
ait fer from the statement of the law in Jefend
struction dees
constrhute
not much
ent's instruce
tion above quote The defendant asked the court to inatruct
the jury that the plaintiff could not recover
44 A i?
by the exercise of
reasonable and ordinary cars
his horse and bugcy prior to and at the time in
23 to have avoided the accident." The court
instruction by inserting the word "just" before
so that the jury's attention was directed to th
the plaintiff as he wags aoproaching *h: cow.
error in this as applied to the facts in the
something of that kin@ that might arise in 4
eall for an inauiry as to the olaintiff's sond
before the acciient. The evidence showed that
had driven to town about two hours before the
had drink a glass cf beer there. There is some
in the argument that he may have been intoxicat
if he "eculd
have so iriven
question
modified the
the work "prior"
@ conduct of
cas@. There
or inquiry whether the plaintiff was neglicant
ed, thouch
ot sosmen bas tégmsb os emooed bok back edt’ ar" iene
Ywt-edt ot anottouttanh edt to anéalgmoo” xa PaGHAY
ott bemxotnt exreweytuf edt adottourvsedt nevis etttitntstg a]
edt mort setts: Bblyow eonantigen sldscottos tadt: ‘eonetedy
etd gorittinted: yleesiertso bits Vitdegilgen" ‘eleadtnts
diate edd nt cyawigtd of fdug sat aoa mbar ‘Sas od" foe
nottezelosh edt tedd Staea wt ott snoftasuy tf soela “srt - file
atmettew tottountont edt hms PH atbmooe tm Lut t iw ‘ie
e0eh moftourtant ed? deft base eonegifgen etem tot yrevooss Sa
stuttttsnop: ot sd tevm etoat ent tedv Yat et ee a
doum tom aceoh mottoustent enT °.screr ts aa
eoutteni 6'tasbreteb ol. wel eft to tnemetsie ext mort Tete
tourtent ot fuveo edt betes teabssteb edt ahetoup stows nott
b{uoo" ef tf teveoss tom: blyoortilsntsele- ett dekh a
evivb os evad.e1go wtaildro bos eldanoesst’ to setorexs ett yd
notteeup:.at emtt edd te bas ot! rokra"ysrud bie" sates bee
edt betttbom::ttoosesT ".$aebi608 edt bebtovs svat 6F ae a
"rotig" sArow edt etoted “tart” biowcedt gakirsant vd aOttoustent a
to touhaoo edt of betoorts esw notiaetts alyret edt. pret Cu os ©
om eee ‘oH: «woo ,yplt ‘gatihosorcis | g@ew er ae ‘eeteniseg edt
erecT .eeeo edboat atoctd edt ot bs ilacs de o1AP oh Gee |e
treatise asw thitmtalg edt vedihedw yrtvpal TOT méor om eew
To ,setot eldseganamny smoe yatvinh to dot tedd snttey ot
bivow, tad eeao.e ot extra tigte tert Bote teil ‘to ‘cittitenbos
emit enor tovbrrow ee! thitntslc eft) of ee yYriypat” te Tot ‘Treo.
to t¢nteta ent tect beworde etbaohive edt wtrebtoos ~ edt exotied
bas trsbioog edd ssoted exwod ows Hweds wot! ot* ‘neat bit )
' 3 * % .
; noivespgue sroe sl ered erent teed YO easly o anit
Net _.pouedt ,beteotxotht meedievad ySu 6d tedt: tid mergte’ ei f
very little ground for such an assumption. The modification
of the instruction did not, reclude that inquiry by the
jury, if, because he was intoxicated he had failed to see
the cow he would not have been exercising care at and just
before the time of the accident. Other instructions
ffered by the defendant were refused. So far as applicable
they were covered by instructions given. The case was given
to the jury uncer a fall and fair statement of the law,
as claimed by appeliant. Finding no error in the record
the judgment is affirmed.
ey
oildug 2. agret-ts nyt ot bevtinysy wop s nite i
ss Aoktsetz thom ac ypottamare se, doue.s9% Paworg 9 ostth
edt .yd.yrivpat fed? ebulos xe tom kb moltourtent i
sea ot belist bad of betsolxodst sew edt eeueoed ee
bos bas to exep.anteiproxe.necd syed tom biwow ed 1
“bons SHoLtourtent, teit0,.tashtope, ed? to sats ot. 03
vee ge. zo 98, boavtex ovew fasbneteb edt ys
; asviy, saw, PREP, OAT yRov ee, BaOttoN UEP A. NEL LEIP YE f
7 tigt: sEL ptt, te, teomotate she bag Ffehe zebae Nap
i rovateobuspet edt st. soxne om apthees,,, -toeiienaa. ao bem
7
atnes er gotesu=tods edi<-bDia Sepenaehle Bt
eset mottcyttani ef? fan? saa POPRASES gen oxide" bdo be * yre¥oBe
‘ =
Sfu@tisnoc al sd teum*atost oe Spade Cat eff: ‘texo%s
Hou ton esoh notvoutfeal- ect “sentra f $s stkohee stan
= = t ram ae
A . . ns , * . + be
: eouitec! s'ittxbeslel at wnat eft to -Peerstaisa:-edt mot See rr EE
teuttant o¢ tmwoe0 st? fetes trabsebsh edT* ibeforn svbde
bisoo® ead th nwvader tom bluse Tiftthel 7 ed? Yeds 4
Mevixnh ce svat «tae Ttantbro fos eldandeser “id euter
- Solt apts : $2 t8 bas ot rolta Yernd bre ‘serod
° Pa rua s'
ect feiHion peso at $aebloos evi beviova ovat! oF es
aeing’ 2gcr. off evpitrd "teach? brow Sie goer wens ve aot ton tte) ;
Ye #ovicos exit of Setoowlt esw cotta redta & Sapeere” eet ane
on wee of een ptt tnddoReache “daw ef as tttints “s
7 erec? .@e@r: wot<sk atest eft of “ bebiees 62 beat fa ore
_ ‘ : Frys
7 enfigensexr Yiiretaie ent: 26dt]eceoyttionl 4c% woot on’ "s
7
ric lens «.
with: banda ’
. Biwoe-tafi-esse 2 oi estee rigee tect bats tert * pri bated
n= ane
ast ge gugbroc Bt122 f#er dele ed? ot ee ertipat "a? rot LE ‘
n 7
R2entaei« ad? tad! tLewoda pomebive edt” eae ahn ett t
pecond el eatacvnew anoe- gaivith! to baer tests
-
boa trenieds ed? ero Red) wiwddt owt ey awot ee ®t
4
80! teaggvs sno6 “8! _sredTh bons esd i's
Oe oe, "i iis doe buaneiiianmaeias age ineae he ‘
STATE OF ILLINOIS, | :
SECOND DISTRICT. =
J, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of ee _in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and eS
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
a
= ae
cee fae al outst
tu dea: Ca
ca bes oe
a
‘a
més
_
‘ ¥ ‘ a Ml F eal sy 4
7 %
_ ‘ Ss -
* rn Oa *
a & 2 :
ey
aed ALOU tO-
stellaggé od} do diol seaaud 2) wsudotaise . ") -TOIsTald daog
ebiovesd odd lo soqood bas 2iouilll to sisté odd Io doideiG haoset bie tot baw,
sitio comiqgo odd to vio vid ei VaoiCgetol odd tsdd YUITAYO YARATH OF logtas if
sorte i it Drooot to eue holditne svods add ni dina’
oft xifie baw baal qin foe oduoied J soagsaaW yuomirsaT nl
: 2idd .cwoitO ja ,iu0D ellaqqgA bive odd to Issa
sto Wola to wey odt ai 0 to yeh.
Co ee ets bothaud sata Paseuord
‘ih Aq
_
a=
means IE Se EE — o — G —e Smee en et
Famed stotloggh oA0%o Anal ae ee re ee
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE. COURT,
yaa SANE:
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
oy
peereess
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
=)
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presidi
r Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
tb sa ERE
F%
)
y
A Ye
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
\
\
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
\
E. M.\DAVIS, Sheriff.
‘
orl
|
}
Ri ti
Bi TINY .
Meas ame le
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
ADD 0 4 f
the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
|, TaUOO wTAIITTTA ant 0 waar 4
refoarlil- to. siste of Lo to htteid Anoosd add toi bas aia
.saitagt Ber ouares. -cUAHSIW .M ABOU 10H. AT
soitent ,S8WAA9 +l auMAUa 208
soifeut eat Rel ciceet once 08
oe
a P
we
%
‘
wo he
ANd omg te
on
: =. .8467f9
=~ > “J 7 2 ?
vate oO ASHTON TAHO
wesnen. och 2 . wattitgd® .21VAg/ Mm
: Sf feria ee
c £
= >
ed = a” x Sore Se uy
sate 25,2 Beds e
se SES = ay
es as ee
2 ‘o-
e * .
sae
= a
Een es
= < os
mo i hiw-
at belt t 28W f1u00 adt to soratgo edd
see
seisett ‘bas abrow age. diss
Gen. No. 6319.
John D. Connors, appellant.
Ve Acopeal from Co. Ct. Will.
Henry Winke, appellee.
Carnes, Je Zi
Aooellant John D. Connors, and appellee Henry Winke,
were riding on a public street in the city of Joliet, each
drivingz his own automobile. They vet at the intersection ‘
# a es
of another street and there was a collision in which #ineie“* 2
oe
a
temts car> was injuredet6—the extent; he-snvsy” of about
$310.00 but much ‘eas according to the testimony of acpellee's witt-
4 >
nesses. He orought this action to recover for that loss and
ity
oO
& jury trial resulted in a judgment for “he defendant, from
which this anpeal is prosecuted.
Aopellant's main contention is that the verdict is not
7
2
supported by the svidencé.—Each of the parties testified
on the trial, ond made it quite plain, that he was driving
his car slowly and with csre, and the other party was driving
in a reokless manner and entirely responsible for the collision.
Each party was corroborated by other witnesses,and there was,
ag ig usual with such accidents, s contrarity of evidence
as to what haopened, and where and Moye 14 is a surprising
trait in human nature that intelligent, truthful witnesses
will differ widely in describing 2 transaction of this kind.
It will serve no useful purnose to relate the testimony in
detail. Appellant cites several authorities in sucport of
his proposition and when the weight of evidence is clearly
and manifestly azainst the verdict it is the duty of the
dower court to grant a new trial, failing in which the
judgment will be reversed uron appeal. This is undoubtedly
the law, but upon an examination of the record we are of
PES sot ni motetifoo s asw ered? bas teerte xeddoas to
—ht
= ites to ete ow broset odd to moitentmexe 1s Moca ? dy
Laan ; '
de ee
»Lfliv .t0 .00 mort IeeqgA av
scolieqgs ,exniW yrneH
* SS “ —
Stall yined peeitecce bar ~atonmed .0 adoL swallecct.
; (ot IE
goss ,teifoL to ytto edi ai testte oftduq s no gnothitz ade
moitosetstni edt te ter ysiT .slidomotuys nwo alti. saivitb
tuods 2 . id te berutat a2w X80 ones
w e'sefleqce to yaomttaet edt ot gatbtosos eas’ dovm tud 00. ors
fos esol dsit tol tevecst of moltos efdt tdguord of Deeg 3: aah 8
mort ,tmeineteb ed? rot trengbug 6 at betivest fatsd She
-bstsoveorg et Lascae ait cel .
tom at toibrev edt tadt et Botinpiaes aiam e'taslisaqgéA
~ beltitess esitieq edt to dosiw.eonsbive edt yo Settoqque —
gaivirth saw of tect ,aisiq stiup tf sbem bne ,iefrt edt mo
gaivixs eew ytteq tedto ed! bae ,etso dttw bas ylwole eo eld
emoteiifos edt tol eldtenogeet.ylertiae fas reoosm easitoor ge at
,oew etedt boe eeeeentiw tedio yd Hetetodortos esw ytrsq dost a:
eonshive to ytirsertmoo s setmodfoos dove ditiw cpa et es
Fy ext
onteitqois e si tI .vydw bore eredw bos ,beneqced sean ot es
=
ire
esecentiw Iutdturt ,toengtiistat tadt ewisn memusd at thet
ehett efdt+ to moftosanrtt = gaiditoseb at ylebiw retitb Iflw
at ynomitee+ eft etelor ot seoquuq LIulesy on evrea Lilw #1
to troqqve af eeltitortus Lerevea cetio tnellegqqA ae
yiteselo eft sonehive to tigiew sdt med: Ene mottieogore etd
eft to ytub ed? at tt dolbrev odt tentexs yltsetinan bre
edt dotdw at HERS <ietit wen 2 taerg ot tuwoo tewol |
yibetdiobas et eat aegge Mow beetever sd fitw toemabut
.
a
A
the opinion that the weight is not clearly and manifestly
against the weight cf the evidenoe, therefore we would not
be justified in reversing the judgment cn that grounds
It is argued that the court erred in nermittin
ify on the question of
ct
witnesses other than experts to tes
the amount of damages. We do not see that that evidence, whether
proper or improper, effected the question of liability, there-
fore it is not nscessary to discuss that action of the court.
It is also urgsd that the court erred in admitting photographs
of the street where the cccurrence hanpened without sufficient
ercof that they showed the condition at the time cf the acci-
dent. We find nothing in that testimony that in cur opinion
influenced the verdict of thes jury adversely to anvoellant.
Photographs, diagrams and drawings ars often nroper, not as
evidence within themselves, but for the purposes of enabling
the jury to understand and apply the teatimony. Reinke v Sanitary
District, 260 Ill. 380, 387. and authorities there cited.
One of the grounds unen which a new trial was aksed
was that of newly discovered evidence wka% which was largely
cumulative in ita character and does not seem to be much relies
on b x
aopellant. He only abstracts the affidavits as to one
ain
a
the witnesses and says in the abstract there wers similar
aifidavitsa ae to rive cher witnesses. No reason ig given
or suggested why thees witnesses were not produced on the
trial, therefore the court did not err in disrecarding those
arfidavits.
No complaint is made as to the. instructions to the jurye
We find no substantial error in the reoord, therefcre the
judgment is affirmed.
Judgement .Affirmede
Be ”
: Lo ; Wei! Ai
ha oar
~~ 3% ov . aed.
yitestinem dae yfasefo ton et tiptsw edt decd fnotntgo edd
OG <4
tom Sfyow sw stoteredt sonshtve ait to tig tew ould tentegs
ebayors tedt ao ¢nemabst ect yotarever mri bet? a ec
gaittimred mt Bberrs tryoo edt tacit bengrs: et “$I Bic:
to motteeup edt mo yviitest ot id cael tedto aoaseatie
teditedw yooneblive tedt teadt see ton, 06 "oW, eegemeh gio- tay ome edt
-sted? ,ytilidsil to mobtseup sift, betoe tia qreqotamh to megonq
etmos dt to nottes tech sevosth ot, yiesesoen er
bh,” sedqaspe? ovis goitcimbs at, hears. trjoo, ath tedd mega on.0 cas bid a
tostotiiue. tuodstw. ET SS exerw tee the: eres
-toos edt. to, omit. ent ts, nolttbnon ant Denode qord dail acDie *
notatce mwo ot ted? yromitses hedd mt goidton batt sv or ae a
stosllegos ot yLleatevbs yuug edt to toLbdrsy. eitibeonsylints
ss ton ,record metto eve apntwemb, ome, energeth acing cleat
gailidsens,. to sseqiyg edt) to% jud; ,eevieamed? sitiltaw, cometh ive
yretins® vy exnieslA .ynomtiteast, ond viaqeins, busterebsts od yavtoedd .
betto, exedt eoltirodtus, bas SSS) ,088. IKI, OB gtotsdelds
py beets, sow, Letrt wen e.dolcy neau, savory edt itolen@sc sid a
ylegisl esw doidw tude sonebive,betevooceif’: ylwene To. tect eons
beifet doum ed ot moos. tom eeok bine tetestedo. ett atv evitaiumol
eno o¢ 8 etivehitte.edt.etoertsde: yfnao Otc sdmetleqage: ye goo
_rselinte sirew stedt Ry eee gi ayse bas»aessentin edd) too |
nevin.ei- coeset. of .eeaagatiw redio eviitos aevativebtiae®
edt mo.bkeouborg ton etew asaventiw esadtyydw «bstéeaquel to” _
esodt outhabserath mi.2ze ton bib daueo es? stotsredide jietrdT
evativehtiiso oe
ert edt of emoltouttent. edt.ot ea ebsmcet tatebqaos oto old!
edt exotstedd ,broosr edt mt torre fettastedva om batt sW oe:
ébomrtiiagia£: tasmgbuge
obemrttita. tnemgbust
mia woo tewol
od nooy Leewyever ed-Lilw Toemen
,, oy oct So aeltaqimexe ae moar wud ent)
STATE OF ILLINOIS, Weg
SECOND DISTRICT. ae
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOFP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of e in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and oa
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
a? Sh we
; ih
“a 1 eA ie me
fy etouiadt 10.
siatlaggé odd to sbiof) .yadoG 2) sosnsoraspo 1 He] _POWLTSIO dy
abrouss{ ert to craqoul bos tout lo wet™ suit io Jotdeid buogee, ping :
ad9 to noiniys odd to vqoo suid 6 ef aoiogeto! edi iedd YAITAgO YASH OF,
otto yer at huoset to sans boltitne svods sdidvak dou
- ety xfs bie bed ver doa ofanated 1 Om rota W enomrran'? al a ?
s0lT .uwaddO te uno atellaqg A bige od to Laoe
ano bial tuo to sery ott ta ou oh
i a ~— baw bosbinwd scie paged
i]
_—s
a eer Senne ne Tse roe
athe. SA Go al, ~~ ee
/
A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
AT
/
Fd
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
, in the year of our Lord one thousand Aine hundred and sixteen,
é
§
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon.
\
\
Hon.
Hon.
\ CHRIS
E. M.
g
JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
=
DUANE J. CARNES, Jugtice.
DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
TOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
DAVIS, Sheriff. |
¥
a
ch = = > = —— =
£ ai a 7
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
ADD 1
a
the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following,
to-wit:
_qmeetxia bas berbard eat
retomtill io ateie sit i toitteaid ‘baosse sds “rot bas ape
.sortagt gutbieesd , QvAHaTH .M WHOL ‘aon let
eottest /BEMAAO .G EMAUG..0c0H 5,
soitat »LIGETIC HOWVAHOT . ao f
ceens a) Bees
Vtiteda - BIVAG M es
an “
wt
i
Oo
oe = = = 32> 55 mee aN 36 ——— eee: oe
Ree he =, ws 4 ie
‘
Jt
i Se of
i
S38 - 2 cee
a
j
; : “ef a MEH
/
Fi
note aN 13 “: £5 ate
“i * : eri - &
% Pe
oa 3 Pag |
ne 7 3 L a so, e
vied om
my
do igtweod ,ebyewrstis dsdt CUAIEMIMES TI Se
Hi-belit asw tivod edt-ho msoimtgo eff. <> arte abe es
asippii bas abtow sd¢ ai ,¢axuod bisa<to sottto atirel
-
t
< es ke
>
a!
‘ +
A Pe
Sh
= ye tert
‘
~,
a
-
i =
Gen. No. 6159
a
Henry Forbes, appellee
vs Anopsal from Livinzston.
Veleste A. Davis, appellant.
In this case Henry Forwes, the appellee, recovered a
judgment in the Circuit Court of Livingston County, against
Celeate A. Davis, apcellant for $173. which amount he claimed
was due him, as commissions for getting the purchaser for a
farm, consisting of 173 acres, which appellant gold.
or
we There “a a sharp conflict in the evidence as to the
terms of the, contract uson which the claim for commission
i
di Z
* OSEELE sno sagen
OS based. Appel: Claims’ that aepe agcreed to pay him
commission of $1. per asre for finding her 3 purchaser; and
2
-~
that she fixed the price of the farm to be sold, at $130 eer
: Go AL oe ack ya
acre; while “37 E Claims, that she agreed to pay the
ays named, only upon condition that the purchaser
cr
whom 4eeseii i ae find for ner, woulad pay the price of
A Et ete
gi50 per acre; and that,apeallee* was not to have a commisaion
A= =
unless $130 per acre was paid by such purchaser for the farm.
The evidences tende” te show that the purchaser of the
J Lt ,
farm, to whom appettant finally sold it, for $135 per aore
crt ley,
Was procured t bhrouga the instrurentality of aopelies} That
is to say it ie Me fexe induced this purchaser to
VL Ast eh
visit a tan®% sand the farn, vith a view of buying ite One
OA “4090 ye
of ‘ansed4 defenses, however, 44 that vefors she sold
the farm to this party who finally iid purchase it, apocliee~
deceived her into velieving that this purchaser was not one
wt 2, :
which/ aepel 2 Ahad procured for her but that phe hed brought
with him the person whom he expected tobrinz about the sale
C@l8 .oM med
ra
eefleqce ,sedro% ynee :
edoteaunivil mort IeeqoA BV suena)
etoslisqge ,etved .A staelod ,
. :
pu
~L ,euedseit
8 Setsvoos: ,esiieqge edt ,aawro® yineH easo aidt al
tentess ,ytavod motesaivid to tio) tivottd sect at tasmpbuf
bomtsio ed tavome doidw .é°Lf3 rot toslleqcs ,eived .A etesled
& tot rseedomwg eft gnittes rot emolesimmoo as ,mid eub sew
sbloe taelleqos dotdw ,eetos ESL to gottetenoo .mrst
edt o¢ ae eonebtve edt at totlinoo qreda we erect *
mnofeaimmos rot miselo edt doidw soa sete to emied
.beaad Sy, | :
bas ;teesdomg 2 ref gotbnit tol etce teq .{} to aotesémmoo
& mid yee o¢ beerae . tod emtels
tss O€f$ te ,bloa od o+ mrsi eft to _eottq+edt bextt ede tedt
: ; a
sii yeq ot beetge ede saith Serie Lo ae elidw ,eroE
tsesdowd eit tedt moltibnoo mogu yloo .demsq antes maam,
a . —
to eoitq edt ysq BSlyow .t90 got bali civode ne modw
ES ;
moteeimnoo « eves ot toa asw*eellegge\tedt bas jetos req OSL}
»mret edt 10l teeedo mwa dove yd biwg eew stos 19q O&l} epelay ..
ect to tesedomaq edt tent wode oF “tbred eonebive edt.) es! os 7
etoe req GEl*t tot ,ti bios yiisalt ¢ = mo tly ot wrest -
ts xa, io ytilstoasmyitent on gna bewoor sew
nu
ot tseadowg atdt beoulrt oni aetiesh sew tl yea oc ef
- me eee ee eh CR
enO tt gatyud to wetv s dtiw erst edt bas re tiletv
bloe oe erotsd tet ~tevewon ,aeenstsb rs to
woe Hlasye ti Seedotmdq bib yllent? odw ytusq eidd o¢ mist. edt
eno ton esw teerdormg atdt tect yaivetied otal ted beyieosb
= * re
"y
—~
tdgwo:rd ber + tei? tod jxed tot berboorg b | oldw
B fee edt tuods anizdot betoegxe sd modw moareq edt mid di
of the farm for her; and wanted her to make a contract with
him in reference to the matter.
poh ne TENE: “aenied that he made any statenents to
filer Lbs ff kay
* {aopettent to that effect; or a he told a-petiee that this
purchaser “was not his man" Abe pecame therefore, a questio
of fact for the jury to passupon, in connection with all
the other evidence in the case, and to determine xwkekk where
the truth of this matter lay. If it be a fact, that appellee
concealed from appellant, by a false statement, that the person
who, at that tims, was trying to purchase the farm from aer,
was a purchaser procured by him; ani that aopellse was thereby
induced to afterwards sell the farm to him, for less thah the
amount she would otherwise have exacted, then apoellee would
not be entitled to recover commisaions, even though the terms
of the contract were found to be as claimed by him. (Havner
v Herron, 1@5 Ill. 843.)
Instructions 7, 8 and 9, which were given for appelleg,
purport to state the facts that would authorize a recovery, and
a verdict for appellee; but completeyy tgnore the matter of
defense above stated. An instruction which pur-orts to stats
all the facts necesaary to a recovery, and ignores the matter
of defense of which there ia proof, is erroneous. (Mooney v
City of Chicago 339 Ill. 414; Miller v Cinnamon, 168 Ill. 4473
Lee v Quirk, 30 Ill. 395.)
For the error indicated the. judgment must be reverse
and the oause remanded for another trial.
Reversed and remandede
ditiw tosttooo s etam ot tsi betosw bas ited tot aa ene >
cog eels ou st S :
; _»tedtem edt ot song meter ab mid
ot etnenstste vas ebsem od tadt eine peliscce\sd
eid? ted EO blot ei ¢scd to {toot te decd ot Ese
moltsexsp s ,etoletedt smsoed See "cent Bid don vel (A “ay
fla dtiw mottoeanoo at ~moqueaeq ot yIut edt 10% otes? —
stedw Mtexx entmxstel of bar ,esso edd ai sonebive sredto
ssllegge tect. ,tosi.s.od df TL, eysiorettem joeidt te dtembledt
moersg ent tedt ,toometgtea ogists yd steaioqec wees tunaandile :
<T94 wert mist sat seccosug oF galyud -€8w c@mid tadt te. sod
yoesd? aew esileqce tedi fas (mid. vd Ssiwoetgsteasdomg al
ect aect seel rot <td of mist edt Liea aebrawtedtes -o¢ BeosEat
a ae
bivow eslisqas pet, betosxe sven satvredio bivow ee» fetes
amis asd? tiguedt M9 V8,..Bh9Lss immo BE se belt tina ed wi
he)
menial), . said xd bemislo as ed,.ot bavot etew towextmop: ert ko
cee OLL3 fos ed ot mal ont 0 hae w LIL dal ator SH Ty
7 .aellecgs 10% geyig. exew ote oe Gat ‘eaobtountenl: ©: os
Sos ,Yisvoosr 6 sattodtus Sivow tecdd etost edt, ntats od! droge o_
to aedjem edt exomgd., vdetetqmos tud aeLLeags xo 2. “tetbte: vis |
eteta of etio- wg doidw gofttourtent aA .betete: eveds: eandis: pi
tetion edd eetongt bas ,ytevooet = ot Yreessoem ston teeieelee: ay
v yeaook) sByoscor1s, $f. ,toorg. et. eteds _dotdwe tov seashat 3
: shh ,LLI 88. ,momaantd.v relLtM sath ve 7: bea Opssidds to, yt:
a i aries sourriec (BRE «£4008 etxtup-v eet I
as,
Seatsver od tsum- toemgbyt ede beisedbad: meng eatiseToy at
efetrt vedtone x0}: bebnanss saregveitt bam
XS. ote —— ws
sLebuensz bas, beexreyee io lob wet nelt Meee to :
SLATH OF LLLINODS, ) ..
SECOND DISTRICT. ie
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
I, CHRISTOPHER ©. DurFy, Clerk of the Appellate
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this =
day of = in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and _ an
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
hae,
Fe try we
- eeallaas add to W199 vinya, 3 emnoweisg eke ‘
onftlo tim nit Grose to eet balditnio ovnde: ali “
eds zifte bin basil ro tee ofayeted 1 10% so W yuomirearT “i
_aidd aweatO ds .tiu0D otalloaay bine adt to Ieee |
en0 bral wo to "soy Sid mf... eee
- —
= g
ee a Paes ey = Sn
Meth pi Wane ghee eit. (eee © ti ee
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuésday, the edurth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine, hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, stipe:
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk ; o On
E. M. DAVIS, Sheri i 2
== 4 ae
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APP 1
ae the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
o
® ey
eliagA to ysb dire? edi ,ysbasuT ao ow5d40 ta”
,a2estxie bas bertbavdisnia basayod? sno 105 TIO. 40 seoy 96
: 7
a _ ¥ a -
“S,aronifliI to stsie eat to foirterd bross® eds 10% has atdee
,; scifarl yakbiee1d ,2UAHZIK .M MHOL .qoH edT-=
“ " rs ek. ©
.oottant SEUEAO AUAUT .c0H
edsiteant Sian HIMARHOT 0H
>. oe 7 ’ x
_ 7 #4 #% €8 axosld yrTud _) aS¢0T2I1aB9
5 | . 2 Sad $
itinede -BIVAG! M .f
= =—— tnt ae ami =< (a a ee — Pe nae
ee :
: !
AS |
= ‘ z 7
$e" iiisG 1 ilses Fae OS
- =
“fo :iiw-o! ,2brs wrests Jodi , CaaTEMaMa TL ad.
mt helit asyw $1009 sft 20. nointag. od)
eeru3it bas ebrow edt ni ($1809 bisa ee ‘set310 2!
“tiw ot ,3f
Gen. No, 6181.
THE JOHWSON OIL REFINING
COMPANY, ( a corporation)
Appellant, Appeal from Know County.
GALESBURG RAILWAY . LIGHTING
&® Powe colpany, ( a corpora-~
tion),
i get et Nie ee SF a Net
Appellee,
NIEHAUS, J.
This is a suit commenced by The Johnson Refining Company,
appellant, against the Galesburg Railway, Lighting & Power Company,
appellee, in the circuit court of Know county, to recover damages
alleged to have been sustained on account of a collision between
a street car operated by appelles and an automobile truck belong-
pbs
4
ing to the appellent, appellant claiming that the collision was
the result of appellee's negligence.
fi
ra The case was tried on the first, second and fifth counts |
: : ' KPA AA
of the declaration. The first count cherges that the apnetiers
by its agents and servants, at the time of the collission, failed
to have the stroet car under prover control; the second count
avers tha a ea by its agents and servants, failed to sive
proper warning of the approach of the car; and the fifth count
ea L« eee» . 2
alleges that ay, » by its agents and servants, failed to keep
& proper watch and look-out as the car approached the intersection
jury trial, which re-
where the collision occurred, There ws
sulted in a verdict finding the apse not guilty. The ep
ee cat
made a motion for a new trial, which was denied by
court, and judgement was thereupon entered against the “#reitent—
ain
SUIMIDTIA CIO UOBNEO’
(no ttsrogros 8
q hk
-Yned wont mort Iseqqh ee or
QMICHDII YAWILAS. PLUCEEIAD
" -exogyoo 6 j + TIEASHO® SEVOE
ee, a A, I te A
I
2
t
soatloags.
ee —
, Sacer
«.Yasqued tewol & gaitigit , yori tel ease est tenkege om
: eal seviwr tia 8s to rer £10 donkatare stood eee
-snofod aomst eLidomodas 0 as bas oot foaus vw atipiannil 169 oe
7 #5
y atmroo AJEIt bos brooes jects end mo best Baw 9869 est
Soa SS eid deci aogtarto traroo tat? oft sxoitecatses ott
befiel ,mokesilfoo oft to om oft ts ,atasvrea bas adwoge
tooroo Rosen eld glominoo tecoty tebrx xsodeonta oft
ovis ot bolist ,adasvren hus atmens ati yd , sell 2 ait
tooo ddr i odd bas jee oft to dosotqqe oft to gntarew
qoot ov bolisk ,atnevroes boo atroys att babes
est Panchen bexotie deiocaitten aw Ae
BRD mi)
S fugaenn
1 ve ye \ a ) t 4 . 4 : re a di? 7 a m iD ¥s a
for costs, from-which juiguent—
It appearg# from the evidence that re
operatesa, single track street car line along West Main Street in
ae pveal
the City of Galesburg, and that Cedar Street intersects West Main
Street at right angles, runuing north and south; that half a block
r about 195 feet east of Cedar Street the street car track forms
& loop around a public square, which is qed as a switch, and in
the usual operation of the street car line the west-bound cars
cirele around the north side of the square and then wait on Main
Street at the entrance to this loop, or switch, for the east-
bound cars to pass onto the loopf
On the day of the collision and just before it occurred
a we st-bound car was standing at the point mentioned on the
switch, waiting for the east-bound car to turn onto the switch
and clear the track. At the save time ne we Y automobile
oil truck was standing on the northerly side of West Main Street
near the curbing, about 75 feet cast of the easterly line of Cedar
Street, and about 120 feet west of the standing street car, This
trcuk was a very large one, ebout 18 feet lon=, and weighing
8000 pounds. It contained an oil tank 12 feet in length and 4
fect wide. The driver of the oil truck came out of a blacksmith
shop,in which he had transacted some business, to start the truck.
When he came out he noticed the west-bound car standing on the
te
@
switch and saw the cast-bound car coming salons West Main Str
When the east=-bound car got to the Cedar Street crossing he
started the mochine of the truck and then put on his sléves and
mounted the truck, and looked back once more after mounting and.
noticed the west-bound car still stending on the switch. When
@2at209 tot
Peni ii 08
ee tent shgohive odt Pa vad igs $I.
nk toorte nisl tasW goolts eck “so feos dost ofgnts eeotet
Wh re rider
mieM deoW atooaretnt teont® webed tdarit bos egies fs) 0 ae LD euit
Soold & Bfad Hate patios bith sir of ope becresite colans ties $s toort2
amrot Mostd seo tooute odd deorte rehed to gass gost cel tsrodss “ro
ot Bus ,fotiwa s ss few 3@f do idw OLANDH otidag 8 bosroxs ‘eoat 3B
ete Brorod=teow oft oetf tso toorta oft to moitsteqo Tesrasy eit
mist no tiew nord 5 ng etespe edt to obfe cdroot est 5rasoxs ofaake
-tese oft tok slow Evra zo ,gool eidt ot sonertne odd te foorte :
_\qool oct oto easq@ od Stso based
gta:
horrrooo dt oroted Yeot bas no iaitt 0 esi ‘to wes, att ‘0,
ot a é
ett iro” hemo itrront Santor add ts cehheate BSW x89 _seod—te99, 8
fotive © ar ocr0 iregrt of ~E89 “hnsrod=te.s0 odd ‘Tot auld Lew «fod be
Latpianetys" : seNori tt ouse odd $A sloent ostt ‘xeofo Ons
Yssrte mist tea “so ebie Ulredi-rom exit fo Sobbnote a.aw Baek ito
<tshe0 to antl yixetease edt to Yaso doot @ duods eoiiduso elt tse
eidT ,tse tootla gutinsta edt to dow tse OSL drods bas), teorse ”
enidgiow ine , ol doot GL duods ,omo ogisl yrev Ss “esw aot
A bus dégool at toot SI amet Iho ms bemtatmoo YT — ‘.ahmog 0008
fd tmasfontd & to tgo ome dows Lito. od ‘ter sovits ett yebiv test
stonrt ont diste ot ,asotitesud. ence hetumetesd Jank lat do tet mek porte
edt co. pathusis. t380 Sawod=teow oni seats ed tio ented: ont Host
,toord2 mis teoW oapls gatmoo ss9 lasiogs taut ot wee hha dodiw
of pxiszova deowt® yahed ect of tog-teo bavoditeee of medW -
Sas geval; aid mo ase nedt Soe adomsd aide to onktoser a
Ses gebinnos. rote Pee gnsto good hoslool fre tomrt ont bs
some .dotiwe edd mo nctheede TLbsaectso beodadaew ont Bi
.
the east-bound car passed him he started his truck and drove it
west on West Main Street until he cot past the middle of Cedar
Street, then turned the truck south, making the tum as quickly
‘as he could to cross the street car tracks, but without Looking
at the approaching strcet car, which he knew would be along, and
without previously indicating that he was about to turn. He
hed partly crossed the track when the west-bound car struck the
truck at a point just in front of the hind wheels, aud wrecthing it.
The driver of the truck had, previous to his gpployment
tle
by the KEE been in the employ We conaprs (an familiar
with the mamer of the operation of efntawts 4 ear line,
at the place mentioned, and he had also been connected with the
running of the same car which collided with tho truck. He
admitted that he knew that the car stationed at the switch woul
start westerly as soon as the east-bound car passed the switch, but
testified that he thought he had sufficient time to make the turn
at Cedar Street and to cross the tracks before the street car would
reach him, but he did not make any attempt to ascertain whether it
would or note © ie
em
f
C lige the
As to whether ap motorman was guilty of the negli-
genee charged in the counts of the de@lezation upon which the case
was tried, and whether the driver of the automobile truck was
guilty of contributory negligence which contributed to pring about
the collision wer questions of fect whieh can be determined only
from the evidence, and the jury was best able to determine these
questions, aving seen and heard the witnesses the jury was in
the best position to judge of the credibility of the witnesses and
of the weight to be siven to their testimony, and this cowt
camot say that the jury should leve found differently on the
*
+ " -
fen Seer cere tine Sati a Sroo. Sea
a - ee var) rex? ory n-
“YE evo! rare elt pare paie ‘eat mid boas . hesrod=ta.se ont
apa sas oa st
2639 Soe sfibeer ord aad tor ‘of Titties Foorts cksat ool a0 vaow
‘eco
Ylsoinup 85 cement ost Qocbl ate iistoa Horde ond bonvent nodtt svoorts
snbitooL tvocdv iw did ,atoeis ts9 Peords oft BROTO oy Biro. ot 2s
otee
Ans, ptols ed: bipsw wees ‘ec dotiw> tes tosade gntidonoxgqa oid
Ss al tf
eH. situs oot tuods asw of tact apitdeo RBrer ‘Ulaworveta tent fr:
rou) SoG
edt tonmta esa Sasoduddew ott morte stoetd 0 itt boeacto “Vidase ee
atk ae
wl euifioorw foe \yetoodw fatd oct to ditoxt fet rs noe | 8 $s fosrst
- : eforts
tnomyotgms ain of Brot teed Bal Homnt ont o* vith and too tr
xe tlimet og a of rr yoLems ond oot esd edtuogd
.ouit tso sinte S to noite Go. edt to orusent oat aid Ev
odd didi Botoenmos got eels hat ot brs |, Homo Ednsar eoate ook heigl
6H omwnto ort ohiw besttioo dotsw tse exude edt to pecker
troy dotina, odth do bonott steno eat tart Worst act Sond jodtinie:
sud ,dotiwa ost ines “a80- Jwodstese? ‘of ae moog aa {itteow Fusta
retest osit onion od -emkd tnotokiiwe Ret ont siguerit od Fatt ‘boltiteed |
binow sso Joowe- ot ovetsd eiost® rit Baoto of “hk foorse "tebod ts
35508
vi ssogdtdaiw aisiteors ot dymet te yrs eslerr a brs od tud msi thoaer
Paty 2 neta E P9IGS. gE i= Wijphot- tor
. + ae Pooh of " ENN chre ey | ,aasnrag 0608
«tigen ost sie) it Ebirs asw t tone, Dan ae? sesitindty ot Bhs: st
eass off doidw noqy nottsmo.te5 oxi to adie 9 alt mt, bosxeds 0 OeB->
caw Most oltdomotys esi to ovis edt verdstedw hos .bebid pew)
tuode’ axbxd of Bodint iettros fo betw sonegi igen qrovuditénos to, gt Eig
vino “honinreteh ed sso soxaw toa ie amoitgenp crew Soleiltos emt).
eaedt ottbnet ot05 od of de teed R2W yun oat hae , som Sivo odt moxie
rt ABW Yrs, adit aonnerd tw oat freed bas freee giivall ... | aHORt OND on
ins eco iw oxi to yilidiborto ont to oghsrt, of moktiaog deed orth
YFusoo abit feo eWonktas! «utedt ot movin od ot diy tow ont To
adit mo Ultrorolttty fiotsr o% eval Biyode yout odt teddt yse tonnso
- | aa
evidence sresented. It is a well settled rule that the vordict of
a jury skould not be disturbed unless it is clearly and manifestly
agaluet the weight of the evidence, which is not the case here,
a Objection was mate ay ‘ én the trial to the intro-
duction in evidence of sections 15 end 19 of the City Ordinances
‘of the City of Galesburg. Section 15 requires of drivers of
vehicles that " in turning while in motion or in starting to turn
from a standstill, a signal shail be given by indicating with the
whip or hand, the direction in which the turn is to be mafe;" and
section 19 provides that " traffic on the east and west street
shall have the risht of way over traffic on the north and south
streets." - vere was no error in admitting the sections of the
ordinance in evidence,
Under subdivision 9, article 5 and chapter 25 of 1 Jones &
Ad@ington's annotated statutes, the City of Galesburg had power
to pass ordinences of this character, to regulate the use of streets
by vehicles. These sections of the ordinances are reasonable,
and the. requirements are a proper regulation of traffic on the
streets of the city, end if obeyed would undoubtedly promote the
safety of vehicles sins the streets and verhaps prevent collisions
and accidents. A violation of the ordinance was 2 circumstance
fa
+
\ proper to be considered by the jury in determining 2 question o:
contributory negligence.
thaw “5
A number of objections are et “2% " appe mt concerning in-
. a
structions given for Se a
see ned that it was error
eid .
a ze, Which are as
to give the 7th and 12th instructions for ge
follows:=-
gas
=
>
“—
© totbtev..sit Blige oLsrs folttea Ifew s atl v1 Sevmoenety oomebive
Ulteottaan inxs ylzsalo el vi eeeLour bodwente tb od ton Sinoge yust.s
sFos OREo amt tos. at dotedyw gone iy 6 ext to eure: ont ae
* ‘
cen = ¥8
~ovtnt oft of Isitd off SESSA @/)enr gow - nottost do 2
aeomenEbtO wld oft fo @Lo bra af anottose Xo some ive mt mont oa
to exevixh to wotinpet Gf mottoe® .. . .guydeeted to uthe: orit ®
sist of siitrsrsa mi toabttom nt olidw gated of " todd sofoiioy
‘ ‘ q
edt div aritsotont yd mevig ot Ifsrip, Ismgte s «Likteonate 8 mort
7 #2 one
has “gohsm od ot at srst oslt fo tate Ni moftostib oft ,fasd toe ©
tactts sede Sha tebe" edt tO ‘ot itis " Jedd SeoErere QL mofiosn ©
_ ddiroa bas. sicdbet “ea wo ‘ot wierd revo Yew to das Br ede owed fede
¢ ko emoitoor ot apcktd tl bs mi torte of aRw exert TR “ etoonta
a «SO i ra net pomaschiano
$ ratot £ to 8 retqsds fits 4: ofokirs a motsivisdwe : robo Bs
sewog bed gtrdeerapone gto edd ,pedutsia. botstoms otnorgahobe
atoorte To say oid steloner od yroteersido aid to. Beonsnk iro sear ‘ot
, ol danoRee ets soonetibto ent to anoitoea exes, | solotsion yd.
edt mo ofTtert “to nei einget reqerd 2s ons, atuonos impor ont nas
ent stomorg Ylbotdnohay bivow a o ti bra = ae pits to atoots
anoteilfios tnowetq aqadreq bias atoonse. one. en ape to wreten
eonstansorts Ss Baw sonentoro elt to ro itetoty satnehtioos bas
to soiteenp-. & oninirreteh ak yxy ont yd herebtaros of ot Toeqorg
soatteg Eisors rotidixtinoo
Sas
“mk wikseteottoo “Girel Lead
la ots anottoe {do to cedinsrnt A 7
eco flog Tot novin amo bowie
t07 enoitormant AISLE Ars ait ont pet ot
pA] OF: on
- :awollot
fso7--gufe
BB ois doiitw,
e
£0
¢
bi The Court instructs the jury that if you believe
from the evidence that the driver of the auto truck in question,
as he approached the street car track crossing at Cedar Street on
Main Street, would by the exercise of ordinary care, heve ascer-
tained that a street ce ar was approaching the intersection of
Cedar ani Main Street, and would by the exercise of ordinary care,
heve prevented the auto truck he was driving from passins onto
a
the street car track, and from being struck by the street car at
the intersection of said streets, then your verdict must be for
the defendant,”
Wie. The Court instructs the jury, that if you believe
from the evidence that the driver of the auto truck in question,
by the exercise of ordinary an? reasonebke care for tke safety
of the motor truck he was in charge of as he approached the
crossing peal question, would have seen and known that a car of the
defendant was coming, and would have avoided the accidcnt by
the exercise of ordinary care on his part, then and in that casc,
even if you. should further believe from the evidence that the
defemlant's servants in charge of said car, failed to sive any
sienel of the approach of said car to said crossing, yet the
+.
plaintiff cannot recover in this suit and your verdict should
for the defendant," ae
The instructions set forth are not subject to the criticism
made by the apoellant; they did not take from the jury the con-
sideration of the question of whether or not the truck driver, just
before and at the time of the collision, was in the exercise of
due care, but submitted the question to the jury whether the
exercise of ordinary care on the part of the driver of the auto
track would have reauired him to ascertain thet a street car was
eyelfed soy Tf valt pant ay, atoumant tusod edt Seb kve
toltaenp mt aowad. otwe oxtt ro tevitd oft tard oonehsve: odd mom
ro teste mabe) ‘ts pate aor starr tso toonte old Dedosonqas wei “ag
-To9as event cor bear: Set on kowoxe ont ud hivow atone
to moitesarotat.edt qrekinunaaas: én tte o” Pootts 8 “Fatt bonked E
etso gaan bia to oo tottexd “emt gd | ‘Sieow BAS Horde tka ‘bus pd
ote anbaasy mort grivitsh sew od aloort odirs ont Betabvena pe
$s xe0 teetda edd yo aomite ‘sited mort Bie’ Soett reo “yo ae
tot od tes tokbuevr MOY mot ,atecrhs Bice to! Wolfooaredht amt sul
* itkhitetab oe
evettod roy hide ast ess est * atomstast du09 ott. ty eBhie stesta
bibieed at towrct Sone att to cevbth elt tect oomohtTe exit smoxts
vistese edt tot st.s0. aidanoogor bas yranthio to ealotexe edd yd.
emt fhetfosotags of as to ogtedo of new sd aortt totom ont to
ent to tao 6 ahead. sworsh bore: fest ogra “Blew wMoltgenp ek ake
YW tnobioos odd Sedbove ovat bivow ae (ettimoo eaw bustielod
,oaso. dedt nl tne godt ydueq! att ao Stes rrankb<o” to saiotoxe © id
il
oft ted conebive edt moxt ever. fodtoddtn% ‘inom woe Sh see
atny Prior \
Vite orig ot bolicst ,teo bise’%to sgtato nt ainevoes atins insted
of Joy «gmbenors Bisa od tad Ese to dosowiqA” ott to Lema r
o¢ Sivoda tolbxey inoy Sins dive ehit mi- ‘tevoost somtso wvatate |
ae i gre fretted, att tot
mioivizo est ov taeteae Jon oxk divot doe kodtformbant oat sites
“foo eat Yue ould set eaet Son bib yorlt tine t fears oar yd ober
vast, teviTs dom oul toss *%0 texltactw to fottgesp. adh To noiderebta
to sefotexe sit at vow 808 it
09 ‘an to ont alt te bus exoteds ts
ent tor! deci esr ee or motteonp » ont fot} tide Bad \9%90 0b of '
ots off to savich ett
aeu eo toetde s stadt obeProoss ot inti hetinper oved siwow ag
+ t35 bey reba 7
“So dsc eit mo emaS yron tbo %o oaborans Io
approaching, and whether the exercise of ordinary care on his
part would have prevented his driving onto the street car track
and have avoided the collision. Instructions of substantislly
the same import have been ropeatedly sustained by our supreme
court. ( Chicago City Railway Co. v O'Dommell, 208 Ill. 267;
McEniry v Tri-City Railway Co., 179 Ill. App. 152; Chicago
Union Traction Co., V Dibvig, 107 Ill. App. 6443 Scanlon v Union
Traction Co., 127 Ill.App. 406; Weber V C.B.& Q Railway Co.,
142 Ill.App. 150.)
- TTS a 20 as aa error the giving of the 3rd
nstruction, which is as follows:-
"The Court instructs the jury that in order to entitle the
plaintiff to recover in this case from the defendant, two things
must concur end appear from a preponderance of the evidence,
First. -That such defendant was guilty of negligence which
caused the injury complained of, and
Secondly, That the driver of the auto truck in guestion
exercised reasonable and ordinary care for the safety of the
auto truck, and of th: plaintiff fails to establish both of these
ssentials by a prenvonderance of the evidence, your verdict mst
be for the defendant,” Fon
det,
The ibjection made is that this instruction in no way fixes the
a
time when the driver should have been in the exercise of ordinary
care, and that it eliminates entirely the pyoposition of equal
rights at a crossin’.s In the oatter of fixing time, the in-
struction must be considered with the other instructions given
in the case and when read in that connection the time is de~
finitely fixed. Nor does it eliminate the proposition of equal
2 4.
rights of wrties at the crossing. Parties | are cha @with the
exercise of due care, when driving vehicles over a crossing, &s
sabpins
m &
aii fo ots9 Tran thro do op lorexs ould aditost Bis \aatilocorags
fost 89 teotde odd odno ettivixch abt botnovetg ovat bbrow Pred
oo pte
i es eicaaaia to eno: ented mitatiroo ond Bebiove ever! brs
ext BEA
ere rane “0 yd Sentaters Vileraege= ne od ovedt dogint enue ent
oi tet
:Td& .LIT 808 , Lomoc'O v 200 ysl tes ere) ogso is ee
gabhe®
ogsoidd Ser gh LET evr ¥s09 woul Leh Yid~bxT Vv weld
moinU v moinsoe e330 “OTA wLII VOI *BivdET v 4a00 nottomst sont 5
| quis. 840 V vedo ape aah ctr Vad 2909 noitosr®
‘ 4 sek ons
# Oar *QiAs LET. ae
a ERD
_ as nett, =e arivig © chy TOTITS TOT mgioas oa fs sy
~ :awoL Lok ae ak dotsin Ho stood ark
it 208
eit elvitne od -rebro mio desk part eat etomment dood elf" oly nea
asoint ont \dmebneteS5 oft mort eess: atit mt xevooot ot Sikdeebe fap
sSonebive eat to secirtieees fewate Coy B cfOkiIh 1.8, scree) fase useccoo. deem
do biwsonegifsen tho ywhling asw tiabtetes doup daa. adewkhih iocls)
: fre ,to hosttsfomoo wariak end: dow mest
Moitasup st somtd otws oft to writhbeett cat ,~ylimoved!
eit to yWlotse ent robstso Yrantiw fins eftisronsst hoefowexe)
seernt to dtod detidsiae of elict Mitrtelo oft fo fos toms” obs,
tesm tobbtev tyoy ,gomohive ont to sonetohmowerd & yd elstinersd;
AR dnsineteb ext tok ed:
est sgoxit yew on mt mottorrteant ehit tacit at aiats nottootd! odT
wrantihi6 to setotexe eft of need eved Slrroste tovirb exit oxi omit
fespe io moitiaogeag ols yLottine aotarthmtto vt tect ‘brs ota9
SsTrotod
“ai ot ,omit gotxtt to totter afd mt «: “r£ea0ro 8 te adrigit
tho esth
fevis emotionurtent vrodto eft Atiw horobhanoo od osm no tbostte
rrexe
a9 BL omit osit “ gokto onmros tend mi bset ft lw hee Eso ont srk
feupe to goitieowow ent etenimtle vt 2ooh ton vboxtt ‘tod teet
— ot Arivbeygieds ore eeksseT speckesoxp ect ts sefttar to atdgit
a6 gpiieacto « ovo seloliov antvithedw .ereo avb to oatorexe
well as elsewhere.
the
not
did
the
and
nor
The objection made to the giving of the 1Oth in struction
appellee are not tenable, for the reasons above stated.
An objection is also made to a modification by the cowt of
Leth instruction given for appellant. The instruction does
embody a correct statement of the law, and the modification
nat harm the appellant.
We are of opinion that th astructions, taken together, state
law applicable to tis case with substantial correctness,
that no error was committed cither inthe giving of instructions
in the modifications made by the court. The judgment should
therefore be affirmed,
Affirmed,
ifs.
eeerks ‘osotgae
VG “fe secttoeita: eB iow
a of. e e — “f eres Bs a8 ; 7
“woktomstan! OL ont Xo =n ext ot o Sam “no dtoetio ont
sbeiste ovods amegot off xot odes dor ors ae
aa
to taiéo oft vd noLtsott.tbor 3 of efor S@ls Gi WoRtdetdo mAoioM
asob molfouttant sv imeflecqs x6t névig’ sotfomfent A900 itt e
nofteoitifor oft Bra pwel edt ta Peometeta ‘Joortog 2 “ybodnte chen .
stusilegds 6dt stash tin Dib
. ase §
steds ,toisogot Modst ano ttonifant ‘edd Pads mo Eftiero ome
,aeentoortoo Isitucstadve dtiw eased ‘2 Bit oF ‘elds LLggs wal at
anoisousani to sctvis estat tortt.te ott tam 9 Bow Torre Of test bas”
fisoss tuemghny est stereo, oat vd ef at strotao Et tBom ont E33 rose
or [i tvere tag
sBearcits oe Pehle comin 5
v ve =<" du =
HOLS tases eal J=7 q
- sy * + ot s ak -
o Curry wt. Bop read
>
oe
“
e
‘
°o
oC
‘im so ttorrede
8 OGR0. ote +8 s
oF re e5oxtt yLorbck -
Ta sg TS LIRA oo te sett m te otvigtc
4 e ey 7S : yy
eS gp Est i, i vov cotyls)-peatw cates ach $a ceo bee
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ee
SECOND DISTRICT. ie I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of — = : in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and —
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
{
stalisqgé odd to Ano oer a anderen .—~- ) “post Tata anos
: zbwwoooH oft lo taqoed bas wiouill to siete ait 10 dinate hansse ee ot bas |
zi enionerot edd dedd YUITAO yaunet Ga soared I
ony to poisiqe ods to rqoo siete as
vs
ynffie wore ui broset to .seieo bé oltid its ovodés auld inf SOD ot .
odd xifte bra bac! vor dex oludered 1 soumanW ynomiteaT at is ae
aid pwetO te Jsu00 sielleqy A bise odd Ww Ieee
“to yeh
ago biol uso to. 169% oth Oso eg a
™
han Beery erin ‘anewodt
aot
-
Or nicer mai See eencn renee wh etn aol Wick ean
>: Nine Dene | Dee ae 2 Oe We on Fe poe - he
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State Of sl ilLinois¢
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
=
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. Z
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
‘E. M.. DAVIS, Sheriff.
= = = aS = SS
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
ADDN
APR 1 4 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
Ri
ie ae is
5 Sr asa ant wo user at ™
-gsetxie bas bstberd ania bossuodt sno Brod 10 to ts98y ed,
rgtoatI{Il to s#s¢8 od? Yo foiziaid baooe? edt got bas ‘aid,
-soidept goibtae7qd ,euAnali M WUHOL . sof adT-~
. i “cottaul , 2EKHA0 ..L IMAUC fon
. | sottaut ,dagald souassod {moh ~
; : Vics aieoto YEIUC .9 AaRGOTSIAHD
Ttineda ,QIVAC/.M:.e
1. 7 ene Te, ae * wats \
= Pa : \ ,
no :ttw~ot ,cbitswrstts isd , CHAAEMOMaA TI cae
nt belit eaw sru00 edt to noiniqo odd.
\
goyrusit bos ebtow sdt at , #100 brse Yo serito erireI9
Gene To. 6190.
William Friedberg,
Appellant,
Clarence E,DePew, doing
business as the "Practical
dvertising Company", and.
John R.Henderson, as Sherif:
of Kenéall County,Illinois,
Appellees,
Appeal from Kendall County.
ee er a ee Oe ee ee
NIEHAUS, Je
In this case, a bili in equity was filed October 14,
1914, by appellant, in the cireuit court of Kendall County, to
restrain the enforcement of an execution, issued upon a judg-
ment rendered ageinst apnellent in the circuit court of ‘Sangamon
County 4 The bill allegeg that ex-ov-about Pebruary 14,1934,
noe phe se
ppettec entered into a contract with appellant through
appeiiantis seent whereby appellee, by the name of “Practical
Agia # etree,
Advertising Company", agreed to furnish to mone iewt certain
articles of merchandise, and perform certain acts to benefit
2 a. Pe es |
gn. business= the corp Gace: bein® a merchent im York Nd
1 tr
vitte, Kentcit seunty; and that -appeddee puaranteed thereby + a
Agr34 en ae reat ae a
inerease 9%; tants busines ss. M \-copy-of-the-contract—retferzed _
Cee Wi otecnodte-the pitt ex-an-exhitity Aep <0" of hence
ees fe Cb jhewF 2e1cle ep tebéct- (ecg GAN
The bill furthcr alleges that appellant entered into r,
‘S)
LD
this contract with appellee, “only in consideration" that an-
pellee should in good faith carry out and perform terms and
Ly a.
‘conditions of the contract on his part; and thet ap ellant's
4.4
business should be thereby increased over the business of the
corresponding months of the precedins year; and that appellee,
ae
eYenwod Ifsbhrod gort IseqqA
OO i Oi, OR A By ge, Oy tt,
eat sodoto0 bolit asw Bispe gi [fid s «08RD edt a.
Qtedhsitt msl liyy .
-8ve
tio [Loos q
[398 rit |
or tob woe, omen
Isohtosti" odd es e2
fos ,"Yroqnod artetdrevb4
vidrede" as ,foaTebrol.f mot 7
' eLonElil, yosrod Iisisex To _
xeollocrsé As
.t ,2UARET
> TAP
of ,yinwod Iisinox So “Fxu09 dimoxt > eft mt .tualtecgs: vw “ater
-sbst 8 seq beseet .sokisooxe ms to tuemeototme edt ntertact
Momegesé to dives tivotto ot at tnsflegqs tatisgs berebmer decom ;
etl at -yuasedet-tweds-no-ae tort pogelie [Lid ofl “Kcsnnas an
mint tae at iw ale ete 8 ovnt Kivtetes “aeee 7
isoltosti” to eman ont yd or Yeotedw tHese Seeded |
ristrtes
titemed of atos nistis9 mrrotrec
Pan pasty.
WY owweres i dustorem « ontod ated ioeetase edt -eeembasd ,
*« oe Yderestt beotnenamy oobense Jaid bos pyres tiatret ehihe
hs ROR RED iad SRDS onsen awd
a an cee ~ eet on aoe ‘ ——
«(8 tant “soitjateblenos at yine" ,celloqqs dtiv tosrtan0 9 aids
bes eartes mrotrec
,*iforcas fede his
~
bre to yruso dtist boog mi bivorle selfeq
a‘*dretifeo gs ta’t bes giteqg etd mo ¢aschees eit ko eno itihtoo — i.
ef} %O exenterd eft teyo beesetont yYdetedt ed Hiroe aaontend -
ymey natbeoosq eft To adinom aithinogrertos 2
mes ot detest o¢ bootge . Vtsemod antetirevbA
fas ,ogthredtotem to gefoldrs © \
Bins
i
a aa a a Ae,
through its agent, ond otherwise, proposed and guaranteed said
inerease in business, and proposed said plan solely for the
purpose of increasing appellant's business; and that although
appellant entered into said arrengament for the sole purpose efore-
said, his bueinss, instead of increasing, decreased during the
months ‘the plan was in operation, to the emount of nearly $1000,
as compared with the business of the correspondins months of the
preceding year; that appellee utterly failed and neglected to
perform the terms and conditions of the contract in good faith
and thereby also failed to cause any inawese in appellant's busi-~
ness, elthough appellant, on his part, did ell in his power to
carry out the purpose of said contract.
The bill further alleges that appellee failed end neglected
to make up to appellant or to account to him, for the money lost
by him as appellce was bound te do by said contract,to the extent
of 5400, ea re Ns ete wes on ese about June, 1914,
one of the eee the May term of ‘the nee 4, of Sangamon
county, wr Le as "Practical Advertising Company" procured
AAA cg
to be entered, by some means unimown to ape aut, 2 pretended
judgment against him in the vretended sum of $440, with costs 7
: : ae he os ogee
anounting to $5.40, all without the personal knowledge of apoellaat;
but, as he has since been informed, and upon such information
States thsxfsxetxta it to be a fact; end that on or about July 14,
1914, a pretended execution was issued by the clerk of the circuit
court of Sangamon county, upon said pretended judgment; that
afterward a pretended execution wes plae ed in the hands of the
sherif! ofZ4enielt county, for service, and that the sherif” served
2
the same upon apyollam® on or about Ausust 14, 1914; andthen,
eWVLG eOK~« ow
eae ey
He aut yen ge Pea on fee
bise Ssetneteasg bao beeoqoxy leinbveibantet brs a err eit ‘dgcoudd >.
eat tot ytolos male DSise beaogoxg Bre ices at Reon ee
dapodtis tect bus jarontand : elinesl loads gutisonosd to onocr sa eli ;
_<erots esogreg sfoe elt tot tnenegne ts bise Obatt horetc0. ‘uatlogga
edt antes Bsagetosh ,aotasoront toohesdark waaniesd niet “bige “a :
,000LS yirasn to trwome odd of ,moldexego mi asw malig oft aditecom
eit to adtmom arthnoqaertos sit to esentand ext = Sorsqmoor es: ng
of Bedoefgen fas beList Prete eolleggs talt yrs0y aikbooetg « _
dvist Soos mi Soouinoo oat ko amtolt Litoo alse anirot ‘eat EE —_
-iesd atdnsifoqas mi oasaprt yrs oamBo of bol kat oats wdorelit ‘bas. eae
ot tewog pis nh ffs BEB , Prag ais mo . dus Lloqae Sguoddts yaeent -*
stoextnoo 2 to o8 ogee ond ee. TEE,
Sade ful Sas bet tsk oo Lfeqgs — imeem case Ta a
tool Yesron edt tot muet oF bamewsa: ‘od to ate ieq¢s prwesreres
sdaotdes ont oF, FSsttiiO 6 bisy yd ob of horrod ow so bleuqs ee misd vd. -
eee
ePlOL ottst twods “tomo a “SNSN tort | => = fet to %
sonasnse to Nene F ivdtz© Sito aot Yol-ent, to ayes-odd. eyed edt BO xeHo >
NR, ty ai a Ge
orroorg “yreqnod sa teltfrevir” asia See veme "
Spt eee
DOA SATE A, 8 aS ‘oY ceaeistees a, ‘enon apt, bored. ad ot
2 ateod dg kr eres) Sq te, atime Beburotone erty ak mbes denises Jiehgbaf
ee aa to pain eh taxes" exit Suoatiew Yee 02 ess od eattatons
noitemiotsi dove moqur bas be deat E rood sont aad ef as Rin
Of Gist tyods to mo taslt Sos ptoot s ed ot tL ortotuomt sotats
sisoxis oft to uavelo ent wa fesaal sew nottssoexe be buotorg 8 rer.
vads jirenghst hebrotetq $tee Mogsr Wawro momagne® %0 us09
Y Perr na
ots to sbusd edt ni Seoelg gew no ttsroexo betaodera Pa bone
2O7 409
Sevioe “tiveds ont tent bas ,ecivien tot 2 rtpvon Ebook to “a Erode
woithbec ;h0eL ,-M teupsA tyods to <a Bogs omse oxtt
on
on or about September 50, 1914, Peli ie it upon certain real estate,
which 18 the property of app coat career; GAT ye Oa of
Yorkville, ia Kendell-coumty, that this levy by the sheriff was
entered of record, and « pr aed of record, to the prejudice,
injury and damage of ies: ie his business and reputation,
and constitutes a cloud upon his title to the premises levied upon. >
The bill also alleges that the appellec proposes and
threatens to instruct and direct the sheriff to publicly advertise
and sell the premises levied upon under and by virtue of said
pretended execution ai.d levy, and that the sheriff threatens to
so advertise and sell the same, and thus further cloud appellant's
title and further injure him in his business, property and reputa=—
tion, and that appellant fears they will carry out their threats
unless restrained by the orier of the court.
é a i vere thet the service of the execution on
Scpolient the, fifst notice "actual, constructive or otherwise",
which pike Aree hed of the existence of the judgment in the Seneemon
eounty cireuit court, no summons or other process having been
served upom him previous to the entering of the judgment, and thet
the May term, 1914, of thes court hed adjourned for the term before
the time mentioned, and that it was only from the alleged pretended
executionthat he learned that the sum of $440, with Y hstaal from
June, 1914, had been so recovered against him by ees in an
action of " assumpsit-confession”, in the-eireuit court of Sangamon
county, tesether With -costs-te-the-emount of Gbr4 0
agree h-( Beece< a
The bill also states that appellans never, to his Imowledge,
executed or signed any judsment note authorizing the judgment, and
that in case such judgment note exists, or ever existed, containing
his signature, such signature is a forgery; or, if senmuine, it was
rm
teers: biev oes. ah behets
esw Thbtede odd yd Yrel ae tid tenth pedees 30 Ey 9S
oobhstetg ack of ebxr0998% to aiksiret ‘Ite ona ee
~aebtetwaet hte! eeerdtend eit xt Langs to opaneh Sue
& ~fogn Boivel senimevyy edt oF oft ht ald og bso. 8 s ott ols
Baya aa) geaog org valtegas outd tect b aeseitennagactthds |
“gektrovhs ylotidug ot Tliteda ent tooth, bag, tomtdemt: ‘oF 8s
nds xo eivaiy yd DSS Toho mogs. bo ivel: neaadmerg orld OLE
ov Auetsoult % bres eke) ont Jedd. DES a yveL, bee ott vopxe” Be
gt ine Lreage Suso.Lo wocld it nsreit 528 5p ES: ett Liens bores Cate
~atue 0 brs yize gore 28 eno tend eis ot mis. ouptat stociteret: sat
absent ~ toitt ‘two write _LLbw Yost ,aroe% sasilegqs cenit Bie YE
euros oesit ‘to ‘tebxro
fo ‘to ttsoex0 ott be eoivrea edt teste,
momepsia® ott st caus aul pan hPetnise zy
: — he od ont Eved. aBeoory aoaa8 26° eno nmura OM 4 ae ;
teid fas ,tnomshnt ont to strbrodme . ont ot anebibed Sakae ala
eroted mtad edt. sok froseettot be Sel doo, Per ta AtOr. ated vs oni
beknotor bege Lite ‘ont. mort Else sou dt tech hee bemokdom Onik
mort deovodet sit tw ee to ore oft ded. Regen ont tonite )
me mt selleces vd min Tarkegs Serevoosx oa meed basi yAteE «
___-flemsnr as To. dusos tbnonte-od ae "0 tan stupor hecmisaes to x
: a Oibsd- hom geome 98-8 aoe sé bm
( BSo sei Who romana | tO.
,ogbelwordl okt of .roron Miettoers todd dotste ‘oats vie td
coveny 2 hes eS
Bs. gteewabat code atatrocdira btom ‘Foongbat ws Borate 3 to bots
A! rocket ed
: vi inizinos ,hetakro reve to saarinie ottom eat rng
(Bet Ab yombswn EE ,'r0 enipeon iB en 9 ,"
MA “i> —s
ind é
Obtained by misrepresontation, frau, false pretensions and clecun
vontion; thet the only paver vrecented to him for approval or
cial pere at the time tho contract wos negotiated, was reprovented
by appekleete agewt to vo e simple contract, and tht if such allozed
a is
protended judement was taken against aps 4 as indicated by tho
alloged pretended execution, the same weas.and is fraudulent, and
should be set aside as null and roid.
The biLL also stategton informetion and belie? that the term
of the eipemes comrt
in ,wiich said alleged
e
protenied judgnent woo entered, closed on or about scutt 1, 1914
before he had any Imovledge of the rendition of such judgment;
80 thst he was umable to take asy steps by motion or otherwise to
have said juignent set aside, or pray an appcal therefrom, or oro-
cure a bill of oeoxcep*ions during said bE whereby his ordinary
remedy at law was lost; that the are was not at the time
of the rendition of seid judsome 4, nor has since,beam indebted
to -Gepedises as set up in saidprotenfed judement, and ac allle7od
scald casey, bet-on te
end elained in the declaration in
The bill = on a ae he allesed preten ded exccution end
- Le o
lovy be set aside, and that the sherif° sand seeedbes be restrained
by order of court from advertising or scllins the premises, or
authorizing or causing the sone to be dene, or otherwise at’ enptine
to enforce said alleze! protended judement i eer
and siso pray¢ for an-ac-onnt-bemecn—the ; stiles end for an order
»
evades fF we F ry Wiese od he
~ siZAta x 4 bi £ Ls roy nt
Coy i Sefves PLOL 08
a. ge et NN a Bm
i ee ee aan Sea ee ee ag i 7 5 - 9 4 % ; P
. Pe SS cia trie eS Wer Cat ae at ean ton oa ee ¥
oR ae ut 4 eHyO BY i fir 4 “GE rn
2 , i.
al
iw +
aurozko bios eno tanetonr estat tigers “olka ae ie Se tt
xo Ley Ong tok ‘mts ot betroaor : epagd Glito sits baste estar
kboteoe ome gw Sedat ogor gent Fooudixod 5 Git nts Buk 88" fo SiO SRO | j
; erctr Ot ee ay t ee eh he, ae a
bose {fe sore LE d: at Baus shootxteoo etquia 4 gaa ot “thote alee! Tae —
ont yd hotookhrek: we PBI 2 Healay., KABYE Prong bssh, Do hmet eam
Att: retire? ai bee vom ampa, exit, stipi Toxo, Agbpedyza. 5s Lg Ses
© abhor fee, isan sas onthe d fen eo soa ;
r
t Pa
med est dost witod Bae xobbensotat “Os ls ei "Pr RO oy
__Regerte bias thot ‘ack sre ena he “SurOS Meats Some IR oe
ares. ss bears rods x0 “0 Beeors " botodind so thot! Bo brotorit 9
tioonpeet dope ‘to noid £Sn0% aid ‘to ‘Oho Liver: Ree beat! On eeotedts
of sebvredte xo noktom we aqeta {ae ‘ostad ot ptdemr ‘wow Gee vecnegient.
“Org TO ~,wosewsm Csbcos mei yen x9; ohiedga oop
viet oe Yor ioe) Stee. canlHh ene gapap 2p TEM e bem.
“SRE ott te yom wanier ia sami epee, id ae Wt |
botdehat sowed ,pesckapad gery cpembe), ies Rg Soke the sees ont
bosefle we Ss ,timirghel Sehuateng hikes, As TRA. BE, 98 ss =
pote gemcn bho arb. wikeeii og ak |
fee wobtvoexs Bojceios: beget ‘ta ont oR et eS fbn etn
faxtoyiser od sathesa bess 7 “oy bogey: oat ¥anP Bie” (obae tou oe gron:
oO Get Liomernee ots packs fo 2 tO gta tno VES mone ‘hae EO none
oatbhatd OS oatercadbe ee, onve aan wa a ae ecm
elt. Bre: Mewoite Wott, (tee
| AS j
appelloe, or either of them, from further levying said alleged.
pretended execution; and from otherwise enfoOrcing, or attemptine
to enforce the same.
To this bill the apvellce interposed a demurrer, which the
court sustained, and thereupon entered an order dismissing the
bill for want of equity, from wiich order ap zellant prosecutes
this appeal.
9
It apvears from the bill that the exhibit atiached to the
bill es the contract ‘entered i
POO mene
a
age
: - . . oA :
sumably only = part gi the entire contra thy and "Be the part cigned
ae
by the hee carne but that evidently at the same time Orie Recents ¢
Signed another paver ,which not attached to the bill, Wiere
was pre=
ae
two papers signed are a part of the same transaction one signed
by one party to the contract, and the other by the other varty
to the contract, both papers constitute one contract and are to
pe considered as one instrument. No reason is given why & copy
of the other vart of the contzact, which may have a note and
power of attorney, and the instrament wnon which the judement wes
entered, is not attached to the bill. Moreover, the all esetions
in the b4i11 in réference to signing such cther instrument are in-
consistent, for appellant alleges thet if the paper conteins his
Signature it is a forgery, but if the signature is genuine is w
obtained by misrepreseration, fraud, false pretenses and circum
vention. There is no positive sllegation thet the siguature is
a forsery, nor that the signature was genuine, but obtained by
fraud and misrepresentation. Nor are the facts stated upon which
the claim of fraud and misreprssent:tion ate based, and the alle-
gations are cloarly insufficient. While equity talkos concur ent
=5-
Boge Lis Siow gatyvel xoddest mort meds to taitie to yocttoags
eahiqnetis tq ,aclor@ap eadwrarito mors oe po iene Ae
sits" 4 i5 ¥ ; : »omgs oui ooeote.oF MN
ent dotiw ,revymes 6 Sogo grate 6d See: “8 ‘ott! ‘Er fe abi (or® iene ode
ost edge ine sects aS onda Mderrotedd bre” ee ms
. setusonenr iets does sainsieer tierey mort ational ls drew tot Tee
| Gi RIO shabad OnE
oe ; Also
ant ot bacios: ts Sid tebseo exit texid ‘ite ‘ost sok atseqge tI
Oe, Bow . 5 I fethine dobxitino 5 bit Bs ‘tte
boma.ta anec estos pa Wopattroo-etitne ert oy S85 2yiio “tttcnesia os
Tarierce cutd omea pedé te ylinob ive dant ted. jp sablae odd yt
: onee i. td odd. om hosiootts fort dott, toceq holt Fiche song te
. fous in eno moliospiresrx! Sot Sit tO doce ha othe” forste ateged “Owe 7
. yhteg posite exit Yd naidovent tao Ytentdtoo bat oF Gitar “Site yd
~ ot ers. ban aie aid giro: ra eres ares: sited” {tostines “ot oF” ;
TH09 8 woe apyts Bt ‘rosewe: diag: . trossrnbank 9tro Bn’ ‘howe Abanos “od
Soa etor & eval Yar dotan edooines eth tho “Pree! _xedite: “edt 30"
asw toosmhnat od? dolaw mogyr: Sripocersvires Sait’ betes Cone ‘G6 Féwog
erahiame LES eit esovoerpl LER eis of “hort sattg a tot at betesne
shi Sve dngmielasth. nostho tose sri betg te: od mDOTO GT rk EN Rd octet a
Sif entatroo regay att Li tadt aegells tranteq¢s fot", notatanes
w ot ontioneg at ecbrdosry Bs et SE dad pi ek ae ‘3 ak oh eronfargie |
«nro tt Bae senietert: oalat Sates fol cheaet gene tm, ee. oa tet ess:
erry
al ordain org badd nottagelio ovitinog ot at oxed?, -tpbitevig
ye bas dsido oad oft tures oaw guntangta aa T pxle FOR, eXTPSEO+, ST
Holiw os 59 tate ea oath ‘Bigs ots ‘tori ’ .xoltadneaorgetads, Ss. Scart»
eoiie end ins , iaoad ont told. doen: gorge im bos boom S9.mtale Ain
bate th0 me aoa Vitewe “OL ai ama, Dae hd Sa
i. 5 7
_—/?
jurisdiction with law courts in motiers anh acclient or
mistake, the facts constituting such fraud, accident or mistdke,
as a defense to the enforcement of a judgment, must be set out
in the bill. ( Lasher v Anmuziate, 119 Ill. 655). aA
lioreover, to entitle «4 defeniont in a suégment to relief
against such judgment on the round of fraud, accident or
mistake, it must be evident not only that he had = defense upon
the merits, but that such defense has been lost to him without
such loss being attributable to his own omission, nevligence or
default. ( Ward v Durham, 154 Ill. 195) Furthermore, it is
apparent that appellee had a complete and adequate remedy at as
The allegations of the bill do not shaw any valid reason why,
appellant could not with reasoneble diligence have filed a motion
in the circuit court of Sangamon county, and upon a proper shying
-
to the effect that his only Imowledge of the entry of the judg-.
ment had come to him after the final yrtguarm adjournment of
Pe
ed, have asked the hd
6
the term at weich the judgment was enter
to open the judgment and give him leeve to plead, and male the,
legal defenses which he elaims to have to the entry of the
judement, A motion even to vacate a judgment filed at the next
ensuing term after the confession ofa judsment is in apt time.
( Kingman v Reinemer, 58 Ill.App. 174)
And if the matser simply involved en improper levy of en
a
u
he cour
cb
execution his remedy would have been by apvlication to
issuing the execution to quash the levy. ( Palmer v Gardincr,
77 Ill. 143)
But the purpose of the injunction prayed for is to stay
4
proceedings at law, and the statute requires thet a bill heving
£7
such a purpose in view should be brought in the county where the
proceedings at law were had, which in this case is Sanramon
a
Set es tl
Nee _
o.oo
to dneieos busvt to etotton mb edtwoo wal div mottetbertst
en frebtoos ,bisert doe atitetiPenos atsct Sat” ouedeim
| he toe od dant , tren abut s to tieewototie eft 6F oareteb “weet |
; (88a .LfT CLE ,statsomma y todeSt } sited and Ee
teifs: of Jrougos),.s Si. duaisetedS a. eliiine of-,xevogtol,, ~~
to tnehioos ,imext ‘to inssrory ott 29 doemsbst dos semksgs,.
cecges esrpted. < isd si ded ylno Jon taushive od temm tt S38 abit
duodtiw mis of gaol mood aan onneteh sows tedt dod at icon ont»
“0 panegt ler etofeaimo awo gist ot aldstudixids anted esol dose a
ei tz atedurt (ef .LiT Bot -maitind v fxs) .dinstes
wal - ybou se BR BEP SIS - be “etetgmos « ‘Ss bad sorlogas Sertd tnexsaas”
jie Moses Bitsy ‘oul Wits ton ob ILEd edtito, amotigeolré ont ae
3 om elit ovad aocenkt is ol fanga.sot did ier ton sivée"Sxai reqs”
gift te satay & mogt Bos “UIE oo sbiise hie” ‘to Huroo dinorts ontt Fa |
: Agha oft to yids ext to egbe twort Une ald Fact ‘YFostte “ett of”
Yo gnome, bs diesoziak Tent of tofte mis of oméo Bad hom”
ute 5 6a¢ betes vad ,bdredae asw “Fremabst ont doitw $8: aed ea
at eat fins befa of syeol mix ovis bre dmengbnt edt seq0 ‘ot ae
ert to wetne edt of oved of ‘anttsts el doltw asansted ‘Isger”
feor oct ts helit Fuershst s steosy of reve motvont A ire cm bot
soutt FqB nt et d reas Bat sto Hotweetton oft rotts. tot Apel
(BVI woah, rir ea «remotes! Vv weammgecb ye
> Pees oo
ne %o Yrol «sqexgmi os bevlovas tlamte “2! dean ort TE hk
Meso edd oF steidso ite: 12 Yd secd over! bikow Yooner att ‘nottwooxe
eTomkited vy camfat ) .yver bit deettp of 0 Ltsroexo edd ortweer
(SAE ada '
were of si sot hbysxq moitonstat odt to Shihab oi” oe -
$iivat Efkd 2 tant fetinpor otutate eift bas ,wet Rony S28 ;
eid et. Rw yinsod oft mk tdghord od Simone wolv at ‘pnogem a ove”
Howeins? ek osno k(t aE Mott hat orow war oS oantbeddorg ”
ae |
county. The circuit court of Kendall county, therefore, had no’
jurisdiction to entertain the bill, even though the bill hed
contained sufficient averments to give apcellant a standing ina
court of equity.
Yor the reasons stated we are of opinion that the demurrer
was properly sustained, and that the court did not err in dis-
missing the bill.
Decree affirmed,
=
.
Zp tmeni RES. a exe 3
om Bast yevotStondt , Wooo [aimed to! dxv00 eine
© Set Efid ext, dgc0dt neve , Ltd odd tubsdsétne)odum
8 ni gnthasta: steal thincavienthnilasestiasieelaeal
tedfos of fcsusas) « SE Joeiseko
J tiie leon » HIRE ; Se
acenicis oct test
Ag a Ne eek
webb ok <t9 tox bts drs0:
é na
2 oocest ki aw AT
sboirnttis: sexed
sE fk cetenrestuct Sey fly
1 get
motstheo | to ota ow Betsde :
aban gtiw sols nals
wal
je x)
me ot
<sutiwpe’ to ¢
toe dese gi
oaeor reid x<o%
eat
Bw Pb 5
caus
rus LLG} we
.
we? ee
< Sie G2ines Outs af
od Rs
sd ‘ot Sect bos ,bonistase ieee: aw
Hesse dwerif
tad yt ee
edt =
edi stant reid
}
Side gh ATIIVES\. SS 2G
ew. #2 vieret Ataepefs tas etolomse = fat serlegga Tedd ;
: yas i L ey: Ag
Rae pesces bis y Yut wide Tos of [itd Sete at wl ge.
i by Te Ei@ eb } :
RES tes a Fe! f cmeuc ate weasor mie tok SIMS Kael Leng i (oa
esx - ; ues’? pldetre Fes er ne F + ie <i0"
kat died oe! iret I 9 YY GA Oo roy We A. pot fo 7% cA OOD Ba in ao) ext”
3 EAT 48S to tetoa GATE ateors’ vine wit *seats 1. Fe pe
Pa 4 , OF £0 Fads Bad LC: Pome. i ie Gs re os 9 Gt $56 oe ott wale by
ts Rieerctnei bs doreositrk Tent? oft rod te mkt oF eco Ber ‘yi a
ileus awe hex par err % . ; fer a: are “4 Bg! Pts 4
‘ 20 C Bie BE: ff 44D 10708 Bw Yys hae & Lin ns LWwwve wer & ; b
4 r+] . “J ’ & ‘ B
: re t er oTme tl wit ech Gra Saer raburt or cd nego at” an
; ; ~ jn ed
wi + we by a. | Pah a3: arks “4 if nh, er a ce*rak Loser” a L 7
OEsu ts ee “ { » abaooy od move rolled A des mas ss a a
. i as ” aS
re. ee Olaieinio off yeths ata 2 mit sth ies
. = po
fav: sigh, 27 Ga yi einoache 2 ¥ as oe y"
i
s eh oof ; ; Tare a i = | Pee
- , a TiO “lenin testa of Ir ind |
; A hes
r ne : - 0 wit ow Site barge abel hotenpexe
tay , es " ays of
a ioe " “4 es! fin of nottsexe est ear hart
(SAt ttt |
- - , A ive 1] eae Les ws ¥ to ¢ wroutstny 8 rik tHe MS : age A
wi4 an | ‘ 7 > een F A
abs 7 Wettyers CleNlere' me han ,wel Te agin saeest
a ee = bi febdien ed th ‘| ap ee =
eit qtitey oct kt Saya 28 ‘Sioa wolv at sndgiiay &
x 4 ‘ Cc” Bias 4 - y
2 Sey , ? N, ae shat aw % ¢ Seul avaw ‘war: és ‘a v f he
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )..
SECOND DISTRICT. ie J, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TestimMony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of — = in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and _ a
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
rien of) to diol .waaud 2 awnqeraiaKd I
ante yur ot ooo Jo (9eu8D haltitae pede orld 1 My
edd xifis bos bosd yin Joe otnyeted L soussnH W yuovireaT ut a
oo aiitld Jewett te wrod atelleggé Dine ai! to lesa —
onto Biol 100 to tmey edd ai ge 0 yeb- z
ad
RG eee Coden thd, |
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fpurth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine/hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice,
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justige,
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. > | f\
E. M. DAVIS, Sherif?. {
$
2 SSS ——— — =
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 1 4 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
Ber fait wee} foe, <M bot
ce
te: ,
ae rtebtg: 2aiaso “ayant
= i ‘ ts f
hice Aah cc codiaoa SoH: ie
ee €
-
SiS yaa
mo itiw-ot ye
ce belit: asw ttyo0d, ods. Lo, okie odd, a
X < a! M's \ . of Osos, Bat ae
pw Re UBL Das | sua aid al
1) gout to ofa
Gen. No. 6197.
August Cellarius, &¢. ayoeliant.
te
yw
}
°
vs Aopgal from ¥
Amanda Junker, &
Niehaus, Je +
f/
nT are any Cent in equity were Ziled by August Cel-
larius, in his individual capacity, and aq administrator of
Cited ate ty Lif. cot cee
the estate of William Ocllerius, against peers Junker, aoreiiee-
2
to set aside a change of beneficiary msde by vhe deceased, for
et (iti daice” ;
the benefit of spspeliee, in two,life insurance policiss,
and to enjoin the payment of the pdélicies to appsi+ee POLL lth ‘
id %, 1 * : >
“- The bill ailegesf“that William Cellarius, the deceased
t
Mas pin
ad taken owe life insurance policy in National Life
Association, of DesMoines, for $3,000 in
brother of the deceased, had originally bes
/
named a6 peneti-
/
lary; and another policy had been taken out vy the! deceased,
in the New York Life Ingurance Company, ebr theagua 6f $1000
ee
in which the -moéthser of the ctetessged Very /Cellarius, Hed ori-
S
cinally osen n-med as osneficisary; that Mary C ellarius died
about four years prior to the filing of ae and that
by 2 change in the beneficiary, these policies had becone
payable to the eon ate and were in effect assigned to her,
and that the deceased, in his ae for the changes of
tA
beneficiary, had designated appellee as hie "Fiancce"®
the-biti-~aise—oharredy’4 cha
or assignments of the policies, were
through fraud snd undue influencs; alao, that the deceased
~
did not have, at the time of making +
a
1¢ chances mentioned
sufficient mental capacity for the transaction of ordinary
Gof BAe? ‘atta
business. The fraud charged, is that aoeeitee pretended to
eR ERS Oe Wd i Eo as by A
alliW moxt LseqcaA a SV
-seiloqas \Tekaut be
+e we evade tl
tauguA yd beLlt* aaa $Fiues at nt 1. Qye-veascatdt oz
roteat? sia pe bas wittosass tevbivibat aid at ‘
*
SSD
~revaut pray tenteos sauktatied melli tw ‘to tet
tot .dseseosh edy yd ebem yretottensd to egfads «2 ebtes |
Sbiettod Soms ty acl etif,owt mit , sett to +ihene
SN spetsetee of eototlig eds to tremysq edt tots
Ssspssooh ent vaubaal 18) mall iin tect eegedie St
"stig Lanoiten off Be ptlog eonemient otEL bai
edt ,trsifs
x -itensd Ce
a
=? beseeoeh edt yd
o00L * a) eal rat
Fe |
ras doe
teiy Bae j
,ted cf hempleesn toetis nt. erew One ,
to eenmedo edt tot tesups1 eid ai ,beeseoeh edt tad
<aeanasy” ‘ote as Lac eee bed bean -
oa 4 5
yrtelottened en? at lene ec) ded? ootesto
¥ “Janet
PPPS ARS,
ectttene ent qe He mWooTT estsw ,setotlog ed? %
Seezeoeh oft tent oale isoneultat eubau bra bust
henotteen aepmede est wah sisn » ould eft ta” ye
Yr trey to nottesane 4 ode 103 Wttoagao Le
Pons
o¢ hebasterc aan ; jtacd: at begreito J
ries : q 4 elvee , ie mers ie i Wit om ome
be in love with the deceased at the time; and by misrepre-
sentation and decsit in that regard, she unduly influenced
the deceased, and by these rethods caused him to make the
changes.
Issues of fact were made up, and submitted to a jury
and the jury returned e verdict, finding against the contention
of, ange he court sustained the findings of the jurvg;
oe : ww” . on 4, ce Meer
and entered a decéee findirg that Le coh waa the affiancéd
wife of the deceased, and as beneficiary of the policies,
was entitled to the proceeds therecofm which-proceeds, bY
stipulation, had veen raid-inte the heands—ofthe master tr—
~~
There thn question raised in the case as to the regu=
larity cf the change of beneficiary or assignment; it being
69
stipulated by the oarties, that the policies were duly assigned
ee as
to the apeciiee in conformity with the rules and reguiations
of the respective insurance companies.
There her no evidence in the record to sustain the charges
made in the bill, of fraud or undue influence; but there tet#r~
6vidence tending to show thst the deceased, at the time of
making the change of beneficiary, was mentally incomoetent;
~
a Number of witnesses tsatified that the deceased, about the
time he made the change, was incapacitated for the transaction
of ordinary business; but there is a conflict in the evidence
on that question. The deceased had had a stroke of apoplexy
in December 1918, prior to making “he change, which had con-
fined him to the house and bed for several weeks; but there-
after he was up and sround, and attended to some business;
and in May 1913, he had another stroke, from the seffeots of
which he died. The change of beneficiary was mace on April
i9the and April 35th. respectively; that is to say, between
-stcetsin vo bose
sbeonsufiat yinbav ede ,bisget tadt al-tieosh bas: noite
fat otem-ot mit beaven eboittes sont vd bne re
Seren
ond =
ro one Te iin
ee ;
mottastmoo sit tentseze pakbe hs ope ® benutes Yuet Fal
eaymst ed? To agntbat? end ae betes | ¢iyeo SAT
fant gathctt 9 eehood 2 B b
nt + 2O
A
eretne
\Shonet tie ent eer"
* .86f0 tiog nee to. eretoltened Bs bas benaeost edt to iw
2 hk as.
“YO yersrcere dotin ¢tostedt dbecoora 38 oF beltit é
; Wea 2 PR Ae i
“eT ie bad
gy samy 2 GR? STOUR F<) Meme pte fo fy 6} . vos ‘
ot Py BY © ’ a, 3 wi tad L/ E> st *3--— . a
ear
q " ‘ - J gee ad : ; pe os gf bape ree y PE ATY as ast
2 ss f SOTO geOre f REO Sigh ses inne Soa “>
:: ; i > P ke apy
x “uget edt o¢ 85 i i a at eat rottesie, tte
: BRS \ 8:
*
“anoitoLiger be elu bat ati qtinzo? 903, at
\ 188imeomop eotstyedt evitososan.
J ‘ he
segtsdosdi aisteve ot brooss odd ah. sonebive on
“Sher stedt tud sencultat outhiy iy To buat > te ito gta
os
x to enit od? ta rboeseosh | eds tedt wods of patbnet somes.
i tets moon yiletnem Baw “ottsiottesed to jegnado edt, aa
edi tuods beseost dt tp ae befatte $s sexcoat in: a
nee tr Lhigialphl ot ane
nottosanstt ect rot bevetoageoat sw. epee. edt eben
;
6 ;
ed?
we Ae
ase
| somehive edt ai to! Lines weet oredd od peeontaud yey te to
@ ' tit Be soter 9 DO ad) a ee Pre :
yxelqogs to stort a a bed bert bee eost ont enolteacup te a
- Peet HO nieces Baal oe art. Fi
Pros, Thos bed dokde cognate 6d sabten ot ars wales.
_ to sbstomg
i. ~eteds fud Nerake Ae LeTevee 101 bed. bas seuod ay ot”
- Ag yg Bae San
on, pasonteud amon oF bebas tte bag .bauora bas qu
euv
a t2 afoe% te edd no) slots nedt ong bad o6 48
(4 j Tex PAGED: hie
“Apa ng es Set ow Maes satengd | ip eansiio
Woerted) vee oF a nae SF ME BHM
the first stroke of apoplexy which the deceased gurtenca, ond
the second one, from which he died.
From the evidence showing mental capacity, it 20 Rae yl
that he made the arrangements for a change of oceneficiar yy
after he hed surticiently recovered from the stroke to v€ up
and arounag; he had resumed his habit of going to a certain
store, where he would read the Chicago Tribune nearly every
day, and could talk awout nine about «3 well as usual,
except that his speeok was iess distinct than befor: the
oO
bought articles, which he wishes to use, ano talked wventy
or thirty minutes with the keeper cf the store, and scpeared
to be rational and mentally competent; that he met psople on
the strset, occasioneily, and taiked with them; from time
to time, went to his physician's office for treatment. It
also appears, that shortly cefore he waa stricken the first
time, he had colleoted several suma cf money, due from m=emoers
of a osnevolent apcisty cf which he was an officer, tut
had not turned the money in to the Society, nor given the
names of the members who had paid it; but after he had suf-
ficiently recovered to walk about, he went to the prover office
gave the names of the parties, sand turned in the money. Hs
also went to different places where he owed bilis, and paid
theme >
"In a case of this character, where witnesees differ 258 to
the mental capacity of the grantor and of his ability to i¢czal
transact business and te dispose of his proverty, the weight
to be given to the teatimomy of the witnesses ie much more
readily to be determined by a just chanceller than by a a
of review, which reads only the written evidence. The isw
well established in this state, that where a causes is heard
by the chancellor, and the evidence is all, or partly, oral,
|
1
Pebe@avosh 3:f$ do iit La arall to exorte staat it
‘4 f “4 4
y” ¢ ere AE Bets VED eae
SANT d dotnin ‘mors .8m0 brepse oe
7 thage® bau Wothieiee es:
+t td oagae Cedaenm gctwode eonebive. odt — ¥
sid
WEF Olsen ad to oumeric ‘S30. etaomes m8 ~ eo ait ‘ehau a ae
ri is
eee Wi
: af 2 od. efo1ite ont mort betevooet qltnetot2 tine fea ‘eal ‘Tette
“~ &isiiteo s ot gatos to tides ain Semuaor bed od iSavots ‘Sha
yisve yltess saree. agen ide, ead bast olyow
Sees @s few. se tuede (gate twewe - ae L Luge bas PAZ
oT a ee + ise 3 ay
af} “totsd mad? focltets eet SW foes: eid hand tqeoxe
to. 2e hues
e
bas ,ctote redtougs ot gnen oct . eats ‘elde gatzue tant coset
¥
yihen? bexlet Ons ,seu of bovalw od does pecioiine td
| ee : Be, a ar hun, row ae 2 ate
ey Setesuos Das: ~bicts ans to eA ed? adn eeduntn wt init
! a b+ € Sa
no elcosg tem sea tact Teepbecuos: viies ou eon 2 Leno! ‘P8t we oF,
on
“grit mort rmedd agin bedist ‘base NLL “anolasose ‘debut 2 ere:
tI .tagmtssts 101 aoitic. Ah ake otal aid ot tne ened che ::
exit eft medxuirte saw ed oxoted Vibsome: teat vsieecas Bale |
bps cm. mort eu ,yemom to enue Letevea betoelios Oo bai ot geome
tud ,teoltio ae eaw on dotnw to vteton is “ine Lovenes pe OF a
add Aevic tom ,ytsicoe ‘edt o¢ aL yecom “edd bar bent" ton bad :. } ee
; =
‘eiue Bef ef totts fud a2 bleo bad oi eutlee at edd to t capes Fee
fod SLO tecora edt ot! tnew oi tteds ALew of berevocen yivietelt
SH. .Yeuon ect" Af Beaud oak my rte edt Yo eemen edt ie!
’ te ee ic ager
bist bar qa.lid bewo od etexiv ysoslg dusts Ttth- ot tnev I —
SS ae
} mene i
. a i é
Se xSthih sesacctiv aredy tegeeralo sidd to “e8B0 s ‘nr ae
Milerei OF. Wiki de’ eid 46 bre wotnety eit <0 we leaaeo psoom ont:
Hogiow e4¢ WYereao1r aid lo seoqert at bra eeentavd fosecert
\
<
grom dour @i beesord it. ould to “monies? edt o¢ moviy ed ed of s
7 . x etter
Noes ‘a neiy wileoneto tei t 2 Ya ‘pemimrersd. ‘ed. “ot <cheaeaie
Ses 2a? Yeanive aecttow elif yimo ebest ey ‘wolyom: 3a.
brek iP K CN b avectw Hes ere etdt of beile Mdatus ey
it must appear that there is a clear and palpable errcr be-
fore a reversal will be had. In a case of this character,
where the isdue is tried by the chencellor
where the verdict of ithe jury is only advisory and may be
set aside by the chancellor, the rule should be just ss strong
that clear and palpable 6rror should apnear befere the decree
should oe reversed." (Bicgerstaff v Bihherstafl, 100 Ill. 407.)
"It ha een wisely settled in chancery casss, that 4
court of review will not disturb the finding of fact of the
chaneellor, unless apparent error has been committed; and
the ruie thus announced applies with full
»
@hancellor has submitted the case to a jury for an advisory
verdict.” (Dowie @ Driscoll, 303 Iil
<-
A
moO
Q
ee
tx]
t?
rs
w@
ct
@
Q
ct
«<!
Nicholson, 186 Til. 580.) It is not ancarent from the recerd
that any error was committed by the chanzsllor in sustaining
thé. findings of fact in the verdict of thse iury; and it is
manifest, that while there is a conflict in the evidence upon
the question of the mental capacity of the deceased, there
is sufficient evidence to prove, that he was canable cf trans-
acting ordinary business at the time of the assignment of the
posiciscs,
ppellant also asserts. that the evidence te show that
the appellee was the fianoee of the deceased, is inegu fisient;
but we are of opinion that the record discloses sufi
proof, that prior to the assignments of the insurances policies,
the deceased had been engaged to be married to annellise, and
that this engagement was the real motive for making the
assignment of the insuranse benefits tc 2pnellee.
It-ts-aleo-insisted:haefhe court ersed iw excludiag®
fobciioe was v3 aug)
evidence to show that aef was playing cards, lSuching and
having a good time in _ihe~hems of Mea. Feed dedlarius, just
“oe eidaa tp: bes Te PL9 £ Gb $z9, it
Osta: (ath! to ease e.nl hell ed
i, Wee
2/srotsd tolleoredojedt, vyajbelny al eseet sacs
yptoesivbe, vino ef, vist. sdity to toibtsy edt
Eyibtotpa se tavg ec: Sluode,.elux ont. ,rollponedo, edt: \¢d ebiew tee fs
. &
eteted tescoes Efwore xorsres efdeqlsc bas yAeso dee ae re
0 ss 6 - y ~~ Ww fs
eae €.80? will OGL. tledeweddtd yt iet exes ats) * DOG? SONS ce
bY b~ =
. 4 pie 4 : ) Suenate ere Pao) Rees
tedt e280, VIsemeds oi Lsitteu: yleatw: mec: aed FERS RA Loe
“2;
ww
&.
14
q@
@
tr
iJ
5,
J
on
: uv ae BY ier! i}
aT $d? Jo Toet: is gribndt Sait dust) tc. tom eee weryet,to\ FINO, ul
‘ a
bos ;Setiiameo meed sad, rorx1S.taeregae eeetnu rol Leongde. { '
edd dgwoitic eotet Llutidétiw setince beesteuns; eis elt)
yuoeinbs me. tol-yu§i & of seco. edt, bettindve sado LL eon
v thesémly OB £47,808 ,LLopetrd.¥ ewod) \yto texas
3
43
4
Sage
2 oft sotin¢astagse ten et fl. .(,08¢..42% 661 ‘eee lonotay
A gitnieteus. af tollecnsde sdt yd bettimuoo sew, roms vac i
J ei ti bee aytut edt Io, totbyev edt) at. tost. to° eaceg ‘ede
Sa gogy eonshive.sdt. as toifltnaoo @ af erect elidw gadis .teshtoam,
= et
Bed:
te, o> erect. beeesoeb sit ce, wiososo. Letnem odt to motteeup edt -
es Sy
¥ ; sansth tc sitaqes, Bow ex tend, ,evetc ot sonmshive tneictitwe ef. Si:
i. >
* >
hae 4 a
Pie 6ii¢ io taemmptess ect to: emit edtpde sesnterd yrentoro,ailis eek) be fi
Le io! Ht ae
avin easiotédq _
ay \ woe ot sonstive sit gedt atrenas oale tnelieccdé v< Ve ;
yh
‘ Uit@etott ment wt ,beereo adt Yo eeoaett edt esw sel loage edt)
oe EA. \ }
4 ‘ 4 ,
‘ \ tretckitwe esesfoeth Srés51 sit terlt aotaige to S78 ew. due
+. nS te § ‘a es
at ¢ ' ‘ r ’ j ae. 2°
iat jReictioy eonsiwesi oft bo etmemngtess odd ot srolzag ted? , too ij
vis ’ . fa
~~
=
bee ,ecllecoe of bettram ed of begagre mesd bed, Seeseoed edit 7
edt paitsy tot evitom [6e, edt §ay dmomepenire aids tedd
ssijeaqe of aethiensdreone want, sft, fo ean oe
a Ay
SeSisuioxs ee kee FLUO or Agee boteboat ele eto orree.
oer sateguet aburo i aka EF a tect wore ot. sonebive-
| head | pendieel beh -boeTinn owl ho omental nt emis bony) 8 £3 |
By
i is fC“ ae
: O 4
4 - FS
#
f
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
(annie
a
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
the
in the year of our Lord one thousand nin hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
AWD
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
5
=
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Jusfice.
oy
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
we Ways
es
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 1 4 101¢ the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
¥ ‘ ty z &Y q
ies: 3 io siste eat, ye rol Seee baoose ‘odd ot ‘brie
295k sat: gab Heer --BUAHGIM .M MOT oH odT- ?
ey ut ,2avGad.t RHAUG JhoH
© ,ddeald SOMAsHOd . con
iD
*
wa
bn
ote.
bey
o
7)
ra
tar”
ze
my,
ae
an
Pad
Ne
StF: 2hind, 1? 2p aretd .vEtUG LO agagoretam:
— (. tirade (2IVAd iM aa:
2 Hs
“9 thi ot abrare fs tenth
“ai “belth. 28W #xu0d add bare) noiniqo adt
pal’ bis ‘abtow oni “Bh choo bise o's
x. Pet pst &te- a4"
>, ~
eo °) Si < z 74
a 2 Eieea > “=
4 te : '
at
2s. - = $
-2s pa Se ye ~
2 , 2 Sc a
—— . i wh A i ay “S
od
Gen. No. 6314.
William Rako, appellee.
va Avpeal from Kane»
Ee. Je & Ew Rye Coe appellant.
Niehaus, J.
This is an appeal in a case commenced by the appelles
William Rako. in the Circuit Court of Kane County, against
the appellant Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company, and
G. Holland, to resover camages sustained by appellee, becsuse
of ths death and sickness of some of his cows, which was
caused as the result of cértain negligence charged in ap-
péllee's declaration.
BP m0 declaration sensicte.o:-—an-originat «and er edcaitional—
4 > : : > 7 2 heeitales -~ +
count.,.in beth. .ot which it-semalleged that the @opel * and
one G. Holland, who was .aleo.. defendant...in tne trial court
were in possession of adjoining properties, which were sepeq
arated by a division fence; that these properties joined
: ‘er Lh heh
to the right of way of the etiart Railway Company. Thet-tb
pe
wag the duty of the defendant Holland, to fodne tain-——th the division
fence between the vropertics,
bh
He
ue)
3
"'k)
fad
oO
|
[oF
|
cr
t
Cc
Le}
~
>
2
T
we
fo
notwithstanding such du
out of 1d continue out of repair, until it became
éee~yed-and.fell.dowayp and that the defendant Railway Company
negligently injured and damaged said division fenoe, and
wrongfully removed saic division fence, or yarts thereof;
ion
that in consequence thereof, the cattel of esid plaintiff
®
got into the close of the defencant Holland, and there coneumed
the green corn growing therein, whereby they were in
To each of the counts in the ceclaration, the acrellant
and Holland pleaded the censral issue, and 2 svecial plea, upon
Which issues the case was tried.
OMe WO
seileqas sit vd beonemmoo sexo 2 mi Lesqte ms et aldT
tgenispe .ytawod emeX to tarod tivet£ eds ok -oteA metll,
FER
bar ,vYaeaqned yewllsA opeteed 2 tellol .atglt tasilecge
geveosd ,ealieggs yd bemtatess eezemcsh revoosr of
4 lie nat ; Serie
“qe ai besgtredfo edméytiasn ‘atatteo “to “fitetees *
5: : . 'détinca Bosh e*
-—tasethtetes me bie fertgdte tsi ttenacres aoiterefoed edT Py
— bac Wotisees edd tacd begellsmt--#i-doidu.2o.cdoe >
me baellotl ‘ .
a
~feea stew dotdw ,esttreqotq gainiotbs to aoteseeeog at
- bentot eelirsqoiq seed? tedt jeomelt aoleivib « yd be
. shethes » erred ESS, o Ys + a :
moteivib eft~—wletnies ot ,baslloH tnebneteb eft to ytub edi
oe
jedt boe «Mott bbaot “reset at ,esitregorg ed? asewted 80
emdoesd o¢ sonst bise bettinnsa ed “~petub date gitbnetedt:
emacesd ti Lttaw .tisqer to tyo neekenue Drs. ey sore
yoegmod yewliaf tasbosish edt ted? So5 qeened
bar ,gome? mofetvib biea begsmed bas Sorpat eltnsy
ttoeredt adieg to .eonet motaivib &iea bevomer yin
titintel!qg Sise to Lettao edt ,jeeredt sonexpeunco st
hemvenoo stout bos ,hoe2l lon taeone tef edt to saute ed? off :
hats tat eTew ih qderedw vitsexedt galworg a0
a teelfeqqe edt oktere [eb edt at eiavoo edt ‘to
Tara
mequ waelg fetoege £ boxe .suact Lexenog ent b
ae
At the close of the evidence for the appellee, the ap
péllant made a motion to direct a verdict filding the appdlant
not cullty, which motion was overruled; and the anpeliant, a
he evidence in the casé, renewed the motion
ict of not guilty, which was again overruded
{2s
to direct a ver
by the court. A verdist was thereafter returned by the jury,
nding the appellant guilty, and assessing plaintiff's damages
at the sum of $400; and findine the defendant G. Holiand,
not guilty. A motion Sor a new trial, 2nd in arrest of judgment
were made py the appellant, and overruled by the court; and a
judgment thereupon entered for €400. against the appelient
from which judgment the appeal is taven
he ie
AN The proof shows,° that the aove “es Hie a dairy farmer
and owned a number of cows; that these cows had been turned
into a field which adjoined a corn field owned by Holland;
= aac vo
that the corn field was senvarated from’asselleets premises, by
a division fence. This division fence was made by poets a+%
in the ground, and wires strung along, snd fastened to the posts;
C pct liffp
and it was oduilt up closely to the line of /eessiiantta right of
a
way, but did not join onto the right of way fence.
The evide tends’ to show, that the division fenee, at
° =)
= oO
ui @
the time the c got into the Holland corn field, vas partly
broken down; and that one or two of the posts holding the
Pa
wires, had been pulled upind thrown jown, with the wires
; leat. Began te CH. fo a wy 4
attached, on the land of they re » which made a suffi-
cient opening for thé cows to get into the Holland field; and
that while in there, the cowa over-fed on the green corn;
that in consequence, two of the cows died, and 2 number of
them became sick, and were injured to such extent as to become
less taluable. But the record gut not disclose any evidence
ss - ar hy a
tending to gpexprove that ERE was guilty of #he neglb-
rk
gence charged in the declaration.
" : qe edt ,selisqas sit al eonshive edt to cia oft a
sg - b fas — ok. at
a tasléiqces edt wnfbilt tothirev s doorlb of mottom 8 eben wiht
ts .tmelleqes edt bre pbefyrrsvo eew aottom aoldw Rae oe -
trottom ect Sswenet Sess edt at Sonsbive edt ifs 36 esoLo ° i
bedurtevo Alesse sav dotdtw ,ytiiue tou ‘to foibiey & “Fosath ae
eYmwE edt yd Sbenuwiter tettsstedt asew toibiev A “stasoe outa
sepensd a'ititatelg gniegssas das ,ytitug taslisqqe edt gatba! a
Sasi lok .. tashasted.edt gatbalt Ons 21098 32 2 mana 27 7
err
; ‘ereeiiees edt Seen 008 tot AST RTAR nogueneds ae om
ar wc os ; Siexko! yah | Saae’
et fssqqs odd. dorometul Hoidn 2
rt) tert 7 mose Loo7g 20 + ha
a ie
ify
tTemtet ytreb s as
4 donut pss. fad Hoo. Sead! seco oe AS sas pa) TPS s be cana 5
| ve fo ue begwo. plats M109, & bentotbs aigisw J bieti. 20!
yo (aeeimera. cack 1oT% etstsoes, ean blsii mtop. eit tear
qeteod aid ot benstest bas as wie asiiw bos, PRE: ett a
to tdgit « Ralleese to satt Liha o# xfseote qu tLlus, Bei bt bee 5
—
-poriet yen to tdgiz ed} otao alot tom bth, tud he
te ; sedes gotetvib Sat. sedt eee og “ebrst, comebive, ent. - eae
Se &” Se
yitzag eev ,bfett mroo bael foH eit: “ote t. tog awoo ede. ae
sit umtblod steog ect to owt 109, o29, tedt. bas? ¢atwo! _aeiox
esiiw edi atin. ,awob awotad bisque ceiling aecd Lec 466
~icttue o phan. decile, sbi réeqe\sii io bast edt m9) dedos oo
bose jbleit boellok edt otal tee of awoo eds tod, -pataeco: toes
i@TOO meety edt ao bet-zev0. ewoo (odd .etsc? ah elidw #
| 9 xedmun s bose ,beib ewoo ,ed? to.owt eemeupeamos at dad:
.. ‘emooed og be toetxe dove of Detufal ate bas 92 aot aaeeedel
1% sonebive yas eaolcelb tom aped bigoer edi dua. eldeutan | 7
ve: boty
a Bere Fs,
aN | qfgen BY to Ye Ltirg ae eT ted? ovoxgxeg of .gatbe
*
ics, Pas
o tA Laut es hate
i
The only evidence which connected the spreitiant with
the matter ateir, Uf to the effect, that about S weeks prior to
(ct A AU E PIE & op
the time when the cows became sick, some of saegelliant*s fencs
builders had worked on the right of way fenoe, at the plaee
in question; end had substituted woven wire for the barbed
wire on the right of way fence; but there %@ nothing in the
evidence to justify the inference that this work by the
ee cael? om
employes of the ax -xtrt , ould have had the effeot, even
if it were negligently performed, to in any manner intsre
fere with or disturb, or break down ths division fenee
tC)
which was entirely disconnected from the right of way fence;
cr
p>
ao
fas)
ha
by
om
a
ct
o
rh
nor could it possibly have had t
pulling out any
Pd
4
cr
oO
he posts of the division fence, And the positive evidence
at
it]
to show, that the employes did net in any way cause
any of the posta of the division fenes to be pulled out, nor
fall jJown or break down; or to be
3
ry
cause any of the posts to
h, or disturbed in any wanna. /—
Under theae circumstances there can be no recovery azrainst
the appellants; end the judgment therefore is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Finding of Facts to be incoroorated in the Judgment.
We find from the svidence that the aonellant was not zuilty
4 3
of the negligence charged in the
. 4 - P at Tp Aq * ~ fe oa
v@&
-
. ficsee adit betoennon sotdw ncaa hee vine sit
. ot og avysaw & twods tadt ,tostie edt of DN phiete cotton © odd
ba 4 _ . \ i
sonst a; eee a to smoe ,2ote Smeoed awoo edt asdw ext? ‘eid
seelg edt te ,30m91t Yew to tigis eat, 59 panon bec erebiiud
th
bedisd sit tot extw nevow betutttedye bed ae Oe Sea at
edt of satiton Se oxedt tod (Goce Fa yew to tigts edt 0 extn
: ’ iy eee ni
edt yd Axow eidt dsdt sone elnt edd vitveut of eonebtve
o£
“~ ; '
neve ,.tostis sat bec eve Hivoo Sete edt to eeyolams
2 OM
eystntl rsanss yos at od bem Lreq | tees giigen o18w tt Rt
sone) moleivib eit awob gerd reid a te ‘to dd bo ‘ener
°
ad
~eomst yew to eee edd ott betpennogatt yleriias « a.2W ‘do idw
* bere few UB
YOs tuo gottiug to toet} Seat best Sv.8e yidbesog tt biuoc som
eonehiye evitieog ent sdk esomet mofetylb Dd to ig te edt so)
sayso Ya yas of tog bib apyolgue ont bed wore or
ton (tuo Belting 8diod eonet notetvEb edt 3 to avaog aoe oyna
.@0 of TO ¢mwos desid to awot, [£st, od afeoa ect to yas seria
JY reanen, yous ok bodaute te te) itty borotredal
tentess Uxsvooss on ed 189 etedi seonet emuc ns engi ‘reba
ebeerevet ef erotered? diremgbu | edd bee jetmellecgs eddé
sbpersyot qpemeaile na
etoemgbul ett. ad beter zoom sd ot etoot to gaibalt
vilius ton ash trelleqce edt thdd’~Sondbive edd mor net ew
. efotterslooh eri mt beg tado eonogll gem ener ito
Rs ie Eg
barat Fibive, ij =] iis ig © 2 : s
. d aby ta a3 W twonuy ¥ -
“hy . f
er 4 iY
iy f ‘
‘ i)
& ny ot
Vo ¥
0 iG
a
7 : hy,
nat wis Pd iJ “ AMS La ee.
se * pata,
be atch sie a
sively tt cmb x Gay ) on £h Le?
no {Ls
STATE OF ILLINOIS, | ee
SECOND DISTRICT. ae J, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and =e
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
: : “ £ fs) Vw ae aed Lo =
7 « - “/< -
‘alOUtddl 10.
sisiloyg/ oft to dno praqud Oo aumaereaind 1 SSOIITEIA EKO
ziriosest add to vaqeud bow eionilll to eint@ edd to dointeiO baonee bine sot bie
io
eottoe yer ai brooet jo seis boltias svods ont ai tto00
ont zifte bar bus gor doz ofuyvored I xoaanEW ynomiraaT ni” —
—. stlt .swettO dn t1u0D otslisqgA bisa odd to Isoe
9n0 ‘oes aye to s9% odd gi. seta etelisonmeen newest sh
~
pene tiasa tps ee a hesbugg ontist basanordt
eg = leer fA eget = Se oe
| SI, * tT eee Comer ror See ee 4
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, /
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justicg.
| Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. ©)
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk,
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. :
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 14 191¢ the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
te os _ ; . wy - a Sa 2
~TRUOD BTAIITIIA HHT FO MART A TA
= .° -
tet adi
Pema aarcytpie . ‘
efirgA to ysb ditsyot edt ,ysbesvT oo ,swsti0 te bled
‘ -
.sottaul gaibteetd ,2UAHTIM .M WHOL .coH sdT-~
,ootteut ,QHNMA0 +l AMAUG .aoH
© - o, © \sotiaul ,1IX@Id BOWARAOG .noH |
% = a = Pe Fy ‘ ~ : . F hos ]
-ivefl) ,YVIUG .9 AHGOTaTAHO -
‘Ytited@ ,QIVAd .M .@
co :tiw-o? ,ebtswtelts isd} ,CERXEMEMGR-TE 2a. 7 @
at belit asw d1w00 edr 20 mofaigo sdf Arpt h | ASA = @
eAtogit bos ebrow ed} ai ,d1mwo0d bise 1o soertio atateld
Gen. Np. 6045-6
a f if. . en
RAO SS aaake Fett
OAM &
William Fleming, et—al
appellees.
VB Arpeal from Will.
Ee. J. & E. Rye Cow
appellant.
PER CURIAM:
One of the Judges of this court tried this cause
in the court below; and the other two judges are divided
in opinion upon the question whether the judgment should be
aifirmed or reversed; the judgment is therefore affirmed by
operation of. laws
Binder v Langhorset, 159 Ill. App. 493.
|
|
|
.
pe’
ose
Ma tS Maat A TA
me
ia 0a
abe
age rook 3 ees
ie eee SLLLEW
: » syne mee Grnees
LLtW mox? teoq ae,
‘ +00 oR m4 ad to
a
7
-tmelteqss -?
: -_
3
\ . -rMATAUO fat
seueo eins belat “°° aidt to eosbyul sdt to end |
bebivib ote eeybut ows rsdto edt Ons jwoled toyoo edd mt
; ;
a
ed biyode taemgbut edt zpidtedw soiteeup edt noqu sotmigo at
. 4 = a
yd bemrttie stotered? et rym edt EROS TOTES: ‘to bomz. z ha
. | ewsl .to aottexege
a
Ses -aak ȣ5T) ees wetodgne] v tebmih
" ;
aie ——
eel
SAH OF LLULNOUS,..\02,
SECOND DISTRICT. (eee I, CHRISTOPHER ©. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Seeond Distriet of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appeliate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TesTiIMONY WHEREOFR, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ae
day of — in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and a ee
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
was SI1OKUVIIdI IO
sigiisqad odd to dash) oeagsd 2 samiorelnHO 1 TOMITEIC AhOome
ej to noinigo ord lo 7q0e sunt & «i Boioyei0) ond dedd YUITAWO YadsaH Od ested
otto yar of btoost To seus beltitas svods sdé si d10O aie {
adi zifis bas bosd gin tee ofnuoisd J OunaRW vxomiTeRT ul
i... add sewattO Je .tt0) etelleqgA bine odd to fase
so Prod wie to 1eey edd oi
2. _bae berhand omnia basesode
—_
_
a ee ee ee ea, eee ee ee vai ¢ wit
— -
fn ie te tare a Ba Sh eS, I Oo ti -
Fi
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the Pourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, presidige Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, clerk. : “2 oS)
-E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 2,6 191¢ the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
Iirqa te ysb dis
,asestxia bas Soy bers soim baseuodt eno broJd Bes: edt
t a >.
serontiIifit toa eet? cc to foittard ‘briovee edi rs ‘bas at
Snitapt Diciaest .
2RUALAD a “aMAUG oH
Loottant ,
coitoul ,2d¥aTC HOwARaod 1108
Se Se Bo dey Se, . ; . axef2 ., YTTuG 9 AUHAOTE TAH |
9 ete a :
yo to A SAD 6. algerie (S1VAC .M a!
sd = SS ee ee ee fi i SS
er PSB 4” BBL eS
ge z S!
: : : Sido were Wigs =
geass tA SSB EAE Sopa: By iba:
. i ce ‘A
. # § et
tic fiw 64° sebtawaedts tedd
nt belii 2ew tmu09" aid “$0 Holmbao ode
di ni
Da) oa
Biot’ ¢
ne
seroagtt bas
§ -
‘ Seas 4
7 » *
“
:
7
S
é
"
e eS %
>
_
Ite
_———
Gan. No. 6168
Edward B. Kreis, aprellant
al from Rock Island.
©
vS App
The County of Rock Island. et al
Dibell, P. J.
owner and
@
4 rawara B. Kreis, a citizen, real estat
tax payer of the city of Rock Island, filed a bill in equity
against the County of Rock Island, its supervisors and its
jail building committee, to enjoin the county from ouilding a
ew jail on the west side of the public square, and ¢g=ve
notice to defendants of an application for a temoorary
injunction. Defendants appeared and filled affidavits denying
ra
many of the allecations of the bill. Complainant moved
for a rule on diefendants to plead, andwer or demur before the
for an injunction was heard, and also moved to atrike
the affidavits filed by defendants from the files. Each motion
was denied; the court heard the motion for an injunction
uoon the bill and affidavits and denied the motion and dis-
missed the bill. The affidavits and exhibits thereto were
preserved by a certificate of sha eee toe dteuec edna.
from thet-deereen
hd
Dianne, Catholic Bishop, vs The County of Rock Island,
in which the supreme court filed an opinion on April 320, 1916
wes 2 Simiar bill for the same relief, and the record nn
this case shows that the motion for an injunction in the
Dunne case was set for the same day as the motion in this
a
case. In that case the court dé
ti
nied motions to compel the
defendants to plead and to strike affidavits filed by the
defendants from the files, and dismissed the bill. In that
ease the affidavits were contradictory to the bill, snd it
89L8
tnsifeaqs ,eterd ab 8
, ogee
fe te -bostel woo to ytaued odT
-
»boeletl YooH mort LseeaqqA ev
saselleqgs .
| om me
ire renwo efetee [eer ,.meattio s ,siem .& busebT NR ae i
yitiope nit [lid s belft Saale ZooH to ytto eit to TOYEQ xed f
edi bus stoeivisque ett ,basileI Xoo to einaio oy Pandey ,
6 gutbitud mort yttwoo edd mtogns ot ,esttimmos bie ae
6ven Sane .eteupe otldygq odd ‘Yo sbhta teow edt mo Ltst won é
Yrerormset « tol moitsoifgqgs xs “ts atnsbroteb ot 7
eutyosh efivebitie belii tne LOtn9 cee etmebine tof snottoau tat
bevow taéctelqmod .[ftd ed to anotterefle edt to ve
ect sroted mwmsb to tewbos ,baelq o¢ etmebaeteb mo Slur s 1
eiitts ot bevom oats bois ,brsed exw moitonrtat oa rot mobtom ; Re
mottom dost .eelit scit mort atmebnoteb yd beltt ettive bitis ont
noitsotnal ae tot mottom edt bised tryoo sdt ~betmeb ean s
~8ib bar molttom edt balash bre ativebiite bos {f{td ont. sow a
erew ofersdt stidtdxe bas evivebitts ecT .[ftd edt beeatm — a
i ah 9
; ~t bee ~somsoive to etsoltitise « yd bovsoverg
—
effet (08 ftacA no nolatqo os beltt #00 emetone: edt doidw at
mi broost edt bas teller emse oft tot Iftd watmte © eew a
z eft ai motioaytat ae tot mottom sdt tedt awode ‘980° ens
’
ag aise mt anottom edt es yeb emee edt rot tes esw Seso enim ..
n. sat ‘Isamos ot emoliom betueh tryvoo edt easo tadt al heed” *
edi yd bolit ad ivebltis exXivte ot boe baely ot atusbasted
tedt ql .Lltd edt boas ime be bos ,eeltt out mort etasbas + ne
28 bap .flLio ect of Pere eee sow e¢iveblite
was held that they could not be received for that puroose
till the bill had been answered. For the reasons stated by
the supreme court in that oninion the court below erred in
this csse in refusing to rule the defendants to plead and in
refusing to strike from the filles the affidavits filed by
defendants. It was therefore held that uvon the denial of
‘the injunction, the court should not dismiss such a bill
before any pleading by defendants, unless it appsared from
the bill that it couid not be so amended as to state a
case in equity. In this oase, leaving out of consideration
——- sil other aliecations of the bill upon which the prayer
Pa
for relief is based thie, ©
pe
ll charged that the County of
Rock Island was indebted beyond the constitutional limit
and that the cost of the new jail and other matters intends
to be built in connection there ith would be so great that,
even with the avails of the bond issue which the pecple had
voted, still the indebtedness to be oreated by said work
would be beyond the constitutional authcrity of the County to
create/ These allezations, if true, would justify the relief. It
ceneral and should set out the amount
3
©
a
Go
©
ck
Se
0
«?
po
ry
1o}
c
oO
oO
2)
ra)
of the County's indebtedness, the assessed value of its taxable
property, and should show in greater detail that the building
of the new jail would involve the County in an unconstitutional
debt; but if it was too general, it could be amended, and the
allegations were sufficient in that respect uniess suestioned
by demurrer. It was therefore error to dismiss the bill.
The deoree is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
> Sad e ' =e
eacciwwg tedi rot bevisoet sd tom blyoo yedt sheet bled _ SSW
yd betstea snoesox sit tot »hotewsns teed dei fiid edt _7fhe
ren
mi berres wolsd tryoo edt ftofmigo tert mt twos smerque edt
mt bose beelq ot stmebaeteb odt olin, ot artevter, ies gase. atdg
yo beltt etivebiits sdt eettt oii? -mozt oxtrte of antautez
to feinesh edt aoqu tact bled exckeredt ssw oI .atnsbss ish:
fIfid se dows astmeltd toa Sivode #rue9 edd ao isedggat edt
mort betseeqge ti sesiau .etasinsteb yd artbselg yas etoted
_, & stete of es bsbhacme o8 ed toa bivoo tt tedé Litd edd
agiterebienos to tyo gatvesl ,8eso eid AL Ve inpe me peso
| teysic edt dotdw mogs Liitd. sat io enoltsnelis
to ytawod edt tedt begtedo [itd ) ZBeesd al. ‘Yellex. a
dimt£ Ienottyd ttegos edt Sroyed betdebat ban Scslel Acon
bebuetat eretten redto.bas Liat wea edt to teoo edt. tedt+ bas |
siadt testy os ed bluow it fexsds aoftoeaneo ai tliind sd_ot
bed efqoeq edt doldw eveai Saod sat te, elisva edt dilw asve
¥rovw bise yd, betsezo ed gt eesnbetdehat edt LLtte stoy
ot ytauod edt to Yiitodiue Lsnoltutttenos edt Saorvsd gaye tat
tI .teiles edt yiitey, Gtvow ,eurt tt ,ecoltegetle seodT wetsero
tayome edt tug tee Sf{uode Soe Lstemsg oof exs ysdd ed yom
eldaxat sit io sulsv bedeenes odd ,eaechetdeaal e!ytawod edt to
poibl[iud edt ¢adt [fsteb rstaetg af woda bivoge bas «Yttsgotg
fenottutttenooay ms of Ye mayoD edt evlovat ASluow fis wea edt to
edt bas ,bebnems ed bilyoo tt Lerenes oot sew dt at tud ytdes
benoltteasp eesinu tosqesr tedt of tag iotiive STOW _anolitageitle
-fitd edd aetmelh ot torte sioietedt sew t1 .teriwmed iW
-bebosmet si eeuso oft dae beatever etoisisd?d et eetoeb ed?
al
shebasmet Ore heatevafl
,
By
t
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
SECOND DISTRICT. (SS 1, CuristopHEeR C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of __in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__ a
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
atellaggé oft Jo Ava add 1) siandoramnnd tI . * . TOURTENG
eho odd to soqoodt bas .zioatfll to sil? odd Lo toittei bros bisa 108 bas
ont lo noidiqn old to ygoo aut 8 Bi Bios rol odd judd YaLTAaD yuunaH od tos
softte yar at brose1 to_,sauno boltitae evods old ot two allen
odd xifte bus bred vor fae olmmeted T soudueW yvuomiteaT ul
vidd .cwatiO te d1009 axtsllagaA hise ond to leew
ono Hil wwe to wey odd oe tO RB
— — >. bos bevbaud asin basevodt
— ——— ie ee
aan shaiauah was Xo dally a ay ee rey
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and ,for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice,
2
=
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice). oe a
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. as —— =o Kel
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
=a eee © Sees = a
|
é
i
:
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 2 6 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
- ‘eh
os
-firqA io ysb dtru0t sdit
asasxta bas
19°
- seronarlit to stste ont bie)
,agitaul, edibiaetd ,
sorte
w
to]
~
te
oo
c
on
’
¥
oe
SNE.
a aa
wy
'
\
A ae
' a
a G
—
oO
- = os, - .
7 LOE RES ae. 5 Pe =
: SS 4g. <x ETRY SEIS
7 .
ao a s * My ie
: ‘ a
= mete G + es x ¥ -
: eee x ny ‘ bes
\
I
mo ithw-os ,ap
ni bsflii asw fagov sri
astyait Das abtow eit Ri ¢
© ne
rt ee =e,
.yebaept no cewstt0-te Bis
betbeud sain basesods eno frol tu0. to Th
_BSWAAD
-INSIG. ZOMASHOG . cok
Yet .2
Ttbtode”
TSW
Le ROEM Ss edt
Tas
tteid,bmo0e8 edd 10%, bas i
gUAHSIM .M HOU .a08 siT--tase
u-amaua oH, “a
.
ay
ABHIOTSIGHS ned
—
t ES
ue
F
* ; nie oe oe
= tty wm ne =
j
f
+ R x Sede te te ke sees
rs ae oe See aks 3 Hee
7 By
SUEY. kPa as heer
‘
; tak ay 3
Zé
Base ¢
Bis Ps Eas ear
Fi
ee ae ce =
CJ a.
as
oi ts reds
gt
Gen. No. 6810.
George J. Burkheimer,
Deft. in error.
vs Error to Peorids
CO. Re ls & Ps. Rye Co»
Pitf in error.
Carnes, d.
George J. Burkhsimer, plaintiff pelow (defendant
in error here)was, on November 33, 1911, acting as s motorman
for the Peoria Railway Comoany, and after ten o'clock at
night while he was running one of its cars over a crossing
at grade of the Chicago, Rock Isiand & Pacifico Railway Company
defendant below (plinaintiff in error here) an engine of ¢
efendant running at a high rate of speed and in violation
of a city ordinance, collided with the plaintiff's csr in
flicting on him serious bodily injury, for which hs brought
this action, and after sucoessive trials had verdict and
judgment for 42000 from which judgment this writ of error
is prosecuted. The verdict is small considering the serious-
gess of the injury. There was no question that the de-
fendant was guilty of negligence in running its trains in
violation of the city ordinance which limited the speed
to six miles per hour. The svidence fsirly shows that it
was running at a much higher rate of speed. It is not
claimed that any error occurred in admitting or rejecting
evidenos, or giving or réfusing instructions except in re-
fusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. A reversa
4 c
is sought here solely on the ground that the plaintiff was
not in the exesroise of due care for his om safety at and
immediately prior to the time of the injury. It is admitted
if he was in the exercise of care he can recover ind s:id
if he was not in the exercise of due care it makes no dif-
~-OL68 .of .men
,romtedatavd .L egroe) ©
«torres nt ~tted
setrost of tort av
660 WY 62 BR WT AD
etorre of.) THIET
~-L #80780 >
tnoshboeteb) woled ttitatsiq ,temteddiwd .b eg1ose
nemtotom 8 ef gnitos ,fLef .e& teadmevoM mo ,ean(sted torte al
te dAoolo'o met tettese bose ,yasqmod yawl lish altos edt tot
gmtesoto s tsvo eieo ett to smo goinaut caw off eLidw tiogia
yaeomod Yawited ofttoed % bnalel Aso ,ogeotdd edt to ebetg te
edd to enigae as (eted torre at tittatelg) woled tasbmetek —
aotteloiv at bag beede to eter dgid s te gatanur tasbae tes —
ai tao e'ttitaielg edt dtiw bebtifoo ,eomsmibio ytio s to
tdguord ef dotdw tot ,yrutat yitbod eyotres min ao gattoilt
bos totirev bad eletit evtaceoowe tetie Ons ,moltos eidt
nore to tixw aint taemgbyt dotdw mort 000&$ tot taemgbut
-euotrea edt gattebtenoo flsme at toibrev edT .betwoesorg ef
-9b edt tedt molteeup om esw ovedT .ymwtmt edt to aseg
at entert etf gatnnvi of eonsyifger to yilivug asw tasbaet
besce edt botimti doldw eomentbhbto ytie sdt to moltsloiv
ti tedt ewors yfitist eomebitve edT .awod teq selim xta ot
ton et ¢1 .beegqe to eter redgid doum s te gainayt aaw
anigoete1 ro paliiimbse at betiwooo. torre yas tadt Semislo
-st mt toeoxe eanottouttent gnisuter ro gnivig ro ,eomebivs
Lesrevet A .tarbmeteb edt 102 tolbrev s toorth ot goteut
sew ttitalelo edt tedt bowots eft so ylsloe ered tdguoe af
bas ts yteltse awo aid tot ereo eybh to eatotexe edit ofl tom
bettimbs ef #I .yustat edt to emt edt ot tolrg vistelbemmt
biew baer 1svooet meo en exso to catorexe edt ob eew, od | tL
-m « & os) a at at
Sea ee Ce ee ee abet See ee ee ee ee ye SO ee ee ae
73
4
F
ference whether the defendant was cuilty of negligence or
not. We sre asked by both parties not to remand the cause.
The record dces not show the number or result of preceding
trials; but appellant apparently prefers that we affirm
the judgment rather than reverse and rem-nd the case for
another trial. We have therefore examined the evidence
with a view of determining whether the trial court would have
been justified in directing a verdict for the defendant,
and, if not, whether we sre warranted in reversing the case
with a fi nding of faot that the plaintiff? was cuilty of
contributory negligence.
a The plaintiff had worked Sor the Peoria Railway Com-
pany 28 motérman for about three weeks and had no prévious
street car experience. His instructions from his empleyer,
which he understood and before the time of the ac
Q
ident
obeyed, were to bring his car to a stop before orossing the
defendant's road ana wait for his conductor to proceed on
to 2 a ea cross. His
ne
be that he was inte ng to f stop his
theory of the case
car at the time in question but that it was dark and snowing
and he wes relying on an slectric light that the defendant
maintained over the pv PErue to guide him as to the place
to stop; that at the time the light was not burning end hs,
misled thereby, drove on to the en ees ing without kneging’
where he was. The evidence ws « ‘conflictin iz O
tion whether it was anowing, and it sh err ae ae shor
hat there were other means from which the plaintiff might
‘or
haye known that he was approaching the lee ce a reading
of the rscord we are inclined to the oninion that ordinary
prudence would have guarded the plaintiff? asxasg scainst the
accident and injury. But it was a question for the jury,
dit eth
arte me
to sonszif{sen to ytitus esw tnsbaeteb edt isi¥ea! “ocdotes
seuso sat boemex ot ton eeltreg dtod yo ‘Setar ‘ote Fy ie Fon
gafhsostq to tinest to redninr ‘ert ‘wode Yon aesob brooet ost
mrivts “sw tedt eretsrq ylinersqge tislfsoas tud peleisd —
tot easo edt Bacmet bas earevet aedt redtsr tneimebyt ‘eat
sonebive edt bentmexe oroteren# over SW .istrt r)edéome
eaved biluow tawoo LIsixt sdt tedtedw aatatmreteb to woiv 2 en
(énabbeoteh sit vot tolbirsv Ss ‘srffoerib nf bettiteut need 2
Sets Sd ‘snterevet wt beviterrew ets ow xs ifte dw vtor Y Sine Sy
Yo NEL Aes eew Pirftatsig eHh Fett Fort to iffiin fe S “tie - ;
‘Veonsstigen Wititad fb |
~ot Yahi fea sProeg SHY roy betvow bed 2¥ttatetd a a ;
evoivera ‘oh bet Enh extbely Getat tuo. “0% hamtetom SE leg
~ Jeonsttcoxe tec Youtte —
SeaBrose iyi ee SAS r oe ° bas? boebetebdl Si Hofitw
ent gntedre Sroted gots ‘se aS or hae etif sniid ot ‘erew Ligeti =
no besoore o¢ otoubnoo et YoY” Grew bn bsor™ ettaedusted
+
ern.
eit aoite XR ov enrténetat saw od save Po ad edy Yo" yrds ‘ y
gniwode bre Ateb dew tS tenth tid ‘molteeup! rt ‘emt? ed? ts to |
grabaeteh ‘oft Hert Foti otrtosfe ne no grtyled ecw et bia
sostt eft of es mtd ebive of gmtesore Sdt ‘revo bertstntem
~ed ‘bre untetid ton esw tegil edt emt} Sat te Fenty (yore ot
‘gattent tuodtiw enteedts edt ot no ‘evorb “Ydersdd beTetm \
-eeup edt go onttotctngs We eohebtve eft ‘Veew eit Sretw—
wre ot ebret a tensntis et Bie <pritwone &nw $i verted nmott |
fipin Vtitetely ott Motif most enesh? Yeltte erew Breit Fens
~
unkbeey + ean’ dost? eff ‘sntdosorggs eBw eo fat woth ovina
yreatbro tent motatco edt oF bentiont sir ew brooet edt” to
eet téentene Beexee arsenate edt sodanaiel ever ere bonsburg a
and the trial court sould not have directed a verdict
without weighing conflicting evidence, which he is not
permitted to do. And while we are not sstisfied with the
verdict, and were this the first trial might regard it our
duty to reverse and remand the case on the greund that in
our odinion the verdict is against the weight of the evidence
on the question of the plaintiff's vare, sekkkz& still we do
not regard the evidence so clear and satisfactory on tha t
point as to warrant us in determining the issues here by
case. Plain-
oO
reversing the judgment without remanding the
tiff's duty to stcp his car before reaching the crossing
was one that he owed to his employer and not, so far as
this record shows, to the
the exercise of ordinary care in wutitikmg cuiding himself
as to the place te stcp and madé a mista
arily prudent man might make under the circumstances, is not
free from doubt. There is room for a réasonable difference
of opinion on that subject. Therefore the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Niehaus, P. J. took no part.
a ve. i >, ' i
- 4 ' - vThe.
T< SAE, A} f J + Fn : vi - veal W Oy . nM
eS eae tA’ Vacdieee i
y j a: } Py
. 7 ‘ o ?
a . Lake hy
Ape ha
glad :
oe a)
a a
_tothrev s bstgetin eve toa biyow gxuos o faint
_tonm.el of doldw ,sonehive saitotfinos gatdgtew
oe
aut dite hottettae ton 976 .0t ate Pas, 98, of Ante _
“we sh breget tdgie tatst text? ext gidt eey bag ytobiaan
al fsdt baworg edt oo $859. aadt. basset, Aas. seteyet 2ot ¥
somebive ed? to tdgiow odt sagen ai votbiev oft notataa of °
ae a
hice
te ete eeuest ent ery ai ey toetiew rei ie tal oied
Dns
asisIT, 9869 eft gathasses tudti tmempbyt edt a
oe ae
_ Mecnia gathiug gutnetey sh STAR 5 Hiatee, pee
-eutbro as tadt exstaim. © obem doe,gote ot. thy otis
toa es eeouetensotig ect rebar oxen tigin sem taoburg zs
eomeTtotish | eldsnosset S toi moot et eredT pot Meh TRACE
Te BS
-heutiiie al. toomgoyt. ert, erotersdT.....tostdue, adil
~~ wee
a
‘ . 4
: nt Qote de oF prttie roP OTE Apna od veo bit!
eh ged | rf ISTE WWE we
git ufates!® fa ao Baty se" ac" et ret
4 Be rtd’ skius of gotiteoro sd¥ ‘xavo bortsyvhtee
} entt+ ut fs Fath aos ‘ba
tro svorb. aed belela
|
“ bs Fad”
wiih ' =
idetltnon Se soteBtve eff! Veew oH ‘sTetw
a a>
s ’ | a LA
’ «> Mewode ine’ .patwone err 32 toited Nott
wy ——.
¢ : 4 = ¢
~ Birhi> niin Peete’ mt a A i. > Sra
‘olrdw mort wastes? tette szew syed Fame
Lia
be losorotyh Faw 6a tails ‘nwo : ov
iT? tebi¥o '22 54 bewllont tia ty eerie
ula ae
df Pa: 7 TWiswnlalq eit be sbrewy evad %. es r
Ul eady ott Wet api Fabuy’ af bah "oY Yee Spatial bak! del
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ls
SECOND DISTRICT. Se
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this =
day of- _in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine bundred and ete =e
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
| tOUIIIE FO
stelloygA off to vol .eaaud 2 awnsorenn PF] POLITEIG CM
ebsuoen at to weqecd bre .ionill to sint@ edt te dormt]eiO baosea bise sot bas 1
out To moturyt. out te vipos und a wi gnivgatot ont dodd Vue vaasan od jostods J
© « vifto yn nt brevet Jo saugy balditis ovods ond at vito) Byratet
ods vite hoo bas gm tee otioued TL oss vvomiraaT “wb .
—_ eit arasdtO ta dso atatlogg 4 bine odd to {soe
onto [renal vit to eo add mf 2. — __ -__. __ to yb
2 bs both! onin beweuodd
an ng Ee ig | ln s55e ee’, hem
| AREY Aotbaak SAUXG AOD ieee eee,
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE ae
E;
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
j
in the year of our Lord one thousand ning hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of Ane State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justijee.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Just{ee.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. }
E. M. DAVIS; Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
APR 2 6 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
' sdi ,ysbasuT oo rewsdt0 ts |
,asetxte bas borbeud gata basevodt eno brod: ‘Two to. 188,
:efo0qaLilii to giste sd 20, fottiard | edt ot bas a
.
soiteut gaihtees? ,QUARaIM ue wnot uae:
4 :
: ,sortagl .@G4SA0 ,L TAAUC . aon
id
4 a
edtftaul , liad SOMARZOG . col:
Pi $2 8° nest Syequa .o AIHGOTeTAHO
»
6
F ~
ae Ex as, a8 eS iy eee
a Pt
eo
powwgt) ‘bas abiow acs at
> =
Gm. No. 6171
C. V. O'Connor, appellee
vs Apvoeal from Boone.
P. R. Kennedy, appellant.
Niehaus, J.
_ This is a suit brought in the circuit court of Boone
County by the appellee, C. V. O'Connor, a merchant doing
business in Belvidere, against the appellant, P. R. Kennedy
who was the owner of a farm near Belvidere, to recover com-
missions for services which the appellee claims he rendsred
under an agreement with avpellant to procure a purchaser
for appellant's farm, and for services rendered in connectbon
with the sale of the farm to Theodore Schwebke, the purchaser.
The declaration contains the common counts, and a special
count alleging, that appellant acreed with appellee, to pay
him a usual and customary commission of two per cent on the
saleprice of appellant's farm, for procuring a purchaser for
the farm and that appellee did procure such purchaser,
namely Theodore Schwebke, who bought the farm for $33,000.
It appears from the evidence that the acpellant, who
is now a resident of Los Angeles, California, previously
resided in Boone County; he owned the famm in question, con-
sisting of about 317 acres, which was situated in the
Township of Belvidere; that prior to his removal to California
he tried to sell this farm; and so in March 1912, offered
it to Theodore Schwebke; but Sohwebke said, he was not so
situated as to be able to buy the farm,at that time. After-
wards in the month of July, of the same year, Schwebke
went to the clothing store of the appellee, and inquired
if he knew where appellant was then living; that he wanted
to ascertain the price for which the farm could be purchased.
95-6 a, oe 4 4 ‘eo ot ae ee ©
eSsmoo08 moti LseqgA av
etneifeaqas .ybenned .ff Wea
tb .euedel—=
>
emeod to tusoo tivotio edt ai tdguord tive « et afdT
gaitob fnsdotsm 2x ,tonmo0'O .V .o .selleqqs edi yd ysayod
ybennsd .A .¢ ,#melicqgs edt tentege ,ersbivis& at asenteud
=~
-moo tsvoost of ,etebivie® 1s9sq mist e to temwo edt eew odw
bevtebast of emisio ssifsqae sit doitdw esotvisae az0t amolsetm
teasdoIg 8 emoorg of ¢aslieqcs dtiw tasmesige as treba
moétcennoo at bsxebaet seotvies tot bas ,mtst a'tasileqcs sot
etsesdotuq ed¢ ,eidewdo®? etoboedT ot mist sdt to else sdt diiw
fsioege = bane ,etmuoc mommoo edt amteitaoo aottszsloeb sdT
ysq of ,eselleqqs diiw beetgs tasiieqqs tadt ,gatgeiia ¢asoo
ed¢ ao treo teq owt to gcolecimmoo yrsnoteuo bee faves s mid
tot reesdotme s animoorg tot ,mret e'tnelisaqcse to eofigelse
.teestomg dove emyootq bib eelfeqas ted? bas mret edt
.00C—.,g6$ tot mret edd tdguod odw .eidswdoe erobosdT yiemen
odw .tasifeacs edit dedd sonebtve edt mort exseqqe sI
yiavotvstd Siatoiilsd ,eslegnA sol to taehiest 2 won at
—105 aottssup ot mast edt benwo sd yytavod emood al banedee ae
edt st betavtie xew dotdw ,eeros TIE tuods to gattete
starotifad of Levomer atd ot tott¢ tect yetebivied to qidenwoT
beretro ,&{CL doreali nt os baer jmzst atdt Ifse ot bettt ed
os tom esw of ,bise sidewdo®? tud ;eddewdo& etebosdT of st
-tsttA .oemtt+ tedt ta, met edt ywd ot olds sd ot es betautie
eidewio® ,tsey emes edt to ,.yfut io démom edt at abisw
betitupnat base ,sef{feqaqe sdt to stots gatdtolo edt ot trew |
betaew od tedt ggatvil aedi eew tasileqcs etedw went od ‘Mh
»bessdomd ed biuoo mist edt dotdw zot eolzq edt ateise08e
4
pee a a ay oT
‘
\
ity yy,
The appellee thereupon volunteered to write to appellant to
obtain the desired information, and did se. He wrote, in-
quiring what was the lowest price a$ which appellant would
sell his farm; at the same time informing him, that he
had a purchaser for the farm,but did not disclose the name
of the purchaser.
Aopellant answered appellees letter, saying that he
would sell the famx farm for $140 ner scre; and added a
postscript which was to the effect that he would pay appe
@llee a commission, in case he succeeded in making a sale
of the fam to the purchaser in question. Afterwards, Sch-
webke came to appellees store, before he had received avpel-
lamt's answer to the letter, and inquired whether appellee
had heard from appellant concerning the price of the farm;
and appellee told Schwebke, that he had not then heard; but
that as quick: as he had heard, he would let kim know.
Afterwards, Schwebke came in again, and apnellee then in-
formed him that the price of the farm, according to the
tter he had received from appellant, was ¢140 an acre;
and Schwebke said, that was all he wanted to know.
Nothing further was done, with reference to the matter,
until the month of September following, when appellant came
to Belvidere on a visit, and went to see anpelles. Appellee
then informed him, that the purchaser he h-d in view was
Schwebke. Thereupon appellant and appellee tozether went to
see Schwebke, at his home; and appellant talked with Schwebke
about the sale of the farm to him; and the next day, hired
an automobile, sand tcok Schwebke out to the plsce to lock
it over. Sohwebke was willing to purchase the farm , but
wanted to turn in on the purchase price, a {30,000 mortgace
which he held; and appellant would not accept this mortgage
as @ part of the purchase price, unless Schwebke would agree
Dy ae
2 peeetee* aint gt Pk ton biyow tnalleaqe bas
ot tnalleace ot stirw ot botestautov a slate wae at
ton med 1D: ae ae
-ail .stoxrw eH .os bib bas aottamrotat bertseb oft nist do
av
biyowr tasiileqas dole te softa teewol edt saw tedw gatstup
<tbhenned .H.
ef ted? ,mid aatmrotat emit omsa odd 78 imret etd Lfe os
eb «atest ie
emen sit seoloatb ton Eb tud, aes aoe bade teesdoivg £ masks
4 s aft efAaT- ae
sreesdowd edt 20
ed ded? ‘gabyse ea ‘eeeiteccs bexensae e tneliogak i
: ai £eSt
tneaes tra m2 4
~tfo2 vabrawres3h snoitesup mt reeedoma edt of met odt %
; _ E82 : melleqcs .
~feqos bevieost bad ‘ed erotsd LeTote ‘sesiteqas ot emso- side
as » i286 Sait 4
* selfedce teddo dw bexiupat “bas Tettal od ot tTewene ettm
Rize s PSsze Ze 2 Sil s..
tenet ‘ent - 20 “eottg et gutmrsoaoo taal teage mor? breed
tud- -bisdd nae. ‘don bad od ‘tsdd seidensio?: ‘blot eeltecs
. ississ s-
-worw ta tel ‘blur ed Dtsed bed ed es ‘malo tsp es tedt
‘{eqce to. eekias
nt modt selfeqas ey wabess at emo eildewdoe cebren od h we
hes ;
edt ot galbrooos: mist edt to ‘ockta “eds ted? mic er s e
=
Ses @ 870n06 aT vis
{eros ne onr3 ecw fasifeqge eke bovico-1 bed ed ee
Won ot Bedaen od ifs asw tedt “btee eldondoe & 7
gaehigst £ vou 6
a ewitr exood mt bebie dal ae
onto tnelfecce nedw “auivoliot ‘redmosqee to atom edt tite -
14 ei Oos 3 32S fs: '
esileqaA weefleqas 39a of jew Gas wiietv 8 10 erebivied o
i” Bie fed to ofa:
asw wet at bed ed reesiow ‘edt tect amit pede nos
gtet aldi if¢e : De
ot tren bites ot eeftedae bas “tnallecge hoquersiT sexdendio
fewndol sud ;eddewdo® etoboedT o@ 32
eidewdo2? déiw bexfed' tnsiteqcs ‘bas jemou ris tes soxXdewslo® eee
sc of ea betageie.
berid ab txen edt Dak ime ot mast edt to siea edt tuods —
o ttcom ond alt brew
Zool oF ‘$05 tq bdt of ‘fue exden fob ‘toot bas .elidomosus |
3 gabagols edt
tod ‘. ig edd ecadoma od “gatlitw ‘eat ‘eidewdo? . TON
sce tasileg¢s esedw wea
esegizom 000 08} & veokrg eaadoxsa edt ao at ‘Gan
+besay erat edt detdw x03 sok
to give him a discount of $1,000. The parties disagreed
about this matter, and negotiations were ended, and the
deal declared off, about September 9th. 1913. Appellant and
Schwebke do not appear to have had any further negotiations
until the final negotiations, about the middle of the fol-
lowing October; and those negotiations resulted in the sale
of the farm to Schwebke.
It is claimed by apvellee, that notwithstanding the
breaking off of the negotiations in September, he kept on
in his efforts to induce Schwebke to purchase the famm; that
after the first negotiations had been broken off, Schwebke
declared, that he would have nothing further to do with
appellant, concerning the purchase of the farm, because
appellant had not treated him properly in the matter; but
that aopellee, by repeated efforts, finally induced him,
to again consider the purchase.
After the negotiations had been broken off, sapreliant
Teagee 4he farm to a tenant and msde several improvements
on the farm. He built new fences,. and a barn, on the place,
at an expense of about $1500. Appelise claims, that while
these im:srevements were in progress, hé acain spoke to appel-
lant, in his store, sbout the sale of the farm; and again
broached the subject of its purchase by Schwebke®. Be
also claims that he told appellant, he couid not see why
appélliant was ignoring him in"the farm deal;® that appellant
was offering other agents two per cent for selling the farm,
and none of them were able to cet a buyer; that he, appellee
could sell the farm to Schwedke, if anybody in Boone County
could; and thet appellant answered, by cromising appellee
that if he got Schwebke to buy the farm, he would give him
the same commission he would pay anybody else; and that
a@opéllantsa also stated, he would sell the farm to Schwebke
baeraselb seltteq edT ..000,L% to tawooetb s mid evig ot
edt Ban ,bebae stew amottettogen bae .setism aid? tuods
boas tasifecqA .Sf@L .dt@ tedmetqe2 tuodse .tio betslosb iseb
esottaitogsa tedéswit yas bad evead ot aseqqs tom ob sidewdoe
-fot edt to slbbim ect ¢vode ,atoltsitogen Lanti edi Liaw
eise ed? at betineet enotiatiogen seodt bas yxredotoO gatwol
-sidswdo? ot mist sit te
eit gatbnetadiinion tedt ,eelisaqe yd bomisio si 31...
mo tasi ed ,redmetqss at enotteliogen edt to tio gatieerd
¢sdt pmmst edt sesdowg of sidewdoe soubat of stiotis . sid at
eiderdo2 ,tio asfo1d meed Sad anotisitoges text? oft r9fts
détw ob ot tedtwt gatdton evel bivow sd tadt .betsloeb
eeusced .mtat sdt to sasdowg edt gataxsonoo ,dnalleqgs
tug prettan edt mt ylteqorq mld betsest ton bed taslleqgs
«ald beoubat yLientt ,ettotts be¢seqe: yd ,eelfeq.s tadt
toeaifeads ,tto asitozrd aged bsd anoitstioges edt redtA...
atnemsvoramt Lersvee sbew bas. tasast 2 ot mist edt beasel —
.ecelq sft ao ,ored 2 bae ,seomet wen titud eH ..mrst edi go
sitdw ted? ,amielo eelieqqA .00813 tuods to eensqxe as ts
-feqas of eioge atexs od ,eeetsorg at otew etnemevotgmi sesdi
nteps bas yuret edd to else edi tyods ,etote atd at .tasl
eB .@eidsudo? yd esadomgq ett te toetdus edt bedosord
yw see tom bivoo ed ,daslleqgs blot ed tedit smislo osls
gneileage ted¢ ";lseb mtst edt"at mid gattongt eaw tasifsggs
<mzei siz gaiilee xcot taso 19q owt etaegs s<edto satrelio esw
esilsqce .ed tedt ;reysd s tez ot elds stew modt to exon bas
yiawoD emool at ybodyas Yt ,eidewdo? ot mist sdt ifes biyoo
seifegce gaistmorg yd .berewane itnslisqgs tsdi bas _gbLueo
wid ovts biwow ed ,mxet edt wd of exdondoe, tog od tt. ted?
ted? bus yeele ybodyms ysq biuow of moter tamoo. emee edt
=e
a
Bs
- ——
oa: oe
*
if Schwebke would pay for the improvements he had made, in
addition to the price he wanted, per acre, which was either
$140 or $150. Appellee claims, that he then took up the matter
with Schwebke, upon the new terms, and Schwebke finally said,
he would again consider the purch#se of the farm; and that
thereupon, appellee informed app¢éllant, that Schwebke was
ready to buy the farm, if he would see him; and that anpel-
lant replied, that he could not see him that day, but would
in a day or two; snd afterwards, within a day or two, that
appellant did see Schwebke, and entered into the negotiations
for the sale of the farm to him, which finally resulted tm
an agreement, and sale.
Appellant doés not deny, that he had the conversation
referred to, with appellee, at hie store, concernins the
terms upon which he would sell the farm; but denies, that
he promised to pay appellee a commission, at that time. There
is other evidence in the case, aside from the testimony of
the parties in interest, some of which tends to corroborate
and some of which tends to contradict the testimony which
3
they gave respectively concerning the matters in controversy.
A jury trial resulted in s verdict for appellee; and finding
the amount due him to be $606; whereupon avpellant made
&@ motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and & judgment
entered on the verdict; from which judgment this apreal is
prosecuted. This is the second appeal in this case; the first
cea}
appeal having resulted in reversal, and a remanding of the
cause for another trial. (O'Connor v Kennedy, 186 Ill. App.
B77).
It-is insisted by appellant, that appellee had no right
to recover commissions, because thereis evidence to show, .
that the purchaser was not really procured by appellee;
that the purchaser had first been spoken to about the matter
at eban bed ed atnomevorqat, ed? so% veg biuow, ax
ivle sex foidw e108 toq ,beimey sl eoltg edt of, mo td
redtam edi qu Aoot modd od tedt .emtelo eelleggA 108 Lk 0 c
ebise yil okt sidewdo2 fos. ,amxat ven. F edd. oct, ok de mloB, ‘
tadt Bue j~otst sid to easdomg edt. zebtenoo abs. =
ecw sidsusiod dadt .tnellequs bemzotat sel Leaae. soe
-feqgs gedit bas mtd ses bisow ed be a Amt. ant, wid of, =
bivow jud tsb jedi mid ses tom blyos od tat sboklgar "i
tedd, Owe, zo Ys > » HAD tw sebrensed he bas, Rabe ‘to BA
oe pti ala hain steht atd te: seebteage sittn, ot 4
tedt. ,aeimeS tud yaad ects. ifes bigor ad dotdi, : ROSH, ¢
earedT emit tedt te no tea tmmoo, 8 Petieqge VSG. ot, oe
doidw kines ait. totbextaop ot abaet spin i cael
Yetevortags ae atedton edd. soforepmoo Xieyitoaqpes, aera
Mt betivass Letct wt,
® bode
gaibati ooz.j,e01 ifeas ae tot, tothrey 9
ehsm dasileage noguezedw 18034. ad ot nk sub, Sauoms:
tnsmgbug 2 bag vbeluzrsve sew dolidw. fsizt. weit, TOR, cnt |
ei Isegos git tmomgby t. dozde, mor AdotbzeR, PFs, A108 319
fexli edd jeaso sidd. ot Lesage, bagoes, edd et, ata... -beduoseg
$t to gafiasmet es bag. siaarevet aL. ‘bod ugex, andyad: $8 bee
Gh. -L1I SEL .ybeael, v. teasop! o fats. ‘tedions, 192, eeu
ys: eh gh Bodyne VU, Mog des ot mes. edt the
of the sale, by the aopellant himself before avnpellee
had talked with him about the matter; and that sppellsant
therefore was really the first one to interest the purchaser
in the purchase of the farm, snd therefore that 2 recovery
cannot be had, under the sllegations of the special count;
that the first negotiations which were consequent on the
promise of appellant to pay appellee a commission, had been
entirely broken off and ended; snd that the second negoti-
ations, in October 1913, were an entirely independent matter,
in no way connected with the previous negotiations; and the
sale which followed these negotiations, was in no way con-
nected with any efforts of appellee; that the evidence
does not sustain a recovery under the spscial count; end
that appellee, therefore, has no right to recover at all.
We are of opinion, that if, efter the first negotiations
concerning the purchase of this farm by Sehwebke, had been
declared off, appellant agreed to pay to appellee, 2 commis-
sion as testified fous him; and that upon the basis of
-this later agreement, appellee made efforta to induce Schwebke
to purchase the farm, which efforts had thenefisct of bringing
Schwebke and appellant to an understanding and agreement con-
cerning the sale, «a recovery can be sustained under the
common counts. (Peter Boxberger v Edward Scott, 88 Ill. 477.)
As to whether appelient did agree to pay commissions to
appellee, as stated; and whether or not anpellee did actually
make the efforts which he testified to; and whether such
efforts were instrumental in bringing about the purchase
of the farm by Schwebke, were questions of fset to be deter-
mined by the jury. There is sufficient evidence in the
record to justify a jury in finding for appellee upon these
questions; and this Court, is ‘herefore not in position to
say, that the finding was not in accordance with the evidence
ae oes. Vee Se ape , i, eee, Pee
es{leqos stoted tleamtrd tasifegqs — edt yo elee ait to |
fualieqgé tedt bas esetitom edd tuods mid dtiw betist bed
reastoseg eft tesretat ot eno tert edt yliser sew stoisredt
¥Ytsveost s tsdt szotetedt bae ,mrst edt to Sserdomyg edd at
ifasoo istoece edt to enottegeiie sdt tebays bed ed tonnse
edt mo dneupsenoo stew doldw snottsttozen tarlt edt tedd
ased bet ,soteetmmoo s selfeqge yeq ot tasileqcs io saimorg
-tionen Snoose edt teat bora ;bebmas bre Xo asiord yletitvas:
~wstias tasbasgehat yierttae as stsw «8l@l ausdofod at ,anolts:
edt bee yenmottetiogen avoiverq edt dtiw hetosanoo yew on aL.
“foo Yew on ai aew ,enolisttoges ssedt Bbewollot dotdy else,
sonmebtve edd tact seoileque ‘to atsoxte yas diin Ssioea.
bas ;tnuoo Istoeqa sit reins yrevooes 8 fist ase ton asob |
-ifs ts tevooer of tdglit oe aed ,etoteredt ,seifeqos #tadt. ub
exottaisogentuxtt sft redRe .tt tadt Mokmbgo 29 935.9% onus
mo8d batt ,etdewdo®? yd mzst aidd to sesdotg edt galnispgeo. —
-simmoo's ,eeiisqqs of yeq ot heexze tosilsqas ite bezeloeb, »
te eteed sat mous tect bas ymid yd of belittesd as. aote -
sidewis® sosbot of sftotte eihsm esiieage ,tnomeetgs metel eidi
guignitd fo gostierest bed attotte dotdw .mrst edt eesdoma of
-a00 ¢usmeetas base geibastetebay as ot tasileqgs bas eddswdoe »
eit tebmy bentsteve ed aso ytevoost e else edt gatmteo ..
(.0T8 -£fI 8& ,t#008 BrewhT v regredzod zsteT) .etayoo mommes.
ot enotesimmoc yea of eetas OfD tmslleqge tedtecjdw of eA.
yilsujos bff sefisqce ton to msdtedw Dos jbetstea ag ,eetleqcs...
dove tedésdw Sas jot heftitess ed dotdw efrotte sd? odtam...
eesdowd edt twoda gatyatid at Istasnuitent stew strotis..-
-reteh ed o¢ toet to esolteeup stow ,eidewde? yd mist edd toe,
edi mf somsbive tueltoitive al eredT .ymwt edt yd benata
> ile
esed? gous selisacs tot gntbatt at yw se yitterst of brooes. oe
—
ot sotéteog ni tom etoteted* et ,trwo00 etdt bas yemotteeup, ...
j
a“ naenahkhieoon aot Ad bo saarekheonaane wt tare new naw ther §% att Satt wan.
especially since two juries found for appellee on practically
the same evidence.
Appellant complains, that the trial court erred in
refusing to permit him to cross examine appellee as to the
detailsof his knowledge of the farm in question; as to
how many acres there were on one side of the railway; and
how many acres there were on 4 certain side of the highway &c.
Inasmuch as appellee had net testified, that he had any
special knowledge of the farm, or its situ tion; end inasmuch
as Schwebke appears to have been perfectly familiar with
the land, it is not apparent why a detailed knowledge ofthe
land by appellee, was necessary to bring about a sale to
Schwebke. We are of opinion that the Court did not err in
refusing to permit any extended cross examination concerning
these matters which had not been the subject of an examin-
ation in chief, and which do not appear to be material, in
the determination of the important question of the contros#
versy.
Appellant also complains of the refusal of several in-
structions requested by him. The instructions which were
refused, made it essential for recovery by aspellee, that the
purchaser was originally procured by appellee. In view of the
fact, that there is evidence to the effect that after the
first hegotiations were declared off, appellant told appellee
he would pay him commissions, if he would bring about the
purchase of the farm by Schwebke, these instructions con=
tained an element which might have misled the jury; they
might have inefrred that appellee was not entitled to recover,
even though they believed that the second offer to pay com-
missions was made, if the purchaser was one whom appellant
had originallt talked to, concerning the purchase of the land.
=a :
‘BExG: ©
eilapttocra | ao serfeqge ot bauot folwt ow? eoate secant
) 2’ | gs bg oF “ loonebive® stthel
gi bexrs cas isixt edt tds “antsiqnod tasliseen™ see ae
eft ot es esileqgs ontmexe eeote of mb ¢.inea” oF he g
ot ag imoiteeup at mist edt to . ebetvont ‘eid toelks
bas ;ysewiist sdt to ebte emo 10 erew stod¢ eeroS Yast
-o8 yswdgic efit te ebie aisiieo © m0 etew sredd aoTos "yma |
yas hoes of tadt boltitee? “ton bad eéifecce- es foe
doymeent bos ;aotd-wtle ett to yotat edd ‘to* sphotvomt"tateece
aitiv tatiimet yitoetireq ‘Gesd oved ot: ‘etkeccs” sadewsoe
sdito egbeiwoax bofisteb & uci sasteqce tom at #8 Qboabeds
se piss & tuods agaixd of yiseesoon Baw eerteuca We bier ae
at tre ton SIH taoed edd tadt noLntgo to ers oF * eatenitio®
gaknzeoaoe 1 sottentmaxe 28070 pehdaeane yas ‘thied otgate wt
~aimaxs m8 to toetdue. edt ased tod sonst tpt ateftan «
. & 2 <
v* ws pos. he
; ie
exew doidw anoitourdant edt abd vd ye iS lease
edt tsit sel lege & ¥d ersvooss 792 fattmoss a oe «been?
edt to wetv aI .sefleqas yd berso07g ‘elshigtzo ‘eaw te
edt tetts fadd testis exié ot "saashive. laf ‘ersts sane Oats 64
esllecos Slot tasiiegas “to beraloeb sae endttcttoged 4 an
edi twods gatid bisow ed I ,emoteeimmos i me
-a00 saoitoyttant saat exdensoe Yd mat oft to 9a fot es
yout ;yurt edd beLats avec figim dot dw tnemele’ me be sitet
<TSvopsz ot Lbelitias ton ssw sofleaca dent perrtont iceagee 5
“mea yeq of retIo baooes edt tend bevelled iets
, _ taalleage mos ano asw reasdowg ext tt ebsm bs
ra ae one Yo seedomg ‘sit gatnxeon00 Y Se bedtet
re
ie ete a i BK oe Cs
The instructions were therefore properly refused.
Appellant 2lso makes objection on account of the mis-
spelling of the word “effect" in an instruction the letter
"a" being substituted for the Istter "e" fim the word. We
are of opinion that the jury could not have been misled by
this slight errer in speiling; and that they undoubtedly
gathered the significance of the point presented in the
instruction, notwithstanding the error.
Objection is also made by appellant, besause several
instructions for anpelies, told the jury that the anvellee
"is entitled to recover, if he was instrumental in bringing
the buyer and seller together"; and insists, that this
authorized the jury to find for apoellee, from the mere fact
of a physical bringing together of the parties mentioned.
“This was not the purpose or meaning of the instruction; and
we have no reason to think that the jury inferred = different
meaning from that usualiy inferred from the use ¢ language
of the kind in connection with similar matters; nameiy,
bringing the partiss together, to an understanding, upon
a matter of purchase and sala; and this was the question
involved in the case, the only kind of bringing together
that there was any contest about in the case. Instructions
containing similar languags, in controversies of this nature,
have been reosatsdly sustained by the Courts of Review in
this State. (Henry v Stewart, 85 Ill. App. 1703; affirmed in
1865 Ill. 448; Haffner v Herron, 60 Iil. App. 593; affirmed
in 165 Ill. 3243.)
Other objections were made by appellant, to instructions
on the ground that facts necessary to a recovery are assumed in
them; and that some of them asswne that appellee is entitled
to recover 2 commission; and that some of them are *rronecus
and argumentative because of the repetition of the susztkeax
-beauter yiteqotq exoisred? o1ew enoitourtegt os?
-sim sft to tayooos mo moltostdo eexam ogls tuelleaqghk. od? ‘
tetiel edi sottourteant as at “tostie". bhsox edt te gatiiecs a
ey . .ftow odd mt "9" aetiel edt tot betutitedua gated."3" :
yd Seieim ased sved tom Bisoo yi edz dedé notntco. to 9x8
yibetdyobm yedt ¢adi fos jpoiliege at sorte togile aidy
sit of betmeeotc tatog sdt to eonsoltiagte edt. betettes
-toxre .edt galbaetediivicn . soltourtent
isteves seusssd ,tanilecaé yd.ehan osfe et moltestdOiocce <4
eeilecce edt tact yout edt blot .,esi leas pre
agisaiad at Latmecwitand asw.od If ..sevooe:r ot beltiias. ef" —
sidd tedt ,eteleat.bee. <"*redtezot telies base reyud: met
tosi stam edi mort .,selleqas rot boit ot yim} edt bestrodivs — x
-benctines esitisg edi to tedtesot aeigniud Lsoteydq ecto |
bos ,goltiouttent edt fo gainsem 10 esogcwg edt tos paw ist a
gaeistits « Serisial yw edt tedt Agid? of qoaset om ovad ow _ -
spangasi b een ect mott Serrsial yilever ted? moti saineom : :
eYiemen ,eatstiean tslimte dttw aoitoenaoo at batt edtte it
soqs ,gcibsstexebas as of ,tadtegot eeitrsq edt gatgaizad pe
moitesup edt eew sid? bor jelee bat sesdowd to asitan 8 Fe
sedtsgod gatgaiid to fafa yino edt ,.esso sdt of Sevlovat ey
enottoutésnI .eeso ad? ot suede gasiacs yas asw siedt ¢adt ie e 3
sstugen eldi lo eelerevertceo al ,egavgant telimtse gofatsataoo
ait welve® to etived edi yd beatsteve ylbetseqet aesd eved ¢
oi bemtitia ;OVL .qgA .[LT 88 .tsewed8 .v yra9H) veSted® atdt ms
bemtliia ;8¢4 .qga -LiT 08 ..goti)eH v teatisH ¢8ns ALT asl
| (,688 £51 gal at
enoivourtent of .taalleqgs cd ehem si9¥ enotioe,do tedtO, ». i |
ai bemece is Yrevooet s oF Yteaeesosn atost tsdt havyorg edd ao =
beiftins ei eslisqges tadt emmeas medi to exoe tant bas. ; ah
ssoecgize 212 mit to-smoa gadt bas jmoteaiumoo 8 ae
expression "instrumental in bringing the defendant and buyer tocether
in different instructions. After a careful consideration of the
objections made, ve are of opinion thet there is no reversible
error in the instructions; snd that taken together, stated
the law with substantial correctness; and the jury could
not have been misled by the lenguage used in them, in the way
indicated by appellant.
There being no reversible error in the record, the judgement
shouid be affirmed.
aie snes se yaa eP
aegis 22> 3a Taeow ro wot
edt to nottarebtanes I aes eh
; terion ec6 cobionsce
efdterevet of at stedt tad
eo eer ees. kt Per) Ward e.. owe of
betete <tedtegos soz
{a S2isinm Bees Sas
. biuco ywt edt bas jeans
to i SRF ee hes et bg eh gaat aa ¢
- yaw sdt at med egeu
Neer = 4 Retaeea 24 $2 HN, aE
de
oat 70087 edt ‘as eee nt abatenta a
HELE CSy BOSS .@and, ee aa, YG, caeiia eg
donot
- aioe
- sei ieucn gt eal bees Pr ca eae Seon : moh en ¥
sUbgesed ck Latoecrtieg: Bam : od BL. < servants of, belt Lines
: sidi tadt ..adatied tes itnaddezot uslies srageths
- feud patch site SERS spe EMSRS 2% batt et eif edt :
ae: PESTS SELES wn a ae setae Looleyda:
ie RSE, fami ounsand Bi te oe TO, iii sanet euiinsith
spacial bh oun ofd sett < Revtadat Ve pees: elt oi
ites teléebe dtiw molsoenaeo al. bate | |
{>
; . sESERSe 2ST
* ow .grPiunceseten he at tedbegat eghtaag ae
7 Sac jedeg tae peadonug Re. ee:
. sectngan yatystse fs oa vies at. gene Att Bt 2
Ss Bi Pyetseal het see5 ae tpoee Pita iit. ae —_
3 se swaen Bit 3G ee huceraxdcor ea epnegd| s ae 2
a 2a. eRe Se: 4 ee eae 4 ; dae bepeae a
Sse tess 25-0.. Kk. eee
Paes Legs. ad, Boat axth rokigatse
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ee
SECOND DISTRICT. eae I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFrFry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TesTiIMOoNY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this sess
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and = —
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
atelisyqé odt Yo dash) vanud 0) sandoraiuca 1 ca fu TOUATTEIe ou
2ieood ode to cpapsod bee 2iogillh hi abst odd lo doitt i braved bige 1ot b
add te aoiasiqg et Vo yqoo outdo af Qrioesiel odd Jadd vurbnao YaRsee od to
sift ie of prove to seus boltitae oveds odd of t1u0)
sa “ie fag foie vie tex adouered T OMA W yuomiteaT wt :
£3 zi? sewed? Ja dtu) atellogdA bise edt to Ieee
ato frial yo jo tnoy odd ub oo toga
‘ae >. bey ber feet! ouie baneiodd
<2
2 Ko i
> aaa ae a ee ge en ines area
a a ene ere Pee, ee Le rn fiw me 7 Te. ee ty
ey
a
bee,
Prt war,
7
Z
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
¢
AAS day
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
3
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
4
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pregiding Justice.
\ ¢
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.@ Ut) :
E. M.\DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
WAY 9 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
” -etomiiil to sisie sdt ae tortie: d Booeed Sie ‘Tot bas ae
g
\ ie By ‘
.oothanl. .@84SA0 .t EMAUG. non = 2)
geibigetd ,@UAHaIM .M AHOL nok siT-- $a
cottagl® ,dI9aId SOMABAOG . doH
YUTUG .o SaHIoTataHo =”:
-¥€itod2 ;BIVAC) .M .o -o-
ray ee
,
—_—
*
:
4
4
ff
; Ce =2> rd > = ss * Re ms
; - : Fs fs ae diy) OSS Re Fe ks
4 id a BS ZS z50%,
- ; ‘
: : -
= - :
, fy ;
wie ae Ee
pabrayreiig jedi dasa TE
: - =. MO ng Ewe Oo!
beftl_esw_, j1p09 ont io motaegqo As
‘
"4
“arate
getTugit.bos ebyow edi as pee? bige le so cist ata
Gen. No. 6328.
The People of the State of Illinois.
efendant in error.
vs ~- Error to Co. Ct. MoHenry
Edward L. Herrick,
Piaintiff in error.
Per Curi
x fdact Fdward L. Herrick, was, on @ trial
by the court without a jury, found guilty and fined under an
information filed by the states attorney in the county court
of MoHenry County September 24, 1915. The information as a
charged, thet on to-wit: the s4th. day of Mey 1914, at and
within scid county, Edvard L. Herrick, the Sigéetie* tm crrort—
“wilfully, maliciously and without reasonable cause, did aoandon
in destitute and necessitous circumstances" his wife, Teresa
Herrick, “and did then and there neglect and refuse to maintain
and provide for her". This was a penal offense under the Fite
Abandonment act of 1903 - (J. & A. Stats. par. 3431.) The
legislature by an act approved June 24, 1915 ( Lawes of 1915,
C2k. seamen, SLE | ee
page 470 ), passed an act provicing "That every person who ‘shall
without any reasonable cause, neglect or refuse to provide for
the support or maintenance of his wife, said wife being in
destitute or in necessitous circumstances," shell be punished,
ete. omitting the offense of adandonment theretofors emisting.
This act was in force when the present information was filed.
It exoressly repeal#@sail other acts or partes of acts in con-
flict therewith. The states attorney in his brief filed here
Says that the offense was charged and the casx tried under the
act of 1915; that the offense under that act consiste of ne-
glecting or refusing, without any reasonable cause, to provide
for the support or maintenance of the wife in destitute or
necissitous circumstances; that the charge of abandonment in
-C&58 .o% nen
»elonifiIl to stss@ sat to siqoeT edt
etorre ai tasbae ted
yrosHolw .¢2 .cD o¢ tomm~ -—- ev
aoizrieH .1 brewba
exorre at ttitatel(?d
feist s mo .gew ,Molr1sH .J buaevSE ,.*
ae tebow beat? bas yititus bavot ,.ymt « tuodiiw gi0o edt yd
$xy00 yinuoo edt at yeriotts eetste odt yd Sell aoltsmiotal
~bemane ee cottamtotat edT .cLel .d& usdmetqe® yeauod yiasHoM To
bae ge ,SLEL ysd to yesh .dtac edt stiw-ot mo tedt ,beptado
e: sit .wofxrsH .J buawbad ,ytavoo bisa aldidiw
mobsads b£5 ,eassc efdemoesert tuodiiw baa ylavototian .yiiutiiwt
aeersT .stiv atd "“eesnstemyotto eyotleasosn bas stutitash af
aigiaisx ot sagts: Bae toelgem estedt bons asdt bth bas" ,doftrreh
ole eit rebay sanstto feceq 8 esw atdT ."ted sot sbivezq Sas
sit (,f838 .raq eadst® «AS .L) - S0@L to fos taensobasdA
BISY ¢ f <
ord o¢ Sauter to toelaen ,eaueo sidsnoesesi yas tuodilw
+ et
toi Ses
ty
«<!}
at acted atiw biss ,eitw eid to somenetats: to iroqque sat
~bedeianug ed Ife@ie *,.eesonstemvosto aesotiaseoen ai 10 stutiteeb
eaniteies cioloteredt ¢gaommobaais to eameTio edt gtd ttino ots
Heli? sev aottantotal tasaerg ex? asdw so1ot at sew tos eldT
-aoc at s#oe to atseq to etos redio ile Blseqer ylesstaxe #1
belti tsiad aid at yentotts estete ofT .dtiwexedt tol£{t
edi «ebau bottt xeno edt bie bepteado eaw sanetto edt tgadt eyes
“2x to afetenmco tos tad) tebay eemeito edt ted? ,~éfCL to tea” ©
ebivorg of ,eeuso eldsmorest yas tuodéiw ,gaotevts: to galtosly
vo etuiiteeh at etiw edt to sonsnetaltan to txroqque edt 1t0t
the information is surplusage end should be disregarded leaving
only the offense of neglect or refusal to provide. The convic-
tion cannot be sustained even if that view is pent rks
issue tried wes med reised by a pieaeof —Meteauiliy! mt andes
& plea of the defendant "That he is not guilty of wilfully,
maliciously and without reascnable cause abandoning in destitute
and necessitous circumstances Teresa Herrick in manner and form
as charged in the said information, as emended." The finding
of the court was that "The said defendant, Edward L. Herrick,
is guilty of wilfully, maliciously and without reasonable cause
abandoning in destitute and necessitous circumstances Teresa ~<
Herrick, in manner and form as charged in said iurormatisn.® =
There was no issue *ormed and no finding on the charce of ne-
glect or refusal to provide for the support of his wife.
a evidence seeder show that the defendant was a
resident of the State of Wisconsin at the time the information
was filed , and at the time th: act of 1915 came in borage
Whether under such circumstances, a husband failing to support
his wife living in Illinois is guilty under the present statute
of committing the offense in the county where the wifs resides
is a question not much argued. We are inclined to the opinion
that he cannot be so held. We express no opinion on the facts
disclosed by the testimony in the resord before us. The judgment
ie reversed and the cause remandede
Reversed and remanded.
scT.foorroo ef welv tect tf seve fentsteve ed tonne not
eee ee gel tonne igne. yd beaker wae esw betxt oni
wilwiiiw to ytifus tom el ed tsdT* ta2baeteb sit to selq &
stutifesb at gutmebasds savso eldsnosest tuodtiw bas ylevototiem
mrot bos tenses al dotrteH sesxeT eeonstamozio eoseegenae baa
JotrzeH .1 barb ,tnebssteh biee edT* tadt asn pains edt. val |
aaibatt sdT * .bebaems as mottenzo1al D
eevso eldenoesex tuodtin base ylavototlen .yfluiftw to vite Ot
SSeexeT esonstamuotio exotteeeoon bas etuvtiech at autmobaeds,
".aol¢emzotat Stee mi begredo ae mio? bas, sennem » at otzieH —
-a Test ketD: “pat: “Ho pathol? om bss, hemto?.euset om. esw exest,
eStiw etd to trogqua edt tot. ebivorce of fseutet TO toote
® sew tnsiasted edt tedt wode. of Sapoa. somebive pdf). 5 pe ae
aottemrotat edt eats odt te alesoosiW. to. stste. edt, tor pees |
F -eor0t gt emso Sf€l.to tos adt emit odé.te bos » baltt egw.
trogcue of gatitet Bosdeud @ ,geonstemyorto dove, isha isdtedW: a
stutate $99°rs. eit yao xii ie eloatill at gotvil siiw sid:
asbieeretly SEPA F yao. va 77: P eadeite od pat8ftovoo, shee -
motatgo edt ot bentLont ets om -beugis doxm ton poten up, ry
stort ect go molntqe og easrgxe sW. «bled os. 86 tounso.ed dads:
tmemghut e<T .ey etoted brooer edt st maeseheé, edt yd. Peter
eheboasms: bas beazeves ; ett sede sora? AP eew doe
i* vwe
f mF BEQex YLas3z
kw
Tt ztitiwexedt go
etto ai todd 6
ato
. pois
STATE OF ILLINOIS, Iss
SECOND DISTRICT. i I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of — in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine bundred and SSS
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
hey MH ESE ng
a | : cee,
ae ue add ta aAsal) renee D naonettO aim
ieee:
a ntl ewets0 de dO alloade tad aol
7 oun
oun bol 160 TO “THEY ads af ae Pa et ey oe
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April
ndred and sixteen
im the year of our Lord one thousand nine
State of Illinois:
within and for the Second District of t
;
JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presidi ‘i Justice.
es
Present -=The, Hon
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justic
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL mee |
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk 20 {) y AOD
EM. DAVIS, Sheriff. ; Pe
to-wit: on
that afterwards,
BE IT REMEMBERED,
the opinion of the Court was filed in
in the words and figures
MAY 9 1916
the Clerk’s office of said Court
following, to-wit:
-asetxie bas borbevg onia paeaanee ono bred ano 1 to. tse
ry
‘
setomt {iT Yo 'stnie of t0°dotasard baaose orld seeae Hoe
sofignl amibiesrd ,2UARTIM .M UHOU 10H od?
ectaze : @RMHAD ALS BYAUG etevel
Nepranti, itETIG OUAAHO HOH. 1 ~e
Py Ro Ta fh fy harold. YTTUG.0 ATHGOTS LAHD
0k tee ree es ON | ,, = in
‘ titeda ,gIVAG iM 4a__
: oats
£ he
= Figs ae =e : , s = =e -
Sgebs far ; x :
zs oer oi
nt Se ee ht aN Sah sid meee
ree Sone E- ag % ;
ao :diw-o? -ebrswietie ted} -daadaaMaMaa TI
ai belit eaaw tyv0d. edt to aibe t add
veyuuil bas ebsew sedi ai
a
c
Gen. No. 62838.
George W. Clendenin, appellse
vs Appeal from Whiteside.
Adams Express Company, sppelian
Per Curiam:
Fg even. A The motion to guash and the proofs for and against
said ae eee preserved by a bikl of exceptions. The
record proper Ses not disclose what particular item of the
fee bill was assailed. The clerk sme copied into the record
a stipulation co? counsel setting up certain alleged ania
stipulation does not preserve any thing for our consideration
The trial judge is entitled to certify to us what motion he
heard and what proofs he heard. If this stipulation had been
embodied in a bill of exceptions signed by the trial judge
then the questions argued would be presented but we have no
authorized way of knowing upon this record what was presented
or what proofs he heard. The presumption therefore prevails
that the court acted correctly in refusing to quash the fee
bill. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
~-G8S8 .o% .men
eeiisqgs ,mineboeslD .W sgtosep
-ebfestindW mort Iseaqd ey
stiasiieqge .YMeqme) ssertqxad emsebA
:meiwd x97
eiT .eaoligeoxe to Lffid s yd Levreseiq ton sities: iwe
edt to msftl tstyoltrsq tedw esoloelbh ton sse® azsqoirq biroest
broost edt ofat belqoo eas dzelo efT -beliseas sew [lid est
dT -etoat beselis aistiso qu antittee Leanuoo to mottaluqiia s
hiereo tue tot galidt yar evreestg tom as0b noltaelyqite
oii mnottom tedwv ex oF Yiiiveo ot Beliivas e! ezaut feitt eat
ased bed soltsiuqtta eitdt tI .bireed sd etooraq tsdw bas breed
egbut fIsetxt edt yd benmgia enotiqsexs to fitd & at Seibodme
om sve sw tud betaeasitq sd bivow beusrse enoltaoup edt asdt
betaesstq eeaw tadw Broos: etdt mnogu gatwond fo yew besirodius
elisvetq stotersdt moitqmuserq efil .bhrasd sd atoorg tedw to
est eft dasup ot antestse1 af ylioerros betos twoo edt dedt
eLbomrtite al taenmgbhyt eT .fitd
ebomritta
STATE OF ILLINOIS, Ne
SECOND DISTRICT. eae
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOFR, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this =
day of — in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and : _ : a
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
eal LOUIE AO |
vellagad oft to aoe) .xnaud J) Agudgoratan) I : TOMTAIG ah
ubtosoA odd to sequest hos viol Jo otst® odt to doiteil booed bite tot bas ai un
sid to moluias su! lo yeroo Sunt i ef guloeerol edd dadd curaaD Yauson o@ Joorada
goto vii nb bigs to ess belditae ancaks ont at porns) cS
ant sits bow bes! ce: Joe otuuried T womaaa¥ ynomireaT “i ;
aude seawd®) de no) seta 5 hiss old to lgoe ar
eno hal we to rooy edd af Capra daa
—_. >. — hoe berbrud agin Dawaors
. —_
a ~ se hee ee ane mnies
Rae eta aye
4 " @ au, ti a
y 1 & ¥ =
f
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
;
‘
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, (the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
fi
Rea
t
within and for the Second Districtiof the State of Illinois:
i
H
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Pope tdi ne. Justice.
} d
|
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
i
Hon, DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. DAM T A 424
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. |
+
4
+
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG.1 9 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
,asetxte bas borbeod ania \basavods ano brol THO 20 1898Y
ratenilil to stsie sat Lojvotrtard bnooae adit To? bas o
sotiest gatbtee7d ,@UAWGIM .M WHOL .qoH sd?
4 | 7 ah
.soitent ,@0MAA0 .lL AMAUG .noH
sotteyt ,IJ@aId BOWARAOd , con
a \ % : 3
‘ a's ji , {> °s.dveld ,YaTUd .9 AGHIOTAaLsHo
7 => /k 4 ey ; re
| .ttited@ ,SIVAG’.M .a
7}
: : ? >»
cae
% ae J ihe sas a Ry ae
mo :Siw-ot ,absswretts tsdd CEARIMIMAS Th
oft bealti esw itpod sdi to moiaiqo adt Mee 6} QUA
Betusii bos ebtow sdi at ,f¢eoo0d bisa to seitio efats:
sy. 3; Forbes, Administra tor/
' Que
Gen. No. 6177. [ a
—|
Pem Mutual Lifd Gpeurande (A\
Company, =
vs
Appeal from Carroll.
of the tate of Lizzie White,
decessed,) Arthur B. White and
Tulu M. Wheeler.
ee et ee BR ee ee
Niehaus, J.
Lizsie White, deceased, infer lifetime, nemels,
ern, 500 OD a Line inooweanée colle»
in the sum of $2,000, in the Ponn ifutual Life Insurance Co.,
which ws payeble to the executors, administrators or assiens
of the insured. On tho 16th day of October, 18%, this policy
was assisened by her to her two children, Artmur Di White and
iuiu M. White, who were minors at that time. The assignment
was properly oxecuted by the insured in the regular way as
required by the insurance company, and witmessed by an azont
of the insurance company. A duplicate copy of the assignment
was furnished by the insurance company and received by the
company about Wovenber Ist, 1894, and the compeny accepted the
eel onrant as a transfer of the right to the benefits accruins
under the policy. Who thor the assiennent was ever attached to
the policy, which was retained by the insured, does not clearly
appoare
The insured Mied on December 24th 1912, At the time
of her doath the insurance policy wos still in hor possefsion,
Just prior to her death the insured made @ last will in wich
ae west ce
ae Ny
efforts) moxt IeoqyA .
yotlog ebaurwant etit « tro doot heim ms -
909 oonetnanl oktd Lesnbott mot odd mt 000, - to a“
aogiean to wtotertsintods ,esodvoome olf ot eldeysy gow aio.
yotfore aksit feat ywedodo0 ko yes heal ‘oct 210. sBonit et
vena ad LO EROS oteotlon® ‘K° "peta cs RM a:
Seberr ops ad Hanod est oF fy Be ost to vost 8 ae me
ot Bodontts te¥o sex t nom tees oritt ro.2tto stil svokiog. out
giaeefo von sooh ,borsmmt ot ud ‘bortetor BSW sot to.
omk? ont J\ .8£0L ASR codmeool mo Beth Boxmant ox
Sokeeoemog vod wi Litte sow okLocy oonnsstrante ontt ee
io ts ee 3 lita tast o obem Boresratt pcsick Mtoob ‘reut ¢
, ee 4 ‘ : ™ i
7 7 J My lage i
‘ i eye ta
A
bequéathed the entire proceeds pf the policy to her daughter,
Iulu li, Whee ler, formerly Iulu li, white. The will was after-
wards probated, in the county court of Carrol! County, end the
defendant, M. S. Forbes, was appointed administrator of the
estate. the administrator claimed the proceeds of the policy
and thereupon the insurance company filed a bill of intcrpleader
in the circuit court of Carroll County , in which the company set
forth the fa ts relative to the issuing of the policy to the
insured and the subse quent assigument thercof to her child en, and
the fact that the proceeds of he policy were also claimed by
the administrator of the estate of the insured. It also ap-
peared from the bill that the het amount due under the policy
mmampiixpremm, was $1760.52; that under tho tors of the
policy an unpoid premium note of $262.48 was to be deducted from
the gross amount due under the policy, end the
prayed to be allowed to pay the money into court so that the
parties claimins tho same could interplead.
Upon the hearing of the bill of interpleader the court
entered a decree directing the insurance company to pay the
$1760.32 to the clerk of the court for the bmefit of the party
who might subsequently be decreed to be entitled thereto, and -
discharging the insurance company from all further liability in
connection with tho matter. The cause was thoreupon referred
to a speiel master in chancery to inquire into and report which
of the dofiendiants interploading was entitled to th: fund in con-
troversy. The master, under the reference, heard ell evi ence
offered by the respective parties to the suit.
Sete te ay y J j Ais & int, sic. 4 i
es viet ah ede aA ; . ; Gay ¢
Re ae i r ‘
Si | { , san
rage,
WES es
, 7otigued vel o¢ yotfog ot to abeooomy extiae edd bert.
~tolts sow [fiw om? otis an gist eeomncd, « <0 r) ea ait ire 4
Lit - Sears ;
da
rabcoterotak to iid 3 Soft yocies eatoment 6
. Fee wugmes ott dottw ak ypinr0d fforzrad to pester diss cat ak a 2
od! Of YoLtor add Yo yatemat ont of ovitater Bdoak oxide am 3
has ,it9 meer ir! za Boo Regret Bai gee rt Pomp ondara ae |
w bentale oats onhy, yebien 86) So beepers ae eS ee
“qe oats #1 sborsastt eid ko otatee Bil ae soled se pay acid
Wilod elt tober ext deans, bout os edt i oat pa
BA 3G ReaNe esr sees teat S807. sem 3 mer =
moet betawser od ot Bow an.9aee to even _ puedo boa 19 Hon
Soo agaabaaigyeteD ond bos, Yottog oc xolaar oxb, davon, “aan
mit dart og dumoo odmt yonom eit yar of Sewolia of of se. 4
FORRe Cie 7. ‘
ight a nts eames miner ee
dehoe add tehsefqteiei io Lite eat to ardenedt edd anqt 0% to
OKs You oF Wedge esietwen todd suttoorss woke sc herseaS
stro eno Fiend ett got grdes eit to weefo) oftodt se soonng
tte ,otevent S6ihitue od od Seotosh od yionaopoadse dog hiecadiw
ih VELTEISEE Yodowt Oho mort peekooo osleursat) edt -geteredomkh
boxtelte ctogtrexedt acw c@pko eit .codtenrorlti dey urdkdooaitto.
foldw scores baa odnt entepnt of yxecnato mt tedacm isteqa scot
Ar0G Mk Host ort OF belettate pew guthoolaxatnk natsat beg ot to
wonpp ive .fs duses cr de fi os sobeur soda ost ce, Fat i
gd , x bi a Ge ae
, | rine edt oF ‘Be e te oe ae
Bay ty: tg Be a dew. Ate fy edt oF yah , *
ae ; ig
Evidence was offered before the master not only concerning
the mat ers pertaining to the assignment , the validity of
which was in controversy, bu t there wis also considerable ¢ i-
dence offered concerning the supposed disposition of some of the
assets of the Paeicar by her brother, Frank E. Adena aoe concern=
in -g a supposed contract entered into by Adams with Lulu I. white,
on the strength of which it was claimed by AGams she requested hin,
as executor, named in the will of the insured, to pay her brot or
$1,000, and to reimburse himself from the proceeds of the policy,
when he should collect the same; also evidence tending &% prove
that lulu M. White afterwards, at tho instance of her mesband,
ropudiated this allesed agreement and that afterwards Adams was
arrested in Clinton, Iowa, upon a charge of concealing the will
of the insured, and that certain parties, including lulu MM.
Wheeler yen Arthur B,White, by moans of this arvost, end threaten-
ed prosecution, procured from Adams the payment of $1,000 to Arthur
B. White, and also other “onoey. Adans testified that befo e« hik
arrest he had voluntarily paid to Tmlu iM. Wieeler, by tho directions
he had received from his sister, the deceased insured, before her
death, the sum of 3500, an@ olso $200 to Arthur B.Whit
ee 2)
After hearing the evidence the special master Te
but exceptions were filed to thks report and there exceptions
were Sustained by the court in its decree. The décree finds that
the equities in the case are with M,3.Forbes, ga inistrator, who
is appollee herein; that lizzio ‘white, on che 7th day of lovenbex,
| 1912, miie her will and by wit cave Ilys, Wheeler the net pro-~
-eeods of the policy in mestion, and oft se died ot Clinton on
the 25th day of November, 1912, ani Anat her will wos aémitted to
—
-
oath f a Mica: al a “3s ~~ fs 2A rd. é
am Se er Wdew KAA A LA he (< des lca
,
Logtihitey dil ,. dtsbtiicg bic -ye fae iid tt ot i
-tve eidewebienod wets) saw Oxert v anh swrtevorsinoo ok
odd Te smge ‘ho mote tkorets: hotoqqre ord: ginkieré ont0.9° sein
-mrepiios bre re AWaiewl (redid ord ne ge “Rodrick odd 2068
odd M mht Sh iw amoeba ef obmt Sereda dowtdnoo swear
sate Sptaaspes sie aMEdA td, HemtaLo Berth Mo dstw ko atgwonte 6
Todhor sbcd yodupt: borsrared! ocd tec dw ent ato horiee oe
eGatlog) oat to abesoord ort OTL: ‘heute sappy nyt ici ae )
TWOLG at eoib apd oore Sire on te 14 ster pith: ‘Foertoo | ees at
« ghmedasnt vos te @ ond sant t oedide qebuomiedte. od haw oft sein
aew: tmahs whmaerets pent ace’ dntomeo une seassaaalieialnch :
Site edi gmiieoanos: hovognerto soe {200 |
sl wind gatbofonk jackdteq: miadro' shat: an on eas
Atoteouit shad ytaowra ide tovmiom Yue him. cB aa: Steeaw
titra ot 0005 IG: houtronys.! ont: aMtebA ciel Derioored yrrotdm ie
Bist 9 ohed todd Dotiiseae BSBA. “sonal ‘conto: ont hnay ats "
anoktonxiD od? yi ,zofeoll wif wisi ot hing pLixetumtoy batt pst fa |
ae Ha Ee rage
“rad exoled borrasck ‘Boascood out apeata, at Leet, Bey.
ey: Rey
te at
soo bil, ‘sant 98 “oa oats base £008 Lo are eat a 2!
' *) Sah? Me ,
ith ae ie at a Oy
Od rotertaintnia yacdtots Zell At ron eons =o a tame aay
i: more tem odd rotooll , psu oveg 5 eo-eoer anseam@ted one
Mo notetio te pelaldve thG Boe yaettaony AP Ypktog oa 16" 6
»,
ems
an
8 Devtiebn wow Liiw westtouid tee 48208 ysedmevol: % > a,
probate and was in full force and effect at the time of ‘er death;
that at the time of herdcath, Frank §.Adams was in possession
of money and assets of her ostate anounting to upwards of 32,000;
that he wos named as executor in the will mentioned, but because
he was a non-reident could not act as such; that shortly after the
death of Lizzie White, lulu i.Wheeler req ested Adans to pay Arthur
B. White $1,000 out of the estate of Ligzie White then in his hands,
with the understanfing that the e-ount due on the policy should
be collected by Adams and the $1,000 to be paid Arthur B.ihite
shokld be deducted from the cmount due on the polhey when colliccted
by Adams; and the decree further finds that Adams agreed in writing
to pay White said $1,000 and that thereafter Lulu li. Wheeler at-
tempted to repudiate her agreement with Adams that the .j1,000 should
be deducted from the amount of the policy when collected by Adams;
and further finds, that thereafter, by collusion between Lulu 1.
Wheeler and her husband, and Arthur 2.White, and one William Brown,
Adams was arrested upon a charse of supprecsins the will and in-
carcerated in the jail at Clinton, Iowa,; that the arrest of
Adems was mace for the purpose of compelling him to pay said ‘White,
and Iulu M. Wheeler, money belontng to the estate of the insured,
which Adams then had, and that while Adams was so wndor arrest
he was compelled, by duress and threats of imprisonment, to pay
said White said $1,000, which said Iulu !!. Wheeler had requested
Adems to pay to Arthur B.vhite, and that he was compelied by these
means to pay to said Iulu lil. Wheeler 3264, ani that all these
sums were paid by seid Adams out of the assets of said ostato,
aaa is *
ee ~ atte vse pose Pees of)
yittcoh | ox! “Xo emt edt rf ‘toerte bes ‘eon0t Liss st gow Bae 9 i Jorg
notssensoy wk BOW nab As ain't “udoo b 08 Bo 8 omkt oct ¢ tet sit
2000.26 So abseves 0 picktano ‘edatae eat to aiores hes yore to
“ensicoed tui «Boater taro fiw ‘ont ak <ot50=0 ae oe ow ed da 7 ’
edt tadts Utwoda fockt tore BB tos ‘tou Blsoe duo) tose 8
smaiciboeh at of a-abA hot ae: pet reLostt’. M sind 20d EA otrsid Bat
RON ot pays at
nest Bin of nest od Eat oles pd. ko oda as oat %o dsr 000 aE. obit
VSI vez
bimosia Vettes utd 0 anh dear ore ori tas uitliosazelar oat it tbe
t=. 42 2S
si Bic’ ot Soerss emabA Yeds analt ‘coda compas odd Bue
Sf hes ie hore .
ats “ofeod ot stmt no Sooo td desta ‘bas 000, | bise obi? var o¢
oT Ree ee ot Sosa
Sivods 000, Ef es ast Gmoba ott be dmanoorge soil § Kcr 2
Fee ie be te - et
faaebs Ww boise too. sos Wotfor ett to davena sie
. - isa soe od otsn Coo vd vod ecko? este “ebm See
es maLrrey eno ‘hae “OFLA corde ‘bas + bron ox hes eke
«ri Doe Eiiw ests aaberomere to eeracto 8 soa sodaers are
zo saeris ade dest ps0 oinibLO ts Ekat ont nt fot exomtse
sorbet bisz wer ot mit gatbtfeamos to" enoqesra ais <o% ebinr vow nish
,bownmakt ond to otntue ont o# i girs tod poront yxeLeok ae ester a
¢aects woh oo @ew omabA elit dads bee ,botfoeedte.’ amebAl dob
yoy ot) 4toernoatigat to adesuth Sra adres yl, belfoqmesinew ef
Sotaospex Sod tofeedW .M wisd Biter: fodiw , 000, 1g) bienrodtuy Gime
ceed) yi botLegmos ape of toed See’ yodbattse mmeitekcohegaetode mami
wedt ile jadd Mae ,daSy roLoodi! all niml hiesoed -yaq’ Oty Reem
aotedao Dios ko nigege od bo dso emedA bites YO bloc exew, Sie
Es ) br) pao io aeop 2 gy Reece ae iOeD
oe ees i iN son EOE _codieror. SO) Sab ee
The decree further fints that Lulu !‘.theeler and Adans
and Artimr B. White 211 understood at the time Lulu [l,.theelor
reqiested Adams to pay said 31,000 to said Arthur 3.\hhite that
the anount of said policy shouké be collected by the legal xee
presentatives of said estate and thot said $1,000 should be de-
ducted from the amoumt dune on ssid policy.
The decree also finds thot Imlu lM, Uheeler and irthur 5. ‘hite
are estopped by their co duct, as aforesaid, from disputins the
right of the legal representatives of sa@ estate to. collect the
amount due on the policy in question, and thot in equity and good
consclence the amount éue onthe policy should be collected by
the administrator of the estates; and the decree finds $hat M.S.
Forbes, administrator of the estate, chould in equity and good
conscience be allowed to collect the amount due on the policy
and should have the risht to an equitable lien on thenekiey said
-amount so collected for the purpose of reimbursing the estate for
said sum of 31,000 peid by Adams to White under duress,an€ for the
furtzer sum of 3264. paid by Adams out of the assets of t e said
cf
2
esta'e through the exercise of duress and threats, and tit the
balance of the fund should be distributed by the odministrator
under the terms of the wills; and it wes ordered in the decree that
the administrator be siven a lien woon the amount in the hands of
the clerk for the purpose of reimbursing the estate for aid &1,000
paid to Arthur B. white by Adems and for the 5264. paid to ivlu
M. Wheeler by Adams.
It_is appaneiit- that the decree a4 eaane to adjudicate woon
mbiers which were not in issve,and in no way connected wit
- >
question arising uniecr the interpleaior, eané@ adjudicates
aus
Saxe BE brs xo Leost eit crane dads shige sodtant coroes edt
ce Looati It sisi emis oilt ae soodaxehsu ‘ite od tat oe emit 50
seat Pert: c sumideeh bine ot 000, Bees ye, of aaa “be8
ORGY. APRS EG ES Se ses
¢ Lees edtd ee Sedvoliog of aisoste wokLor 5 oe 2
ee 3
“65 9d Sisroda 060,13 @ Shox + att Baus edstae 5 é
‘haaben af
- gptiec bise 5 wo ea ‘aoa
of iss 2 cn. fos: a wil dada aphiea,
oft antévowts mort ,itesetote os stoxbros: chest taht
ect seettbe of Statee. dine Xo novia ates or tee sof.
"Bad od pte waa etd) Yo se oh a ka bisg
iP Ey OSS ta Reet. a eB Naa
wo
5
noe édmitont Se Ot sowie ean ot sos Ufa - cal ua,
eid viv betoemtoo yew on mt be, oneal of tom stew £ |
Beicoifiibe Soe ,sohselgretak odt tohnus oan
Sas iy ig Ng ye he a,
a gre ~~ - ; " ; _
rights and liabilities resultins froma contract alleked to
have been entered into by one of the parties to the litigation
with Frank E, Adams, who wes not party to this suit; also ad-
judicates matters concerning moneys paid unier an alleged duress,
and as the res.1t of a conspiracy alleged to have beom entered
‘into by some of the parties to the suit with other parties not
comnected with the suit, to vrigs about the procurenent of moeny
from Frank i. Adams.
Frank E. Adams, who was neaned as executor of the last will
of the insured, Lizzie White, never became the legal representa-
tive of the estate, and never had qualified, or atiempted to
qualify, ss oxecntor. The transactions between him and Arthur
B, White end lulu ll. Wheeler concerning the assets of theatate
and the payment to Arthur 3. White and Lulu M Wheeler of alleged
assets of the estate appar to be wholly foreign to the issues
_ involved. Frank ©, Adams wos a witmess in the case, and testified
i frinat there never were any assets of tho estate of Lizzie White in
nis hands from which si payment could be mae; thai she had a
donated to him all the assets of her estate before her aotth, and.
that she left none except the insurance policy. F Pawaner as he
was not the lozal representative of the estate, and did not at any
time handle any of the assets of the ostate, whatever arrangement
he may heve made with either of -the paxties named concorning the
payment of money to thom, or cithor of then, was purely a personal
matter in which the estate was not legally concerned, and if cer-=
tain Arties wronefully caused him to give up money his remedy
was a personal one, and not one that would pess to the adninistra-
tor of an estate. In ay view of the ease the controversios that
are alleged |o have arisen mmong the parties at Clinton, Lowa,
zee
Blaiuay re the ae
> ae
of Segelic toactinoo s moth anitineer soltifitdelt bas adigis rin
nokeght Lect ot molten, ot 20 eno wd otek boxotae: need ovat ale
whe’ cele ptisa, ahid of) ieee o.com, new ow gemebA,sTolet Rew e
,2cemb Begelis ge role Diag sypoem geteteonos: enedten asheoihee
boveime coed ovat of begetle Yaaxtquaoy! a 2o\3L vom eft-aaiee
Seiden gediie Gif dire ort 03. geld'e96 ett to. emom: a el :
Year te ¢oenexwootg odd dwods.putri, ot tise ert shew, Sodaeas oo
Riese tiles mort
, 4 : ; Los 3 7
i ; ing
oe
ity. desl. pdt..29 sohweexe. e8 Senoe.aaw,gstir ait ss ans cl
wat veneege: Lesol ods eueoed seven ,etiny, adceid., hoxeomd
0% Bedquette xo yhelki lanp hed, seven Bea,etetne ot ooey
nwide, ine suk seotsted. axottaso mmx ods, » «zodsoone peer ,
etedmaedd. to Sdecun ait yixketponps releag 2nd aw ob ta
Bemeite Re rakoed . Mumia Bo OFAN on sinionialanasithe bts
<a
Siciaiescihc dil cist seas sis omeasdien asian Nauie st au bovlowmt =
ci stig cies. to-atetee ot-2e.adevas WIS LO<ew toves oxediube mee:
Kc 5 eat 688 cant gece. gd Stee octaomcen waactoteginost cman at
ins ooh sctet orc ot stedee xe 20 etfoane. end Rho minted hodemeb
ed 13g shewcoepaens T F wor log congwonth odd stq@ooxe. oon del ode dedi
ws ve ton bib Sue ,cisteq.es). to evidotmeemcon egal odd demiasw
JAsHesuS=TS, toyed sow, ededge add to aheses oud to cymesoLimadambt
ot scirgoonoD Doman votteey add 20 seGtieuithw vekew seved.qgem mt 7
Bert cass Gioad aero Ro multe mo vqiodd oF momen He dhkommE |
Ht0o ti vcs .Sommonen Where, tom, aew-otahagued?: Koda sob xodtvem
Yoore: aid yoron qv ovin of mit beavas. ylip 0
mei aitinie, sh) oi aaa, bLuew tag emo don hag seine ase |
dade soiarovosigoo. odd, ex90 .ocld to aroke Ym Mi 6 -sndstao ne 20d
SRO) » -ft0tGhIO the aqiiwsy seid pesos: domitea, ovat 0 Bogen: ome uj
ee
i a ia :
jie
wore personel. in thoir natime with which the logal representative
of the estate, who was afterwards appointed in Carroll County,
had no concern whatever.
If Frank &. Adams, as a matter of fact, had any assets
of the estate of the deceased in his possession, the law points
a way for the advuinistrator to procood in order to obtain thom.
If the administrator has a legal claim upon the proceeds of the
insurance policy or any lien thereon it is not because of any
acts or contract made by Prank EH, Adams with Arthur 3B, ihite;
or beeauso of m oney poid by Ademe to Imiu It. “heelor or Artour
B. White. Ani if Frank 0. Adams acquired any rights concerning
the proceeds of this policy it is clear that such rights should
n ot be adjudicated ins suit in wiich he was m0 t & party; nor
eould such rights be transferred for adjudication to the adminis-
trator of the estate of the deceased insured.
The only real matter inishue under the reference wan
whether the children of Lizzie White were mtitled to the pro-
eseds of the pblicy under the assigunent. If the assignment
was valid and became Legally ef’octive,tham the procecds of tho
policy rightfully belong to them; if the assignment was not
valid, then the ofministrator would bo entitled to such oroceods.
In this state of the case the parties, and the pleadings, no
other question could properly bo litigsted. ( Byers v Sensom,T.
C Co, I11 T11. App. 575; Dyas v Dyes, 251 Ill, 567)
The whole controvery, therefo:o, turns upon tho validity
of the assignment made by the lumyred. It 1s contenied by the
appellee, Porbes, that the assimmont was not a valid am binding
cal ee
aeittap ‘=
z 7 ,
oie
id Taal
a
a
teetds Aoaxteos a apex ii fete We te At teat e sae swale
he Gh a aden = moos:
ors amcor feet att 1 dobin teapot tiosy a. SSE
“4 at mt et o. So lte Ws se Rey irae
atodia Yhe Hat (dost “to tboden B ae pemenA GR een
adnites wat ant jeineseldd abi.ct poacese’ eit to “Beata
simdt abeido of tobro wt hogowmr of pg tts
get Eig soushas ate, aah , Lsar, wi hr ne fo:
Saath 20, oil Ee PN AAEM Ho sd
_ oper paving fue, fast, + polp, at te woh
SOAS 27 ge eae og stop Be tae
sania ad}. of Aptana lari hs yok foyse tans & dance
ste i jogaeags ait 30 ant Sd
oe ee ee ee .
ea Ged ng he Fit ns order’ ed nalw Rvipcanies F
tit to Bhowsose Suis it eu Cent oldah fie saan .
Jot asi deediiatore ere yoo od emocod Yetitheh.se Yale —
senesotey desu of Botitdie ood Shrow todord nbn he oct redo g sey :
of Yoyertheo th wile hea sbeititah ¢ este vache eee “J
Dy mbease y eters) DPR EHED oer eee ty td Fas attto.
(sae SET Be! tad iil hae phone?
. : san Boi Sneed @, 98 ae
Lae TRRAY as, soem, seen). eee, _ ems oft of
(So YE Soimetncs BL IT ,bpsumet ont ye eben deem od “
ait that Me Bktov Sato saw sas out dedd sneceohiag Leqgs
;
7 “ami »
»!
one, inasmuch as there was no delivery of the policy~ the policy
after the assignment to the insured's children, having ronained
in the possession of the insured; md becase it is clained that
the assignnent was not attached to the policy.
The reguirenent that an assignment should be attached
to the policy wes one made by the insurénce company, and might
form the basis of an objection by the insurance company; but
inasmch as no objection wa raised to the assignment by tho in-
surance company, the legal representative of the deceased is not
in position to effectively question tho validity of the assignment
on that account. ( Cross v Mutual. Life Ins. Coe, 92 Ill. Avp.207;
Johuson, et al, v Van Ep, 110 Ill. 551; Martin v Stubbings,
126 Til, 587; Aid Society v Lowis, 9 Mo, App. 412; Swift v
Ret. & FC. BonsAsso. 96 Ill, 309) |
Viewing the assigmaent of the policy in the Hght of a
voluntary acttlemant of the proceeds by the insur od upon her
minor children, a manual delivery of the policy was not neces-
sary. And in cases of this kind the matter of delivery is large=
ly 2 question of the intention of the grantor or donor. io
particular form or ceremony is necessary to consti tute a delivery.
It may be by acts aitnvont words, or by words withou t acts; or
“by both, Anything that cloarly manifests an intention to dslive
end part with tho property involved constitutes « sufiic ie nt do=
livery. . Hence the very essence of delivery is the intention of
the party. ( Bryon oct al v Wash, 2 Gilman 557)
So in Kingsbury v Burnside, 18 Ill. 310 whore tho
yotfed oid -yotfog edit to! speek Be Wer aac crecl ol biti i Be
dec come poived uexbitde ethene oddeet demmginns wilt hee Oe
ded homteto ai gf easmood im jis umant of} 2ogaime
«wilog acts ot hedontte test ane i
we Rit
Sondadiés gd Sinoda dnvomeygtnes me eT
uh gyanamion: gored gelding mcitomt the. tox! tae Lane tid
aii old Ae deenagtons eit of Deaiey cow matt opto. one osm fe
tom at Soawepyh oft to evidehaosempet Leg ol bcd gyneigoo! wat
drommmdses odd to WRALLey oufh soktaeny! Ylorttbety-od wot toe
OSs Pose ie a ee isn ~~ i — cipal i |
‘3 So digh att ck whtog ot te dsoortens ear feces ae
tod og foxwedt oc vd onbeewonheddotectese “etndante
saesetitos ear yoktor acl ky yrawhles | nhac aie osha’! ©
monte ubayeovilos ke wedton eet elt abd tterneams cn lack Os geht
oll sos “Ko todoerse OY he OM mode eat Ro mote bonp [6 gE
Stre¥i [00 & otebitauoo ed ptomwenaie mib-gmeinMad ene. carn |
<0 patos 3 sorthiy ecow yd xo” paibrow doom te laos: eae
‘Ele? of nottmptsch aw etuckinay ghteety dele emkianerh > otter Se Sh |
woh inetoi Sar © node tg axopibo-ateteh pystementy seitd ath bina aaa
EX sottnotat ocd akoyrey vite) wasaniibare ps mwa fiPabe cn §
BS Qrasiet OLE SET OL ohameaet gear at ot
. ews 12 ot s ‘ es ROSE »
question arose upon the validity of a deed wpon tho matter of the
delivery, and where the grantor had sont tho deed to the recorder
and had it recorded, but without the kmowledge of the srantec, ani
where the gtantee did not obtain posssssion of the deed until
after the erantor's death; it wes held that if the srantor, with
or without any previous erransombnt with the grantec, had signed,
poaled and acimowledged a deed, placed it in the hands of the
registrar to be recorded, notified the grantee of the act and
he assented to receive it, by words only, this would be a good
delivery, though the grantee died before taking it into his
actual possession becouse the assent is the prineipal elenent,
and taking the deed into the grantee's possession is not in-
dispensable, but only evidence of assent and aetoptance.e
In the case of minors or infants whore a voluntary
settlenent is made for their benefit, an acceptance is presumed.
The court says in Masterson ve Cheek, 25 Ili. 72 in reference
to the mattor of delivery in the case of infants: “All the
eases cited on both sides are reconcilable on this consideration--
that the intention is, end met be, the controlling element. In
& case like this, where the conveyance was voluntary, ond to an
infant who died before he re.ched am age to accept or reject the
conveyance, 2 delivery and acceptance will be more readily pre-
sumed then in the eases to which reference is mie by appellant's
counsel, The principle being admitted that an infant of tender
years gan take by deed, not having at the cane time discretion
to accept or refuse, and dying before that pbriod arrives, am the
grantor having performed every act he could perform to pass the
title to the infant, and it being for his benefit, it is fair to
presume ho has assented to ite"
—
oat to mwégem oft moge heoh $ to WES Lev odd og oxots mo iteonp ,
tehrose pat ot Beeb exté tmo8 bet rod nm ost “orto dw Tee pent
ie geting ett to opie fiom ait darostd ber dent sSobboer | it in
fidar feo’ até to Ho ieaunaog ntstde ton bEb ootnety oe
itiw ;vodmeny edd bi tedd Afod ase tl qltoeb al rodceng, swabs
-hoomier Bid 4 ocdmeng: atid sihte todmegnecza agotvend. vise dost tet
ott ton itor ath mbt feos lg sieet 2.-baato imetan. te hale
- See Foecectt he cosdregs. ee ee ae
hoon sed “Atvow watt yuo wbeaw yda th pvteoes oF Sotmpaagod 7
aid ode $4 gabled oveked bekh catsamg edd Aanodt,, aworhles
(theme te Logtekey ast of nema ont, serzoed motanoanod Lamas: Seok!
eos ae aE seinen prion joiet soatags + Senta yam
scrbinhesins die cstes: tacos ec peated 1a peed
ott Ge” pubcatad co een edd ak yrovideh Yovzetdenedt at
--cohtewehtenon ait to oldeltomovet ross sebte, shod, 0, betto.pengo ey
ax piueme fe yikthferiicos odd od team oes. eb-stotshecogad odd. tect *
oo: 8} aay y Yon Ley sew osmayeumen-eddyeredw gata (GAEL 89-8 —
“our ) Ebbinet stom od Liv conetqooes pein I :
“girelfogrs Wd ote mk eonoxeondedin, of Bongo, alt, sk mast Bemane
“thine to tavtak ae todd bottinhe: pried elgtonhsg och. «.feamapa,
NOLteteRLS on kT Grew exit ho) pstbyed, dost gdoob westet dian? is
Git ic ,tevirte tokig dork oxcked gautyh bas yonstet todgeog
att weuig ot mmptnog fisoo ox ton yiove Seinen beng patkved toTy
A wie be JE .titened wit cok wxsek than “loclice ite oo orth
-- 4g$h ot Bodmonee earl od omuuie
The principle established in the cases roferred to concern~
ing delivery and the presumptions arising in reference thereto
in cases of infancy, have been reitereted by our suyrere court
ine number of cases. ( Riverd vy Walker, 39 Ill. 415; Reed v
Douthit, 62 Ill. 348; Union Itutual Ins. Co. v Campbell, 95 [11.
267; Weber v Christen, 121 I11. 913; Williams v William,
148 Ill. 426; Miller v Mecrs, 155 Ill. 2843 Abbott v Abbott,
189 Ill, 408; Baker v Hall, 214 111. 364.)
The proof shors tuat/the time of the assignment ‘in
question the two children of Ligzie “hite were living at hhame
with their m ther, ond that they were infants of the eases of 11
and 13 years respectively. And the intention of the insured
to transfer the procoeds of the policy to the children is clear-=
ly manifested by the fact tha! she made the assignment im due and
proyer form and executed 16 in duplicate, and sent to the company
one of the duplicates to satisfy the requirenemts made by the
company in that resard to procure their assent to the assignuont
and to mako sure that the proceeds of the policy would be paka
to tho children instead of to her estates There was nothing
further that she could have done to more effectively indicete
that by tho assigument she intended to make the children the ,
beneficiarics of the proceeds of the policy. <A manuol idlivery :
of the policy was not wisemr vracticable, nor was it necessary ;
under the authorities cited; an acceptance by the children
must be legelly presumed it boins an assignment for teir benefit.
As a voluntary settlement upon the minor chiliren, there was «a
. sufficient legal delivery to give the assignment binding etic cte
(4
-10-
Oe CON eR ee ae
waxeones of Soxtotet somes jar al beettidates Sethian eos e Nae
Wovedt onvoxeten nt gataits amo biqnsimery ‘osth ban Ykoveto eck
eves ‘eaotiee two yd bedered bet inood cova § {TORoRE to kenas mk
y hoof. ,QER LET QB, wollelioy Sttovtl >) sdonso to coda ak
SLE S@.4, Liedeued: vowod «eel tamtet-wodee« 4098 ET Ra, FRTOT
(ORL EAT eoml LO g0O EE) LOE. anne vents beh
canon LEY BIG LEAH osteo soe ee ne
nous ia ane ea
ao tmemgtaee ott to amt oad\ tad arwtla e too Lae capikaaan
orbit ts ‘gackvi otow od a oles bt te sorb Leto owt od} mo rosieern ss
tia ne Pt Tine
cf \ ¢ gt
rr to aeR8 2: e ‘to at acted ouew vost ast Saas «coat ox, eee ig .
Ro ay ttt ai? ys Rit
bergant act <0 patdinent ott fica peeing rie BISEY BE ins
areclo ah sorblido add wthroyeitog ehdotto: abeosorny eit | chahoee e
Spe orb at dnonsgkaes editoe tan ore dherliodoat: ost ed boteekinnn Yl
Yremio ahh ed teen, bite ,edeotiquientukt-sedoxe ime akon caine |
ou YW obed , wtmenoxtuper ond ytakice ot) debsohienh! ont) ei
ineatpteae oct of deoads tied exmsoxy eh busge deitet yRREeD
bisq.ed bivow yotleg. est te eboovor dg esyy 3 ot! Oe eaten ob bits
guidteo: saw exed? . yotatao net od hor Saotoat merhLeao ait OF
_ ste bink YLovidoette evom-ot mos oved hithes ene Jatt xeaeeie”
vo tit Mebiido odd ailen ob dodmodet \arie ureitigioas: she ©
; Maeve lel Legend «4 yokLon odd Ro: aboooone ond ‘to Boleetodvened
‘gxecRenes th earner, , oldse ttieutoroa dy. torr gow YoLlod: ‘one to
sothiids ai’ gd eomsdvooos uo gbottoveetthr onto pay ee hiir ©
ptiesod wheat sob ditormsnos macertod tk Domest yliegetoee aan
) @ Bow ovorth ymowL ide vomtn ont wtoge dene kyeen Rope
etodite, attinid: toonwaghean ved sie ot bagnhlnesS Tegel tielettice .
wi Ji ow Sotewoowse: sont af See
y
i-
4 .
“4 roeR
But the assignment in question was in legal effect
and as a mattor of fact simply a change of bameficiarys. This
policy, which was taken out by the insured, and mace payable %O
her executors, administrators and assigns, is in the same legal
‘catesory as if it had been made payable to herself, and she had
the same power over it as if it had been originally payable to
herself. ( Johnson v Ban Epps, 110 I11. 551) In the vase
just cited the court says: " fhe contract being between the in-
surer and the party whose life is imsured, so long as the latter
retains. possession of the policy he has the right, with the con-
sent of the insurer, te change the contract of insurance so os to
pive the proceeds of the policy, wpon his death, to a different
peneficiary, or to change it in any other manner the contracting
parties may asree upon not contrary to law or good morals. That
this position is supported by many analogies of tne law as well
as by express adjudications must be conceded. ( Clarke v Durand,
12 Wis. 248; Kerman v Howard, 25 id. 108; Foster v Gile, 50 id.
603, and Gambs v Mutual Life Ins, Co. 50 io, 44,)"
We are of the opinion, therefore, that the real effect
of this assignment of the policy,which was accepted and ac~
quiesced in by the insurance company, was 2 change of the bene-
ficiary,and a delivery of the policy, for this purpose, is not
necessary. It is not necessary in ordcr effectively to mals a
person a beneficiary in an insurance policy that the poldey shoul
be delivered to such person; nor is «= delicery of the policy
necessary to the beneficiary who is smbmitterocta substituted in
' the place of the original beneficiary.
We concluie, therefore, that at the time of the death
of the insured, Lizzie White, her two children weve the real
-9T1L=
tootte Kegol mk esw oottaemp ot drommtass edt doe “itl
alst, syxntotiemd to cgtado.e Ulgmtartost te. mpi!
SF olde vee em, be; ORR Oc A de ON COCR mE
ineiiidia dil iletiasiideatis avtoat sehaliica sot
‘ a Lietdom siieeiglee, panes bat aha em sh.som-s xo ME
wat odd meomted actod doorios edt" ,eyse.dusoo. add, bode
rodvel oft as grot ob .bengeat eb otf caody. weer oct Bout 2
“moo off didiw ,drgix wane sae! p aaa ott, on Sea ag,
of a3 08 oon oat to dootdas dervent
sds teRi8 of ool abe fii eats wae % }
sant “saaon boos “4 st a pores" oie ie oF
““'trow ne wef act “to ao tgotene yim gd Beda
* (Bitexene W'edeero ) Ale ‘od asm “axto
OE oe ete) v ‘woteot bor” sBE $e"; Stew manny
mor Oe biceall ~oit 08 200 sant out? Tanti ,
Sethe Resi as SO Has ab ied
ociaasdilek: arid, duals anberadi pany ap od
98 Dae Sodgeoos sow slotie, yottog pnpanisri
Jom. shy eagamg, ahah ,.o% »yotiog odd 20 .grovkles 2 bos aerate ke
6 aos of yLoviselte rebw mb yusagooon don at JT... Wesgagoom
Bixaly canton off dud yohog ema cme ne sb Eat 218 ne oe
Mor oi to WeohleS ak, won , ymoevoen dase gt Benevileh sf 1)
al OMe er RT mer ntearerrneieiiiee
feer ssid ovew novbt iio owt tot ,otidY otmatd | pene e
bom ficisries of the policy in quostion ond legelly entiticd to tho
proceeds thereof in the hands of the cirwit ele i.
For the reasons stated it should have been decreed that
the proceeds of the policy in the hands of the clork of the cirew t
court be paid to Arthur 3B. White and Iuvlu i. Wheeler, coach taking
one half; and that the administrator of the estate of Lizzie White,
deceased, had no interest in or claim upon the fund in question,
The decree is therefore revorsed and the cause remanded with
directions to enter 2 decree in eccordance with t e views herein
expressed.
Reversed and romanied With directions.
-12-
vistibe Senal AA weer, no trees hed soummpinne att dl sx ange q 4
apaate gat pag ho, ervuate..0 Gate 682 6% aa i.
Saeed. ¢.0& ntst a Htigsta, ait 30 absad oh Hs: ee
tte Hootses moet sin it ar
é broths edh 20 Auele eit 30! toned ott af cotton eh kd
gabled ithe jxdBeodt) Ar stat veo mot ta
«bt bly bead he Gates ext to cots
sores ae brtvt prapriantngiraiervmmberirensiiie
2? Sohitet binds edt tuts’ Sorted oxbstbit AF
shee taro wattabtooad latemecacri
+S PS BOS. witht? 5 water Sin. rae eboegor
sete a i poate
sat? » ite. BASS pay tax at wrardn os 8 gee hoett berg Yam e )
; eae | twat aed to. us hab hae ita wd bodwac ang” Be a .
rs a? > oiins th ee Saat be Pata ae! fee Love SE ween es
; See tk S Fhe dn se aary ae alae ne Be a Stuek pares edhe
| tae tae: oe a of raveant Paden Pr
aE
tee eR BR Aah, gh CO NE paella agli. 1g, 98
is a rPhaueGer day aE Bink ed eee as S ES peewee: -
tev eS oie Kebgcha > Ae ROO. WR Se ge ak ens 7
ae mart! Fee OS ox reas Pa che he vel od pe sibs BR Deady
pat -
Eve te REE ORES
BREST ASSES VS, ets NR! SOS E OTE, ORME tiie EE eee
yi te sup piles gia sae Wace ven: bomav.
je Sr tpoos «spo daiphainaliie 6 cave ese ie iain iii sie same
oy eee _ soe ty vod, Soles. eee eile
eae icc Ss ie aac ania a
<f; ame Reo. ey ne ie fi: . eek saat gen citi ‘patently be i, bela
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ! :
SECOND DISTRICT. ok
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOFR, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this_ :
day of- in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and eS
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
=i “i @LOULLILE Gi a
atelisqqd off jo duel aa x6) mean acc ai ane, auc
: vito OT SL oe Jo ayes boltidoe eS: out Al M1
at vife bas boat ~or de4 ofageted 1 omaw W yvuomiraaT ul.
_zidd sewatOow p09 odellogy 4 bine odd to leae
S00 bret 10 io te9y atlt oi ee qeb
ee ea ees) | horrbaud os bnaeuatt i
f © ae
7 —<—— 7
-~ - - te amy sor nyinemenensopr nceet hs se ane : :
ARG OK ake tea Anni. © i fe ha Le) ee
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day Of Apr 1
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Lilinoie:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. 2 OO
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG 10 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
Pact
gs pps,
. 3 Wa var
rilizqA Yo yet dt xB OR. oat pyebacut Page) eaten
”
a ,megtxie,. bas. bethasd gaia basevodt eno brod x1u0 to esx.
¥.
Ma ok gat
y ; nd >
ratogiifl to sisi2 eit to Ce jaid baooee ‘edt Tot bas ai
sti t
‘ - gatdant garbtests , auAHETH .M WHOL aol od?-
Cor ae guisay | he “aWAUa? aon”
sottert .JIRaid ZOMAHHAOG .aoH
.itefd, ,YTHUC, 0 AEHIOTeIAHO.
_.ttivede «, QIVAM OM, 22.
ee ee as ee ee ee
Os SES TSS pe a ne
- E ~ Paes
eS pees > Paks ;
ed » byzt -
Sai a = Ses :
i», 3 evne
ie; ¥
~ i ae ma
cs hs ooh :
$ 2 ‘ ‘e ee
. Se eres in, Par
ie = me “! NAN Ka nat oe Ki
ae aH ek Gi
= es Pe be a
.
_ , 4
£
ot he
rdiweod ,abtawretts isdi Beers TE 2
mi hskit ssw txyod ads Yo aoiaigo ext
aotpurt bas abtow sai ai
we
- a
~
—
~ vo
ed als f
S iw rm eee ay ¥ rh
§ “
Gen. No.6195.
Payton J. Tuohy, appellant.
vs ; Appeal
Chicago & Joliet Elestrioe
Reuilway Co. appelliée.
Niehaus, J.
oO
This is a suit brought by Payton J. Tuohy, an attorney
at law, by petition, te establish 2n attorney's lien under
sembly, passed in 1909
eceating an attorney'a lien; and to enrores the same, against
the appellee, Chicago # Joliet Flectric Railway co Af Tae
petition aver@ that Isrmes 7. Winer, of the city of Jolist
and County of Will, retained the petitioner to represent him,
as personal representative of Hsurcsld Miner, decsased, in pro-
bating the estete of the deceased; and 2iso in aa action for
personal injuries resulting in the death of said Harold Miner
such action te be brought asainet the Chicago & Joliet
Electric Reilway Co. ; that the petitioner on or about the
a8th. day cf October 1912, entered into a contract with said
Miner, wherebdy 1 to receive for his aervhoss rendered
Pty
1é
in that pehelif, 2 fea cf one third of the amount recovered
against the Chicago ® Joliet Eleetric Railway Co.3; that in
compilance with the terme of the aforesaid asreement, he
attsndei the inquest over the body of the aforeasid Harold
Miner, deceased, and examined all the witnesses before the
coroner; that on or about the Slate. day of October 1915,
he served upon the Chicago & Joliet Electric Railway Co. a
notice of attorney's lien; that theresfter James VY. Miner
and the Chicago & Jcliet Railway Co. compromised the said
Claim, with James W. Miner as 2dministretor of the eatate of
Harold Miner, deceased, and that the sum of {600 was paid
Stes ss bheg sew 008} to mue oft tedt bas b
= ie 4 a ile ae
- a yey 4 e
yr “4 , <i =
ir re .
° si ssi nd ix
1S’ oy Pe —_
a
oF ?
effi mott Lesqca
Yourotis as .YdoewT .<% mozysl yd tdiguord tiv 2 ei elst
tshay aeil a'ysnroits ac detidatss of ~meititeg yd Ww
COei at besseq ,yidmeaedA IsrensD sedi to tos ent * -
fentsrs jemee ef} eototne of bac jmetl s'ysaxotie os patie
ext Bod yswitsed oittoel® teffol & ogectdd (2efleqge
geifol to ytio sci to .teatl .¥ saat tect “Steve aoit
«nin fnseexges of teselti¢veg eft -beatste1 ,{fL¥ to yeawod”
—oic oi ,bsewseost ,teniv bloisl to @rvitetnsaerget Lenoet
tol sofites os af cats kre jbeenecsk edi to efstse edt gy
teri Dloush biee to deeb ond af gaitivest astivtat Lene
teifol & ogsoidd oft tentege tdgvord sd oF mottos
edi tuwods to mo temottiteq eft tedt ; .00 yawlish oui!
bise dtiw toaitmoo « otal bexetne ,Sfef szsdotoO to yah a:
botebnet eecdvise sid tot evieost of asw od yderoxin *
bexrsvoost tavomé oft to bridt sao to set s Mates te
mi fac? 4.00 yewiteH otstoolT tetLol & ogeotdo ent te
ed ,édmomeetns Hisestotsc sit to emtet sit dtiv “pomeh i
SbfoteH breeotots sdi+ to ykod ent steve: teeupat ext Peba
edd stoted geecentinv eft Ifs bentmsexrs bas ~beaseosk
,SL@f tedoteO to yeh »tel€ and tvods to go tadd jy temo
# .00 yawlish otutesl% tetlot 3 ogaoldd edt moc beves:
toniM .W sens rettestedt tedt poets e'yentotts to
bse off beaitmexrqmoc .o0 yewlleA tetloL & age
to st¢etse ec! to tsoterteinimhs es renin Ww er
to James W. Miner, as administrator, in full of ail claims
without the knowledge of the petitioner, and without any
notice having been given petitioner.
The petition also yee nas the notice required
by the Statute to be given, was served, and filed, in order
to establish the lien; and was served and filed as required
by aaa the petition oraytAtnat James W. Miner, admin-
istrator of the estate of Harold Miner, deceased; and said
Chicago & Joliet Railway Co. a corporation, be made perties
defendant, ana bs reguired to make answer to the petition;
and that the defendants may be decceasd to pay the petitioner
such sum as he is entitled to, zs fees for the serviaes
contracted for. FE
The notice which waa served on the appellies, is as followss:-
"Notice of attorney's lien.
To ths Chicago & Joliet ETlectric Raiiwey Company, a corpore
ation: You ars hereby notified that ‘he undersigned has been
retained and employed as attorney eat law by Jamea WY. Miner
ag his attorney, © ask, lJemand, receive, comvromise ani
settle a certain suit, claim, demand and cause of action
against you for personal injuries resulting in death to one
Haréld Miner.
"You are further notified that in consideration of services
reniered and to ve rendered, we are to have and recsive a sum
equal te on
o
third (1/3) of the amount reoovered on account of
suh suit, claim, demand ani cause of action; that we have and
hereby claim a lien woon any verilict, judgment, ijeccee,
compromise or settienent entered or arrivei at, and that
under an act of the ceneral assembly of the State of Iljinois
entitled "sn act creating attorney's liens and for the
enforcement thereof", in force July 1, 1909, you are to make
no settlement of said claim, eto., without my consent and
without satisfying my said claim for fees ani services.
amtsfo [ie to [int mt ,tofettainimbs as rent aH, ment,
yas foodtiw base Sinaia erst: odd to egbe wom, edd hi
berlupet eotton odd eal cals Mgitited eat
tefio at ,befii bas ,bevies sew, eviy ag ot eautote. edt
betiuvpet as belli bas bevirsa sew bas smett edd ee
-fimbs ,teniv .W aemst sade weora soltited edt bar
bise bae “(beessosh «prenil blotsH Yo stetes ‘edt to ‘tot.
esitisq eis od ,.notteroqios « Mie) yawlhar toftot X og:
gtoititeq sdi o¢ tewans etum ot ber (ipet ed ‘Ens tinats
setoitited.edd. yeq et besopeb sd eke atnsbietel: ah fate
ceof tos edt tot abet e€ am bytr tens: ex
asotviee to soitsishisaes of tert beltiton tedPuyt ore! .
mea 56 evisost £96 Ssved ot ete ow ,bexrshiner sd ofttas Bree
te tagooo# no beuexvdte 1 tmsoma ett to (S\r) weNie ede hee
bes evad sw tedt mottos To ebuso bres’ Deeb \midto tte a
,eeocel. .taomghbut ,toibrev. yas nog ‘net &mbeld Ye foxe
taid bos .,te bevture to! beseitas Snenbt? seat 30° ‘es ino zomo
afomt{il tov etet®. edt to yLldmeses! Lorsasa'! en hy ‘to teE me 3 ;
edd ret. bos, emetL-a'yentotial ssebbinees:
ete of ete woy ,80CL+.Lylat soto at
bas taseago. um tyeddiw sin tiie te ”
"Dated at Chicago, Iilinois, thia Gist. day of October A.D.
1913. Exhibit*A*. Payton J. Tuocty.*"
Tne notice was servei by mailine the same to the sorelles
Railway Co. and was received by the company in ive course
of the mails. Upon a tearing of the petition, it was
dismissed by the court for want of equity; ani from the
+
g the petition, this appeal is taken.
to be rendered by the petitioner, was mad= vith James 7. Miner
individually; and not with him asa sdmininstrator of the estete
of Harold Miner. ilécsased; and that Jumss W. Miner, who,
Bubsgquently to making the contraat for the attorney's
fees claimed, was sopointed adwinistrator of the estate of
a
t
4
Harold Miner, decsag6d, dices not appear to tavé, as suc
administrator, in any way recognized, ratified or adopted
said contradt; and that so fur 2a the estate is concerned,
the matter was left in the same position as it would have
been, if sore other person had been appointed administrator.
The cinim of the petitioner, therefore, appears to be arainst
James %. Miner individually; and the notice which he served
upon the appellee ia concerning a contract for services with
J. W. Miner individually; and ices not in any way state, that
he has or expects to have a contract vith him as administrator
of the estate, nof a claim against the estate for services.
It does not avrear, that Jeres W. Miner had any case
or action or jemand against the appellee, which was cor>-romised
or settied. Ani inasmuch as neither the contract, nor the
notice, cover amy comoromise or settlement or lien for any
+
attornéy's fees, ius from the administrator of the estate of
:
Bed
Harold Miner, deogaged; nor for any action, claim or ierand
2 3 J ?
of said estate against the appellee, the leral basis
lien is not established.
aaiieisc fie to fink at
, TOfartatotobs as realy me
Ae
se 2.4 gedote0. te, yeh_.te dg .stgoliil solda 3S
rasoto0.20 vab -fefE sidd, ,e29GRi:T opsckdd te
= ".vHouT .b Botre?: , -TA"GE
, foq geyly weed anak jad
; eeifecas. sit, of Omes alt : ten we Esvies esw SEs OF
“ 968i moitiveg gif: >
Seiueo aul ak yasqmos eit ro bovtooes aon bas taba yar.
— . > Y ar a2 7 beet
aan 3! .mottiteg ad to gatzsod | 5 “oqu
= mere Sr: +
pad? mont bas. uxt tps, to, Ager 0% #100 ois ed
izzd we ic
amet At Pike BATTS, elds wottites edt qateaimele |
ge Pas’ 2nd Fe toF 2)
seoivise tot denttaon edt dane. seouasblye edt MOzs erseqas 4
Tae £ Ry ites s
tenil 8 eqmsl. ddin sbeq esw ,tegoistiog | ext ‘id beasiaex ec
ae
etetes ect. to oeotonsatalme 68, dil ig tw ton bas. ictatey
PS Fant
ote. <Teniy .¥ 2east deus bre ptbeeeqoel zc blot
a
e*yentotic edt rol foattmoo edd anBayset utes
-te.stetee 297 to- totertelatabe betntogus Ben shontale
SET te
i so. Sy > it eeepc se > — BL
dove ae ,8v.ct of tweqge fom Bsok, .beag eet rant fe
bstoobs to betiiter ,bsaingoost Ww, Ya Pratt, stot aate ts
-abonzecgne at. etatep. oj 88 ast, 99. test bas ptbextze
ever. bison .3f gs tiao e eat tel I
Pte BF ROE aE Pes Yolahs srs /
-tofsrisinimbs betatogns mec’ bed moetsg isto ems Me
‘ eeta a gPSier
tenisss 6G. of. AIseqG% orole ted. sppeettises ons to tpi
Ae LAI eG 7 “S.
bevtes si dotdw eoitos eit . Poe cyifeubtvthat renin -F een
Tot Woy ‘Fart
yy.8» '
dtitwv esoivise rot tostiaoo 2 yataisomoo al se [Legos ed? noc
~roniy £ ibs
sadd. tate yor cas of ton soos. fas. Api taut ty thas. renid .W
pa art ot wor®
toterteigioba se mid dtiw tosiiaoo s. syed 98. asooqxe 20, 325.
Is Serep
‘oe BODLiVIS2. 107. etetes edt deatsss where, 8 FOR atates edt
$no of: >
eese yar fef tani .¥ eerst tad? <ha5998 ton _f908 aT
id Bins : . ee ae
hestmoises aar doidy .cellaqas, sit f27bsae basset ba ee
mi. edi ton ,Soextaoo, edt todd ten. ee doumesat. t baa -bokttes
— an Ce | ea lao
2 al oxime: 70%. netL£, 10 taeasittes. zo Sa LMOTIMOS. . Yas preg
The evidence shows also, that the service of the notice
in this case was by mail. A notice to establish a statutory
lien, where the manner of service is not pointed out by the
Statute, requires a personal service of such notice. (Haj v
American Bottling Co. 361, Ill. 363.)
Appellant insists, that o-cause the anopellee admits in
his answer that petitioner served the notice in question
, os 3
4t is not
na position to raise the question of the validity
of the servioe. We are of opinion, however, that tne admission
merely relates to the fact of a servise of a notice; and
dees not admit, that guch service was in compliance with the
reguirsments of the Statute. It is clear, under the iscision
in the Haj oase supra, that a personal service on appellee
of the notice, was necsasary, as a condition precedent to the
éstablishment of a lien, if the petitioner had one.
For the reasons stated, we are of opinion that the court
did not err in dismissing the petition; and the decree should
be affirmed.
Py ss Be
ebive ¢
Sia:
i: We iia BE a
yrotutete @ datidutes ot eolion A .Iham'yd éan 6820"
sotto ed? Yo sotvide edt tect .oals ewolle so.
oii yd tuo betatog ton et eoiviea to tennant bcd eredy
wy Tee
(808 V£fT 2£08°.00 gat ftom neo
at edimbs eelfeqds sft eeusdsd faci leferént dost
qitpitov edt Yo noltesup edt “estst of moftteog 2 ‘nt te
soiseimbs edt tend prevewod ,aotatgo to 9x2 eW Jsotvioa
ins jeotton « to sotvrea 4 to ‘fost edt of \ St fe
sit stiw eoaaifqmoo mt esr evivisa iewe teit timty 3
acteivel sit vYelm (taefd at FI sedutesa edt
ssileqqe mo sotvree fsmoeted & ‘add. (serdar -sad0 [se
si? oF trebsoeiq noftibnes 2 ac «Yiseetoes ger o. ot
ene bed tenotfiteg edt YP ~metl'’s Yo :
étuo0 ed? tad! moimtgo ‘to ets ow | betste “enoaso
bivede eetosh edt bas gnotéiteg eit antect
hv
° Aeon #65 gout tence eat. te
* 7 oe oh ee) er
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT. pee:
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this _
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and : =
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
7
stsiloyqé add to dnold os ‘J oe soa ir
ovitto YO Ai biaent Me fornt helti¢as 9 gvode add ti er
sit xifte bos bial coi dye otauesad Lb oun aa cuowiredt wl ne
ahd BwhiiO te dod sisiiegg A bise add to leeg
= S00 biod 1uy io tesy ont of arp cere ee SE
Se bs hor baud ouio braavods |
Vl
f
a
Pd
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand ning hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. oo
; >:
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
Q 191
AUG 1 916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
ort
finds to yeb oak odd pa fis n0 saves 100
festxtea bas. bexbeud gain basavods- mo bred tw0 to
laioat iT to stsie ody to doixvtearad baoose add rot bos oe
pees aL, gqibiaent 5 SUAHEIY © :M WHOL . cok ‘sate
a .oohd aut, 7 BEMAAO. nae auAUC 08
= veotient 4;dI391@ AWARGOG . nok
oa fae eYERUG. .9 AMHIOTRISHO
tired? fala g = NG
pppoe ieee een nsec scence ert ag tere ee erp ce oe oe cere eet eee
act ; ie ae ae
ie j sn
a iB ©. ? es
os - go ttiw-ot ,ebyswretts Seite
let 9. UA
ai beltt esw true sdt to moiaigo sdi iE a
bas ebtow odd at ,t4yod bisa 10 ee a
a
D
4
S
ad
™
fe
Gen. No. 6198
Louis Schildmiller, appellee
vs Appeal from Co. Ct. Rock Island.
Cigarmakers International
Union of America et al
appeilantse
Niehaus, J.
This is an appeal by the Cigarmakers International
Union of Amerioa, and the Cigarmakers International Union of
Amerioa Local No. 201, from a judgment for {550
rendered against them jointly, in favor of +he appellee,
Ts Schildmillier, in the county court of Rock Island County.
The suit was instituted to recover for a death benefit, which
appellee claimed acerued to him, as 2 gon of 2 deceased
member of the appellant organizations.
é It appear@ from the evidence that the father of the
- Henry Schildmiller, was at the time of his death in
good standing as a member of the agettert Cicarmakers
International Union of America Local No. 201; and that he
had been such member for more than fifteen years prion to
his djeathm, which occurred on or about February 15, 1914;
that undér the constitution and by-laws of the organization
named, it is provided, that upon the death of such a member,
a death benefit of $550 siall be paid to any person desig=
nated in writing hy such member; or if he fails to designate
@ person in writim such death benefit shail be paid to his
widow; and if there be no widew, then to his minor children;
and if there be no widow nor minor children, then to any
relative of the ieceased member who, at the time of his
death, is dependent for support, in whole or in part upon
such deceased members
It i clinabetin’ the deceased dii not designate any on.
* { yy “a fi 4 A ;
, 82L8 on.
eelleggs ,reliimbLidoe «
ebosfal wool .t9 -oD mort LIesqgA . wad ‘ig
fsnottsarosal etedents
fe te SolzomA big nota
east! eqqs
fanotisatretal aredemts ld ete yd is 944 oe a8 et aldT
0828 rot saemgbut s moxt ,£08 .of Lescol sofzemA
»eelloaqe s+ to tovat oi .yLintot medt fentsgs berel
Sotdew ,titensd dtabt & rot treveosr ot betuttient esw tive ba
Ssaseosh s to foe «c ep ymid of beytoos bemislo soils
»esoltesines to dnellooge edt to xodne
edi to teddst edt fadt somebive edt pe ee I
nt dtseb cif lo omit of? te saw toll imbLtdoe yrncH ——
wigtoniasts LoS sit to redmom 5 as gathasts -
efi tedt bas “yfos ee Lesod soitomA to ‘moinu Lonottsared
ot foitq stesy mestitli asdt stom rot redmem dove, need.
jM@L .@L yreutdet _tyode xo a0 betis090 do kite ‘eddies Pivce
noltasinspzo edt to ewel-y¥d inc, nottud ttenoo Of: ete
stangiseb of efist ad If ta ptedmom Rak gatttuv =
aid ot Blac ed {lede titenmed détsesk dove giidiaw at noateq 8
smexbiide tomtm eid of medt ywobtw on ed eredd. tt bas {wob!
yas of asds ,merbiide tonim ton wohiw on od oxedt 2h bi “a
sid to emtt edt te ,odw tedmem beaseosk “salt to evigelor
mocu tteq at x0 efosy mt trogove ‘tot dnebaoqel + al ait
in writing as beneficiary; ani that he left no widow, nor
minor chiliren; but did leave surviving him, his son, the
» who claims, that he was partly dependent upon his
father for Pomerer ad —
Two questions are raised on appeal, - first, that it
affirmatively appears, from the evidence in the case, that
there is ne joint liability of the appellants; secondly, that
the appellee was not in any way dependent upon his father,
the deceased membere Upon the question of the joint liability
it is urged by appellants, that there zre two orzanizations,
one national in character, and the other local; and that the
National orcanization, and not the Local organizations, is
liable. am Jvc evidence Rees the local orcanization
is a part of the national orcanization; =nd under its peversied
that the local organization collected for, and had the
custody of tas benefit fund out of which death benefits were
payable; andi the national organization controlled the fund,
of which the local organization had the custody; that the
local organization was prohibited by the byelaws of the or-
ganization, from payins death benefits, excent by the direc-
tion of the national organization. It is apparent, thet
payment of @ death benefit is effected by the joint action
of the two organizations; and that each had a constituent
part to perform in order to effectuate payment. Under these
circumstances the suit was properly brought against both
jointly. (United Workmen etc. v Zuclke, 129 Ill. 298).
We are of opinion, upon the question of iependency, that
the evidence tended to prove, that as a matter o
ry
fact, the
appellee was partly dependent for support, upon the earnings
of the deceased member. The deceased member was 2 widower,
and living with the @eperee, who was his only s ns“aet while
Pe a -
200 ae Se «Ov, «toatl
ton ,wobiw on gtol ed tsdt bas syustottensd as gotsiaw of or
f APOLLO 8 2eCe te
adé ,foe afd mtd goivivie eveel bib tud imetk Lido 2 tonlm a
eid moqu tnebnsgqeh yliiteq eaw sd Saedd paaibelo ow
-- S) wtrocque 07 reside Ree.
ia
ti tedt ,tarti - ,feeqqs so beater srs snotteeup owt a a
tedt ,easo soft at sonmelive od: inoxt eTESCqs Uovidenxtite (ex
feds ,yiboeose jatmelfeqqs edt to ytilitdsll tuiet on at ered K
~wadtst eid acoqu taebnegsh yew yas at ton asw eelleqcs ott
yiifidsil tatot ect.te aotteeup edt moqU «xedmsn beassosh edt
,enotéesiasnto, owt ots etedd.tsdt ,Staslleqas, yd begmu el at :
edt ded? tas yisool redto ed? bas «tetostsdo ot fscoltsa. 209
Shi Gu
ei ,maoitasinegro feool sdi tom bas. ,aottssigsesio Iecotte .
nottesinsgio Lecool edt ted? wore sonsbive oh, ore - pidatt
ortaes eti rebsy bac ynottestmsz10 Lacolten edt to treg = at
edt bed bos. ,t0i, betoeotioo. nottestadyzo_ fsool path teas
syew. etitsasd. disseb, dotdw, to tyo Laut titesed edd | dy
bast. 2d peLiowtiox® Woftsstneyx0 {ssotisn exit ins reldaysa
edt teci yyboteuvo edd bed aoitestasgio Lscol edt dotdw to
-to edt to awoleyd edd yd betididorq esw sottestasyr0 Ls00f
-~ostik edi yc tqeoxe ,attieasd dtseb gakyse mort wig ites tags
stadt. ,tnetacqs pi ol smolts inagio fisnottaa sit to nots
sottos tntot edt yd betosiis et fitensd Atsel 2 to, tasayeg
tneutitenoo 8 bsi dose teflt bos ,anolsasinsgto gud auld to
seed? tebaU .tnemysa oteutosits of xebro at mrotreq ot trog
dtod tenisgs tiguoid ylisqoig asK tive sdz asonstemyorlo
(606 .f1T C&L ,exLeuS v.ote aembtol betiaU) .yitatof
toi? ,yotsbmegel to motteeyp edt moqy, ftotmigo to ets BN.
dt ,¢ocl to totdem s 66 tedt ,evotq ot bebnes eonshivse ort
agototss eft nequ .dtcqqua tot taebaeqebh yitisg asw wt rs Se
,;tewolkiw s esw todmom beeseosh sdT »1tedmem beeseoeh | ode to
108
olidw BPS n08 yimo ats BG" PRS odkadttn gates bas
living with his son, and for at least two years prior to
his death, = . + th — ==
carbs § O per month, for nine month 5
of the year
nett! (fle paid eres over to his Son paendethepanere- f-H°
used Bemacseheee for the support of himself, his family and
household, of which the deceased was a member. The earnings
of his father was the only money, outside of his wages,
which Ass ad or could depend on, for the sucport of .-
himself and familyp
was earning at the rate of {50 per
required for such support, varied
per month. The father while living wi es =
ceived as a pary of kk this family expense, from the Yee
not only food and clothing, but smail incidentals, such aa
toebaccoe a a
Appellants contend,
42
that
cr
Ww
hese facts do not show,
that appellee was even partly dependent upon his father for
support. But we are of opinion, that they jo show, 2s a matter
of fact, that the appellee was at least partly dependent upon
his father, for support. Whether a person is dependent
upon another for support, is a question of fact. It is not
necessary that the dependenoy should be the consequence of a
legal duty; but it isa sufficient if it be a denvendencot in
8 a matter which
ble
fact. Whether there is such dependency,
must necessarily be determined from the circumstances and
conditions presented in each particular case. (Roygl League
v Shields, 251 Ill. 250.)
At the time of the death of appellee's father, it is
evident, that the wages which he earned, to a substantial
extent, entered into the matter of the support of anpelilese,
and his family, The particular extent to which apposllee
cd totve etsey owt desol Ws 167 Doe (aos “slid it tw gatvit
3 : eee gtd
- e eo ae Ve
}
-soner ein to eblietse ,.yenom yime eat aew tontet eid-to
Nereseek dotdw
: to grsgeve sdt tol ,ee-baccsi. Siseo to be
= gyitmet bas tloamtd
dapome edi @ee¢ bas Ydinomoreg 08.10 Star edf+ts yntnisse aan
; cath e
83. of .S8y guode-sort bseitev ,troqgva doya roi bottupes _ ted
- te x a
: -) 984. Seer od? ddiw “‘yaivil efidw tedte:°soT .diaom 15q
—— gift mort ,seneqxd yllmset eidt td “to “Yrsq°s es bevido
se Hove ,eletneintoah Lisma tud >, saidfolo bas ‘bcot vad fon
= sososdot
~wode ton ch etest sesdd Jedv -/bastiaoo afnsifsagk
sol tefts?t etd noqy trebnoush yltrad neve sew sellsqus stadt
rottem 6 Bo .Wods ob yernt Fed? ,fotatco to sts sw tua etroqgMe
segs gnebseqel yltxoq tagel te eew eelfeqqs eft tett .t58% ‘To
jasbueqsh af moerse ra yentenh¥ .trocays tot ,ashtst sid
ton ei tI ..sgont to sottetup’ s ai ,.troqque tot reitons moa
to @ocespeanoo sci ed Blyode yonsebaeqeh ert tact yrsesaosnh
ai gousiasceh sso titi tnelottiwe at? #4 tod sytub Legel
deidsw totiten s ek ,youebmegsh dows ef exedt tertted¥ 6st
bis eeenctemsotio oft mort’ beatmreteb ‘sd ylizseeesen taum
vyposd igyo%) «cess tefwottisq dose-at befasadetg aaottthbaeo
(0% .f£fI {£28 ,ebfelfde v
ei gi ,iedtst a'eslioqge to diseb edt to emit vedi tA
fatinstedue so ot ,bentae of dofdw eesew edt Salt .daskive
COE Si
~eeliec"2 to ttogqasa edd to tetten ese osnt botetas .taedxe
was dependent is not material. It is sufficient if in any
substantial extent, he depended on his father's earnings.
One who is sustained by another, or relies upon his 2id
in the matter of support, is dependent upon him to the extent
of that aid. (Alexander v Parker, 104 Ill. 355.)
We are of opinion, that the suit in question was propely
apvellants
brought against thexxysatisemxjointly; and that appellee,
under the provisions of the by=laws of ‘he appellants
organizations, yas entitled to the death benefit in question,
as a relative partly dependent upon the jeceased member, who
it is admitted, had been a member in good atanding for more
than fifteen years.
The judgment therefore should be affirmed.
Affirmede
bee =
UMG TAR
»
as at ie tnetottive et et
‘Pe bata'y bike” ito. 5 ake
-agatazae np pid no Sabeenes” = ee
Sree! eee oe tee Le grote ence pemene deena) wor sant te BES Ha wine
bis aid cog enties xO rredéage | wER
tote od? ot mit cd “ #nebacgeb ak
vielen ila nti akin nye nr be jr epemperegeammnarsinae oy
( aae ate BOL t9hTEE v cohen iat
ss > et Se erie cree <P" “hy SPY : Seperate Siete outa tee! Be Tin
aap J aew morinenr a the edi dedt pe oe Hy
j pertinent ‘
“e a aaretbeeie cet a 'y a; # Bey > 7 ‘atin ae
7 2 TSAT BIT oY 4
a in vComattA ae
yw"
STATE OF ILLINOIS, las
SECOND DISTRICT. : I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOoF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this _
day of — _in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and en ne ee et ee
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
j aTOULdIE a
sielfeqgs ody lo Asal .raand 2) aAynaetaned sant TOINTeld due
abneved ode to saqoud boa eiowill to siel@ adt te toineid bneesd bipe sot £ i
¥
edt io noinines add to rqoo sind o <F gaiouo1ot odt dedd WIITHe@O YaadAae Ga 06
7
ome vor st broserr to sue belting avods add gr diusoD 9
ede «ifs fur: bused vin Joe oinganed | oma cnomirren? wl
-idd .wetO is onno odalivgqg A bisa edd to fsse ap
sme bial ip le seoy od ot 2 ee tO EE
a _. 5 bas borbaud sate baseuodd
—
nee
Ae,
-
——~'= oar x Fuemeenta alt :2an Ben ee aor ea an
S mtelierecet. «Sty, Ancalty ; po ae Paw.
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
-
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourtl day Of Anminy,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Tilinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, pe raimeyoienuces
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. /
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice;
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. 0
Fi
x:
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. ;
i
————————
\
ine. | me
\
4
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG 19 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
Gay 2 ee
bee
SS a a
ear
‘erGsttder ones GUAKSIM °.M WHOL
_goitauby;@RUaAd es anava
som Gf Gg hidtel0 GYTEUG).0 BUHGOTeT AHO.
a co ae -tiked? , RIVA: .M Lg
za fi
4 i
‘
’ {
= a3
* f
EY, y
5 t
aT ,
|
oF t. ear! oe SS RS AS he a,
e
# Ce ere . 2 : > na eh
Ne PONIES . ae wipes? Dosey: OS tn Ye by She Se Sef
Satin ahen, “SS BS Ngee + SNe eae ie Sa bs
y ~~
=e . . ‘ ae
10 ees Ware cabrawreste tect
nt belit gew F109 od x0 noinigo edd
2o%peit bas,” ebiow eds mi
5 eee TOUASAOC,
.n0oH
* nor ; Die
Gen. No. 68456
Davis Milk Machinery Co. a Corp.
Deft. in errors
vs Error tc Grundy.
A. De Tappen, Pltf in error.
Niehaus, P. Je
The Davis Milk Hachinery Co. defendant in error,
sued out a writ of replevin’ in the circuit court of Saad
County,against A. D. Tarben, pleantire in error, and Wy L.
Avery, to recover podsession ofa ili filler, and @ vA
bottle capper, wpfoh defendant in drror claimed wate unlawfully
\
detained by pdintize in error, ani syid oe AV? es
The replevin writ was served on -ti
the propérty mentioned was taken from hid pone encls and
w 3
“F (=
/
oe eee to the posséeasion of eee 7 -@TTrer s
4X Of
| we service was had on W. L. Avery, and the suit was after-
wards, si efore the trial, dismissed ss to him.
Se ee arena 4 filed a declaration in replevin, and
to this declaration aided a count in assumpsit, declaring
on a promissory note executed <ni delivered to it by W. L.
Avery. The oase proceeded to trial by jury, who returned
a veriict sustaining the issues raised by the declaration in
replevin, finding the ownership Mane posse ssion of the property
t~ eee TS
ddscribed , to be in the jefendant—ir-trrer, and assessing its
damages at #50. The court entered a judgment upon the veriict
2A ne ye
and directing that the jefencant in_etJor have and retain
the property replevied; and that he recover of and from the
plaintiff in error damages in the sum of {50., as fixed by
the verdict; and the costs of suit.
The plaintiff in error afterwaris, sued out this writ
of error; to reverse the judgment; and as a basis for the
a
i.
af
a
‘
.
we
fi
Ne
Sa
“a
2
»gtod 6.09 yrenidosM ALM ety
«torre af .ttoed
eybousd of torre
al Gh bas ,torre oat Te Megas ef oKosenbaneat
ah, eboe ,telflt stn & to a TOVOOSt ae E
erik el oW bide bas ,torre at riital
SS _ oe ane he oa
bre. SoTis Kk Tabtme <eHk 10 bevise a.2W tiiw
base ae! faasesod | his mort mez: o asw benotinem wee
torre ere os ede to moteeeasog ont of Tevo hen
-tsits san tive sdt a eYISVA .d .W oe bed ecw solvase
«mid ot as beeatmeth fetid edd ototed bas cabs
bas ,aive[qex ai sottsreloeb & beLflIt aia
gnitelosbh ,tisqmese at tauoo & bebbs aotterciosh oidé
wl .W yd ¢f of bevevileb bas betvosxe itis Se eee
benwtst ofw ,.ymet yd ietrt of bebsaoorg SE50 edt ._zs
ai moitsetelost oft yd beatst aeuect ed! i
ytregotd edt to moieesecoq bas gidatenwo ede gatbati ,
ati gnieceses bre ‘uous a edt af sd of , badi-se
gothtev edt coqu ¢nemgbut « beresas tivoo sdT .08% ta ae
mister bose savas ootks ai datheras edt tart gattoerth ba
33% =
eit moti base to teveoSst ed tect epetietiarenn wesaeed on es
tit etd tyo beve ysbrawtedts torre of p pibeatatg a oe
a
writ, anaes the following errors; "Firet the court erred in
entering judgment without eppsarancs or plea by the plaine
tiff in error, without issue being joined; and without default
having been entered ageinst plaintiff in error. Second,
that sald judgment is contrary to law." The reoord, however
does not sustain the claim made by plaintiff in error, in the
errors assigned. It showa, thet when the case was called for
trial upon isauves joined by the parties to the suit, ths
parties appeared by thelr reapsotive attorneys; and, that
thereupon a jury wae called, and sworn to try the issuse
joined; and to render a trues verdist in ascordance with the
svidenss.
In the absenes of a bili of gxeeptions aetting out
~ xe
aD
i>)
Gi
the svidenes, it must be ; umea oonciugively, that the vere
dict, whish the jury rendered’, was sustained by the evidence
adduced at the trial.
It does not appear from the record, that a forma
Plea was flied, but thie cannct be assigned for error, if
the parties y@luntarily prooéeéded tc triuwl without the fore
mality of a ples. Issues could os joined rin the case without
the filing of such a plea. It was heid, in one of the
earlicsat cases reviey wed by our Supreme Court, that the ap-
pearance of th
ow
parties in a case tried, cured Jefeects in
pleadings ariaing from a failure to file apisa. (Brazzle
v Usher, Beecher's Breeso, 35.) And it is the settled rule
of law in this state, that if partiesa allow a suit toe go to
trial, without filing a plea, or without formal issue; or
without formal pleadings, the error is cured by the verdict.
(Ross v Rediick, 1 Scam. 73; Armstrong v Mock, 17 Ill. 166;
Spencer v Langdon, 21 Ill. 192; Kelegy v Lamb, 21 Ill. 539;
Loomis v Riley, 24 Ill. 307; Devine v Chicago City Ry. Co.
837 Ill. 280. Cook v City of Marseilles, 139 Ill. App. 536;
ai barre tiv0o eft derit” ~etotts gakwoflot edt
onieis ext yd welg to eoceteeqqs twedthw ” denise
timstel gvoitiw base ;bentot gated syeet tvodtiw eTOTT
. .<baooe8 .toOrTS nit Viithlel¢ tentsne berets need
tovewos ,ftooe1r aT "wal of yterinoo" er tuomybire hen!
sit ai ,toxrze al Tiitaisiq yd ebhoan miete eft atpteye % ra on
toi Bsilso asw sasd sd? aside tens sarc de #4, _ rbentacs «
edt ,dive edt of seitisg att ud beatot aeuest moo
tadt ,bas peyentod ts evitveasex x eiegt xe _boreagce ap
ewe
genes: edd yut od stows bis bert feo Sew Tui # nog
! e"
wit dt 2x esnebioocs ai to big? ed Sunt 8 yeba: t at bas 7b
tuo gaiviss enoitqsexs io lild = to eoreeds act a Pe
-tsv sii ted? ,vlevieulooes pesueeae ad Seyp tt onebive
s¥ & 4 sf ecota :
somebive oc? yd beatsteve suv .fetTehaet Vey, edd
ofatad edt te bee
: ae A an eoivis
femtot 2 deit Drover ent? non? 78919 & ton as aI
tt , TOTTI tot bengiess od forage side sad, ebeltt sey F
=ws0Ot act trodtinv Lets: of babsenorg vibsstausey aeit ied
tuedtiv seso silt nix bites Tey Lives Bevesl Re eS a to Bs
sat to eno at ,bied wow #1 oselg 8 dove to petite
-o6 odd dadt ,tuwod sine rque tuo » Xe, bowezver, ‘BeReS tes.
at efoe sl beruo ,foisd oneo « ot ani srag. est, 12° PPS
oa
sfszerd) .seiq s efit of stuLiel £ mort pate ie. 2 Byes,
i
on]
4
is
fio
w
rs
|
ios
»
nn
ct
df el ¢i oad (.85 ,onee7d e'tedpesd | sted
G re desex
of on o¢ tive © wolis asidzeg 2f tadt tote ext: at fa 7
49 pevest Lento. feedtiv 20 olg 8 pabits tsiodt bw. at
viett qf Berw> at terre oat egatbsolg Lara,
elit TL ,doo v gaotsamip cet -meok ft at ie
+ii1 LE Guat v ywoksd ;86L »£fT 15, saat gaa é
‘oe
* +i £ 4 . Vv:
Vi ¥ ogeoiso ¥ endved 4V0E hae
_amsi if fF Orr ee ars a wtt"\ yw «+
First Nat. Bank v Miller, 139 I11, 608; affirmed in 335 Ill.
139.)
It is quite apparent from the verdict of the jury, that
the count in assumpsit, which was imorcperly eases to the
declaration in replevin, was wholly disregarded in the trial
of the case; and. that the issue tried was upon the allevations
of the declaration in replevin. No objection was raised
by the plaintiff in error, in the court below, to the imoroper
joining of the assumpsit esukzd count to the declaration;
and therefore this question which is argued in plaintiff in
error's brief, is not really before us; and there is no
assignment of error concerning it.
The reoord joes not disclose any reversible error:
and the judgment should therefore be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
ack Sh ae cerette.
HT 288 nt ‘bomrite (7803 itl eer «tel
ee re to Wai was geetss
in Sees pres 222 bd Suet puede ie orks ;
7 ted? NIUE edt te oti tov ons go xT taetsaqs etiup at I _ i
a 2vniealg tentags beveths. need gaee
: aut ot “babes seqoromt gew doidw st teqmuess i Ee. sai
ee de Nabe -6 i’ dirseceh
fet: + eit at bebtzgetadt ‘viLodw som. ivataes 3 gt Be
+ slelo ec? mietach Soa
anotiarel is ‘ete Rani nesoiid herxd avert adé tedt bas ,ee80 sd:
; Auese 2 .beeptase ame
bestest Baw aortoetdo om sabve igen mt inoltersfoe adt
a2) Lenin! L At9%
megowcm! sift ot woLed roe ‘edd ak TOTTS at erifarct
£EES UG . pees:
yroltsrefoek oid ot ‘tauoe kaos ‘theomase eit
at sb WEabots at beugze at do tat ‘gotvecup. sted bees
be waters Hoe ot ine
on at ered? bas. rey exeled pes pos ton et stelzd «
ro
all
atk: galazeoneo sorre to tn
peteaesta ei? &
‘Torts sidtaxs+s cs ye esofoali ton seo bre097 s
ae aes seaehare
-bowttite ‘9d esotoxodt “£iwode sbaei ie :
ne a YsL ey AY fe
sbemtitta tremgsot: rie Se
share eds ta oe
Reims ost tee tom hia 2 ie
2%
Rag fe ifeeo eeveel eaeie 6 Too s
cy So, ee
fk
2
c . a“ $ Pin Ye,
7 <*ite Bee, .. «@eig © doce to- eek
a - . 5 ‘
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ! ;
SECOND DISTRICT. is
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of ; ________in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__ wae <=
j ,<~1lOwlidl 4
i ‘TOLATZIG €
ebrigossd sili to ixpoodt fre cionilT Jo otnte ada Yo doineitt boose® bise 4
tc
mMAbegds ait to dyold cyangd 2 sepaoreiagt) |
4° |
ht tre epegatregey eeshd te HOO OOD Gb et BAIN TO add ted? YRUIyvsaao YaR san o@ tos ‘orl
ole qin mi iioset to auso bahtitne evods art ni SiS
SM} “Ae bOG busily Joe ousted | sounnu'’ euowrreaaT wl af >
auld #wad de tino otuliogad Dine odd to lees a
SRD Wed te ty wey adt nto -..——.- to ¥8b
7 —< ~ . bas berhowd opin Daserond
—
—
a a ry, 4
Woah oAN Xo Anal a eer ee
+ 6 -
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
:
t
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the\ fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand tae hundred and sixteen,
k
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Boge teats Justice.
meee
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
os rrer ge RES AER TEN TIE
KR
Ys
%
-”
i
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. x UO
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG 10 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
. ee as, : - ae i se ~
-©< ,TaU00 BTAIIGIIA FHT TO
fitgA to ysb diry0d leit ysbesuT ie Cente
,asestixia bos bsrbcod oake baseyod+ sao brod tH
-piomfI{I to otste® edt to sotrtaid baooee edt
az -9#7apl gaibrestd ,gUAHHIM .M uHOL
-sotteul ,@M8A0 .L aMAUC
.esorteut ,diaaid HOWVARAOT
“3 .d93I90 ,YTHUA .9 AXHIOTe@ I AHO
.tistede ,eIVAd .M df
% ; mo :tiw-ot abiswretts tsdt ,CadgaMaMad a aa
ai bslit asw t1v00 sit to noiniqo sdt afer ny OUR
291ugit bas ebtow sad of ,t1y00 bise to eoitto efits
Gen. No. 6547.
Herry Allison, appellee
VE . Acpeal from boonce
Belvidere Serer & Machine
Co. ap pellante
WA
Nichsaus, Pe ate va
. aS A
The appellee, Henry Allison, a this suit to
~
recover 2 valance. claimed 4 to be due nin, as &@ screw machine
operator, for wages,” from the Belvidere Screw & Machine Co.
appellant. The case was Soriginally brought before a justive
of the peace, in Boone Couttty, where the acceliee obtained
judgment for the full amount of his jerand, namely #68.60.
An appeal was taken to the circum court, ania jury trial
4
x
had, which resulted in a veriict in\favor of acoellee for
7 * = ‘ :
$50. The acpéeilant made a motion for & new trial, which was
N
overruled by the court, and @ judgment waa entsred upon the
as
verlicty from which juigrent the appellant phoseoute és this
apoealde
| It was conceded in the court bélow, that the dpseliee— “
Arjen gua \ =e
had worked for as-«ttan¢é 196 hours, for which he had not
been palds ani that the wages he received for such work was
at the rate of S5¢ per hour; which would amount to the sum
i Sel 788 ne Py Os, pear ae
of $68.90; but sanslient claimed that the deseliee/ in his
employment as a screw machine operator, in turning out some
A i OTR: =
wuasim bushings, which the ssseiient had a contract to manu-
facture ani jeliver to the Fox Machine Co., had done some of
his work defectively; which resulted in damages to *he asdele ~
he ap de i ae Oe car
tent, to the amount of $37.45; 2ni sought to recoup these
flo CZ j
mages, against the amount admitted to be iue aesedie@. |
{ ofe ery ew Pe as
nope A os Tt 6 a ee ae ee ae a
ASSei¢+e4+ comsen Mat the judgment should be re-
versed, for two reasons: Fi because the verdict on the
ssmood mort Leaqgcd
_pnbgogy 3° ‘Re T08 | Donat
= teh) eg ae
entdosm Wetos 5 BS mb eub ed of Sonselyceame le s
.00 enidos 3 wered aan inlag ats mor}, eager tot < 0:
suites; #2 sioted tdguo7d vilsntghi9 een saeco oT »tasi.
Senistdo sellsqqs one etedw «xsiiyoo snood ai .9088q_
08.86% ylemen ,boenst aid 26 twos, fiut ens 6% ta
fein? ywt « bas .dwoo tuorte ost oh eetat BSW teoaae
10% Seileccs to a et fotbtev s at cesivect dotiw
ecw doitdy ,Lsirzd wor & tot mottiom s sham taels as edt)
sit moow besedao an tnemebut s bas ,dtyoo ad? yd be. ‘
aid? notvoeaextc txallsace edt taemgihut dotdw nox? to
NEN a ae
\—g@tfecas sit dad? .woléd dawoo ect at bebeonoo ash aI
Pn ten ohn KG pests! Gd Ma
fon bad of dotdy tol ,eswod sia gaatissae tot _bexto
sew Atow dove to) bevisost ed ans .ce odd tact bas ~bt
a6 tie: a*
mc eit of tnome k Laow dolidy :2twed x0q 9ct to arty
Ss Pa he. widen, 2b iw- os
etd mi \eeLleses: oft tedt bemiels dee —tud { Si
emoe duo gatatd mt Thies enidosmn weToe & as das
rode ratel abe,
~snean of toszinoo s had faectesces ant doldn _ egald
to Bmoe snot bad ,.00 entdoali xot edt of “evi eb ba
= Xs be nee
a ae 2 ot? of segameh at bstiwecs dokde tylevidosteb.4
ZA : F os
Pan
ees NESS 2 ot deHguos tae 236.768 to tayoms edt of
> =i gs a
mt
-—61 sd ilwode tmomebut adit + ae
>
ss 3 ENS ty
Sts ie -Setiess= owl ed ot bettimbs tawoma sd? fenlaeg
—_— ar are : Ve
ae Be
eft m0 tolhrev eft euscoed
~s Z wt
eS
wo?
question of damages 8 manifestly against the weight of the
—— ee
evidence; and secondly, that the court erred in piving the
a ds
first inatruction requested by the Loti!
6
Dt : urged, that the jury in their verdict, allowed
only about one half ofthe amount of damages claimed in recoup-
Ane
ments and that the veri et in this respeot, 2 tim the
weight of the evidence, because ¢here was no controversy
f
eas to the amount of the damages occasioned by the defective
work; that inasmuch as the jury allowed about $13.00 of the
>
apse Pleat they must necessarily have done so becs use
they, considered, that proved his case against
ca r “ a “9 Pret s 4 Ms oes
1166, 30 far es dJefegtive work was concerned, ani there
being no dispute about Aa? 45 beins the amount of damages
the jury, according 4p the Proos, should have allowed that
/
sum in full.
It spear Som the evidence, that the work which
‘ciel ta to do with reference to the article manufactured
for the Fox Mechine Coe, was to drill.ani rsam a hole ina
certain part gf bushings; and the orocf tenaeto show, that
the hole irdiied in some of the bushings was larcer than the
ead aa of the. Fox Machine Co. cahled for; snd too
large for/the use the Machine Co. desired
bushings; and they were therefore returned
the machine Co., ania credit was allowed
for the sum of $37.45.
d however sea, sustain the
the proof amount of
cost of the materisls and iabor on the
5 a Den a
manufaotureda articles returned to secssteme, was £37.45¢
but this altne cannot bé\considered, in fixing the measure
the a pelilant has become repossessed
/
of the manufacturéd artides.
eet
7
a
Sa
eit to tigiaw edd3 santoge yiteotinen 9 mies
edd gntviy at berte treo sdt tant. “euitnooee. bas
a
vax exit ye bedesupes Eee xtant
boxolla ,tolbuey ried? at et efi, sett shop, te ii9:
~qiooet ai bemtalo eegsmsl to tayome sdtt LO. ted en —
of? 5 KBB GS..-
AA
ait scents: abi 2@OOcest aids mi tolbrey edt dailt bas
: a
yetevorinos oa aaw oxsst soucoed .8onek ive said: ‘to tgs
svitestel os yd bamotesdoo! > esa oft oso nwt + sca
~ teates® saz bit bevord: ed den Fads eee
steal Yak Egpene: ber txow Taye es we? te, tras
geGsmck to tmudms ed> ‘nerfed Gh oh tuods bite A Oe
tate Bowolls 5 eed’ # Thode qHeorte od ie gulbroD0s Pa a:
| =. one Soh
“*doldw F1ow “od? tadt ‘<baet Live ext riot >
Poti kee (eda ost of eonets stot tt ie * ok Je Ba
4
e at efod & masse toe LIES of sew 908 eutdgad wis
‘ \
tact wea oF ices téor0 ed? Eas jegaideud 5 nat
eff meit tests! eer gonidedd edt to ance ° ‘WP berhta
oof fas :tot fotfiso Jo Saifoat XOt edt “to
¥
.o0 satfoat $21 Bewatle Gav: sibs" “pee dag 0 antito
Dan HB: an.vee: “36 awd“
agicselon
Esicitva 6s peas to Somome “ed?
adda to07 SH cradt” phededed, dns’ e425 bee
eft me “todel bie afoktetan ody "Sao nt
Piab.ves
bem
styeco* 8c pittxkt at’ ersbitenes
“ Beeeeseouss ance: ead jneitbe 2 g gageg)
a’ a
Tet eee, Pte snscosent, the only witness
who testified concerning \the value of the manufactured
articles returned, paidg* thet the oniy valus which the ar-
ticles returned would have for\sale , would be for junkg but
he also said that he Aid not know how much in dollars and
cents, the value ef the articles would.bé for this purnos:.
7 ' AG
There @& ud pydot th.t the articles might ‘OR wi ckt not have
cal Wy
any visas any other: pur’ cae. ’ pw
. * cad s ~ . =
Tie watter of what\ ine value of the articles xeturned
Vid
f
to apoelient, and retained by it, had in igilars and cents,
Waeu necessary factor inestinsting correctly the amount of
é
}
damages appellant was entitled 05 and pee
e
1at state f
uncertainty in the proof in that reg gard, the jury necessarily
were left to conjecture concerning Was tgeture ef +the case;
and this court is in the same preaigencnt. We cannot sey,
yf \ therefore, that the jury did not drrixe at a oroper conciu=
sion concerning the matter of ine damages; and clearly would
not be justified in disturbing the ver fict of the jury on
that accounte |
Concerning the other error ascigned, appeltant claims, that
ecpelise's first instruction, in the standard of comparison
stated in the inetruction, omits the Siement Nof mechine men
who are engeged in that/particular kind of worK";. ani there
is force in the objection made concerning this défeot in
the instruction; but /it is equally clear, that\the jury were
not misled by this ¢rror, concerning the questions which they
determined; and it/is manifest also, that the error could
not have had any Sffect on the verdict of the jury, concerning
the question off the amount of damages to be asseased
|
| in the satter gf app
»sliant's recoupment. So the error was
/
harmless, and the judgment should not ove reversed) on tha
7 j
account.
The being no reversible error in the record, the
judgment st wuld be affirmed. Affirmed.
bentuicry setethes en? NplepLsw! 6k “ftw ie wed tei:
5 tmwoms ©
S ejede tedt: st bite rot bete® 6° Ber sawttoitee:
yiLstsersoen
«Yee tontiss s¥ -inomga itera smce odd at et faible
tones: raqora eke evirde ton Bib yok eae wae 4
Bivow yiteefo fas peopimak bese to wetfen edt galaxeones
no yout sit To tolfrey oct ‘golewtare ab ae ee
tet ,~emtelts
xearrscsos
fem smidse=
sisdt Das
eter ytut eft fart .zeelo yllaupe et +h Pied quot ound
yeast dotrie
easativ vino edt _ tavedthendiue Iaetss nad elt
beret Setuten wi to" euLew ‘eat! qathtbatens boas teed 6
as dt dnkie gale’ eine: oft pads Sybase" jbemtusex'welo
tod cade rot st Eigor , efbea) ot | ev bivow'bonreFox
NS
eval tor Fk ene 26" Sanaa telhtits ent ere oder Si,
$aa{feage oagtebe ore wedito ‘edd < * gatttzes
ni Foctsen
ser
eine. ws
Se as” paar 7oReS wee teato — URE
Ys ‘ecr shan fate we Looe eat ee
\
“ pe aigsid * s vlwepes
\
to brobaeds ets md: iio Hourdet Part? Sse
to" demefs oft eFtae: ps agers ong’ ab |
“Miron td baby welwolieeg. deco mb tepanatielall -
aids ysteveonoe thaw fot desitdo acid “otk 90%
ano Efesup edt peimrecnan | gore ‘wrae" eo bes
bives torte ext dads ela teoktana ‘el one Beads ioatit
: H
saiwrsones etme eat Yo stolbray edt 0 postt id pad 's
fesse ae 69° of eogeaall to Snome ont % to. bbws
eae istrs off O28 JFnBiequocet’ etenai teugs *
dat no Benrevet ed tos © cos + moet at
—fe Boa ol Be Tc Ae Pte 4 a aa aa ee ev, Rete a i heen
Pig
ay.
Hepa wise ge! et at Lie a a hts aE on ye me ae
es
STATE OF ILLINOIS, I ss :
SECOND DISTRICT. ‘ I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and SSeS
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
Pa
9i81! agg. aft io dual) ,viaktl 2 sanaoremd if ; -os| 4 et “tits a
abroad ods to taqond ss sige 5 to nee au i tointeid fanoo9e Gee pe baw.
& fite yy ast baer ‘te Sst) bolsitne. pane odd sid
. tld xifts bas bavi vor joe odors Toms LW ynomiren'T vl
?, 3 chit wwe te dro) odalleqad bige off d 40 lave i
Is
etto fried tun ty qe97 ont ai. a who)
-~-=->. bane botbapd Snip baaepogs gle
Woah sAiroaewy ok a Se
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen,
within and for the Second District of the’ State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Presiding (uatice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. 7
Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Justice.
OE A
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. Mt U Lelhe &
E. M, DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
_AUG.1 9 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
?
an ' i
etedofo0 to ysb dttit edt esbeso? ‘0. canes to te 1
+ aeetti? bas berbaud ents babadods 300 brod ah Xo
r ie
Bt: :afonifrit to otet@) oft $o toirterd Bpaned aus x0% bas
.* hi
‘
¥ Lsortaut goisreess “idaerd @OMAKAOG oH od
f. oGih eau /BHAIAD UG EMAUC .noH
4 .gottenl UAHE TM -M HHOL 0H
| oak Act 0 ORS ivefo ,YTWG .0 “anugoretsiao
cy “tetrreda @IVAC ee
1G
DE toy,
ee
2 4
Gen. No. 6849.
Benjamin Lounaberry, “appellante
hited Apoe2l from DuPare.
George Boger, Excr. appellee.
writ of replevin ges sued out in
Page County vy MMe anngliant Beniamin
sorge Boger, as Executor
of the estate of Albert Sm Jeceased, to recover the
ossegsion of a promissory te for the principal sum of
0)
$1,000, which Se was donated to him by the
is death; and which the
rom him.| A demand had
been made on the executor for the note in question, prior
deceased, Albert Smart, prior to
L
Executor was wrongfully withholding
te the commencement of the suit; and the Executor refused to
give up the note, on the ground that it was a part of the
assets belonging to the estate of Albert Smart jisceased.
Ve ie Od ae
The jieclaration tw in the usual form in cases of replevin
reas on ore
but a count in trover #as aided, The partes, pleaded not
Ke4rhA A ettiiuet ,
guilty, non Non seebewet, 2nd 4lso pleaded a special
A
K darter das
plea, alleginse property of the note in the seastee, a8
\
tote of Albert Srart, deceaned. On the
Fie tT
trial of the case by the court, the acpektee found not
Rxecutor of the ¢
©
guilty, and the court reniered juigment in conformity with
A DA ie a ttZAa
. as - f
this finding, and for costs, ugsinst the estat. So
Neo FAR ne eee Oar nny ee
the jujement rendered.
The note claimed by
taken in his life time, from the makers, Wi H. Herring, Wil-
liam Brycs, H. W. Merten. G. 2. Heartt, and Joseph Batterham.
Ay VAR Ann eLtanA, 8 [Pieye y
- 7 n
It wae ‘lated December 12, 1905. payable in one year after the
date, and vearing interest at six per cent per annumg
eo
>sGyd mott fasaqsA
~-sslleqqse tox .t9Q08 egtoed
|
ton eidt al
me
ai tuo beus Bae aiveleet to tine 2
nimetme”d tneifeace eit yd yimyrood 22% to eseon tiuowt
‘ ‘
totupex® as ,tesod entoad ,seiieag ‘edd ¢entogs gertedas
at - 4
“.
edt sevoost of ,beaseveh, tt
ae %
to mye Lsqtonizna oft zo7 oy
m2 trodlAa to etstee sf
3 to notese
&
i tars imomg
ait yd mid ot batenok aar ontets tnstfeqas dotdw a
ef> doldy bas pittseab , et toLid sbza02 deodta. .boase
bed bre: axe mony (gat costed tn ee. tod:
totic Peon mi Pre sii tot totueexs sit no scat
of beauter to¢uesxE edd base ptiue sd? Yo tasmeomemmoo odd
sdj *o tiaq s asw gt tdadi bavoty edt go. 6.Sstonm edt qu
sbeesenosh tram? saosdLA to states eft of gnignoled at
niveicgsit to peepee ue mrot Lesoy pees nottstsloeh rs
omen ahs bo
fstgsas & bebeealg eats bra
PO is Sa he
es ee, edt mf. etoa ent to atime niga x
edt 0 senate .ftsT8 tradLa to atetes
9 a he, ye Enas =
w pee anit ,tisoo edt yd pene exit to f
Ton brsot say
4
at ts Yiimtotdoo mi diomeiut betel ast dorve. eat bas ta
= Far Sm, Q \
i v bee: edt teamtagns ,atsoo toi bas cgatbat? od
dethias-~-6t—7isecssico die eee esa
‘ementustss davect bua oe ao - ne
eat retts qs2¥ ono nk sldayeg 2008 2 ast
4, -o- we ie ae a
PT ceed
and it me conceded, that unless the note by gift cause mortia
O-
Pessed to the (ac SEE it was a part of the ass
A ors
the estate of Albert Smart, deceased.
@
ct
&
@)
Hh
BE
The deceased, Albert Smartm, was a bachelor, who, st
the time of his death, ani ‘or 2 number of years orior thereto
had lived on his farm, which was located in DuPage County.
Sa _& CoG a cousin cf the jeceased, was nis housekesper.
Seat int wa3 a brother of Sarah Lounsberry, hai also
worked for the decessed a number of yeurs, as a farm handy
and was so employed at the time of the death of the deceased,
The deceased kept the note in question, with other notes,
and valuable papers, which he owned his will ani some of his
Boney; in a tin box, which he kept locked, in a secretary,
or jesk, in his bed saat andi the keys for the locks on the
secretary ani the tin box, were on @ ring, which the ieceased
was in the habit of carrying in his trousers pockets) “uring
his sickness, the keys vere kept in the same place.
Two days after the death of the deceased, hie two brot hers
with two other men, ar to the house of the deceesed, to take
charsé of his effects. They found the tin box xsuatad locked
in the secretary, ani the keys tc open it, were on the key
ring as asual, in the oe of the trousers of the jeceased,
in the bed Je aniwhen -the box was cpened, the nete in
uestion was found among its contents, which consisted of
Valuable papers, other notes cwned by the ieceased, to-sther
with money in his pocketbook, ini his last will. The tin box
and contents were taken possession of; by ‘he brothers, and
FRR fk hee Be Rt cee
ta rea
then subsequently turned over to ae » as -Zxceutor of the
estatee .
Bhe legal que sane invoived in the case are practically
<
the same ag those passed Yron’ by this court, in the case of
, AY
Lounsberry vs Bocer, Exosuyor in 193 Ill. App. 384 . In
os te efeass 963 to eae: £ ae es
i ga .odw ,tolericad s ean yaerene tredta pe
oftetsd? rotig srcsy To te case & tot bas ,dtseb abd to omtt
TF :
eYsauod ogsIwG al bLsssool sex dotdw” ate eid” a6 paves
-teqeeaseved ein aay boeseoe! edd to jth» eX ec
het Be: be
cela ted eertedanuod dsTee - tedsond © ese ott 3
thas mtet 8 be ena: to reds 2 ‘Beseoost edt
~bsexzsoeh sit to dash of! to omtd me “a boyotane |
a Dever ir bey
2
eedties rsdio djiz soltaoup at ston end tqex oasa0eh 2
eid to emoe bas ILiv aid qhomwe | od ‘dota ar aides
tack Predli* bees
isterose & at _sbadood tqea ed dotiw kod ais & al ,Y¥9i
2 aur THI DoE
.sdi mo sick wilt tot sys2 sft baz mOOT ‘bed etd Bes Reis
me ees ite) OD ata
plein’ oBhoriite axeavord eis ad ‘palyrteo to tidsd pias ao
iO 6.etem ede ce
saociq Smse 9 dt mt tqek or9% avex edt weeendot
p23 weled ste
\ #120 to1d owt sid beessoob edd to d¢oot ade notte ayskh owt
(we Ocoeltvatsloel ex,
sist of ,beaseoet age to sauor ed ot eneo sane zads¢ hae
bedoof gaixezex x00 ae ent d paso? yea vesgo200 sid *t9. ent
resaitees A Bsaon .x¥tt
ved eft co 919K tt ggco od eyed of Pike \ureroroae ‘8
-beesenat ec! lo ereeyost sit io teio0g “eit ‘ot fevas Bs
iste was to wedi
mi ston edt 58 EGO. Baw xou eit. gode fos
to betetenoy dois \etnetnoo att gatoms ayo? son po
tedde-9} \besaegok act yd beawo seton xailvo serous fies
a0 tbe2t we
xod mts off .fliw teet ated bas toodtex00q eu “nat Yoaom
eek cet gutad~ thet £
bar ,eterrliord of? af to gateasesog 2 moked orem Prceei. 0
eft to totueoxt ae 4
cade dt 4
eid p42 ar bal o ae
ehteottoers ets 9aco
$o Seco att at
~~ | indicates, that it was thie intention of
that cése, notes ne to the one in controversy here andi
gimilarly endorsed, were cinimei-by Sarah Louneberry, as
\ ;
a gift from the ijeceasei cauga mortia. This court belli in that
ai \
case, that the gift wag incomplete because of the lack of ie-
/
livery of the notes’ claimed, in ‘he life time of
i
ry
1]
@
Go
eaged,
[ ts 2niorsement on the note in question, when found in the
tin box, by the brothers of «he jeceased, was aga follows: "If
this note is not paid until my jeath, pay to Benjamin Louns-
berrye (Signed) Albert Smart | This whent clearly
lecessed, to have
the title to the nete pass to the a peliant;after his death.
ae ae in this esse seeks to establish a ielivery
rh
ft question by “he
Snat about a week prior te the death of Albert
i aca tf :
Smarty he requested her ‘o call the 2.nezbeet, Benjamin
Lounsberry, to the sick room, which she iidg and that when
veo
fy hand AEG
— came, the deceaged saii to him, in her presence:
“Ben, I jont think I will live many days andi now I will sive
you a thousand dollarsa3 oni I want you te use it tow-ris the
purchase of a home » ‘nd I will leave it with “arah) and she
will give it to you efter the Tuneralg" and that afterwards
he gave her the keys to the tin box, contsining the note
and other property of the deceased, saying, "This is yours
nowf Keep the secretary locksd , and after I am taken out
lock the room, and let no one enter the room." She says,
she then kept the «e¢s in her pocket, wet put the tin
box back into the secretary, .ndi locked the secretary; that
the jecease’i iid not .8k “or the kKsys again, nor have them
after that Mmeg, that she kept the Heys in her PeRseesion,
but unlocked the secretary to take out thines ‘or him, now
and then, when he wanted them
Ut Fhe tin box was not unlocked after that time3 but that
just before the brothers of the deceased came to take charze
, owe
\ —A 7
x wKHCo™-
eusoy ef aint" .aofyse beassneb ans 30 viseqorg sastey £
Fede SF g “MOOT v3 Re
4, .~ sO texet me T retis Ens be exook (ustenoes ‘exit “geod 4
a Abe : é ; 3 &. ie
ons ete reer ae 2010 edt a tsi “ae codon ;
SSE cade
ass et Brad Pos" elfdT .eifiom sewso Eeeuooot me ——-
seuco f 3 ee) etalee.
~2i To dow! at? to sausosd edebiuiosrl ace ls « ~~ tad
rd
ae: -
¢-s0 Bgvil
tr" sewolfot @2 cow .Besssool od: ae aredsord eis XO
-anyol mimsimes of Ycq .fidash ym sed blag: tome vt ot
yiasels des keetolay sldf |} ."ttant trscLAa (bengte)
\ Ws a oe E ‘ 4 5 4
evet-ot~ fseeso0er \S57 to DOES ES me ont ese St tant wwotee
ig noyot: Oi eo
wlisek @id nets Omit: ao ae of BBS ston edt oF eitit
yieviisl “a fe liides ss of eisce” 25.55 de al fants
co
> ~ ; nt m z ©, e o ES
oNirsdamsol derae Ro jhomt#ee at vd jaoltgouy
fisdia Yo dfssh sit ot sols Yeaw & ‘twods taxis
gh AS Raa ane viet
r
aime) ned weaecis edt} Ifso o% 19d betccupex ad
fei wert aie “wit eda dotde S907 foie add of ‘
es + Sanit
seonsseta mst at ymid of ‘EBiee beeseosk ods | <emso
Rees te
evig Liv T-wor Barge b yan avil ‘ike I inkdt “took t
bbe Sear ed af ‘ wot tA
ect eiranot tf easy of yoy Inmew t Ee cere itor eae =
radto OMe:
ede pad qeiemee fin ti eve 31° a Eee i bas ionod 3 ‘to. easitor
4% Br ee: wi fh zo
ebtawiofts Fad? has telorons? en: a9t%s yoy et tl, ma iE
7 Sd so SLOS8
3
afon ait Bitstetnoo .xod ait ‘ais of ayer ent tod svsg §
bases -22 eee
ayer ene ™Smo6t pit 19¢a2 one on tor bos pt aaee
i™ a . = as
oe ‘ . e ~AtTegs
mit edt ty fom: .tedeog the Py ‘abet edt tqex said 9
: gs Sacos it tes you F
tetit i yreteioes ec* bexsof bas WWIsaT998 ead otnt dosed xe
‘ i .<¢ fadet 918K S iire i me*
wot Q@ves ton .Niesn eYad odt to We ton bit beaseosh.
So ae ; ed2 Trheppeadus:
tholezessoq wit al eyst ect g¢qskt exe tec3 ents és Pu
~ " # 2 rae SY ge
wom .mwis to canid? tuo atet ot vretoross: hea beitoc
b fagololl
‘meat d hetace 26 neite qfer
ite sea 2. saodts, is
feet Sud perk? ded? “tests bedcoiau ‘ton een KOC
: ety owed - =
eee es gk te ge all ee ee a AE OES os a oa ee
\
of the effects of the deceased, sie dropped the kevs back
into the trougers pocket of the deceased, where they found them.
aunine this testimony of Sarah Loyhsberry to be true,
it is apparent, thet if the deceased intended that the apvel-
lant should ‘save the immeilate possession ani omership of
the note, he would have passed it over to appellant at the
time he told him ne Weula give it to him; and inasmuch, ag
he did not do so, it tone to show that he did not intend
Ny
that appellant should Have “she note at that time. The iir-
/ -
ection that Sarah Lounsberry was te deliver the note to
the appellant aftér the funeral, a1 So excludes tne infcrenoe
that the jecenged intended the appellant should have it
before death.
Moreover the direction given merely emphasizes, «hat
wag already exoressed by the endorsement on the note itself.
The note was not aeparated from the other articles of srcperty
in the tin box belongingte tne deceased; there was no real
change made in the custody of the propergy in the tin box;
and it is evident, that everything in the tin box, as well
&g the tin box itaslf, remained und the dominion 2nd cone
trol of the jeceased, until his igathe ~
To mike \e valid cift onusa/mortis the omner muat not
only part with dhe possession,/ but 211 control ani iominion
over the oroperty. (Barnum v Reed, 136 Ill. 388.) The
statement wade oy bhe Neceased, to aopeliant, and to Serah
Lounsverry, concerning tne cift, wes not accomoanied by a
real change in his dominion or control of the note during
| nis life time; nor ‘id it have the effect of transferring
the ownership of thé note during his life.
= —
| In this case, As in the case of Sar&h Lounsberry, the cift
|
|
|
\
of the note was ‘incomplete, bec:use it iidnot pass out of
the dominion or contrel of the deceased, in his life time;
Ales a , TFS - ‘J eA - } te Oo tat bat L& - OH tor
doad syex sii he qo mk 88 sbowssook edt to cise
a S + prey eerobas !
}) smect bawot ysdit aed ‘«boasoost edi to texoog. -etouuerd : edd.
ee : + & mont $
,puTdt 20 of erredesyod dare to “eaomitead ends pa baw,
é het
~{sqqs od? tact bebmetat beaasoet ont $2 tid ans
(x2 % i
to afdstenro tas notesseady edatt enn edt evs ‘biwode # al
sow sy sang
edi ts tnelleqcs oF tsvo tt ‘heseed eved
f
be
se ,doumesot bas jm@td od at oviy huge on aki ‘blo
$ bf3 ee F aca
bastat don BIE od tact wore of aknoe tt oe ee
on
yEX3 5
~ilk off »omtt tect ta stom ed ‘ovek bist nei iooad
ot efon ert tovited ot au “crredeaued dorse pr
sonesteiat act sebuloxe wis densa ond Err ts tnsiioae
si sved biwode fiat 1 9908 ead bebastat £31 >aesoet
ec > ae -
~ z
Lice
$siv ,sexsiasigqna weren nevis agttostib sie abe
»ifsett efoa sit no tnomeetoine aitt ‘d beasstcxe ybaorl
5 a ° YrIsdes:
yirscotq jo selotire tedto ost Qt Pateneten ton ‘oee ston
Re at tthdes
fisst on saw etedt ,bessscet ad od 4 saisnoted ad —_ 8
ake d Hwee’:
; <xod als eft al Yereqota 2 nT Ps ‘ybotaus eit mt eee: en
ifew sxe ,xod att edt mt ppdryrtore fab adnobive ef dt
=-Mo0 bas soinimok ait ask ows benionst asenst rod aif 9
A aban eid LEdow beessost ‘eit Go
ton seum temro add nr Asuce tiig Lae godin Cie
u@ £&
mointmol bas Lottnoo ifs tud noteneaaeg odt asin nee vin
96 4 as (ae: ai
edT (.886 .LLI eer beet y muons) “eet9gors
‘ <ROOr ;
dere? ot bre ,émal loenqa: ot wbeoagost: ‘edd xd ‘eben f
tsoext
s ¥d beinscmooos fon asy¥ tlic ae ‘gakatesnoe ‘
asznt dosed
goisuh eten edt to Lorsioo xo sotdtmot eld at eamedo LI.
piiscotaencrwt to toa tte ads wand, a
ae
a #Tizg 6
>
ie 10 tuo REG ton £8
a
and the intention of the donor is clear, that te iid not
wish the title of the note to pass to the donee until
after hia death. It was therefore an attempt to mike a dis-
position of his property, to take effcot after death, which
lis testamentary in its character, end not valid, because
the requirements of the Statute concerning such a disposi-
Ton of property are not complied withe
We ure of opinion that the trial court properly found
the appeliee not: zuilty; and’ that the propos tions cf law
and fact held by the trial court, ufé not inconsistent
with this eeneral finding; that, therefore, no error was
committed, and the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
cglt 5 alan oF pierre veh ss iin att
” detdw ,déesk sabia "SEE of | avfteqord etd to te
~ geuscod \bilew “to bad oad oft nf aes
“feocatt ‘ dows CPR EE studdve 38 .
ei sResiene! oe SA By Bb Fadi pre annten
eo Se
| . es. us “a
: “baw ixeisa: #xuo0 "Te iad ogy 2
“wet to aaotd: aogors 8 fa
; tne te taaos ont toa oe See att Wks qh
gon aovse on aubteiedt alt ianitoat Le Ay arA
‘ Se eee eee ae metitn a. bid aise i ee
.- Sig 7 skeoriite. taeng wh» j .
= are he's oa
Z $22 Foust pape * TR feuds Tae # Does: Gis to
“pe aie 7 : Eger eae |
a PSeFe ehce 4? Bes Damien oe hs e t ed bead: xe aes ve
i a y aA
Sage ee Fe pele fe wail} ed aha pee Lod apagee ton eat: S
igs a wee mage bene gat, 2 oe 2: pany puoled: sod mie
4 é a ‘ E :
ei3 36. esate « eds. Ba Lie
¥
seas Bay =: <2 oe vs Sta)
ia a
oe ie eis anh Aina Rendanet diane Kod iw
Ne We? oe sy ) ees
+H 8ep8 abe 5 oe boeeboeh Ce 5
k
LARS, HEF sha: 3 seo -thky bite 2 ‘oda or.
Ss Loman
a Siete. fate Laxtaes hea 2pe oroeeaaeg eit dbo faq.
a $3 {Mth +400 Gel. baetow awe} aWisaosg”
a ape , oe
2 es 2 Revel aees ae <boaagoa): sta a “ebex $2
trees. Jan eae tis. Jays galatesao. ried
if , Ss
a8 Lortten! ge ‘wolajaol ond ae agauio Ge
ms
i Sa Gee ase 4as toca das be som eee
am eee , “s" ‘ ¢ : $i Pere e ost seta camel .
my e Ly . : ia a. }
5 ee St: " + be" F “fie: eer i, on sls
SLATE OF ILLINOIS, } ..
SECOND DISTRICT. ea
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Lllinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
I, CHRISTOPHER C. DuFrry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOR, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this so
day of. in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__ ee ee
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
| BIOUILII 10
ae ® bane
Nellaqad oda io gaol oeaad JS) aswdoreaad (ft we | ‘POAT AKO
hited
chr ait te toqeod bos aiocilll to otete add lo doitziC bose bise tot bas
whi Jo nuision silt to ~qoo seit 6 ei gniovosot odd dedd vairsdo yaaadH oa Aoaradd
ouifio gor at frroset lo seus» boltidas eveds odd ai d100
add xis bos Lami vor don clanesied TL soon yuoulres'T wl <A
7 sity .oRbwO te jtu0Dd otsiloqaA his odlt to ieee Re
ae 400 bral 1046 1d9y sdf ue — re wae
gS i lt eee
) Sect) cha linacch “udb 4a laalls
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundted and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the ale OLretilinois.<
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice,. . . ~ | a
6P f za Y
CHRISTOPHER, C. DUFFY, Clerk. ~
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. :
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG 10 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
’
<7,
as eee s i } fa . ee ty 2
v5 an Ras GTAIISGA IAT TO-
“Ties ss fil ee eo ee a
mee
ois Ge oe
ar Let. An ; ee 2 meet
-- ciimgA lo ysb dtiyot odd ,ysbasxT no-,,ewettO sa
¢ sighs : ah es oe y hy ae
,aeeixia bos bevdcud satan basavod? eno. brood r96\ 20 4884
:atogtill to etsi2 add to Joitieid baoos’, edt rot bose
: : ; ae | ve
-soitaul garbtae1d ,QUANSIM .M MHOU JaoH edT-
.sottant ,2HUHAD VU EMAUG .moH*** *
; « Pn tae aa
om eyooitestl ,JIX8Id SOMAGHOG Vaoh ”
eo, ee
sys
dtsto (yiaua .o aandorerano
“Wived® 72IVAd Moe
j. bc
ee ge a a A a Se aL a Ne a a NT
a 4 = -
% a \
ey -
é xe
Bie - "
rs ae
or i> es * ae
-. >
= ‘& Es ?
mo iiiweos ,anrswiatts iedt ,CHAREMEMGa TI Ades
mi belri esw iggoo edi io noinaiqa edd ., oSIOLD 1 DUAL
esrosilz bose abvow sé ni ,émv0d bise.t@ sortio stax
itiw-od (3 3a8
Gen. No. 6252
General Accident Fire & Life
Assurance Corp. Ltd.
ve Appeal from Peoria.
Sophia Krekel, appeilee
Niehaus, P. J.
This ig ar\appeal from a judgment for $345 of the
County Court ef Peor Ccunty reeovered bythe avnpoelies,
Sephia E. Krekel, ag t the appellant, General Accident Fire
d.f Tire claim for which the judgment
reared
Was rendered, é@ based cm an accident policy issuad by the
Qe je et he. AA :%
estétiant to gohn K. Krekel, for the benefit of his widow,
he Tee Gteseads him in the sum of $300 asainsat the
effects of boiily injuries caua¢i jir otly, solely and inde-
pendently of all other causéés, by external and accidental
means; exceoting however, suicide, while as
=
@
9
he
Fe
&
be
os
7)
°
John K. Krekel, the inaured, was a salcon keeper in
the city of Peoria, and lived with his family, in the rooms
connected with and situated in the rear cof the saloon, and
in the second story above it. The policy in question, was
issued to him on the s4th. day of November 19143; and insuped
him until the first day of January 1915. The policy crovided
that the insurance sheuld be extended from month to month
after the date mentioned, by payment of the premiums due for
6ach month, on the first day o° each month, in advancee
On the a4th. day of February, 1915, the deceased arose
at about 5:30 in the morning, dressed and went downstairs,
taking with him his revolver, which had been plsced on the
dresser the evening before. He iescended one flight of
stairs, which landed him in a little hall containig
doors, (~ one opening into his saloon, one inte the kitchen,
three
te
iS
fi] Y - >
and the other into the dining roomg fite went into the saloor
dae
“sini bee yLlefoe .yite ath beeweo asiuwbat yithod tos
b
besueni bas ,SfCL tadmevow to yeb .AdaS edt mo mid ot
bebiver: yotfoq sit .@fL@L yureunst to yeb tertt edt Litas
tol sub amyvinerq edit to tremysq yd .benotinen e¢sh edt
Prh
. eolces sii otnt pin man EMmoo yt ‘anil. edt
vi teqecd moolse s aaw ,bewwent adt ,feverd .X adot
wey
satrost mott LesqcA ee av
eslleqqs ees
ob ty eeu
edt to @hé? tot ¢aemgbut « mort eeqqe As al ataT
,2eileqca edityd bersveoet yiavo 30
teskioodA Lerered . taal leaqs. edt _t 25 fever .7 s
r
mgiut oft doidw tot afalo eff whtE «gq 0 somsrseaA
mae. tap ae
edi yi Bbeveet vo tfog tmebtoos me ‘M9 beaed eS bereb
Wobltw eid to titened eft tot , toxew .X aifoy of #
RY obits
_ pee aos
sat
a ; at
tesisns O08, To awe edt mf wks goiuwent ,
Ietrebloos bus Lanvedxs yd .seauso xeuito ile ‘to vu
.eageck to ones elidw ,ebtotwa .revewod gattoeoxe
moor edd mi ,viimet aid dtiw bevil base cetroed to vito
ie ,f00lae eit to tweet odd ot beteutie bas dtiw betos
apw ,Goiteasup ai yotlog efT .tf eveds yrotsa bnoosa sift
diaom ot dianom mort bebaedxe od bluode eometueni ont
»900avbe ai ,dtmom doso lo yeb tarttt sdt no .dtnom
beeesoek ect .af@L ,yrewrdel to ysb -fde6 edt nO
.evieteswob taew bas beeeetb ,gatmrom edt ——
To tigtilt eno Lebaeosel eH .st0ted cinitde
gout gginteatnoo Lied eltttl s ab “a
and from thers into the basement, where he stired up the fire
in the furnace. . 2
Both his wife and his motherinlaw testify that they heard
the jeceased descending to the basement) « nd his wife testi-
tiedy “that gne heard him come out of the basement, and heard
his footsteps as he walked around in the saloon below;
while he was in the salcon, she heard a souffle on the fleor,
and in connection therewith, the report of two gun shots in
rapid successione When she and her mother rushed downstairs
they found the insured lying with his body parallel with
and about two feet from the bar, his revolver lying about
opposite his hips, and midway between his right hand and
his body. The bullet wound had penetrated the left breasty
and another bu_lét hole wae discovered on the inside of
the side door leading to t:e outside of the building, which
they discevered was open, or partly open. A chair had also
besn overturned in the saloon. The revolver contained the
shélls of two exploded cartridges, and showed the indentartion
ef the hammer upon two others, which apparently had failed to
explode.
A declaration was filed, declaring specially upon the
policy involved in the suit, together with an affidavit of
}, olsin. The abstract however, ioes not set out
the allegations of the declaration. To this declaration
the appellant filed a plea of the general poe with an
affidavit of merits to the whole of doseliaes demand, be-
cause the insured conmitted suicides and that the policy was
thereby invalidated.
There was a fr 4a by jury, which resulted in a ver-
dict; but the verdict wen) of out in the abstract. An
\
7 s >
examination of the record, however, discloses the fact,
cb
i
cf
»
it]
wo
©
a
o
oO
roy
that the verdict was ‘for the aS and tha
sili edt qu betits sd stodw ,tnemeasd edt ott eredt.a
Goo» ' eS 2. ' sa +906: cee
bassd yodt tedt Yiteet weintrositon aid bas. ,9tiw. aid, a
bused bas ,tmemeasd sft to two moo mid based ede tadd™
wolsd mooiss edt at bayots betisw ed es agetatoo
etool* sit ao sitios. bused sde Moolee edt nt ssw ed
ai atode avg owt to ttoge t edt. dd tweed aettpesnsin
existenwok bedeus redyom sed bax ga moat «no teegoous
dviw lelletsg bed atd déin —gbitys! beripat edt, pavot,
_ bas bast tigtt etd seowted yowbim baw -eegid. ald et
omen? titel edt betexteneg bed .bayow telivd eat
tan to. tom ao! aueonat | tostteds eff, shale!
foltsislisel sidt of sno ttereloeb, Bit rR: tient
~ad paeeng
gew yoifog sai
-tsv 2 at betinast doidw VANE oy fase 25m 9r0KT bs
/
/
—
the appelles's damages at $345; and the ceurt rendered judg-
ment for sauck amount, which is the udgment, from which
ij
«
this appeal is prosecuted. Inasmuch as the allegations of
‘
thi
0}
fs
eclaration, which were covered by the zenseral isaug, sare
, 2 S ?
et
us
ct
not se
ot
out in the abstract, questions pertaining to the
issue by those allecations raised by the seneral issug,
are not before us for consideration; nor are therg any
Questions pertaining to the ver@ict, in connection with
2
the special interrogatories submitted to the jury, by the
L 5 A 2
appellant, before us for consideration; as the verdict is
cf
not set out in the abstract. From the pleadings sé% out in
the abstrect, it is apparent hewever that the issue, which
was tried and submitted to the ury was, that of the a
y
—
leged
suicide of the insured; and it is not important, which side
had the burden of proof unon the iesues presented, inasmuch
as there was no contest over the facts, and 2113 the eviience
which was adduced in the case, was cffered by the appellee.
The only question te be censidered, is whether the
cr
evidence tends to show, that the injuries which were inflicted
upon the insursd, and from which he died, were the result of
suicids, or were accidental. There is no direct evidence of
tow the insured was shot 3 as to whether he shot himself with
Suicidel intent; or whether he was accidentaily shot, perhaps
in a scuffle with an intruder into his place of buginegs
is and must necessarily be, a matter of inference “rom the
facts and circumstances proven. We are of opinion, that the
| jury were justified in the conclusion which they evidently
}
| reached, that the insured iid not commit suicide; ait any
\
|
| Tate, thers was sufficient evidence to justify this
\
\ 4 P
conclusion ad a reasonable conciusions
Apoellant also assigns for error. that there was no
proof of the notice to @ppellant, of the death of the insneei
as required by the terms of the policy; nor any voroofs of
ae
bee
bi ‘
+"
*
ae
ee |
ad
4
orl ey besmesi sift to desk at % etaelleggs od ex
abut betebmex! tao. edd bas) gedS Go Pacers eles ‘
cidw mort. ,toemmbst edt et dotdw ,touome _Aou9. 203
Yo emots tspe lie sot es dopapenl . -betsoesoig et Reaa cs
ste (“Gudel isretisg ont ad ferevoe eTew, doidn, sMioktsuelor et ‘3
edt od? grimtatreg ano itacup tostdads ails al suo td re
wunct Lerner odd yd besist eimttores(s enods ud 4
Yiie ered? ete 100 )emhot tgarcobdenne ote Ba etoted tor 52
dtivuno btosamoc al .,tolbtev edt cot priniatzeg anos
edeoyd: .Ywwbusdtoot beds imdus sstroisgorsstat tatoos 5
el toffitevesifies erotieisl tenag SOc ay ay.27@ 394, teal
fotdwi ,evestasdt ted? sevenod RurdiciBonrn4 i" cua
I
begeiie of? fo dedtegaswayryt .sdt.ot betiindsa poe bot:
foumssent Sebeen eek moyeal oitcamcu pos te ppt.
eonel tve. sit Ife. baz ,etos?, edt s9vo, SP9fHP% PAAR, :
-selisqge sit wo betrettio Sam.,enso odd at bsoubb baoubhe asx x
ed? vodterw at bevebtaage od of an htASHR, a MF ake
Seteilini erew dotdw eelwtat edd ted. _«wods,, os sean, sone
Yo dives edt stew .bath ei dotdw moxt bas dewent 22
diiv ILeemid toda od tediedw.ot as, ¢ tode asm eg ns ft
eqsdts¢ ,tode yListnekioos-eew ed hihi te aaa
.gesnigud to soslq- eld.otai.teburtal. as ditw eft
ods moxrlesoas siat to settem 2. ed vitssaecoen, tae,?
ed! dads. cetnico.te sts eW..mevorq popnstanigs+? of sagt
(itmelive yedt doidw, acteulonoo,ect at bobtegass. oren
yss ge joblolye timmoo ton bik berwent | out tea
eibdt ytitvest of eomet ive toolot tins AARP?
sfolesloaes eidgneasst a2
Of say sted tat? T0778 mot stat ees ia ve ich
the death of the insured, delivered to the appellant. It is
sufficient to say on this point, that the record shows, that
the appellant waived formal proof of these matters, on the
trial; end is therefore not in position to raise questions
ecencerning this proof, on appeal.
It is evident however, that the amount recover-d by
the appellee, in the judgment, - namely, #445 is in excess
of the amount that the appellee had a right to recover by
the terms of the policy; which is limited to $300; unless
the proof shows, that the insured maintained the policy in
continuous force after its date, by the payment of the prem-
iuma on the date due; in which case, appellee would aiso be
entitled to recover five per cent of the $300 provided for
in case of death» and for each consscutive month iwmedistely
preceding the date of the accidente It will be observed,
that two elements are necessary to establish the appellee's
right to reocver the five per cent. mentioned; first, the
maintaining of the polioy in force continuously; 2nd secondly
the payment of the monthly premium on the date when it became
due, which wae the first jay of each month, in advancee The
insured pzid for two conseo tive monthe after the issuance
of the policy, and thereby maintained the policy in force
continuously; but he did not make nis payment on the dates
when they were due, the firet payment having been made
on the 7th. of January, and the. sscond payment on the @gnd.
of February; both payments being made after the date, when
they had become due. Unioubtedly, the purrose of this stip-
ulation to pay the additional five per cent, was to insure
the prompt payment of the premiums on the dates they became
| due. The insured not having paid the same as required, ap-
| pellee is not entitled to this additional five percent; but
her right to recover was limited to the original amount of
\ $300.
ere.
mae
Loe
ensoftaeyp saist o3 notttaoq ot tom etotereilt iy bas
itsegqz ao stoorg etdt ‘3a.
oY ie
vd bstevoost tnsoms edt tadd tevewor task ive et at
=
exgsoxs at at a@seR .yleman — anope ‘one ab
Ls pegs
eesinu ,00EF ot Fedimti wt doindw :vottou eat to amt
Su, ta oe ee
ni ystiog sdf bentedaian bewent edt tadd “(enode — qe
-mera edt to Passyegq ‘ext yd «828b att ‘cedte. goto? ete
ed o8 fs bisow sallegges < 889 dotdw ai teub otah onde
Tot bebivorg COEF “edt To ‘taeo 18q evit ‘revoosx of beltite
vyietsibexut dinoa evidueeenoo fose tot bas ‘qitaae ‘to iy :
bevisedo od [fiw FI sinekiovs edt to eteb eae i
ott ytetkt rbomoltres theo t8¢ evit ek tevooet “ot
sneced ti meiix efsb edt mo nutnoxg yLetaos ert te tase
o SRL
a ei
odT seonsvbs nt ,dtnom dose to ysk “getti ett saw dotin
Sonsvest efd totts ation evit besnoe owe 0% pied
pet’ ie
sotos mk yor Log one bontstatsm ydexedt bas stoltog
Betsch eft ao Frenysg ain exe gon b tb od tod iefououn
» Be uOe -
éksem ised anived tnrearyseq teri? “edt ‘eub- ‘otew yedt®
Saat wen “be
bas fe to mai bnooes ed bas reveal ‘to sao
vedw ,e¢eb edt iets sbem saked ‘atmemyeq tod wa
-qites ett to seocrmy edt elke tduob al! : 0s ‘emooed bas
eivent of aew ,o0e0 tH oVEY ibnoltifbs ent (2a “of
ue eew. precdT
emsoced fed? eefeb sit me eminent edt Sq. ‘tnomyeq Tame
‘ Fee. nots
“qo ,bexlupet ac omea off Bkag gaivad tom aaa
. epee
ted ;tascteg evi? fuccisibbs aide ‘ot pete dae
mane ' ah ot of @
So fayoms Leatettc dire “Sy -haeene Ots eaten
The judgment xa therefore is erroneous to the extent of the
excess over $500. This, however, can be cured by entering
@ remittitur; and the judgment is affirmed at cost of appellee
upon condition that the appeliese enter & remittitur, reduce
ing the amount of the judgment to $300, within 5 days.
‘But if a remittitur is not entered, the case is to be reversed
and remanded. ve
ffirmed, on condition of the entry of a remite
titur of part of the judgment.
Appellee having entered a remittitur reducing the amount of
‘ Dellars
the judgment to Three Hundred ($300.) (the judgment is
affirmed in the sum of $300. at the costs of appellee.
att? o baste
‘grixetas: ia a se arr |
eeiieegs to sigs" tdebiiiel ie
aSubee” uci s inet 2 “ast ny
vaysb & abdé iw oe of 3
beersvet od ee “ak ae
ro es x") ave a: $3 tae Ss
wthwet 5 16 Yrtad odf to ae
Dae SE ee eRe ath pete sere?
kees) ae
ee 3 oi ee eee = i Ga Biss ‘to weab eld
ciea vine Wee aan ye “yasiesioen Sua binomite. OM
ak. Sete: Seed el ad aevadan o8
Sites tR2 gine vibe @ox0* ie ottog ‘ode! Nos iy
Sea Es SE ee di kaig Uatien eats % > ~
= a Hi ae tom BEE at ted tu
ates * a neo Pee ae ® 7 teal + ‘edt Savon bed
oR. ign GNESS waomeed deod ed
says! Nea iy eh gagatad abe “enoodd Sad
Ses 22. erg ea ai yet nok be” odd “gag of se pe i
Baas: “REP SHS Ra ls eae ‘Yo ‘so basi! fae is
STATE OF ILLINOIS, t z
SECOND DISTRICT. oa
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
I, CHRISTOPHER ©. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this =
day of_ in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and.
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
——e—. - a mace tags 5S oe enh niente
Le ‘pyc Bares fA Ba) hk /,
va) @IOWULILI 1O &
ABlisygé oalt to dio seaavd 2) auesoramat> 1 —) TOINTAIG GWOd <n
Zhou ott te tood bas 2tondl? Io sani% add Yo tuteiG baode® bine to? foe ot
eft to woluiye tli to yqo9 guid 4 ai voiovsied ait told YaITAMD Yaasan Od oon:
oie oat nt brooet to comics bol¢itue svadgs Sid af dol) od
got zifie hate beet ya jon otauersd | sonady W yHomireas'tT wi
vidt wreanO ds a0 stollouqd’d bisz odd ty Ieee
S80 Pred vie te soy ots at
ieee oe ho BD
~ bos borheod anita paged?
—
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April:
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hondred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of tne State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, presiajng Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justige.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
EO) OO ES f
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. ~ ~ Vo -0fo
= if
oa]
om,
d
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. /
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG 1° 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
ea OS PS) ae
Sngciitast ‘
_TAU09 HPALINTIA THT GO MAT A TF
2
7 = ; -
P o 1p wri: 2 et Us
-fivaA *o ysb, citmupt sdi-,ysbessT no .swsttO de Bien
Mee BS = oF ie / eee
‘2 as Beaboaurt edin Daseoodt sno bral tuo Io teay g
iii tshe@ sii to isirvtiesiGi Beoose sdi tod base
, 6 ; ‘ c Py
: eul anifbiestS , cUAHEIM .M AHOL .aoH odT=
a “*,
fguG’ ,gavHAD .C GWMAUd .a0H
ao f T)
; *
- TIGEIG fo
ra lU Hd 22
Vives
f
{3 ° lW ; eh sWwisiis ¢$
cefit asw izyved = to aoinigo eds
er... ae Se es, Be
3%1peBit bos ebro om mil ,I THO Bf
Gen. No. 6254
<a a pape or rd State of Illinois
ex rele ~\ appellee.
Ve Appeai from Knoxe
Fred Cutler, appellant.
Niehaus, P. J.
This is an appeal f a judgment of the County Court
of Knox County convioting the avpellant, Fred Cutler, of
bastardy on the complaint made by the prosscuting witneas,
Icelsen Wilson, |
The only evidehce offered by the orcsecution to suse
tain the charge is the testimony of the complainant, and her
testimony consists merely of the care statement, that she ig- nor
n
am unmarried woman, the mother of the child in question;
coupled with an assertion, thet she had intercourse with
appelisnty 2 2 that he #* the father cf her child. No
circumstances cre related, that in any wey corroborate the
compiaining witness in these statemente; ahe iees not state
when the appellant had intercourse with her, nor where, nor
undér what circumstances; nor whether there was one act
of intercourse, or more. The ordinary incidents of time,
and place, which are indisyensdble connected with the main
fect to be sroven; and ere usually regarded as necassary
élementa in fully establisging the fact of paternity, are
entirely omitted from her testimony.
The bare assertions of the complainant, that acoellant
had intercourse with her, and was the father of her child
were met, not only by the flat denial of the avpellant,
that he had any intercourse with the complaining witness; and
hat he was the father of herchild; but aiso by. other eviisce
adduced on the part ofth endant, which militates strongly
against the charge of paternity, as made against anpellant.
afoatiLil. to stete sdt to otqokeaal
(h eh Kea igus ey
-pelfsaqe is efor xe
sxomy work LseqgAé
tao yitowed edt to tramghut « mort Lseqqa me a
Ps eas T abey ost oh me st gags pice die - of ay ety |
to ,teistud bsxt ,taellisgqes sd? salteivao
.eeentinw antineséoxrg sdi yd shan ¢ulelqmoo edd
=ciis of Qottupseotc edt yd betette sefeiLive yine ed
yer bos ,tnenitelqmoo edt to yaomideet sft af sgredo-sdt ast
ss, Bf orice Jett ,tremetete sis: oft To yleren atektanoo onan eee
‘AOideoup ai L£ido edt to wedtom sdf .gamow battens
dtin esxuoorsint bad ode tedt .wottidsecs ae Bible heiques
os, , ;
of .blifido ted to tedtst sdt at ed ted? .bns iiasiloeges ae
sit etsrodetitos y yon of fedt ,bereloa:r ets asonstemotto
ststa tom esobh sit paetnemetete seedt af aaentiw gainielqmos
tom ,stedy ton ,ted odin eamootetal Ded tnelleqqs ed¢ aed a
fos no baw sted? sedtede non jseonstenmorte, date repay
eemls to etasitoc£ vrambons ett -9%0R To serwoorstat to
aisn eff dttw betoensoo sidbeneqntbal ore: dotdw: ,eost¢ aie 4
yiseseosy es hebusnor yYllavew sts bas ,aeverqi sd°et fost iz
ots ,Ytintets 7 lo toet sit getbgatidetse ylint «aL atnemste
.(aométect toad moxt bedtime yLloxtiae
tasilescoa fell ,tsentelqmos oft to enolfreaas sexed edt '
Eilide ton *o weidtel eit esw bos ,.ted adiy eatvopisial Ban 1
eemellecce ot to Leimek talt edt yd yiso som tem exew
bas ,;asentiiv valnialquoo oft diiwv sexwooretal yas bed od sedt
Soaitve todto yd osis tud ~hifdored to tedster edt “< ox tadt
ylgnotte potstiitm foidw ,tashastet edtlo tus ede ‘0 “bea cubs
. nea: carey ae 1
a : setawlinaonrsc Fen kewes obem or ae TOs aie ‘Aine ail
Miss.Clara Snacp, testified, that the seneral repue
tation of the complaining witness is bad in the community
where she lives; and thet from thet reputation she would not
pelieva her under cath. Thies witness alse testified, that
while she rewembered but one person by name, whe hud
discussed the reputation of the complaining witnees
she also r<-xembered other people talking about the vratter,
whose names she covld not recall at that time.
Mrs. Lucey South testified, that the compisining witness
while pregnant with she child in cuestion,
occasions, that one Claude Keffer was the futher of the child.
And the brother of the appellant, Pamet Cutler, testified
that on varicus ccecasions, and during the time when conoep-=-
tion must have taken place, he had sexual intercourse with the
complainant.
All this evidence is in atrong contradiction of the
general statement of %}
lan¢t is the father cf her child; and goes as well te impeach
her credibility.
In a cave of thia kind, it le énoumbent on the proseeue
tien to establish the chsarce of bastardy by
3 . eo ny i, Sear me ee, a
g y ne Weigay Of
the evidences Mattes v The Peeple etc. les Til. Anp. 76.
The weight cf the evidence in this case, howsver, ciearly
ravored the appellant. A verdict in a bastardy case, that is
against the weight of theevidense, should oe sat aside.
MeGoy v The People eto. 65 Til. 441.
The language of the supreme court in the c:se of Jones
v The People etc. 53 Tll. 365, soplies with peculiar aptness
to the case ab bar: "In thig case the putrtive f.ther tes-
tifies, he never had sexuel intercourse with the comrlainant;
anid, that he is not the father of the child; other vitnesses
who aré not impeached, and seem to be of unquestioned cred-
ibility, testify to facts contradictory to those stated by her;
fon bivow ode aoitsduge: tadt mort ditt hahtguaete aa -
toi) ,boiiidest comix caentiv eld? .dt<o tsbay aed eve,
ar bud odv .e@nan Yd Nostsg sme tus. betodmemsr, ede/ed
; jesentiw gatnlalqsos sd? te meivsiuge: sedi Leaew
-S ere
exstisy off Iyods aerial efgoeq: redte boreduen: de: oes
S ") a
i 5 >=
= senit fect te freoor fom bivoe eds esi
€. revites # xon
sasativ sninisiqnueo edt tert bebtitess fe2 woud oa
beteagey so ist biel .~woitseup a2 Hilde sit
sbEEGS iit Jo wedisl sot ser rotted obits “£0
Seliitgast .telisu fommkt ,tosiisaqe edt to son Brae < oa ae
* sig af eguede odi mise
—pse> fein sett sot irks gh Ars spac! BS009 BUOETSY om te
3 . . q 4 ‘ ao ah Ei i196 YROe
edt dite: e two sped at isuxs 2 hea Sit .eoatg acilet one Teun m0. t
- en? fiatice Gee eT
deontel@ A
eft to i9ivolisersaoo gnorte mt at sonst iv
: . ; @t G4 Sad3 hs
Lease eid ted? yanenttv gittebe: qmoo edt to toomatede ieteaeg
, otS32i 8S BH ssonetemas,
; doseqmi ov ifow @s G90 bare biids ted to ted ites eit ei ta
+3 re ti = ait imiai
y ree: Ts
Pai a mit: Bs
ss “Yoseet: sit no taedmsons st +8 bats atdd “9 e828 4 ries
xepel
ce to tdgisw sd? xd yotat asd ‘Yo egtade edd fuk idatsa “at mutt
= = 9$mEs
BE eGgh: 2ELP SH sors oiqoat acT ¥ aot tow saonshive: odd
ae yitesio ,tbveved Peo sits at sens! tvs eet Yo aan eee
~ : wre ‘OF
s. ei geri .texo Ybistasd £ al Ser kieeey “A -tnatfeag & edt Le tovs
si etnueme
-6biee toe ed tivedsa eenebiveert? to tigter edt teal
i itd 3 tase ‘ceo
< Lan. £0T da .ote efqoed oct wv yosal i
iaag. Otad eat
: eset To sexo ot al fies sme tse edit ‘to epougasl sdT
— in ebtugesedal
*. aseentqs seliluoed ag fw Set AGas 88 oat, ea pore ctr ang tt
of «te
aot xodéat ovisecug edi ance aide are ‘rad ta. 8820 =
S695 rai Woe - But
| jtmanbeL moe att de te semuootstat Lauxon bad revea od
—— ¥ < . © ] bid Fe » of to te rFa2t git?
c: eosueud iv wit (bLido” eat 2o redts? edt - hg bre.
aS ee me 9 . S ed vy o& wan iO
-sbeto bens Mtoovpni to eter meoe bee beso.
" Saiatialess *y Soxe ther an vi tavetar to
i
soqed
and, while she is not corroborated in any important partiular
by any witness, we think the verdict should have been for
the defendant. The case should go to another jury, and that
it way, this judgment is reversed end the cause reranded."®
“Ged bes Gwe *
® bebiianet seued Br
STATE OF ILLINOIS, \ ss
SECOND DISTRICT. . I, CHRISTOPHER ©. DurFy, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this =
day of = in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and__
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
) S@IOWUIIII @O aT
Sixfleqas aly to Hovis vad |) aausoremg) |] iad TOITaIG OKOoTe
: ahriene? 99 We to eat fete wieotil do aiwi®@ odd to goiedeitt foes bise tot Ding
a ef? to Holmis sit levees suri © =F wriowetul oft dedd Vata YoaRae OG fost
os ete non? biooet to seine boltitne oveds ond ai due
7 o0) xiftc ba tiie cy toe ermeeied b moss cnomiraaT ul
elt 2IO de dvtioy otuilogagd bine odd Io laoe
O86 Hed ni de Hoy ald ni. Oo ie tO Yb
= bape ber baud soir bawasordtd
pe — -— .
— sod svollenct. sAS 0 dt) Ms
py OR a
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine huadred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the/State of Illinois:
”
f
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
£
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG 19 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
-litgA to ysb dituot edt ,ysbasuT ao eweis0 $a BI
jassiste fos fs bard sic basevodt eno brod a0 to 186
siogtiit Yo stete sdf to tatrd2id baoose sat rot has ai
opiiant gofSteev? ,2UAHRIM .M WHOL .noH efT-=
.2Olcaut ,g@a4HA% .L GHAUG .n0H
.sottagt- ,LIgdl¢ SOMARAOG .o0H
i; Wea VIM .9 GHEIOTEISHO |
-Vtited2 ,gIVAd WM Lg
a
oa a
- Ss:
*& aa
‘Se
. a a
M4 ,
-#
= FNS = 3 =
on
7 at a
LO Tiwes {2
. 2- e 2 : i= 5 : - : * = a ee
sbiswisiis ssdt ,@XASaMaMEa TI Ga
, ¥
. : at: » § ee
mi &Gsiit 2ew try0d adt to mointqo sds cet 1 uA
asinsit bas ebiow efi st ,éxued Bise te sotito e*iseiae
Gen. No.6856
Michael J. Ryan appellee
¥8
John EF. Harty, appelliante
Niehaus, P. J.
Appeal
from
Starke
Fate—rae~on (ot: on cf assumpsit, com=eneed by Michasl
Qa rtp
J. Ryan, the-aepektee, a “County”
against John E. ee
the
in the case consists of
lant filed the ceneral issue.
bill of particulars, filed
The apo
which aspatied ‘cls aimed the father of
The declaration
common counts to
e lee set
with the declaration, t
wy pOAncs or
ips pare oe way
appellant owed him $1106,‘ ni
Oe me
items, namely, ¢906, |
AAD aa
ao him, and
also an item of $300 oash loaned to
Ptatqe
pectes testified that
for t.e sum of $1106 payable to
Ak shod antitn 7
with the consent of eee
the
sumption of
Bede. A. Barton, we
ats + exeouted 2
jE A WAG,
money loaned him by the
exeouted a note for the
AO gaa ATP
both items to aoarettee.
There was a trial by
his damages were assessed at
for a
juig
is
new trial, made by appe
ment -on the verdict; from
prosecuted.
There is practicall
appeal. It is contended by the
was bound to prove his cage }
dence; and that there is no
cerning the transactions out
of
¢ loco.
jant,
y but one
AN 0C |
which Pe had ass ee
Niches. petra
which the appele
forth in his
hat the
is inde Be aces composed of twe
and
ie Sates wa a=
ust.
"¢
jury, anda ver
Afte
M4
Jan
eee. put
D vfertac
Sere Se 5 but Jeniedy t
gamé, and clainedy tant
ques
%,
ict
rent this
jid not deny
906 indebteiness, nor the {300 item,
he
for an
r overruling
court ren
~
tion raised
ki Ae py as
L at Le
had
ypellee,
oromissory note
rétained it
the
ao=
for
chat he ever
paid
and
@ motion
Jered
seal
Lee
OT Lid
eelleqqs msyfl .b
+ ONE petal a
Ieadoil’ yd beemeewroo .tieqmuaas to mot top) ae-gew-eeeT
~yinwoo arst? to -twe-hHisorts-ess at ey As .
ss RE 4 ee Bn tdey ;
sottstelosek sit stneticaqebad eYSISH .F ool ve
t
~~
‘»
34!
jqe edt dotdw ot atavoo mommoo oft x ateienoo| seco. at
sid ai dtiot tes selisaus edT seuaal Lstsasy edt belt?
edt tedt ,mottersloob oft dtiw belt? phnta hcliat. to
SaaS, 2 Fy er
owt to Beeogmoo wb asenbotdel at aid cP qaorrg mid
ak ty Pater 4
to tenftst ait bemteio’ bebtacka ao ist (8087
tn, ik
- =e en ae, vareth h iN Ay
bre ,beawess ber Snel Loe dotdw bos ,mid
; 1
if . bensol dase 0082 to meek
- niet a she Sy =
eton ytrosetmotc acaehadass dade tedt bettitas i
t aS a )
ti bentstex tud erss an BOLi> to me 8.
i a smb noshe Ss A ers Pare See
-22 edt yasbh ton &fi iacloseh -eeliecoe to Pn edt |
eet sg eee ee) ee
-
1,
tot ,mwetk O08 edt tom ,eeentetdebat aoe edt his en
aoe > as. ror moa ra
it . a - == : ~
4 bing bes af tact ghentelo fos ,amee gd? roi iy boi
a é viel ' 3 Pi ii
a |
689fLlo0cs tol tof tov & bow .yIut yd Lebat s Bow 978,
notion « saifyvrrsve xoftA .O00L% ts besseess set)8w sical
Estetasr tsyoo ent .toslisqas yd ekem fetid wen «
isec a aft toesgiut dotde moxt ttotbaev ef? so tne
sbedsoogorg |
i | Pig
eid? ao Lexicr aoiicesp ano iud ylisebtesrq at erent 2g?
eeliegys adit tact ,tasiiscas edt yd bebastaoo ai I
aeeeeis, ot 4;
-fve ait to sonatsinoger, « yd sesso afd evorg
M00 fait (sonetel nogeta fovea om ei enedt
te
appellee arose, and upon which the appellant's icfense is
based, there are but two witnesses, -- namely , the aovellee
on the one side, ani the appellant on the other; that avpellee
in sustaining his case, testified to the existence of faots
constituting his case, ani there is a dircct denial of these
facta by the appellant; ond that hence, this leaves avpellee's
casé without a preponderance of eviience to sup-crt its.
} While it is true, that the statements made by these parties
|} respectively, concerning the matters in issue between them,
'are jilametrically opposite, there were facts and circumsta neces
A
\ testified to by other vitnesses, which apparently contrsedicted
the parties respectively, in some parts ¢f their teatimony;
| there was aiso some evidence which may be considered as
| correbative of their testimony in sone particulats.
But the number of witnesses who testify in «a case, is
not necessarily djeoisive of the question of oreponderance.
If there are but two witnesses, and they testify diametrically
Opposite, concerning matters within their personal knowledge
Dies does not nécessarily result in 2 lack of prepondicrance
"concerning the matters; the question of preponderance is
"largely a question of the oredibility of the witnesses who
Weeaere and = question for the jury. The jury are the
proper judges to determine which witnesses are more credible,
&
or which of the parties to a law suit is telling the truth.
(Shaw v The People 81 Ill. 150; Boylston v Bain, $0 Ill.
383; Johnson v The Paple 40 011. Apps. 383; affirmed in 140
Ill. 350.)
It-is distinctly emphasized in Boylston v Bain, supra
thet when « fact essential to a recovery, is sowrn to by one
witness, and jenied by another, of apparently equal credibility
it does not necessarily follow, that there is no prepondersnece
of evidence; but in that case, there is a conflict of evidence
aha eo
ees
- saee
~~ ey
oe Ve es
y n
ath
2 a
a ae Ps
7. 2 _ j i
Ss Let or
; ri it os
wy
o-s58
,
si sanstsi s'insiisdgs edt dotdw gocu baa .0a0re 99
asifeuce adi . yYilewen -= soseont in. owt, dud S15. 070GE La
asiisqqgs tet jtedte oad. a6 dax.feqcs edi bos ,eble eno 8
beititees, ,eeso aid .petatoten,
eeedt to feixst toorth s si sred¢t ins ,.8as6o eid gatius th
" T .@u
a'gelfequs aevesi aidt ,sonmen ‘has rénelleqas’ eat YW
Sy
o
c
7
co)
f
5
Ag
ale ad
fal
’
ee
.
¢
D
-
c
Cc
cH
weet
° is salle duodd te
Reh”
efi tro sya of somal ive
ectits: scsd¢ yo obom atmemetede ont dedt oud en dt at
~ned? asexted susel af atetiac and gatarseno% wlevites
@son stemsotto bas sfost stew ated# 9t>0a3 ° “yilaoladomabt
ba ft% dh
betofbstiacs ylinatsais feiss (aseaeat iv ‘sadio acs ot berate
esd tisit th atrsq smoe at ‘levidoegest sottzeg
@s betebieanos sd ysm doidw ednektve smos este esw
ait ,s620 a al yvittest ow sesaent iw 1 redmn ed t
netl nao
-SORStebsrogsi1s to noiteexp edd ‘to ovis lost viltesgecss.
4
ylisoflztemsti vt itead yeas bas packsonsiy one tod Sis “eredt *
epbefwomi Isnoeisq tiedi widdiv stot tan galatsenoe ? onal
osc adit
S dd
Somatolhmogexy to Aaosi s at tiveot vLttsessoen joa ésok aid s
‘ to moliveqm
ai somsatebmoget, to aoitaeup end jetedter ent paras:
One @dacenti« eit to baie set airy ‘edt to ‘noitesup S.
TOR s&s hetuge
ad+ ets yawt eff .ymt edt rot wottseup, 5 bas ates
gmeté *
,sldileic Stom sts saereentinw doidy eatmreteb od eaukyt ee
»ivuxy sit anntifsé ef tive wal 2 ot Witaag: edé to dotdw 20
oes é: rgonened 8
-[iI 02 .atsd@ v motelyod ;O8r . LIT £8 elqos? ‘Ont vw
feirnd wen 2 Ss
JL ak beavit tre tS eQga »fi19 Os slap oft v nosnifol ‘-
ond “tba fusamgt
re: es ; «hei sueoggrg of
aicue .aist v aotaiyod at bexteudqie citembtett aL Shy
: ‘Sif
eno yd of atvoa zi .Yrevoos: s of iettneeas fest 2 aedw tad c
a oe : tI «Lae
ysifictiors (eves yidncrsan to ,xedtome ve eeaer or zene
which it is the peculiar province of the jury to settie;
and it is for the jury to determine where the weight of the
evidence lies, under those circumstances; and having detere-
mined the question, courts of review should not disturb
their verdict. In this case, the jury, whe saw the witnesses
and heard them testify, were in the best position to ister-
mine where the truth lay; and this court cannot say that the
jury were wrong in the conclusion which they formed.
It is also urged by appellant, that inasmuch as the verdict
was for $1000 and the appellee's claim was for $1106, it is
apparently a soecalled com oromise verdict, and the court
should have set it aside for that reason. We are of the
opinion that the appellant is not in position to object to
the yerndins, because it is not for as much as the appellee
Claimed; and that there was no error in refusing to set aside
the verdict, for that reason.
The record ioes not jisclose any legal ground for rsversing
the judgment in this case; and it should therefore be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
eee
edt d4dt yan tonséo Faso aldt bas permease: a9dvONes
shemtol yartt doidw sotnwonoe dase
guistsvet 101 fava ae ae seoloett ‘tom soot txooet eet
<r eweeeL.hCU
2a et 490 ‘edt ¥
Weige i 4
or. oo noonsot 3688
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ! '
SECOND DISTRICT. =e I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this =
day of — - _in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and ees
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
| BIOWIIIT TO @
Stsllecer/ 22h ter shel s fray) HAY rT OTS - oh ‘* -TOIATAIG rosea
ahisus] aig hes
ONT Ge sotGh ies a3 Ws vives) ated feat Soars and indd Yara Yass Od 1 Aooreds |
waite fete fst 15 : 7
PTO TO See bali aveda oat ai 147009 oldliong
Oe Ofiees! F orsaW ey eomrredT 1T 5 ae
; : :
etn MEME fives Fiiaced vey
avid ag erestieh an deri’) asileqqaA bie oft to bape
_ S09 srttal ile tee tee itt isi
ase oo ht ye
bite fborhaod enig bugetodd
—
tee
ruse SinWhagah ai to Analy
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.©
a
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.) on
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. i he “=X
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG 10 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
4 -iitgA to yeh ftivot odd ,ysbeey tind Vsweito ta bled
sasetute bos kethard satm basevedtiano brol tuo 16 -185y¥
Sp ae
te si ta fofatard “‘pHoset onF- 184 “bas -
setomiiii to sts
| .seiteut: gaibiee td ;@UAHaIV .M ‘MHOC ‘soH edT--
sottarl ,@aUHAOX%.L.anAUC MoR
soitagt ,dIGaTd @OWAROG non ;
frsid ,YFTUC .o AZHIOTSIAHO
i | i -ttived® ,QgIVAC .M a
so iftiw-ot ,ebrawretis isdt ,CSRaaMaMad TI rant
mi Belt? esw its0d sd3 to notnaiqo sds
ssrueurit bas sbtow sdi ai ,dzg00 bise
Gen, no. 6277.
Robbs Express Company,
Appellee,
“vo- Appeal from County Court
of Rock Island County.
Nickolas Ferkel,
Appellant.
Nichaus, P. J.
The appellee, Robbs Express Company, commenccd suit in
assumnpsit in the county court or Rock Island County against the
appellant, Nickolas Ferkel, to recover $634.00 which it is
claimed is due from the appellant on account of collections male
by him for appellee, The decleration filed by the appellee con-
sisted of the comnon counts, end an itemized statement of the ac-
count sued on is attached thereto showing the total amout of
collections of $634.82 cloimed.
To this declaration the appellant first filed a plea in the
nature of a plea in abatement, which the appellant verified by
affidavit. This plea avers that the demands in the declaration
arose out of partnership transactions; that the appellant, and
-one Edward A. Lewis, acting and doing business by the name and
style of Robbs Express Company, and in its behalf, entered into a
verbal agreement with the sopellant to conduct the business of
hauling freight to and from the several railroad depots in the
city of Rock Island,and that the collections mae by him were for
hauling done under the terms of this p-wrtie lar arreement, and that
Lewis also made collections unter this asreement for which he haé
never accounted to the avpellant, and thet Lewis had failed’ and '
ne
refused to make such accounting, and that the rights and obligations
of the perties with reference to the mtters alleged in tho
{ HG 4g Sonne
sptheet cei aoa
$ Es
tamo0 yirorod sioxt Iss « get neve ; pe. bs
Sait Asotet wok Cherry s a z,
ai ther Scomemmos ,.Uieerod ssetomil eddof jeetiLeares pil
add gaktassa yleswoY Berefal Hook Lo dures Whas@o ent sk :
Si fi Soitw 00,8036 sovooes ot ,fettet gafodoll ,
onic atoivoolion te cmyrosos £0 tnetfoqas off mort spb et 1
“moo collocys oft yd Seltt moitstefosbh od? ,eefleqan rot
-on sf} to fuemodete bostuedt ae Boe ,adnes gonmoo edt to Besa
to trgonms L[atdot ext askwosle oferesd Sedostis af wo Bema:
sbontclo 88,588$ to amok
oat ni asly es helit textt tusifoars oft mottessloeh akdd of
Wi Selitiney teelfeccs est dotdw ,dnemetsds mi selq sto:
goltaceloen o: ok airenos oft dacdt aveve selg satt ore
Bes ,teallogga edt tat pave ttosanend qidesendteq Koutsor
ios oman odd Yd eeeaicrd ssioh. Sue gettes .atwad VA Browhit | se
& cist emine Lladed sti a! Saxe -ymegmod neerl addof,to-shute
XO onsoriecd eff touhros of tual feces edt at iw tmesieesgs fe ‘
eff mt atogei Avouliex Iaveves sd? mort Bue od igkerk¢
WS gow mui woo s1 etotiooliog odd Sant bee, Snstel sook to an
Sas} ies pdmomeot s wl olde ohtt Xo sexed out testa embB)
Bed oe fois rot duomeoe:s Bist vreSaag exgitosIf[oo eben oats
Bos Mies -falint oe-1 ulti Durt Bus ,tuei£ecra edé of cota
Pidiekbenatco Bea edigic cid dent tes ypekiewoode slow: elem of
ee eat mi Sonalfa eteitrs od} of oomeustec adie conta
ry 7 Pe
1 ay 4 ®
: “ie n is te
eas + Spa Sian
degleration could only he ascertained by 2 court of equity.
The appellent,by leave of court, afterwards withdrew “is
plea in abatement and filed the seneral issue, and a notice of sete
off, which. was afterwards amended, In the amemied noti e of set-§f?f
the appellont admits the collection of the 3634.82 scot out in the
account attached to the decloration but avers that by virtue of the
verbal agreoment.entered into by him with the Robbs Tixpress Compony
he is entitled to one-half of the amount collected and that he is
also entitled to one-half of certain eollections mde by the
Express compeny for hauling certain wares and moevehandige from froinh t
depots and warehouses to and from the Rock Island Arsenal, ané@ that
un er this verbal contract collections made in conformity therewith
by the Express company it is indebted to him in the sum of [1522,46.
There was a triol by jury ad at the conclusion of all the
evidence ta tie case the court, on motion of appellec, directed the
jury to return o verdict for the aypelles ond assess its doamares at
3634.82, which was accordinely done, The appellant thereupon made
Fe motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which motion
was overruled,and the court thereupon entered jud ment in fovor of
the sppellee for the smount found in the verdict, ‘rom wich judg ent
this appeal is prosecuted.
The principal error assigned , and one which embraces all the
questions for determination on tois spveal, is thet the:court erred
‘in directing the verdict,and thst the court should have submitted to
the jury the question as to whether or not the appellant had a verbal
contract with the oppolleo, as claimed in tho pleadings.
cae to Puree Sy behtetreons ee
a steele kyr eircanmnatt s ef oe oat inated) aN
-dep 4a ealfou ¢ fms ,yomeet Laxones. Bet Sabet nae 43 4 i
Ra aay he
SE-toe to o Non Soinens cit ai sbehaons ebrsswae tte aew doksde ,
oad mi dwc toe S.tE5e att ho 0 doe live odd at tne 35
of} to aviziy yd dadd ateve od no itere Leah ott, ov mean
Wieqned asotqxi adda eat sidtbse atk se NOG, OgsLe, Desoto. t.
WE od Vadd Stee hadsotteo thtome. ost £9. speech
est es ebm anoitosilos Aiedves to tEed-ex008 she.
rf Kater® mock ontbdady: ont Dae Bercy Kisiies gaitcad tot. somali
denis fers ,«Tencars , ane Lat dot, oft pst boo pF, aoarodersat”:
it inetostt qe inrcokoy sk 9h600 énotitoe.ttos dostineo Ledtov.2
s@BsS8E) To mie ot at mt! od botdobeh at 32 » xeqnOe,
aii ~~
edt ife to sotayfonos ens to, Soe Yast ge tei, nsw soto wa
odd Botvockh callous to motion me iagoo, ost onag, ost mb a
@a aogemeh apt socaes Sac relioud i, ons. mom, tabbzoy & i tad.
eham gogtrerol inaifegrs oni # HOD BEB,
no tton dotew sizixt wor 2 0%, bre. tele sy, oat shina: pa
ZO toyet ak Irom bey bovebtre oqvecocd dures edly hoa, betes
dnormhr’, col.w mort, .gokbrey od mf Beare’ fosone, off gobs sae
latent giana
Be) i.
MP Lhe wocaidns “oliw cro Bae , Bose tae ete Pia baad Rea ae be ws
Berm Juimgeest tock of (Teeedn atid Ko ‘nolktackers ote oh 2 OSD
OGG Hiecw a at hirrotte Piro ate Peas jie, tobrev ot ews ne
Rebser Bat taafleccs et for to utttete oF af nolveom gp ont
RIN Ss Jegakssire ot ak Sentars aa Sabiotats ‘ond 7 aoa ,
ae | < i Mh sel
wie
= i Boy ny
ei : js 7 vy ‘ ; ail .
engared
and
team and doins
1
as &
ths
It apne
in the
it
1910),
to do in
arsenal
$72.6
" AGREE!
and
employ Nick
pe x
t is
Nicl
Ie
A.
stood he
the
24,
the
the
Sen)
re
+ ¢
"4 24
ars from the evidence that rhe
enenl express business in the city
appellantis a teamster owning
the work of a teamster. Lt
ppellant entered into 23 written
teamster comcerning the hauling which
course of its business to and
is located near the city of Rock
i
' July 1, 1910.
cf
entered into this day between
Na 5 te mann py 445 Rahhra 7 ct
Ferkel, whereby the Robb's Express
e r week, he
Ferkel as teamster on the basis
to furnish his orm team and harn
1 express
j dimitte
FF ep ae AS Ogee pa
trom 18 gfovermment
Phis con=
> A ta ¢ Tee
AODDS press
Company h
ve
vw
<I tr ed eo
Or hen uy @O71C
is to do what hauling we have to and from the
Arsenal exclusively. Where it is impossible
one
tea
heavy.
am
we
This
ety 1. LET,
Acceptad
Wick Ferkel,."
4
he
io
the
ment ,
Mier te ape? wae this wri
hauling
0:
re
as
ey ove
Ur
VL
Which the
il furnish the help on days
contract to go into effect July
Signed
ment owned materials and 8up
on the day on which this writ
into, and before its fincl execution, he ma
and
distinct
ra)
isreement with E. F. Lewis, the
Express company, concerning other than Goverment
naw
ed
to
and.
from the arsenal by him, fo:
Company
asreed to
Ss +1
ite 1.
the Govern=
a
Soe a u
br Ss Ay 2A
¥ sit £¢
‘
bional
a7 p
Ow ULlLe
OF
Ne oO es 26)
t
1
e
In
a)
@
oe)
>
s
D
®
ey
Tr narra
Jy ~ AS? hE L&
. F 5 er
nae - me : AA.)
Ww
ao a“ Ft bs >
t- Sidhe we h } eb LES
aoe r
8. touust sist yolame
a 9) 3 ® OW &
TRO
> Cveen
rrey en lee?
° -- e~ e-
Tqeaos
ee ee |
e- AST
5 5 - ~* 7
J. 5 OVE
accede th Dre
vi Ca oh 3
erry ry ¢ t
35 , utthomoo BeaeTaxt
etween the two of us"=— =
from different shippers and f£ ctories,
rom the Government as rejected and we
; rejected stuff; these shippers
ré private corporations and individ
fra. *
tract was signed after the verbel understanding mentioned, LS
———
that in his judgment the written con-
Concerning the hauling which ‘he appellant vas to do unier
the terms of the written contract the contract itself would be the
best evidence, and its terms in that resard could not be varied or
chanzed by verbal festimony or conversation. It is well settled
that a written contract unambiguous in its terms cannot be varied,
eontradicted or modified by parol evidence of anything that occurred
at or prior to the time when such written contract was executed.
(Schneider v Sulzer, 212 Ill. 87)
The terms of the written contract did not limit the hauling
to be done by appellant to government owned materials ani supplies
but included all the havling the Express company had to do to and
from the Rock Island Arsenal exclusively.
The sppellant's alleged verbal anreement cannot be considered
a¢ having the effect of modifying or changing the terms of the
written instrument in qualfifkins aan limiting the amount or kind of
hauling which was to be done unéer its terms to and ‘rom the arsenel;
and inasmuch as it clearly aepmars that this alleged vorbal asreement
or understanding was contemporaneous with the making of the
written contract and before its final execution, such verbal agreement
acd
a, gots By premoxevo) ead Tava ov 7 Sotolon dneneemps dl a
he. "even od Dieta disahas. "potewhred: Loot @ ye tephscodt ean Wot —
- . ote" Sr to ont ast Mooml ed a eg . | on
gpeknoro:t Sue axsqgide Jaqrettih mort deed 2 ft
ow ins Sotpopst ag Jaemrre yop ph Ls :
etaccide ove gtiwta betooher ,pesqride, old ot sloadod,
=1oo setiicw ey smensbs),
:
; iget ESS:
Bo obser S¢ FSO Rlvoo Baer Yess wt antied aed ia 10 9400!
hekivon. Lisv ul tt
aa rd ax +3 a
BSeowsybos fate Biiddyie to oareitya foreq 1 bostibom 0. "oto
ray
aitinet off dial ton th toextede meliiszw oct tho ac car oat
Beilvqwe has labiotan Seawo teomerovoy od. j ‘nel Loqys As sof
2 ~~ + ‘ r rc . » ; is: om
hoes? O¢ hed Yuames svete odd gettin dd
sulevirsloxs isnea PReERS 2 _co.Rey
er %,
PaO Re pe
2 SL: teeta
Rete Stence ef fonts tuaneow & Ladcor basal
wr
: SHS TevnmTss sith eatinety to arivkibem Ko. tootte. ate
EP
Te PALS to Tesors act cats ieee Bore igs tek ‘tovonarstet
. PAs
same Or siov. foi ah acre d git?
memo athian ot tbr Boone yed into wttoe as ght
eee estoy Aire aft0-ET grape Fit 25:
ine Sh te ei ah ae, Spaeth ie ie
ha , a r’ ~~ ~ *
ie ae
would be cons a of law, as merged in the written
instrument. suprene court emmounced in Grubb v Milan,
246 I 11. 465," x written contract was entered into betwoen the
pax pies in which they set down what had been agreed upon between them.
In 2 “es act sion on the contract it is presumed to have con weined the
x =e
ape eercenent end the various conversations voloting GO
the 5 oc matter were merged in the written contract," This is
the well, 1 settled, doctrine of law in this state. ( Graham v Saviier,
165° eal 953 tome of Kane v Farrelly, 192 id. 521; Telluride Power
and Ireneniseion Co. v Crane Co., 208 id. 214; Schneider v Sulzer,
_ Pel:
supra.)
a
vo 1d entor into 2 verbal understanding conceming the hauling
.
“While it appears entirely improbable thet the appellant
7 of “merchandise and material:, with the appellec, different from
the written contracé in regard to the same matter and under con~
ow:
_siderstion at the same time, yet assuming that the conversations
: ee erat to by the enypellant with Lewis, the president of the
“Express company, did actually occur, they must be considered as
7 merged and included in the written contract; nor can they be con-
sidered as in any wey varying the terms or legal effect of such 7
written contract. The only contract, ee ae that Gould
i‘ he considered as bearing upon the issues in this case was the writ- 7
ten contract. The court properly held that the alleged verbal :
agree! nent aid not sustain appellant's claim of set-off, and thet
he had not established any legal richt or claim to the money col- :
lected; hoving admitted that he collected the amount stated in
-
appellee s deélaration and accowmt, the court properly directed a
ordict for this amount.
“The judgment should be affirmed.
’ Affirmed.
mersisw s. it mt Soy test ss wel to tettem s es Bose ntacao 2 ”
aebte’: YéewD xt beoavénns Pury eaowewa Si BE 4: :
any nostefed oldieediaiels asd sontdeoo ction “5 it ;
aon} Hace sidgs beets’ goed Sititpetor a bolts Lis tty at BS:
Zo) Heitetios Seat dt Semaohd at oP Ca
ot Snieern wivo téeursymeo iy 5a Sal Lie art
"SPatet “isourditoo méittien garth ‘pogxent ot tin ot
vrekivee v redex ) soceguediay ni war te mean
Soins Sbrwelist ;1ed .h2 sek -yltoree TY Cae Ww hor yee oer ee
(Baise vy Yen teiaion YAEe Get one (lod taate Wed a ‘:
Seaktacgs set ‘tert ‘étiscattint Yiotne oras7g4 ge i: oo
ngs and nutineentton siettcart te ite ‘acti pari Biju Ph
Ne #1
‘Sttoidstverios ac¢ desté oiekearabs bia vend ¥ Baik ; oe
Ss Bevshienson od tanm yor sarees eI Cowies , eae ie :
Snoo 3¢ yds aad tot <Sonddaas OT SB oat at Sitink we soeem
Howe 3H sontie Lepei is
Rigen tat¥ Séxocsod
g ADO. Goon act oF srpels 4 iigic Lege. eh, i
Py as ROtaIe apuroiss ot Coc oe nas: eh hadt: sen : ato :
; =
oy & Aedvesia yisegem 3 PESOS. at PRE vexvopopenc) gist at ft) *
SS ee - shentekite od bigot, 10%
a >
STATE OF ILLINOIS, :
SECOND DISTRICT. =
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
I, CHRISTOPHER C. DurFry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOFP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of_ as _in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine bundred and _ EE
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
_{ aLOWiddl 10 aT
Malloy oil ow Saal) yyy So) aeoisorensa rea ToInTeld ay
abiwoeh urd te yogusd bag 2ionillT }. dal odd lo dolar broost bise ro} bis at
OEE Tee ONT: UU) wpe ott Gel gniegoml sid Inds YOITHEO YeRem od looted {ss
ete fin ioe? io cena boltitus avedas odd it S10 94
iT
dt zi Mok vin ri te one f ounanW ynomrrea? al
ch mati Sa ite) oipiiogdg A binge oft Io legos
Bie bral aie to tose ot ra : he aah
bus Dotbagd sain biemodd
a e ae
Area wiasilececed «AA key Anat
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State Of ll lings:
7
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
:
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. —
&
5
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justicey mir, yj =
kd CR LT 9
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. :
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. :
_ i A
: jo
é
7
j
j
Ei
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
the opinion of the Court was filed in
ANG 10 1916
in the words and figures
the Clerk’s office of said Court,
following, to-wit:
‘ io
pitmgA Yo ysb dirvsrot sd} .vehaerT sro SWS 980: 18
,O5°%Nis fos betherd antec bosepod? ene biol See,
Gd sofrdaid baooee edd 710i bas ate
a
>
nm
4
is
oa
=
its
bes
%
a
i
. RUABIIM M HOT "00H od =9
| sovttaul | 2HWSAO \t ‘anava 10H on
ae y@sortest jlimate TOMARHOG . 00H
diol ,YETUC .o SgHdoTarano
Dived@,BIVAG .M Lg
He :iiw-9) ,ebvewretts tedd a Tr 8a
SSift s2¥ j1ved adt to aotmiga edt ae ei a
291psert bas shiow ent nt ,dyy09 Dise to. eoiite etdre.
; igtanene ¢ 3a
*
Gen. No. 6148
William C. Siegert, appelies
vs Avpeal from LaSalle.
Public Service Company of Northern
Illinois, a Corporation eni the City
of Ottawa. appellants/
Carnes, Je
This is an speeal from a judgment of $2500 for the
plaintiff in a suit prosecuted by William C. Sierert, the
appellee, ageinst the City of Ottawa, and Public Service
Company of Northern Illinois, a corporaticn to recover for
a“
injuries sustained by eppellee by reason of en slleged unsafe
er
condition of a bridge on & public street of the city.
The Illinois river bridge is 942 fset long, witha driveway
24 feet wide, anid was on July 8, 1914, the day in question
the only means of crossing the Illinois river in the city
of Ottawa. here was a large amount cf travel acress the
bridge including interurban ani street car traffic. There
¥
was laid along the east side of the wagon road of the bridre
extending into the driveway about eighteen inches from the
Side of the bridge an eight inch gas pipe used by a=.)
Public Service Company, leid in sections joined by a flange
or expansion joint projecting two inches, so that the iiameter
of the pipe and flange was about twelve inches. This pi
was elevated « féw inches above the level of the floor of
the bridge on a cement foundation, but sxkanding extenied
+
beyond the base on which it rested. It was not coversd or
e
guarded in any way ani the flange or expansion
constructed that a wheel acraping alone the side of the
pipe would cutbh on the flange.
acquainted with ani accustomed to the use of this bridge. Is
eelizs8§al mowl Leeqcad
sred iseow ‘to oe eptvzee
ytio edt bas notderoqz00 é eke
ebeeiimian:
af! ret O0&S% te trosmboet 2 nott er. 1s 3t or
eotvxes olidet bne ,swettO te yrio cena
tot reveeet ot moiteroqros 6 ,ebomt£il aredd 10% to y
eteem bhegelia as to mosasx yd selisqgs yd beateteva sel
ewttc ed! to ¢estte offduq 2 ao epbind s te. notsit:
qeveyitk « diiw ,gnol tcet She af egbiad s3ovit eioniitt
mottesup mi yah cdi ,df@L ,8 YING ao sew hos” fos: t
yiio off mi zteviy etomtfiT sft yakecoto to ons
eit ecorve fevetd to teyems egret « sew stedT sar
: eisd? .oittats zéo toentte Has Seinisshe eae
" spbizs efi to Ssor sens edt te abies tes, edt prrols 12
3
;
.
efit mort esdont avetdyie tueda qewevisb ond otak
epmell « yd heakot aneitoe’ ni -bial \sene0 aot4%02 of
s6jemeif cit gas! os ,eedonk ont antiosterq takot note: F
eqiq sidT .®erfont eviewd tuods esw egneit bas 9g
sof oft te Lavel ect ovods esdonk w6t 2s bet
Tetihisez =
“OH «eghiz’ elds jo saw ect of Bemetevons Bi
drove onto it with a horse that was somewhat afraid of
cars and met a street car.His horse shicd to the east as
the car paased him, ani just then another car came upe The
horse becoming more frightened veered to the east ani started
to run. The left wheel of the wagon struck arainst the ga
pipe a few feet from a flange. The wheel glid along until
it hit the projection of the flange. The wagon wea thrown
into the air by the force of the impact and appellee thrown
out ani ingured.
no substantiel error prejudicial to the an
aed
in the givine or re
of instructis No error in pas=
sing on the introduction ig sugesstede Appellee
suggests err giving instructions for Z>sellents, but
eae ones érror is filed that question ae vefore
The court instructed the jury, at the instance of appei-
lents except as mojified by the insertion of the cisuse in
parenthesis, as follows:= "Tixt while it is the ijuty of a
city to ms@ reasonable care to kcep its streets in 2a reason=
ably safe condition to drive upon, it hes the right to devete
a
the sides of the street to other useful public purvoses.
It muy cotetruct sidewalks of a higher grade and cttters
ox a lower grade than the driveway, plece curbing on the lins
of the guttersm, erect hydrants ind authorise tne «rection
of hitching posts, telephone, telegraph ani clectric light
poles and the laying of water ani gee pipes (srovided tha’
in so joing the streets remain in s ressonabiy safe condition
for public use.) It may thus to a reasonable extent ani
for & useful pukgmgamg public purcose narrow the iriveway in
exclude teams and horses alto-ether from the siiss of the
streets." Gs
Appellants object te the modification. We think the instruce
Tose
tc Hear? Le ¢ Revike coy nNOe B38 Fact ented <2 adhe aL. otno
e 36) te ee
ea tase odt ot botde sero ather20 teoxde a tom bas.
scT qu onsés seo tadione aits sau bas ites beeesq 20
agi yr ec DoS
hstmet]e bre tees sid oF Seisev benoddgiat ‘eon gaimosed:
a, as
‘ogg edt tenisns doutta togar eit te ‘Teedw dies dT
, Pee ae
(ting onois Eifie fosar sdT sogmel i & mort test wot
mvowis sew sogsw eiT .enmeit ods “46. monte {ox ea
“26g af tories of venaigourtant toeneer
esifeaqgA ebstecouye eiues
~isqdgs to gonstanck edz te Vt edt batourtent txi00%e és
si gavelo ed! io, aoltaaems edt yqemeseebomoaat tqsoxe
y
& to ytul odt ef ti .citshe.godh* =:awoliot: ‘as. alee
: Nowset + Mi ateatts ati, geet of egae eidatossst swine
stovel of ddgit oft esd tf. .moqe evitt sotmottiiaed ele:
-,88e00%Nq olldug fyteau tedto of dette edt to acble
siert@: ine ehetg tergid « to edtewobia soust sion \ .
sii eis ao paiidiue ecalgq .yaewevd th: edt. nuit saber xewoL
Soljeet: ont estrodius bac etaerbyd: teers! maxettig edi
fouti ofsicole bare dgergeied enodgeled: .etsog gatied:
4 a
SEE
owe a, aa
’
,
Hr th ,
\
i
oct mot, tedtejotiev vesetand bas
“
~ rs
tion as modified, is a fair stutement of the law applicable
to the case. It loes not mean as appellants arpue, that
there is an imperative duty onthe city to keep its streets
ina reasonably safe condition for public use that is not
answered by exercisimg reasonable care in that matter, but
it joes mean that a city is not as a rule justified in devoting
the sides of the streets to public purcoges that will render
the atreets unsafe for public use. The question in this
case is similar to that in Brennan v City of Streator, 1658
Til. App. 134 affirmed by the supremé court in 256 Ill. 468
As said by the supreme court - "The question srisés in each
case whether the obstruction is of such = character that the
passenger using the street or the saidewalk in the” ordinary
Way and using ordinary care for his own safety is exposed to
an unnecessary ani unreasonable risk."
This is @ question for the jury unless the circumstances are
such that but one reasonable answer can be meade. In the
present oase we regard the circumstances such that reasonable
minds might differ in answering the question, therefore it
could not properly be withirawn from the jury by a iirsotei
verdict. Yet the trial court was charged on the rotion for
@ new trial with a duty to determine whether the verlict was
manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and we are
required to review the juigment of the trial court in refusing
to grant & new trial on that ground. The majority of the
court are of the opinion that the eviijience loes not suport
an affirmative answer to the question as stated by the suprere
court above quested, and that the ends of justice require the
submission of-the facts to another jurye
“aye *
“> on =
ir ae
a =
gaitoveb ai beftiiauy efas a aa tom eb ytio “6 tact megan
trt
afastts sif-gqoskt ot _e edie: Se Sidi eta
4
fon et asfi sev oiiduq wot noid ioaeo atea vide
gud .resivan dats nls tes pidsnossst: Gatatorexs ed 4
tabaex {iive tadt eseocsug oi lapped. ateotde odd ‘to
edt at soiteeue. we is ee L ob iduep tol etaanw |
BSL .xatesect@ fo r#Hid ve tesco eb SSdtoess crettiats
982 .ffT B28 at devon emotawe edt qd bemzi ate €€L! och
dons of wheixs aoitueup adit = btwn omrque sail a
agit, tadt weserisic ‘ahs sow ‘toe an “noltowrssdo edt ‘vertt od
ytanibso att ai diewet ptenwite — a cl en
ot beaagxe. el “ess tea nwo wit vob etso — rg
ie 4 4 ot jf ohede: siicisndewettionn bate a ,
oxe-eoonstemmotto sit ssSian yup edt. niece
it. nl .sbhem od) nso wewene sidsnotaer en0° dud é
eldenossst tsi3 souwe neonstemyorto oud) brewer ‘ow ona"
#t neokwewee welteeup sit grivewens ab weRStE ‘hight
bedosiih syd wate sit) north awasbiitiw sdiylaegord ‘tom
ee
set moites sd? me beguietc anw dived etet — fer sto =
ea¥ gotivev eft sedtedw andmreteb wl agen s ate aunt
STATE OF ILLINOIS, I ss
SECOND DISTRICT. sta
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of : ________in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred andes
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
- an! alow una
week inl ies Poot oyagad AMEOTEED 4 TOLATENT €
| Birmast oft be. taqutd lin oiemlll 1 one odd ta isitteiG browA bisa aot
OT Oo Not ost hey pos onthe yaievoi) sift dald vorVvane Yeaien om
watt
J etal Totes Yo euso baltitas ovods okt int tno)
it cfs bee il ia ae Sisco J aoe yrouired'? 7
“dd wee? hs a) tallagayAé bide adt to ieee
See haa] sure es yee ott ai
= Se
= bas horbrud asia basanedt )
——_ ee tf
= o Siaecinrehieneenaitiers taal
- é if
sume
“3 Z
' &
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, aar:. |
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice V |
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG 1% 191 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
TAVOO STALIGGGA HT TO MART
——_ ‘ es » eh air Peri ee A) ' 4
, ate mi 2 da ees ip *. = te PP ie Pia
~fitgA jo ysh diryot odd ,ysbasuT*ad fewesdO $a Bis
“asetsts Ens bevhoud esin basevodt sco Btod ru0 Yo tesy
-piomftifl to stse#® ent to totrtetd ‘baooe® sH4 rot bas o
-sotsoru anrbise7’ [eVAHSTH iM WHOL . no edT--
-ostiest ,dd¥2I@ QOWAAHOG . moH”
d76f0 ,YUHUC .9 AHIOTATAHO
tised® ,2TVAd .M wa
/
Git Hels 3 esw trod add lo noeinigo of uIet tet Ou
Ens ebiow oft at ,d1y00 bise to esitto at say
: ~®
Gen. No. 624,
W o «ade ie Cloud ’
Appellee,
aVo~ Apre al from Iroquois.
We He Hogle and
Frank A.Gilbreath,
Appellants,
CARNES, Je
We L. licCloud, the appellee, sved W. H. Hogle, the ap-
pellant, and one Frank A, Gilbreath, in an action on the case
for fraud and deceit in the representation of title to a tract
of land. There was a jury trial and a verdict of not suilty
directed as to Gilbreath, and verdict and judgement again t ap-
pellant for $834.87, from which judgement this appeal is taken.
The facts disclosed by the evidence #me subsjantially
as Lollows:-~
was a dealer
fore May 7, 1910, owned one himdred twenty acres of land in
Mississippi, subject to a, ll
Issagquena County,
Or)
mos On th l da bE
he gave & second nortgase on the land to one Sam Finney to secure
an indebtedness said to habe grown out of bucket shop transactions.
There being default in payment of the mortgare Finney
the equity of redemption in a proceeding in the chancery court
ar os
s@AS9 Ol 09
oH oW
| vy
ead
2
=<
oxo bas ,tualfeq
at SAG mt treseh Bue bueart vot
eee g - a path . =
5 nme ae ar SE a a Ea a ENA EAT
poio"” C " Sssteh gated ered?
Mito att rts Sib ae Bite ~ to yvtinpe end
Issaquena County. The record of that court shows that on De-
ecember 6, 1911, thore was a finding " That publication has been
duly made in the manner and form and for the time required by law",
and Gilbreath and his wife, the defendants in the suit, were de-
faulted and the bill taken ss confessed against then. The next
day a decree of sale wasentered barring the defeniants' equity
of redemption upon the making of the sale. The sale was mada
pursuant to the order in the decree to Sam Finney for $500. which
was approved by the court July 17, 1912. More than a year . __
afterwards, August, 1913, Dee offered to trade TP -
Gilbreath's supposed equity in this land for an automobile valued
at $1650. stating positively that the title to the lend was in
4 ——y ©
A bergain was made one DME signed a memoranda in writing
in which he agreed to furnish a deed of conveyence from the
owner of the land to LEG? «8 to clear the land
cumbrance and pay $650. in cash for the automobile.
inquired about the value of the land and the anount
f
— y norteage ,which he learned was $261.05, sm
) wo Vers
yA
pepe procured Gilbreath and wife to convey the land by warranty
deed 66 a bject only to the me eset Dorboose,
and on COG. check covering the $650. cash payment and
the $261.05 necessary to pay and discharge the nortgage, and took
Y ‘e P) 25 jamh o Dd
the automobile.
=_— OM-id the mortgage and sent a release
with his deed to Issaquena County for record ani did not discover
for several months afterwards thet he had no title to the land,
on
— s¢ had traded Gilbreath an o1d automobile for his supposed
equity of redemption, and say@he had no Imowledse of a second
mortgage and that he procured the dced direct from Gilbreath and
wife to McClaud to save a recording fee, and for no other purpose;
:
t
T
‘
.
———— n
vd D om
ae oS aces +t
f
4 al ae Pie
"y
, abies tees ot ate a
rr
~LLes
r ~} -
ov
JOSH
bine
J thom
Ss to
CATE
asw
ei Eu au a
798i 0 ea
‘ Rac = W
eeTss of
ov
Reh ld
+9
‘
Leoxad [Es
ae oo
fot
., ne r f
ATi sBe@Esa
that he supposed there was no other encumbrance on the land,
though Gilbreath had before told him there was a judgment asainst
him down there in Mississippi but it was for a gambling debt and
was not good; that he did not tell - about the judsment
because he did not gonsider it valid; he always unferstood a
gambling judgement was not sood, and that Gilbreath had told him
thers wes no service on him; and he took Gilbreath's word that
the judgement wes imvalid.
John P, Pallissard, a lawyer who was representing Gil-
breath in the trial of thts case, was called by a8
witness and testified that he prepared the deed from Gilbreath
and wife to/mosebied ot efeetmantis instance, but thet at sometim
prior to that transaction ape “t had come to him to inguire
about the land and said Gilbreath had sugerested that he do so.
Pallissard at the time knew something about the title and Imew
about the Finney mortsase,. He testified that he went into the
title pretty thoroughly in his discussion with Mra. that
the Finney mortgece may not have been mentioned by nane but it
was mentioned that there was a second mortgage. 2teZ — denies
this conversation and denie@_that he was ever informed by anybody
before the deed was made that thore was a second mortgage on the
land * Vg} . ,
Whether appellant kmew of a second mortgase depends upon
the credit to be given to Pallissard's am appellant's testimony
knew
as to that matterl That he /there was a second encumbrence,
valid or invelid, appears from his own testimony, and there is no
question that he told appellee there was no encumbrance other than
the railroad mortgare. The jury were warrented in believing
4
wo
cst add ao sonsximsote testo of ssw stent bezogare. f
sy ated mini hot exoted bad itoosdLb0
{5
tanteas tnermeisf 3
hes deb snildmes, 2 tot ssw vi ind tyqteateein aE overt amo! Jr is of
trompboi, out trods eer [fot ton Sth.ed tad pb00g $
6 Sootervehen ayewic of j5itiev ti ro Stexes Pox 5 55 on.
“1
min Slot Sed ttestdii) tedd bus_,ho0g vom. saw suemgba, put di
fect Brow atdiserdita Seot sx Sas . fo oolvxon, Of. Re
-bffevek easy iwi
$2
Naud Seiics pow eae eget to: fePry edt Poa tse
Hésoxrdiip mort bes ost benageet oll pact’ sere tvead hae
went Sus “oat eid trode a. es. Sagal ed ts bre
Dat Ca ee ;
~ ont es dow of Fad? Seititass oR ~ parted tom Youth? Ce
: werner — Siw sotenwsais ofa mE yldawétodd uivsat
grax YW bosotteent noad owed tod ven oassé rom e i
«0gsgTtom Strooda 2 wow etont
bergoigt weve acw of dost beotreb bes wots
fo otters Snover a tiw ovcit eds ohan ee
ws
praqed onantiom Sueoce B. Be Cs ane oi ox
oa! ae OT Oe sth ont
tvesiiecg: tre sl iregeal Red ot iewks ed ot, thboxo, id
j Wrenca , pope? *
admuane face ser nomtsokpsle\ ed tase sed tam: Sad 2
OHS ,Wiovisuc? mo eis mow eases Sieve
SOAS Tmo: Off Bow” sree Ming? 7
Beso 6190 LS Gorieorsey sxew viet ed
aa 0140 |
| ae ;
7 _
aioe 1 instead ss sppoltent: af in their jx aguent he wss mare
7 ~
worthy of be! ief, end eppetiont can hardly be excused for stating
that th nore Wes no second encumbrance when he had notice that there ~
vitae’ | judguent based on a gambling debt on the ground that he sup-
pos 304 » as m ater’ ie Law, such a judgment would be void. It
the oreforo ‘follows ‘that apy pel lant made a material aeataieas to
ppelico is re title of the land that he knew was false or hal —
= good reason to bolieve wos true. It is conclusively proven
that appelies e believed the representation and acted on it, and
s induced thereby ce trade for the land. Under the cirowmstances
cal mo think appellos should be charged with negligence in -
“ac sting on thot statement. Therefore appellant became liable to - .
ls 5 gpellec in on action for fraud and deceit, and if there is no
“evbatentia error of law in the record the verdict and judgment Was :
roperly een against him.
_
on
:
Appellant objected to the testimony of Pallissard on the
-STo ound thet he was an attorney acting for Gilbreath im the case;
a
‘also on the ‘ground that he was enplayed by Hogle “$0 draft the deed
7 ‘from Gilbreath and wife to appellee and whatever was there said
7 wes: “privitocea, Te law is well settled thot while it is un-
‘othical and bad practice for a lawyer to act as both ch inl ttot 6 and
witness ‘in the sane case, still he is not disqualified as a wit-
‘ness, As to the other objection Pallissard testified to nothing
thet ocuurred at the time he drafted the decd that had any bearing
: on the question of appellant's prior kmowledge of the title. Tt)
is chew efore unnecessary to discuss the question whether he was
CAnquats tot from testifying to a conversation that ocuurred
; hat timo. His evidence as to appellant's Imowledge of the
second nortgage vale ited to a time when it is not claimed he was
rae gcw oo foocnsst thotd 2 tt daslleqqs to bootest b
tf Sntt coe wok. Seastoxs ad. Yilvad ao deetleqys ied (Rotter
Sra ted potion Sal ad cies EOE Pee vsti ¢
) -qns8- ex dart THOT, act ae acid genkey: rt O- boasd. +
a oe yhEOV of Rage ; i xrgowt, se done .~well Ro omit 5
ot #nedetedn ketinkon 8 eherm tral fogs. task aUoLLo® 6: ote
fed so eplct sew yeraled tert Smel sity to eltim orto ine |
evox; ylovierfonos ab dE sent axa eveiled. ot mosses :
bes ,¢i mo Setos bre soitodressrqex out Bevel fed: ob Lie
ck A? ORC SELIAT A SAOL TEST
oe on Aisosde solteggs aint foe,
i. ae Seung neath’ ho 7 Skee one eet
- Oo oldett “oneood tna Ltoqas oreo wou tnonetste declt 0 3 :
Anee gs te Liteat: hess"
Bssnwwancotio odd robe Sel anit 20% ehettd ot ‘yderodd Hon sb
rf
i>
: stiy bograste
aver
*:
“on at ‘exonit tk ies «those 5 fan...
5 ga ee, + ‘ fla 3h » Sash i : | alec
aaw org AF he SonereT one See Pera Out eect E bat 0 YoO7te Isttos
ia ccipiieige. a mek ple? eorarcane ee ‘of
ms sate tanisge here hnret
ss ee pe mare ‘yee o feat’ ens
4
*
edd.40 Saneantifed ko Yromitaed. send of Sotsotde tmat
¢9ag0 sat a deswd£Ltp rok: oudhee Yoreodtes irevaswesdtl torte f
fino acl see RRN 9sg00-eo-bergaseee sow ei 8 ano 6 c
Skee | ane ‘cowed.erw, Sawa oktieayst od ehtw fen’ itsotdT. ‘mt
Dense iw desk Bedttea Ifow at watvedt” beast tie |
ae qortehde sted es toa od. sommel: ‘tot: eee 1 pens Taot
ati 9 sa Serialeupaks tom ab ont ETEe 0009, ovse"edd af vant
I gaitidon of Seitivesd hussetlle®’ aeiteeido toxito oat ot
SEiteos yus her tacit Sead ont hod texh, as. emit eit ts Berrcnoo
Corey fa saiegh | o:
ai
Si .eftit ott 6 a Se Eroaat wok a a tanttoras to Pearce Pere
< : bie ey oy a Xo:
| San Of Teta: noiteeia ott auuroat ov ‘peomasoonmr otot
~~ J ; ' Jcaddesg, 2g
eee ee. Deresg5 0 tads. soit cece tos 8 ot wat titaot ‘mor a tt
> ee ae é notes: pbk Coe
ne eas tO Sadolworst eNibie Coy cee ot a6 oonehtve pong il
‘i ; ie. Dod ent g
coe SO bawhals os wt dh suc ater out B ‘od “hotaLer ey
, ee i f et a
; , 7 \
ee 7
3 ao’. ' aS!
- et,
We conclude that his testino
DY »
ane foreclosing that negara: and the deed to Finney -
made i ae appointed by the court rey to the —
decree. ” be was objected in thecourt below to the authenticated :
cons of ‘the nortoase that it wes "Not proprly certified and incon-
2 Le’ o end immaterial : The attestations are not full enough."
The trouble pointed out here is that the certificate of the
:
: lork recites that he is ex-officio recorder and the certificate a
of the Judge fails to recite that the clerk is also recorder. We
Lov
are | inclined to the opinion thet the ob jection sufficiently
ss nted out that defect and that it was error to admit the record
‘of the mo ortgase. The objection to the authenticated record of
the 4 eed made by the commissioner to Finney was " For the reason
that there is no law of the State of Mississippi in evidence
showing thot the courts of thet state had the paver to sppoint :
a commissioner to make sale of this land, nor any law of the state -
offered in evidence showing that the proceedings under this 7
7 exhibit are accordins to the statute of that state, or that the
- court had jurisdiction of the officers and the subjectmatter to 7
"proceed as therein stated." This objection did not point out
the defect here complained of and we are of the opinion that the -
court =e not err in admitting that record over. that objection,
“me ant thenticated copy of the record of the foreclosure proceedings
_
- objootoa to on the ground that it did not show parsonal sertice -
an
mnie defenimts and that there is no evidence showing wheat the
eee ihe State of Mississippi are, or that service could be
: ie
a Ge -
- ee _ -_ a 7
eWOksed is ded ebsfoxeo ate Jaiaoieal Elett sien
~bedd tebe Ce vo: nsonatd a ©
sie hanged donne fee
“SHaaitine w Rok cajco atgnatto: {8 SOO sottaabe bam Soon ait» OSORE
tocteateeit ad} to enxoes Kati < Tenet ot cuent'ton ox Yo golge 2) beige “3
Yukt ot ‘Beek oat bs <ogeadtom tert a vy nye toi dus09 | YrS9.
ea? of Inavesmy faoo ost yd bodmkooss emo tentmrog ‘oat tas ae
RAK Sow id? La
fed so tuatdns one oF ar ad Ferd 03) age ger betes so Be acw eS ie
he Aen os
amoatt die Sof ize yheong ron" aw tt dost castes, =
* denone [ini ton ores ang itetand ds oat :
sit 20! @dao Ht hxea aut dxdt af over ined |
oisolttiues odd bus vebtoser: otortho~xe at :
of .Hoiuos0s ouks ct defo old test obtoot oF —
Yidoorov tire sebtaaiat do wt eat mo isekqo ont
Rept Fey “ro Lite’t aah .
brooes oct dimhs ot totso aew dt dnt finns dooteb test dso bode
Pe: 1 ame sate acetate ahs sa Deixcd
Leowhive at Jqgtendewiti ko otate ont Solwat ena Stone w
inkocas of sowog silt ted oiade’ dat ‘Xo coeyoe oat ote
stats oft tt wal yrs tom) , baal abi to ofpe olan ot. ven’: 7
sist seine agrkiccsotd ent duchinet bweke enteh ive HE b6' 7
ott tadé xo... dade doit tov mdanbede one, oF ‘getkstrosa! ot ee
Of Sottansvegdss o-% Ane Baresi oi to mold otsaxsht Ubad S70
a0 daiog dor bt) noitoohdo Ret. -™ padata toto ee Beoodta | |
odd Jad xoistgo oct. 20 ere om bee ho hekialgaes aeSin 8 8ar eB" ofl
eo MSWtian go84 cov docs teil geEN ha REN STO Rane
Bptisecocig onracLoarch 22 to Seeoay Sot fo aw Betas :
Seewmee Landere¢ wore tor bis Gh dat " futrorts eit ao “68 ‘5s
Giteteds fithxods .conchiwe of st omer add Bee 0 tf be
MOU PemOS H>ivss5 Sedd yo ous ig etne ban I to cind ost to avi ae
had apen the Cet an Je by publication as therein siown; that %} —_
is no evidence: a unter | the lews of the State of ifississippi showing —
that the ¢ —- had jurisdiction of the defendats or of the subject. 7
mer ttor. 1 — was no objection to the regularity of the certi-
a Leates. 5 Appelient 's argument here is that there being no evi-
be tence of che laws of Mississippi the presumption is that they
E ‘Grothe sano as the laws of Illinois, and that the decree is bad
‘ a 1 not reciting an affidavit supporting a publication and in not
showing ¢
aes
iO +" —_ 4 : ——_. > ; . 2
_* ‘The attack on the decree is collateral, The rule is ae
thet summons was issued and returned "Not found!®,
iz
different in cases of direct attack. (13 A & B Ency. 999) A
| foreign judgment which is valid where rendered my be enforced in :
another jurisdiction although it is not founded on personal services
(40) ei Wheve the copy of a record of a sister state judgment a
7 waten 44 is. Bee to enforce shows that thecourt rendering such *
7 Judgment vas 0 county, district or circuit court with a presiding -
= guage, a a clerk and a seal, and therefore a court of record, it may
be presumed that the court was one of general jurisdiction," a
- (1b,997) 1A presumption of jurisdiction obtains where a court
of general jurisdiction procesds to litigate Giaeuaee unless 7
there is a showing in the record that there was no jurisdiction." -
> | (Forrest v Fey, 218 Ill. 165) In pleading a foreign judsment 7
of a court of general jurisdiction it is not necessary to set _
out the facts or laws conferring tes etran which will be pre-
suned eat wax and can bo controvertod only by clear and full et
« 8 Oye1552) In an action on a judgment recovered in another
state, it will be presumed that the court hed jurisdiction of the
“subject. mattor and the parties in the absence of proof to the
cont trary, although the record may be incomplete or ambiguous on this
point. say 23 Cyc. 15! Te VanlMeter v ea 148 Ill, 5363 ge
4% a .
» _ __ ne bod
: Vprexideturt: qivosie sbesodt 25 so bige Mdme ad. at gph |
@tiiwode fqqieniesl to sietd ody, Ko, ams. et spo loug 9s ts ad |
. toojidre git te “6 Bés Omer & eit: te api NY Reso bad Suro
~ituos. oct to wWisaloge: oid! ot oivootita on ‘adi! bisa
-fyo of united ote: t silt at oto toons ‘atin 1 oS
tots. catt eh. mo tikgeurdortee ont” soctob ni 86 Gat
Bed 5t estoed ett Yacdtt See atom EL tt 70. “ewe f ett We
gon a} Bee so Heoitdag . a ‘anbts roman ‘daveb tie “a gnitios
Mba som" dowitnto' bag Seweat ‘dow be. ora ade 2 F
Sree pitt x
pene a | G8 bes GAs’
ed isp et olwt ost. Seeitacion ak. See, esta x9 bis 9, om ‘
Ae PROGR... Gash. Z..3 AB.) steethe are toe Boaso ods! 18" :
ti arene od Yat Soran iit oxertl 4 bE £ dots drome byt
dos. ahah deeeince: fost pines epg He
wmitiisom 3 shiv Ixg00.. Sigotto, to. sodniatD. wter0°, 8, Bam ee
Wr hiegbteoes 2 Rives. @ omolere 8. Ane. ,lase pane. bat ee 8 ed
Medios igelay, Loxeny Lo ere gaz, a 109,..01¢ gest a |
i109 8 exe auhotdo Molto Mats XO, 8
a ak Te
avelny..0ras 2 oteg ites a8 Bheese ne eRe Pane :
Memo tds iiaias| on saw overt bee: Stone edt, Ath ast bw da 12 he
trempis.aiowsr o yathsolg al. (800 LED ie AN) Pe
tee .ot geesaeger don ei a} ae ah _Aetetes to ge
at0oty Listing acolo a yin horemmaieae 6 69 ba8 man fam
3 - ) Sedtots ab dezevoons i nenghnt@ so elton ae hy ARARLeRy
ttt %o Mewotiekit Boil tusiog as edt, Aemwaeny,. ALE ae,
Rs awa Ot Aongy to satan dar oats ok petinag ost peter te
,
nar
“a
oe 7 etatar ont od en, panes, ot te
Bou i 4000 6.01 O32 “cagaithet ¥ odplowy gover
v Renick, # AA. rl. 202) In an action of debt on a judgment of
enother state by 2 ae of general jurisdiction, the record bein=
si. lent as to service of process, the judement is prima facie
an den ce of Jurisdiction. "Nothing shall be intended to be out
of he juri isdiction of a superior court but thet which syecially
an : — i
appears to be so." (Dunbar v Hallowell, 34 Ill. 168} Seo also,
prove the contents or existence of a ‘aietentt ofa sister state
a euthenticated copy of the judgment itself is admissible in
att immed in 234 T11, 246) A Suigment iv rem bya court of vom
potent jurteaiesion in one state cannot be collaterally assailed
in ‘8no tne, ( 23 Cyc. 1591) Where a judgment has been obtained
iy nee remered. ( Welch v Sykes, 3 Gilman 197; Bameler v Denson,
ae
A Scamnon, 5363; Horton v Critchfield, 18 Ill, 153; Firemen's Ins,
ey
Co. 7 Thompson, 155 T1l. 204: ) It is true if the record dis-
“elosea want of jurisdiction the judgment would be treated as a
" mullity, but we conclude, under the authority of the above cited
Cases, that the recital in the record that there was due service
a
ie
by publication cannot at least be taken as showing a want of
service, and that in a collateral attack it is not necossary that
the record should show either the laws of Ilississippi as to ser-=
vice by publication or that every individual steh was taken that
( ‘Gund: secede 14% Ill.App. 49, 52) Where it is sought to
evidence, ani sufficient. (Chamberlain v Britton, 136 I11 ADD» 2905
a
ea’ is. * strong legal presumption that the court had jurisdiction
vend that it proceeded conformably to the laws of the state in which
oe of Illinois require to make a 00d service by publication.
zy 4. = (se
—_
t-«
pre
*
So duomaitt.s. ao.dded. to.,..gorhga, ee os 4808» LET 2 ,
sutsé Sroosot edt. .nobioibaizet, . Taganrog hod tago, 2 Yd otats od
Siost situ ef, drenpii(, erinieragee fe
tro od of bobneiat od {fads anki. pie Molbekent
_fietosza doidw dadt tod Jeeoo yohveque we, to me hotbads
wounts cof {83f «IIT M8. Slowollell v <add a!
ot teigwos ei tt oxecy (80.6) cad SRE REY,
ataje sotata.s to ingimg itt, s.2o. com—beiesjaos >t
mk oldinaings ei klestt jaeaganh edt tomque Setso Be
sOCE .agA. LIT S8i ,sottind ¥ skalzodsssd) stole Pisa Bes
Sos So! His69 “2 Wt mee ae sgt A” ‘teas ni “388 att
Sefissae Yitecetatios ad Fontes oats ono at” 0.
beWiests seed sal rows 6 noun “(SE 2090 2 < ay | au oS
Kol Pait ade Fees odd fade so ktqmweomn tener sion sues ‘on 8
Robi nt etsdie oft FO amal odd oF Uldarxd%n09 Soheovorg i a Aes
HoawS v colonel (VET mantin 8 aetye v dotew \ shore. sno | a,
oct Bisorortt 7SEL VEEL OE .brofhsag.teo *y ‘nodsor 1088 nas ome
sy SoS phe tae Be .
=—#if Sropst oft SE egtk ef #1 (308 LET BEL, 0.
aunt gm
er
torts oe
2 es hotest oc 5¥eow Favor har, adé noitotoatust to ee 20
; pcre acer (TOO ck
Bofio eveds exe Yo yktoddss oat <obens » oti 09 oe tod .We
‘oi boteeat Coreen ers te
eoivise od erw omodt Fnak Rao: oad aoe Istioot ont tedt 2
“To Saar 3s po by ofa aa trectst od tan0 £ ds Fon ets an
Toe a cco"
sus YxXsnsoocn Jou at +¥ toates tavetal tos 8 ae text ,
&. JIu60 B 2
-Ic8 Of Bf Eeotektnelit to ayes efit ‘zon ie porte es ia
; wal 29 Bipot ebde ee
fait ceiot ssw dade Landrgibnt «rere "ts. ne xo noltsolidmg —
MOI hoildie Bd sslrtes S5OGG 3am pr cuties —_ vr. r
BO Bite sackSteoox: oxgdfposk ot to. SxoseT ont
aq
Rial ott « oftid cise th dteoutt he gnttaewtb x0 ‘ ar rs
.?
-. P= A
ois drottiw ovocda wast pte? Sean ‘Bow. ‘e008 Ave ro ee
‘ NS Waar oft od oftid on 4th nowt eD ‘pay er : i 7
Se Nh -eeglhe-evert athe! + Le, +o ay of BS).
; ; 7
~~ | y “@
a
the eta quest one 7
a
it a objected that under the instructions of the court the
val ue of ed eutomobile was taka as the measure of damages, and
not ee velue of the Mississippi land. We think there is no errpr
in | nis respect. Appellee parted with his automobile. ‘there is
ne qnostion a out its ‘value. That part of the consideration rest-
ing on the Misstssipet land entirely failed. In an action ona
contract where the vengor roebives nothing for his property because
of failure of the vendee to deliver the agreed property in ex-
es ge, he is enti thea to recover the value of his goods.( Boone
“vy Wot, 195 Ill, 365) If appellee had received any title to the
mn
lan nd 1 ond shad Lost through the fraud and deceit of appellant a
7 7 a
aa of ‘the value thst ce should have received, tha the pro=
: - S o% /
ese iry world have beon as to the value of the land and what
i: Serre he lost. The rule in covenant is that for a total
"breach of the covenant of seizen, or 500d right to convey ,where
: nothing passes by the conveyance, the measure of damages is the
‘amount of consideration paid and interest. ( Horne v Walton, 117 I11.
: 150, 135, ‘olting 2 Sunderland on Damages, 257, and Frazer v
=
Uddnavriders of Peoria County, 74 Ill. 282) It is indicated in
—
m7 that case ( Horne v Walton) that the same rule applies in action
for fraud and deceit.
7
7 ~ Appellant's objections to the instructions are covered
by what we have already said, If the judgment must rest on the
tostinony « of Pallissard contradicted by that of appellant as to
epolient's knowledge of the second mortsace, we still are not in-
~
elin eee “disturb the verdict of the jury based on Pallissard's
7
; ae It Shp cece that Gilbreath wos insolvent, Appell: nt
—_ 7 are
ee the — that he himself selectod. It is
eer Ee Tt iammeehenan we
: her chant isin st Sa
suse Ox af oxedth Mieiae ew Vbmat! Rebendeelfit eaPoe Brey |
ai ortd? Soltdonotine ait at a Sodang Serteqgl SPH abe }
atest Notte rehienon odd tootray dale cnc ott ta 0
bd wettoe oa af “.felint ypleceeke aeer Fee redteaee
sessed Yitestorc Bh! tor eNidten aarrépey praaener!
-xi stk Ydrscots booths edd tovEtoh of estaey ol tsk to
took Jishoos aid to ens ott Yoveser of ‘sai Bho" oP St “a P —
ele ee ofOtt ues HovkooSt Bed Getiedae el aad! a ae 3
SP Cia leqgs So F086 Ake Biett oily “Sywordd SaOr Be bat
ate ey tet” RoGIGSe ov inwewe 2! eas liter Bab o m0 ty
P4ite hae Sear otf So ower odd “Oh ide Heed over BERG yee ,
Bab ee6 <ox Fad} BF Heneyod ooh ete a Bee dt fis: 18
stories 6! tifsit dooy to “jHeRtos to ‘itandvoo" oat 8 ud
Gt ‘RE Rep ass Zo crsace oft posabyey 7 “eat Aed & etre
LET VW2E! not tery emcok ) steoretes ba! (Wig STARS gre i
tomers “Sead , 189 wenatied no! see # sn ¢
ok betaotini et d2 (88s SEIT DY ees" ‘ebtee? 28 & |
nolisd 4? gettgcs eter case odd dart” “(not raw'y" ‘ginal ) “plig reir
) 09 Se Meslfeccs to: atta +“ Set natpahlon Suse om tee
4 ¥ “ib fox exe bite ger aqyondpot HIB ent ne sonora ieee Lec |
BP ixeseliiss no foand Was, oath ig vo bitsy ent ot ) Be i
Na oflevgs Steviorgt dor ditcond tka fiat nam
80 tee eailouge ot AMAL ht Oh cuba oni |
SPARE ETO Ghotooles Stdentn ox suet Kaden: capes
only simple justice if he did not know of the encumbrance that he
should make good his undertaking, But in bringing the action in
this form appellee tmdertook the burden of proving frand and
deceit. The jury found a verdict in his favor on that issue.
The trial court approved it, and we see.no good reason for dis-=
turbing it. Finding no substantial error in the record the
judgment is affirmed. |
Affirmed.
qu
it ee ee aie
Bon EO RL? RT obtdomedae be: ee
ne phrcioeaetee sek
aren gest, a0. 3 sie td asa am
ovat .mi. ROBOT, Bong on, 2B ae EF OTA: FERS
ac Hecooet ott ae saieanantas we aati
eee ee se ates :
Ne acta Sap als Bre s oe ie wtih ‘piso ata t
47 &* Pa ae ae Cece aE Ai 2 baer’ ‘att oY v
» ab. il wird F, Cis ae t= Ine ie a tebe nae ‘Seterevoo: eat 3
Se ee I Eo ve a
, Ree (6 leeds ha Bee ROR EEN
en we ssn ge ar
ee ae ae innod BAe SS ieee sent fells
‘ E 7 _ F Jum al
tie ‘iaarten ewe) os
saat eal
a ae
see Ls
‘ xy
hs
a on sage = capeatth dak ea
hic whoonls avert ™
ere hoo Ly |
hie ve ORE Sa a
hp dake alia tie
‘atau i = 5
a ae ba a
i
ig |
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ite
SECOND DISTRICT. Cees
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ___
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and : a
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
Sinllsgaé ods aa Ji0t) syaaud fs aaa motes nO f Ry:
a
ehwoehH ade ji ie Dre ice} to a
dt to mnitiae eit 7
noite wits Gi irae to © ves palatine sendakien ite tc
aut 286 bie bued vat tox otmaiadl | ody aha YZOMITea'T wi
. : aid swat te sito) stellogae bise ont 3 woe
one fro We iy wee ods ni
ie a nee cane, NPR
> bes berbaod ovptey Leetserrorud
———-
‘e4 ( 20
$._ 8 I fext ~
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, ~ f
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the
in the year of our Lord one thousand ning hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District okie State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Peeeibine Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justdee.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justhice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, ClefkS} 4) sy
~ ©!
| i Ps XS VV bi i ‘ we
E..M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
\ |
\ f
\
\ /
\ /
\ /
$
\ of
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
ABE 3 9 191 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
fiagA to ysbh otrget edi LSDBSET, 20 amst to ta eh
betboud aoata 5
atsfe
ONAHE IH .M “HOt .coH
, SE i IMAUG Pate} 91
gard somansiog . 0H
-YURHUC . 9 dgHsoTE LAH
4
-OTVAG ou! a
sae
i,
ody
no :iiv-oy~ (abtawts tte tadr’,
ai Bolft 3aw trvod edt to soiago sdf - viet
asTunii bes ebvayw odd oi ,txe0d Bise Yo softto atits
Gen. No. 6694.
Fred Pierce, appeliese
rb
va Acoeal
Villace of North Utios, appeliante
Carnes, J.
Appeliec Fred Pierce, claims to have veen employed by
the appe iant Viiiage to aid in the cusrantine cf one
Cyrus Young afflicted with smell poa and confined to a house
in said village. He saa suci appeliant before a justice of
the peace for thirty four dayse( service at $3.00 a day,
$102.00 the contract rploé, and had judgment there for
that amount. The village appealed to the circuit court where
~
32
are
nae,
1¢@ had judgment on a verdict for the aame amount. The vil
--!
proseoutes this appeal ani asks 2 reversal on the ground
that the court errved in refusing a peremptory instruction
for the defendant, anid that the verdict is against the law
and the evidences. There ig no criticiem in its brief ani argue
ment on any ruling in the introductionof evidence, or civir
or refusing instructions excert the peremptory instruction.
Appellant's theory of the law is that under our
iy
Statutes cities and villages are liable for quarantine expen-
ses, but in no event ia a case of thie kind could they become
disable for ithe expense of ntraing; that if Young had money
or property to pay for his nursing it was for him to do so.
If not, it was a county charge under the provisions of
paragraph 54, chapter 107, Hurds Revised Statutes. The
decision of this court in City of Spring Valley v County of
Bureau, 115 Ill. App. 545 is cited with other cases in support
a
< 2 eae & my p= be hwy 4: Con wy + vo S mw a 2 , at
of that position, which, without further iiscussion we will
fe 7 — ; 3 S49 “ea liant 1 > i}. ; He a =
assume to be the law. Appellant says Lhat the services per-
formed by apoellec were ag nurae or attendant and were not
such as the village was smpXowered te contract for; therefore
Pree oe
seyod sc cot bentinos ims xoq Ulame ditiw badoiltts anor
ie
”
t9 6«asizveuyt s stoted trelfegqs beus haz 2H
tol sted? tmeamiut bad baa ,@ofgt <t¢oattnoo ed? 00.
etedw givo0s divetto eft of Lelseqqa sgeiiiv eaT .davoms
rte ee Pe
~ egsiliv siT .dnvous smes edd rot totorsy s so taemabut
‘= Enyorg sfii oo Lsatevet <« sdas bee Iasqqse eld? aeigsos
- tottourtent Yrotgmetsg 5 gaieuvisx al kexrs ¢iyoo edt.
i wal edt tanisgs at toltbrev edd tedt bae ,t¢aebasteb edt
= “weiss bre tetid efi at matoitixo on ai sisdT .eonchive od? b
ihre: stivis to .sonelive tonmoitouhorini sci at gntiet yas mo |
ws etottourtent yiotqmetsg adi tqsoxs eoliourteat gakeutor
ig mo tobau tudt ei wel odd lotyrosdy e'#aslieqgh
ay)
—aeqxs sntiitnstseuvr -ot sldail srs eegeiliv bas setiic eedu
emosed yscs Lives knit sid? jo eeso 8 al taave on mi tad
eO8 ch sit mid 12 esv oi yolewa atd tel ysq ot Ytxegozq
49 @Melaiverc cis sshiv sgtedo yingoo s eew tL «tou
= SiT .BetwtHte beelvel abauH ,TOL setqedo ,AS dqory
ie To yYsamod v yelloY sufic® to ytid mE sues eld to motetosb
“ -tregae mi a@eso ienic diiv betio ef he eaqqA .£LT afl waste
- ifiw sw moteevoali tentist swodtin .dotdw mottieog tadt %
“Teg sssivise sAt tad: eves Janiisegh ewal ead ad es
a tom onew ine tmabooite co setum aa etew eel
otexedt gxot foxttnon of bist csiiiiaiibisaien saan
without controverting the evidence that anpelleewas em=
ployed by authorized officers of the village to perform the
*
n o€ no
Qa
re
services at thet price, it insists that there o
recovery because of a want of authority of the village to
make such a contraecte
¢
It appears that Young was sick with small pox in a houge
in the vilisge; cnat[$ne house was Guarantined oni, aeesites
‘~~ = sone 2
T - “ ro se
and the patient.
food and remained in the house making sure of the desired
end that no ons should be permitted to cams
b
w
3
3
o
3
ce
1D
a
€
co
cr
>
the sick mane / It seems to us that whatever terms were used
in the employment of appellee by sppsllant thet it meent tha
his services should seours & gquerantine. An effective
quarantine could not have oeen carried out without some one
doing substantially what appellee did. While the facts of the
case present a question of some difficulty we jo not think
cr
hs presumption from those facts that aprellee was energed
and employed in 2 quarantine service is so manifestly against
the weight of the evidence that we ought to disturb the
veriict. The judgment is affirmed.
boat
ist
4 ‘7 +
beay
+ $a
som ti ¢ed¢. taailsaqs ¢d seifedve-t neath”
cr ~ _ cx pf ob
esvresiioada Fads
ad neo ever. dedd shetunt tt eons tact fi *
= ai xoq fiese aétw dole eaw eameY tard + waste
oe bontime tal ask ‘eswod oc Bens’ nie
ee. a aren
“stnettey oft 7brs Wey
iesbh aft.to sie enttade @evod Bic int ‘Bonk? BRS . Bs
or) Bes
ostaos si-embo of Bettiarég-sd biverfa’ ‘eno on tes
evex Sauet tevededw fadf ad of bemeea a" "
329 BA senit¢csraup @ Stvee# Binode ~ gosivrs
enoa shorts te be ie & 52) aed aved Sort 6 aoe eatia
2 39 efesi arf alidW .fhb selisaqs sanw yiistinstedue’ gs
inid? ton ob er Yt ismkitibemes Yo ttotfeedp eB tnsbety @
begogas osw se{fecde duit diese scott mort mottqmett¢
siesrs yYltestinan ce eb: spivies enisnersue s mt beyolqme
eid dustetr of tdguo ew dent © eomebive’ eft te“ digiew
_bemritie et taemghep sat &
$ Ds +5 eee ore ee Seat
ebemrk Rta ret = oh is rc Ves Da “UG
STATE OF ILLINOIS, \ e
SECOND DISTRICT. EB.
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
I, CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this =
day of. _in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and ———___—__—_
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
MB To 2 ald je
| Fe IlOUIIII TO §P
footie sway ty RARWOTHITHO 7 be TOIMTRIG aKoome
I fd
rayne Bras sone fo ote od to doittaitt baose® hie 108 pas 5 i
983 To roi) sy UO9 gist §
ebyniee i Hit bay
wetter ot fou fe erin bole eis edt oi | n0.) al
edd xiltas tones bit) pie te. ohiuesed 1 ota wv ThomiTenT wi
BIE owadiO te trial) « otalloed Diss add 4 noe
BUG BIA! EH WC agy e otlt, ai
a ee eer ee web
brut bowfannidt oi Dowevods —-
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within. and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. \DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
fe o
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerkéy
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
.
Hn
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
. an 101 a
AUG 10 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
in the words and figures
mune WClerk’s office of said ’°Court,
following, to-wit:
ae
wiegifil to sisate adt ta forrdénid baoose edt rot bas aid
* ooiceul.sgibtestt ,SUAHTI .M WHOL .foH edT--¢nepe
_sotteutl ,88WSA0 ,U BuMAUd Vinok
.agisoul ,Ltaeid SOMARHOG, .aoK
sk Bbelit es" diyod sat 16 nolniqo sit
esvusit dos shrow odd ai ,i1u00 bisa to soitio a'ArsIo ame
~TSUOO ATALISEGA GAT TO MAST A
~ sadtalS ,¥YVIUC .9 ASHTOTATRHO
-ttixed? ,21VAG .M wa
diel) t QUA
‘Way Conpeny,
Henry Ge. Heren,
Apvellec,
<Vo-
Illinois Central Railroad
Company , end
| Peoria & Pekin Union Rail-
Appeal from Peoris.
Appellants.
CARNES, Je
Appelice, Henry & Heren, sixty-five years of oro,
in May, 1913, was, and had been for sany years, in the
empjoy of the Seoria & Pekin Union Railway Compeny, one of
the appellants, as 2 section man. That company owned 2
yerd with switch tracks in the vicinity of vesley City.
Illinois. Whe cther s-velimnt, Iilinois Central Radlrosd
*
Con , @8 lessee, operated certain trains orer id trocks.s
?
Appelles was thorous: faniliar with the yard and the
eS .)
mamier of operating trains thegcin,. After daylikht on
the. mornins in question iz the course of is esployuent
A sey 2
he tas going to the tool house vwelking on*#2% besten path-
- 2 oe) = E ~
way between tracis "8S" and "9", in said yard. vhea he
was from one hundred to three hundred feet ( as variously
estimated by witnesses) from the tool house an Illinois
Central freicht train of trenty losied cars opnro:ched
; ¢ ay
fron the rear, runing northward on track "GS". Appellee
had to cross that track to reach the too lhouse. He cleains
that the train stopped when the head of tie eogine ves sont
even with hims thar 2 semaphote about tere hamdred Liftty
feet north af the tool houses wee up es a siemal for ths
train to stop, 2nd that trains usually stopped at about tist
f
‘Place in ob@dience to thot sisnalg th t he conelucod it
was safer to cross track "8" ahead of this standing trein
than to proceod elons this path between trocks "8" ani "9"
Sisos savh Leer
eng HE , BES
& hero “YuSq
fo one ,yooyod
moo Pehl «fier iano 2 ae ssimel Ieee ont
+ er 2 rr . t3t
« ye aa | eae 3 w
Beowiie® Towgasd
eBbornd SiS ca70
ait ice Sesy eat 3 ctr + ehi tak eis igwoveds asw oelleqgh —
so dsgffivch vodta showed nackontd muukhenegs ‘to tocmen ?
“So, keise? BEE ne gal inv sarod Loot esd of gates aa ot
ei sed, .fvsyt @isc ai ,"@" See "S" wloect noowted ror =
Besa ek 20
=} + ha
selfesqqh °°
saiaio 3k ecatovl-cot sad dosus oF sipoid sent aRoTo ot Best
onte g ac gy sow savor Lood ont %p simon geet
a a : | te
ova Yifesae extort des? hes «gota od mist
Shes sti inet:
vr Phage ee est 2B sd ssottoqu. a
OY, YEshe Tet Rose Sasi Bre osu aSiel we nt a
YSulind sola miles 6 siweet edt to wokeme
to Whinkotv est xi salnorcd Sodive a iv ae
Siombti = Pe eitcqwe weite oll onkomiltt
ghick? aiadweo fodaceqo ,eousel as eVenged
if be sercems oni si golidgonp sit yeckervom ont
ook hothiss eoudd et bowheunt ome! wont eam
god Eoad ent cont mennents ¥ Sotecctoeo |
ee pe
Sacnd mo Betewritom oninils ae ond nowt! rit
Anes? axht oxe Beqerote mbt out tact @
owt gsedo sthadwomos o ued ee stdhter neve
thot ond ears ston@ing on track "9"; that therefore he
walked up this nath about seven feet in frmt af the pilos
of the ongine and tarned to cross track "8" when the enrine
the width of the train he was struck and injured by the
step gn the movins engine. I was proven and not donicd
that rule or custom of operation in said yard required the
engineer to give twe short biascts of tie whistle before
starting his ongino under such ciremetomescs., Anpelice
suffered 2 compound fracture of the 126 ana was compelled
to walk with earutches for about a yoar, anil at the time of
the trial was usins 2 cane to assist hin. His injury is
a 7 permanent. Ho also elaimed at tho trisl thet se had dizuy
| seeks ‘Spells, especially in hot dated resol tine From
sone injury thet he then received to his hea@. He vro-
_ . ' gsecutes this action wider charges of com on law ue glisenca,
ie .
7 not elaiming unier any federal or state statute fixing ‘the
7 liability of enployers. He had verdict snd judement aciuss
both defen’ ants for 54750, from which jedsmient they pro socute
this aopeale
The wrineipal question ai the one most ar-ued in tie
hie briefs is whether the oridence sup orts the verdict. Ap el ce
himself testifiec to the fects claimed by him, ss above
_ @ifferent statements at the time of the injury. The
g* = :
—p=
while he was further up the path he might ¢ t caught befrocn
suddenly started without warning; that before -c could cloar
stated. He was somewhet covro:orated by two other witnesses,
ond somewhat diseredited by testimony th t he oade other on
:
:
.
pad ate. ost, sant
mi ovelercdd dade ;"e" avert oo quaiiate, ates Bas dati
ck Ei Sosk Never dvode Ader abit ae %
onjgue adi sesh; "8" dessd. coors at
snolo bie o¢ cmied tet coeds oligediie
ko oni? ea) ¢4 ES HET aok wosdod,
wast 2k satel sekane ody sr mts Sa
PARED Laat et Sami teaiead. oc. re oat
es ead sank ire oe eF2ReSer:
on Oh «afisod ai ee. ‘i
Pee & 1 netnOTUE ost ce
@aS at foswens tess ane add Ban’ oliseep Shg toni bat” oH ee Sw
98 FLocg. wsiiysey sit aitecang 5 apo B © et isd SP eee cae
Vode as taal oe figs: inks oe stout aes * “ outta eat
guests fa SAR <A we ieteco: ‘oretas
f
ad
oh.
&
ray
*%y
zit
_—
as Qromkiee! og
oi? eGiuiat oft “to erie
engineer, firoman ané brakeman of the train coach testified
that it dia not stop at Hot place. Only the e gincer
saw appellee before he -as hit, He says that he was =t hia
proper place in the cab keeping a lookout in front of the
train on the risht hawt sido; th:t the fir~wn and head
. brakeman were on the other side of the @@B looking forward;
thet there ws an automatic hell on tho engine continuously
‘ringing; that he first cow avcellee walling between the
tracks in a place of cafety quite a distance shesé of tho
engine; that when the eppro:ching cngine was within about
thirty-five feet from aypellec he suddenly stepool directly
in front of tho train ontrack "8" without lookins; th t he
imnodicbely sounded the "alarm whistle" five of six short,
sharp blasts ani applicé the brakes os but was wnable to stop
the train and apoollec was struck by the step located on the
left hend sife of the pilot of the engine and throvm te the
side of the track; that the gmeine and tro cars passed by hin
before the train wame to 2 stops. - There are eircwastences
crediting and diserediting this testineny. The train was
moving at six or eisht miles an hour. Appellec's counsel
say it is unreosepable to suspose thet he attemated to cross
thirty-five feet ahead of to orgins moving at thot speed
and did not sueceod in cl-aring the svnoce, Av elilanis'
councel say it is umreasona ie to suppose that the heovy
train Which wes drawn by 9 smell engzime stovpod m* sterted
agnin quick ecoush to catch appellee if he crocsed at a @ir-
_tanco of seven foot. Bach sugsestion of improbability
seems to us 2t least plausible. No one omeest aporcllee and
» the three trein neu orofess to Imow certainly whether
train stoppod; thorefore, the positive testinomy is throes te
en
fethivast Soap iat? oct to come Bem epotit ,teenkexo
Seesitzes ado vind. secote dette code tok ES | “bast ef
git go gow ox Sat Syed OM gilt geese eeeked” sii RE won :
o4 ko. tnow!t nt dsctont s mig¢et dss ‘ond a sate tegomy
Real fics meco+PS ost gate pop te et Pee
ifoot #8 1% bo chie cette Sip aie wows
,etewswo loss
odS lo Seals eamadakd = oflap peta: te aedee
tsode shidin sar oabgue gaidscomy¢es amt: eS :
et did sackisel deutin.' * salient iprperentss
ited: atest evil "sitelir emake™ of - bo tearoe cehaniaeee=
vots..ot, oidars- esy:ded adaaeed att FF ead
odd ae Setacnl gots. odd oy clossde car oetteae hat test ont ;
ad? of seoudd Som cniges etd De Verh" “ests ‘Bo este’ bet Sol
ciel GS Apenog oan. ont kame enkpitg suit Rout qos Cag OSES
ap ubev oof guentvge? ic? gathtRogent® Bie BaBhEbers
loas-ce s'eelleuch ganas Be aolin ddgte-x6 x ta ombvom ‘ :
aaCr 03 Sodugedis ai dedif-emeequn of oldatensemam af tf yes
Sseqe fons 42 nxtvos en tyre até ko Leese Fook evetght tat
‘sameiioe.s .0a°c4e ec?. aeiueo fo me Boooeme ton SEG Bae
Gast sis faci ssecege oF Of AROS SOTRE at ae ERS Lesmres
ite Gre Eeqqess oetgne Ricem 2 we suse eam Soiste stom
=2f5 6 d= Soscers ov St eelLepen fod O08 S050 tobp shes
Waliteisicnti fo am cass closkk si aok t sowea to. comet a see
bm ceiles¢e=s tess sxe Oth othe) iagaty nook bd me Lae
OS Uti ala Lie Ltsae was ot eoakong wo:
Of Oe=usd Bi Yarociiest pe ae am} _o oterrod :
| one that i¢ @ia not stop. If it a4& uot, end tho accident
De: as stated by the engineer, we do not see omy sround
for recovery. It was @ question for the jury, and verdicte
4 are often permitied to stand, notwithstanding a greater
mumber of witnesses Keve testified ag Inst then for a meces=
gery allegation of fact. But often in such cases the
_--« UrPounding circumstances shomm by the eviecuce Leds sx
to the testimony of the smellor number of witnesses and mike
it seem more reasonable to believe their statements than tiat
of the larger mmber. We see nothing in tis recor? outside
os of the direct testimony of the witnesses
7 and aid not stop to make it more reasons.
- it aia than that it did not. We aro of ti
; verdict is so manifestly as-inst the veid
: as to make it our duty to reverse the ind
to orecmee ¢h +
opinion tht the
the ends of justice require that the evidence
-
,
mittea to another jury.
Appellants urge thet the verdict is excessive.
Wo regerd it quite os large as could be persitied to stand
if the defendants hadi proverly been found snilty, con-
sidering the age and sarning capseity of apo
injury shown by the evidence.
Apeellants offered = peremptory instrustion -t ths
elose of tho evitence, Which the cotrt did not err in refusing.
They also offered nine other instructions, each of which the
court refused, and error is here argued as to th
of them, Fourteen instructions wore siren,
oles
su6biseg.,
MIC FES
sisinics RES 4 EREL at so. Se.liaonp
rptsets 3 cettestea toa iss ss
ODE £ RR Ee
Ms +- ub a Beppe inst 4 Seas oer * ni
Sat 3° ssid PES AIRE. Grd ShIO"SBeE, & Se
SPeiwao: 2S Sto 2 OF: HEe shos est dobaw.
ee ee ee PRP Lay me Ne “
a shy ko: Se we? Ft Si g Elis tet Spee oh Eee Q ont
out. Susie ae oS at Beoegiee otal Bk a
et We Pewl 22 ports omy (an omstea,
8 slight modification in two of then,
comple dod of; anf seven instructions of-
No aintise wore given, of which no complaint
| We think the neces ary statements of law one
dicd in the refused instructions wore substantially
reared by the instiuetions given.
es
OA question ig raised as to the form of the vortict,
| shiek wo nocd not notice as it will not occur on anotinr
trial. Ho objection is mde to the ralling of the court
in the iubridection of evidence,
Por the reasons above stated the judment ic re-
ersed and the cause remanied.
Reversed and rononded.,
aha
Stiiiones ax tohiv Fe penteaven
“ue: WAl io admenetade
: plishianadioe ezcr sce hi ound ath Seay
oe os PS BUS
soRsaer ot EJ meat ‘ot ia oi es howto ei mo
set ¥ me wae 3G
teigena | ae al ton Schr ca = eakton sc
ase ie hen VR recom =
oe t +2. vt cs
x . : + ae .<
VOR RD ghipgss 3
ee = 7 ; : aie,
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ee
SECOND DISTRICT. yor" I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
Jn TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of ______in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and a eee
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
{ SLOWIAIE We
‘ TOMTEIG
aeineed ody to rocco fens eionilll lis otsdid odd jo dobtetl: baoved bige ter
Malisqdh edd te abot? .yaan 6) gandovenmO J a
WW te geutieps ads to crqoy sit) bef unieoystel odd Ladd YOPTAgO Yasaant Om los
sviflo cee ut Gresedt be eno botitus svode add a dt
elt “ffte: lite lise vo toe cavated T soa yuowrven'T “i
eis? wih ts do ohallogg A line odd to foe
Sis Dt Wa ta toy aid me. : ee LOH
*
bor betboud orig baseuodd,
—_—_ 1 is
ree ae —) ro hem fee
eh sib Maren). KAN kn heck ee lk ‘oom! ph
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine Aundred and sixteen,
*
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
r)
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
z
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
f fal
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. ~
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. —
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG 19 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to*wit:
Pav0a
-ftrqgA Yo yst dityot odd ,yabaseT mo ,sweitO da BI
\qsa¢xin bas berbasd snis basened? sao Brod 190 to +88y ©.
+
rafosaiilt to stai
rat
aa
ai te aointerd baoosg sit rot bres a
‘ -scitewt yoaibiestS ,agUAHGIM .M HHO .aoH odt-<t |
.saitaut BEUHAD 2b HMAUG .a0H |
.2oivaut ,T1adI¢ aD WARHOG ton”
_.d1efo ,YIGuG .0 AERTOTeTAHO
ttited2 ,SIVAG .M .&
mo stiw-of .abtewratis tsdt , CRSEZAMAEMAA TI aa
aret a + BUA
cf
estugil bas ebrow edi mi ,#sy00 bisa Yo soitto atdrekD §
I
oe
Ted
(3
ia
o
“
|
nm
ae
oO
sv gTHOo 9
le
re
afar
aa ss
Tiss
wn”
Gon, No, 6502,
FINLEY BARREL,
Appellant,
-vVs~ Appeal from Lake,
LAKE FOREST WATER 60.,
Appellec.
CARWES, Je
crplacae
Sees by Tinley Berr i te-z i, aminst Lake Foi rest
Water Co., & public service corporation,
restrain it from shutting off the water on
premises because of his failure and refusal to my a bill
rendered for water furnished in the months of July,Aucust,
and September, 1913, alleged to greatly excced tho snount
AH Atuw NALA yeaa a a ater very
he had used in that period, fThere was a prior hearing
A
on 2 motion to dissolve this same injunction in which the =
{
motion was allowed and appeal to this court by the - water :
COMPANY. Wo roversed the order overruling the motion to
dissolve and remanded the cause for another hearing on thet
motion, 68 opinion $s reported ( not im full ) in 191
Ill. Appe 269. W the stetutes governine the 4
procedure on motions soive an injunction, and said
such motions should be d@ and determined uwpon tho weight
of the testimony intréduced b espective partios 2% -
estat port Leatepa 2 See OnReeaE a
¢200 SERAY) MARMOT o
ea ep aap
Oa I gO ON Mg OTe ny OM
Jaeto® ofai dentenc
[eee eee we \
ot — qhoLdsrogtos obaeie — g «+00 :
ffid s you oF Saartkes Bus ormiie® ett to earsood scoinong
orl, Girt ke eddctom ec} sk Sorte terest cotew cok |
SaUrO Re oft fesoxe witeom of bogetls. ,BIer.
porebeosha atl . ni ene y ae a SE wi PIII? LN '
anktset toing 2 eow Stent 4 pehotwog tedd at bear 5 Batted e
: ou! Gobi ok solvent corse pbalt oviowa Lb od motion: 9. 3
sedew - oft yd duvoo atdd of Leoage bewg howolte sem mo 8,
x
| OF Horton ont nuifoetevo cabyo odd bowserot ov .wegno9 ng .
. tows 10 sass Bess: © Soljons tot OBR oid Debmemet bre evdomath
: LOL mk ( Sis mk tox ) badsogpr on gh sab . ake . otate <.
; 6A3 BMLiets vos ’ |
Bisa bros 4s
;
atin Bet ake mney Thiet
CLOW oful Le: iad NOLL:
fs 208Ttag eviseongst
the hearing; ‘thet the complainant introduced no evidence
and in our opinion the material allegations of fact in the
sworn bill were met and overhorne by the answer under oath
and affidavits read in support thereof by the defendant;
that the record, as presented, indicated that the water
meters were correct; and correctly read; and that statements
of the complainant thet he did not use so much water without
any showing as to the basis of such statemmts were of little
probative value. We suggested that the facts and circunm-
stances as to the use of water on the premises might be sow;
that there might have. been & waste of water through the
heglect of servants or\some detect in the pipe, aud thet evi-
dence negativing such 2 loss or waste shouid be offered bes
fore an injunction should be permitted to stand, In short,
ag the record then stood, there was little, if any,reliable
axvitentensex evidente as to the amount of water used except
that furnished by reading of the meters and prima facie evi-
dence that the meters were BCCuretee
It is sug-ested by counsel that we were unferstood
to say that the case aepentied entirely upon evidence as to
the mechanical condition of the meters, and that the in-
junction should be dispolvel unless a test made on the moters
themselves showed they were \inaccurate. No such conclusion
was intended. The sugsestions im the opinion above noted
indicate that we were then of the opinion thet evidence other
than of the mechanical construction and worlting of the
meters might be furnished and \should be furnished if the
finjunetion was permitted to stant, \ On reinstatement of the
See
tins
tedsw
?
eimonsisie gait Site phset pitoornes ine Foerr09 etow &
duoitiw vedew sou oe ons dot BEB off Korii AnecttsLqmos oxi
efttho to ocew adconofsia dom to etaad an ot as amtkw
wmrotio bas avoct ott ssdd bedeongira Hos 295 Bien
yavoe od tefg te noaimong std ee ey: . P08 ee
ESIOW We 83 ees As 1 Pol
ant cearonrsiit <Totsy: ee
-ive god Same geet atid sh dootes » on no 8
he
$06 hewethto ‘ed. sisrosia ‘often 20 980! © som aatyit tsgee
toe at ,Suste oF bo td Eornog od & nee Mot ols tata 9
elidsifer. we ii OLE L ace he bo: a
Jgsoxe Benn tedew to Sasrome x 0 ed time neem ie
~ivo siost sakca ees exovem Path 0 autbeon t Ud —
soteuroe sy ialigeia bei -
at <5) ow HA
of as Qonobive cogs Ylethine “semoren as ve oa 8%
“ni sit tats Sve ,aredom ext to nol tBroo ©
avetom ent co sia teed 2 andthe bows
frokaittomes doe off ee
f6fto cokoh Gadd todtites ott: i nt ms
Si io Avis Sn Holt osmetarcos fso
. sig ii forfatarst od Boies Hise
ek eae ip dnocdtetankar 610 i 2 ype one a
ease other affidavits were read covering the sugsestions
found in the opinion and indicating a sharp controversy
as to many material facts, presestinc 2ease here there
should be-e—final kesring-of—the evidence with opportnnity—.
to_cross—exemine the Wi tiésses before deternining..tho
i , y 4 The question before the trial
court on this motion was whe
a
ae the status quo should be
maintained pending tenet, aring se |
\ é /
In Paxton v Fabry, --- ad aa ---, we reviewed
and discussed the authorities on thé duty of the chancellor
on the hearing of\e motion to sant or dissolve a temporary
injunction. The statute provides for a hearing on such
Z_\motiony and whether o\ temporary injunction should be granted,
or, if granted, should Yenoin/in force depends wpon evidence
produced at that nearinge\ But, as we pointed out in that
case, it is not a hearing oy the merits, and whether the
stdus quo shall be eauetrat \ by the granting or continuance
—
of a temporary injunctign doped not only wpon the probabil-
ity of the ON sc stich a hearing, but also upon the relative
injury that might be /austainea by ig parties by the action
of the chancellor 7 i granting or rekusing @ temporary in-
junction contrary fio what might be Zownd on a final hearing
*‘
rd \
. Te ee ais \
to be the merits/of the case. \
F
?
. In tke present case the allegatigns of the bill
- ; p
ie and answer aad affidavit evidence in ee denial
thereof requ{rins a hearing on the merits and tye + pred aay
i
{
x =
ass aiishnenee erotsd: “seateat LORS
; igtnd afi os ;oted soltcem off _ saeyendecs
ae Sa ae Pegerre a3
Rs ed binode emp auiate, ont ‘xedtocta, a W, £0 est
. . ae eve Pe, om. a, on
4
;
4
~
4
3
r a
é
es oft ol
motes ost a aoiduag sy hg box, ston) od 3
“ni Yssnoger 2 ry al <0. pabiners ty
te ie
oe
= 7 9
“
= ‘ 4
griceot Cncit e a0 - ale og alge og oe . ae vat ae
Fé é on Nos a
y Litd svt
— Seiceh Bre Heveits tok soit rvsn
= yrushnt ict ah Scie od épeat sieF Be am
a ;, “
é
ale ad hes:
| be sustained by appellant in wrongfully maintaining the
| present condition compared with that which would bo @ustained
| by appeliee im wrongfully cutting of€ his water supply durins
P that period.
We are therefore of the opinion that the court erred
in its order dissolving the injunction. ‘That order is re-
-wersed.
Reversed.
sinomgeek-clieil said isis $i
Sextndes® od Sino sinister dah shee
Qcicys yigqee tote eit Yio ae! Sos
ane foe 4
————« VS
a fa
> ae
¥
f}
é
%
x
*
a ee
~
E - Ss Sees 5 feces sal
| arene ey
sd a nS & wi as sie\ 0880. est te:
5
Pa
ra Fa receiney se Sigin toi
= dtr onset: oat { .
ngtrigay ag mottos meas a
ise, Rees oh Sxoseee ae re ae
aes se ta \ed trem ©
te c F seacee ed ae
. iF ta F PID ee Sa ee
ey eee
ef See aes yh Soa
a) 8 s
STATE OF ILLINOIS, lee
SECOND DISTRICT. (SR.
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof. DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHEREOoR, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this —
day of = _in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine bundred and eS
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
- 3 -i §£ ;
nh 1 te ‘hewn tts
.
Seitt
’
S104 watt) te
BIBD tee is fin ye orid AT
ToPei) bros bisa ol b ee
oc kedy “NTrago vestso od toersdd igse
“ln fevirite att Voy ony ee et Ea upianere!
Tt besa fo. eihee baltiqgs SOO Od iti i100) ote
ve Otignsad 1 oad ynomrrea) ay
re) oiplbsi dl Dise sdt lo deee,
>
te web <
Y srl mgt 6A io de
uj BLlOWULLI 80
; POIATEIA
a
of rem
bie bordel sain bugewodd
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, :
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justiee.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk.” “ Vo + otto e
=
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
aw s ~ py
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AUG 10 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
iat
45
(b
oe
we
d
tr
pal}
ia]
bexbaud Bien + asain’ 3 ‘eao aad =00° to an
Oo
foivdai@ Broose edit to? bis a
seromtiit to stete adi: ?
D
i]
ven
o4
w
oe
es
A
Gt ,QUABSIM .M WHOL ,aoH odT--$
.sgidaul ,23MHA9 .U EMAUG .coH |
eve aOMAGHOC Be
.tiitede ,eIvad .M. a
_ pieciptentn lA HN sore Se ete hn he
nO :tiweod rebtswredis tedi , (Stee Ts
mi belii esw fru0d sit 40 aointgo sdt Atel. we Qua:
e9iusit bas ebiow savy at ,j1y0d bise io seilio et¥ref9
ifiw-ot, -gaiwol
city attorney did not contain the address of
Gen, No, 6262.
Jo EH. Pickens,
Appellee,
-Vs- Appeal from Kankakee,
City of Kankakee,
Appellant.
DIBELI >? J °
J.B.Piel s,fell into a hole in a public strget in the
city of Kankekée at about elewven o'clock at night on July 4,
1915, and struck his Left knee and other 2 vests of his left lee
7
against a water pipe ‘and a faucet thereort in send hole, ond
was injured threby, end \prousht &: is fast 2 ir aah the city of
damages for said injuries. eforc the trial he diswissed the
suit as to defendant, Kankakee Water Works, At the close of
the trial a verdict was ae foe the defendant, Herscher,
There was a verdict egaynst the cit
thousand dollars. motion for a new
Plaintiff had judgement and the city prosecttes this appcal.
par cx ld neh
It +s-contenied that r ntiff oaunet recover pe cause
the notices filed by him with the city clerk and with the
2 set
> won - i] ;
physician, as f= required by the statute relating to such no
In that respect the notices said: " That Dr. J.A-Guertin was
the attending physician, andthnat he called in Dr. C. G Smith
to examine the injuries." It was proved that at the time
TSveost o¢
ems Senaine fb ed [eint sect onokted
:
‘
;
’ ‘te saois oft JA ,antroW
Beimes 267 ne wou © vO% motdom\A
seth direl sed foczos ‘tio ot Bits’ ‘tel
ge7 iittcid.A.t 2d ded? 7 ‘Sean avokton ost tooseor
it iscz « on Pox d $8 SLi Dei. Tas on. Jam bares . pied
+. emit oft dg tadt heyvotr caw os 7 92@:
| of the accident Dr. J. A. Guertin held the official position
under the city of Kankekee of city physician and that there
was no other Dr. J. A. Guertin in that city at that time.
neiples—ieid-—down—in-MeComb vs
= City of Chicago, 263 10, the notices were sufficient
in that respect. We assume = that the executive of-
ficers of the city residence of the city physician,
SaALy...0.2-—-tMPO
4
It =murged thet certain opinions expressed by the
witness, Dr. Greenman, were incompetent because they wee
based upon subjective symptoms. Dr.Guertin attended the
plaintiff until he wentavay on his vacatioqy, and he left
directions with the plaintiff to go to Dr.Brown in his absence
and the plaintiff did go to Dr.Brown, but he also went to Dr.
for treatment;
Greemarf and Dr.Brown made a thorough examination and treated
the patient, and the plaintiff then went to Dr.Greenmen and
was treated by him twelve or fourteen times thexeatter + |
=)
derived by the phydiciar
during his treatment of tha\patient are competent. West
11. 478; Greinke vs Chicaso
wee : 2 oe - :
and it er gued at if must he that he intended to eall Dr.
Greenman as a witnesg,\Nand thet in reality the examination
must have been for/tie purpose of qualifying him as a ahaa is
/ '
Z TY
‘ / oe ee
eredd tedt bus esloieydd wiio to eelained to ytto edt reber”
wuit decd ts Yio tedt mr atdtenD .& S xd veseaeee)
av dmode 22- wos Shel geledone’ tor
tnefoitiva syew asoiton edt ,OL
-Mstotagda tio end to sens hieot
nisivrooas bivoo somes il{ihs efid
-B590n aew metoteqd¢ saiimottcett o¢ txoaed \d Cela actns: Sa
le
; 5 .arek
ont xe becRoraxe: axointgo shetteo ‘Poa sosteal 42 wines
GH:
+ - sew yout eanaped trod oquoont etow rsmmoerD at ov, Step *
by
ie
ond bebatose eB ot trond oul -auodanys ‘ovidostdna iar aaa ; a
| “Stel of Sra fotiscsy eid ‘no vem drew ot tia “erdn tate Bs
De actandts aint ni wor tt oF 09 ob seetasl: eat thie hee a
teeehece™ » 5 ed
2d of ino ogis on td (WOE ac of ° BED ‘a¢itntela ost ae
betcort bn sottantmaxe sigsronosit 8 “ebsat rent 2d has Neaioe0 ous 2
Bi ah a 4 ties a A a
Snes asaneet) 2 ot 3 mew neatd wh idntela ent bas netted ents co
irs OME #3 5 Secor 4 < a
-Teitestecd vom ta kestare? 10 oviewd ate ie beiaest coe ge! a ce
Real, Ae
>
%
~aginge SsTivootise mort opeets
natotbyda edd yd Hevited ye
tesW 8 .timstsquos ots jasideg
Rat eters: BO pee sete
ti MMIsstI.T ot siiew Titimtels ed? @ eted; aygeth
é. oxG ties ww hei neck of tacts out Abie
. sation: tans ect Yltieex at daddys
4 goa3by & ef mii miivhitasp Lo G2
no support\except in the “act thaiDr.Greeman was calied as a
witness. It $ natural thet the different physicians at-
tending the plaintht? shoula be called as witnesses, The
ied from giving his opinion founded
on subjective <yaptoms by the mere fact that after Having
’
treated thé patient for some tin
pehal”.
The injury occurred under the following circumstances:
he became @ witness in his
There was in.Kankakee a public park knowm as Blectric Park in
or near the southeasterly part of the city of Kankakee, it
was reached by Osborn Avenue, 2 public sireet of said city.
Yhere were niné or ten thousand people at said park in the
evening of July 4, 1913. The crowd started to leave the vark
to go back to the city at 10340 p. me The stroet car line
entored Osborn Avenue at its south end and went north for
some hlocks, and thence by different directions to th
©
Q
?)
'
~
ct
Oo
4
Fy
3
[4
i
i}
o
of the city, When the crowd reached the street ca
ne street cars was tempora-=
rily suspended for some reason not explained. Thereipon,
some three or four thousand people started to walk back into
the city, goins north on Osborn Avenue, Plaintiff and
his wife had spent the evening in the park and were a ong those
valkineg back. The south end of Osborn Avenue was in an un-
findshed condition. There wos no sidewalk on either side,
The stree$ car track was in the middle of the street, and there
was a place $raveled by teams cast of the street car track,and
east of that somo grass, and cast of thst a place where the
=~ iw
ue n 4
ae ae repteas ‘elt ‘Me
sixtt xgitiaog ¢ ‘aa das isis eid od a eh oon de
8 ue Beliso esw sarees) sat rig ta orig me i
rte suatoiewig, duesetEth, at :
q oft ,posseut in es, belico ed f
Se Srsrot woteies aig let anal 1
enivad tofis dei} josk eran,
:asonstsmyoitio yaivollot edt xoehan fo TRO RN
: st trel oittooll as amvoca st oildua s soskeniman sk Baw, |
nae
’ dig SOK GRAN To gito ‘oud xo “trea ‘ylrotasedésos a
2 rotor tC
4 aytts Bisa to soorwde obtdng 2 eumevh rerodad yd & ay
puny > AEE goataue procs
2 odd ni aesy bise ta “eldoog bmsesroctt wet vo 6nin etow ex
cop gee ae ore ign Siem ot Per Teta kes
ateq efit vec! o¢ ‘Betaete Bwors ‘oat SreE «> Gint to.
pad : as shes iy arora.
Sit “utp foitta ost sit a “os yOr re wis edt oe >
on tha ecient a go’ igen Bi OS Bxiet bas Cet
sot dkon tnow ate bro dnea Tel. $ :
‘wetirSs sii Gt enoitooris duosoth sb ‘@ eax0 ons
a oe
oh ea: Drs
+ Bus 2ato
Sen iF i pat “Bee
ofa
Ontl to Sorte odd. Bont: son Bwrorto ond so gtd ko
po ROLE aS
teat NE {
med I vfewt. mit yd nak Baw
+s70qme? saw Bieo Seante oxts So eknnare 9 add brao% Sayot asw
per ee ~ ae SS yee aSbemte ot \s
“notwettcdt Son tetas ton sogeo' ve gles iia BY
' Pa ond.
cic aond Hisw of Sotitata ole oc, Exoasrond vee TO somid’
— 4 oy enn a a es
fines So rnters OEY A frrbtte 0 dco ane
a ee beri
sits A ni sae Srnovk triodad ¥o' es! ‘ia odd Se
Vets tortie to Afsws ite On watt ‘exon |
AY SiH Foctis oh to oth Bit out ok t toy atoens
: 830 rW a GL i é its ‘hie Te
| iceman would ultimately be laid. There were also telephone
poles and perhaps some other obstructions between the place where
the vehicles traveled and the vlace where the sidewalk would be.
Plaintifé and his wife traveled along the street car track,
When they reacied a place somewhere hear the center of a block
they saw on the east side of the street that there was a sidewalk
from there north, and that some of the people traveling in the
street had gone over to and were walking upon that sidewalk,
Thereupon plainti?® and his wife turned and went towards the
sidewalk for the purpose of getting out of the street car track
and out of the plece where the vehicles naturally went, and getting
upon the sidewalk and over to the place for pedestrians, There
was no cur@ and there was no parking in the ordinary sense of
that term, but as they passed from the place where the wheeled
vehicles had been,they went upon the grass on the save level
until they had almost reached the sidewalk. There was in the
ground, not far from the sidewalk, a hole three feet wite and from
four to eighteen inches deep, 2ccording to the varying testimony
of different witnesses; and up from the center of that hole
eame an iron pipe, and on the top of the pipe a few inches above tne
ordinary level of the ground + a faucet. Plaintiff fell
into this hole and struck his Imee against the iron pipe or
faucet, and wos seriously injured. Some witnerses placed this
hole at one foot from the sidewalk, and others at to feet, but
plaintiff testified that as he fell, he fell with his face on the
sidewalk, whteinédt-cetes—tnet—re- was sorrect it sayines thai.
7
as . k, This hole had been there for
* more than two months and a half in substantially the same con-
<<}. dition,| so—teet the tity must ye presmet to teve- herd SE0G
ml we
axoddelet oats orew otsAl -bicl od Ylotamitin bisow ite
steady eosl ail} meowted ano htomsade. wesihe, emtos — ae
oc Bainod =
tooid 2 to aa ond wie Feast pa “acbasiaie 6
diewohia s ssw atedd <add deena, oid, a Obie tage, od 20, wse j
ett sl gaitevent adiqogy.olid . ko 20 ,oitioe, Asse, Sie, «sid om orreds
iswobie Jedd coos sabifew otew pas od) ane: ong: int
adt ebyevot imew bas Senmut ol br eid bas . viidnbela 2
dosst igo teetts om te dvo suiddos. Xo,.eno
vteHD susplideedeg wot esol agit ot. Ovo ine at Lewsh.
So came yranhixo od at gitiseer om ow eredtt pihens 3
heLeedw odd siodw sosl¢ att mort, boassg yout BAS fe a
M4 Level siae ocd ree. sasrg.ostd hogar J ssow iNest teed » bed,
ai si saw etesT llowehta edd; bosogey daonts. Bad, yoda
Lavo Ste elt ork, teh tom
Woukicet extysey oft of gutbwane eGOOk sortomk stootsigte: o@
Pee
slot duit to tenes. ait. roxt qe fas, ipencont byte
most Sos ebtw toet sordid sofort: s..¢:
RM NO, © or as
°
at S% Tre ee Pe ec: i
at 8 (OSs Hetoni wok & egic eid to god ong. 0 DNS | soci. grok sus
. {fet itivnisll .desneh.o sew Savory, od %o fever
E mO agig moul ond dankoss een etd. dlousta het. oLod eidt
- aidy Seesig. sorszernt hr. onod sferurtok, vlemoires, ae Aine, toon
a ? tod test af dn aredio Sates lerebla od MONT took en0, ts
St mo SHkb akc id ay Leet soot » Ele% odes dows sina euthins A
» TRIB -2 Reet SE FOOT LO RAW oN
o 4
mot oxedd ment bad efod..eram Liane
cnn of. Yilatinededite st hued o.b30 enon.
ert Dba brs8s- SSE Saray Gah comer ery are
—have-pevetret It bétore tit orecasion,—
| Plaintiff did not imow of its existence,and the night vas dork,
i iF Yo bi wes not bound to exercise roasonable
care to keep that pla reasonably safe condition for foot
travelers, and that théreXore the instructions which informed
city in relation to its strests
were imerover sintiff and his witte turned to go upon the
sidewalk from the cexter of the street soon after they had passed
the south end of the si owallk 23 eeatay laid, and we think that
the city might reason: bly\expect ting't persons going along that
street from the south would ake jhe traveled way in the center
f the street until they reachad a place where there was 2
sidewalk. and would then bary/ ‘to So uponthe sidewalk; and that
{
|
|
|
lo
|
the jury might reasonably fina that Xt was not s lack of ordinar
are for the plaintiff ba be where he Wd under the circuustences
A
shown in the eviienece, / The instructions in regard to the duty
f
of a city concerning Ats streets were stock
Pf
f
have been many times approved by the courts
opinion that a cause of action was shown and
bs
t P
show that hed/any tendency to defeat
of plaintiff was in a certain contracting busincss in Watseka,
A branch of that business had beeh opened in Kankakee, and
plaintiff was in ch=rge thereof, and spparently in p rtnership with
his father, He received certain wares per week, and
t
thereto fifty ser cent of the profits mace wpon the Kankekee 5
- _geonewaoo- tris SwvTSd I Hetkagot-o Jo NEES oe :
| (feeb war dea ite oct ar asi iat ath to vit Ft bts
efdsnosset saiscexs of Bawdd ton ae i - wih shre:
toot tot Son Ecos obse are, ano aseu s. ae ba
Hemotakt setae aiolforriant edt som
etesrin sti of so itelot fuk wae at 20)
LL
da
ie to emsAAN ‘Vadawes Sah ve ber
4
a7 atts tow) ine mode wot ftokios to os so°8
di Hasan oF ee |
aSbostal iL avonrtesd be)
Bows fohe ci firs Pen pag CHG AE
b po Ssiisies? aiid seeps 9 Gem
q
business; and he testified and it ss not disputed, tha* prior
to this accident he was makings 31800.00 per year. The injury
produced an inflamation of the inner lining of the Imee joint.
He suffered great pain and much of the time was unable to use
that knee as usually required in the active duties of his
business. He was laid up for a certain length of time; nad
RO 7 cot
walked with a cane and #$ ,able to walk but little witout a cane,
He has been able to fissure om contracts but not to »erform the
active daily services for which ho formerly had been peidy
and since that time he has been able to make onby $400, or &500.
per year. Jecortime-to- tit ertens-e-his--Loss—-of-earnknes
Lies « He #2 wa
likely to recover the cpmplete use of the knee in time. The
city brought proof tending to show thet he had been seen riding
a bicycle. He devied be hed ridden e bicycle. The eity
offered witnesses who had secn him walk when they did not think
he used 2 cane, He testified that on some of the occasions
they named he did use a cane, and that he walked very little
without a canoe. The injuries he suffered were not merely to
the knee but related to the whole of the
loss of earnings,and\hnis pein ané@ suflar
/
physicians end his othek expenfces for sickness to which he
ct
ct
is
a3)
<4
©
te
joy)
my
re)
sy
testified are considered, Weare unable to say tha’
is too large. It is tn the extent of plaintiff's in-
juries largely depends Apon his owy statement of the pain and
suffering and of a hear to walk and to perform the
“
fi, . 7 "2 - . = .
ordinary duties of/his calling because thisinjury. It is
sai ie
éicty
a 3 donc att _bedwan bs Jor gay $2 yey shot Haot @ 27
ame a
; yinict ect ~ “.agey roq 60,.008L8 eatin bo cal
. arkot ser oft Xo anne ssontt! oud ‘20 “old:
éen od ofdiens gate ont end ‘Xo soim Bw gor: jes ie ape €
hi ing RIS, yh ey Op iy % he
: ait % asituh ev tts oat at Bor knpot, Tlasrass ee
vex ap Mr wae Re
Fase toait to Bigae nisizes 8 to% ohh ip us Bis at
rf i Bey
ens @ PHOd Ev atet. he ‘dud Hlew oF olds, noe aos ‘sat it in
= = mrotre: of far st ‘adoouttos me ‘2 aig “Shes teed
he! * Ex need Sed ‘eee? ea dole ‘26% B89 3 bride “Gl ish
0088 x6 Loone vino. sé aia of side abot et eat sto
eit om dt sit eeect cf Yo el lel Ft re
eREBES meow Mdod Sud asf dest wore: 08 gatticod toora Fie
3 Wis onT .ofoyotd = mofBis hast ed Sofseb ob
vated? tor bib yoitt wetter thew mit teed bat! ee cain
os ano iersso odd So omde so fast Befstesed ‘on pe #6 2.
c «. @LSPEL Ute Boutdw oH teat Bae , boas e os esi eae na.
: od yfetom tor erow Sersttioe ox aotuntat eat sty oh aie disse san
> oie [aes Stel ati 86 S£ome one of “ti mac
aid .to aiiid srt brs, aitts Se. hes
Sa oil. dol of seomioia tot eek
toigrey ait tadd. zag ot elders, ess
MER e'2iituisig to dtnstxs axtd Sout Y
Ae Steer of to trened BiB, RNS ais oc
ait mkotreg. od See 2 aie of whi lids
Ba v2 ergot iy # Ao ase sano 8
{true that he may be misrepresenting the extent of his injuries
|
| to the jury, but they believed his testimony and the trial judge
has approved it, and most of hs statements as to his pah and
suffering and the effects upon his enployment are expressly
|
testified to by him, and are not disputed by any other witness
in the case, Under all these circumstances we cannot say that
ee seerncen
the judgment is excessive.
The court gave eight instructions for the plaintiff and
J 1.
we consiier them to be substantially a correct statement of the
law, The court gseve sizteen instractions as offered by the de-
es
fencant, and slightly modified and. gave another instruction for
defendant, and these instructions fully state the law favorable
to defendant. The court refused eleven instructions requested
f
“| by the defendant but so far as they were competent, they were
oe in the instructions given. Tyo or three of them were
4/so involved that they might reasonably have been refused on that
©
eround. We are. of opinion that the jury were sufficiently and
corretly instructed. Finding no reversible error in the record
the judgement is therefore affirmed,
Affirmed.
a ee SS eee
etow modt to ostid to own btheeea. emottomed amd wcll
" 6
7 ve ee fs ppaedt
aeitarpat gis to duedzxe axl _sitbesesesgeseim ed “yan ont baci
10 tS:
ff
tad: Ysa es ow aeonat auozto oneuit iis rect
® if
sovtagooxs ie
CH.
hoe Ft hrisig oft rot mre Stamstingt Higto owas: are9g aa,
edit to inemetsde deseroo ¢ ei fabinstadsre oe: ni medi ia ube nc
stew yedd ,ineteqnos stew yedt ae sits on dard ent
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT.
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
| ss. I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this =
day of ci ________in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and _
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
eIOWIGdIT 10
POM TAI dO
aban sf ols tn oyaed bas ciooill{ ‘to ote? edt lo doiaeid bao9@ bisa Tot bas mi
st Sas eis sult dey Acoy afr 2 ai ug, lon yrot acd dsdd VyTTaa Sac 0a foster
Maliegy! fi to dial cenand 2) somaorentan) .T oe
snd xilts: ties bot ge dee dated T Aon WH ynomiranT ul
Pol) bd ts dud otetlaqiné. bise edd to ines
Bi bal tins 1G teay add oi eee ee Tg
— brns borbeed sate beeeuoiy a
—=_
AOI Nahi gt Ls theese: Le
SUEY ASaqgqh sAi-Ap desk
A
—_
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, ~
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. :
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. & \j (J | {§ p
}
1
why)
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. — nd
Be M. DAVIS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
the opinion of the Court was Piled i
AUG 17 1916 Pp srftiled in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
sittgA to ysbh dixvot edt ,yabesnT oe .6wsit0 te bier
eseixiec bas berheud saic hosagott sao -btod v0: %0 Te9
a setoatYii to siteif sedi t0 toitéerd baooae ode 0% bas
. spitent sarbindx4 .AVAKETA .M UHOL .a08 od addy
" 3 cs ye
- f <7 om .sotleapt Tiger “aOuaARsod . oH
t* 4 i 7 +
Cn drat {YrIvG oO sMBLOTETAHO
“ oe Pah :
Arrsda. RIVA uo
mir Oslii asw esis ta
Gen. No. 638i.
Jeannette FE. Lewis, Admx. ctc.
appellant.
ve Appeal from Co. Ot. Peoria.
New Amsterdam Casuslty Company,
appellae. .
Dibell, J.
This is—e—_suitpby the executrix cf the 12st writ
of_Thomas B,tewis, tecreased; Sees eden ani life
| Dp See ites page |
inaurance policy issued by apexetiee to Thomas B. Lewis on
June 29, 1914. Lewis was taken 111 in August 1914, ani jied
on March 15, 1915. ow Cane exeout +-ereugh+—
this-snitse—suchk. The policy provided for s
ck benefits of
fe
$35 per week. No eick benefits were paid. There was an an-=
propriate declaration upon the policy. Certsin pleas were
filed, to which a jemurrer *ss sustained, and certain other
pleas were then filed upon which issue was joined. The
pleas were each in bar, excest as to $19.73 tender made be=
fore suit. The first plea was the qualified general issue.
The remaining pleas were that the aoplication was made «
part of the policy, ani that the policy wes igsued upon the
consideration of the premium and the statements in the ap-=
plication, and various statements in the application
ct
oO
as the good health of Lewis were jenied. Special repe
lications were filei to the special piess, ani issues were
joined upon said replications, ani therewes-atTiar by jury,
\
at the cloge of all the e¥idence the \sourt instructed
the a verdjét for cefenjant,\and auch verdict
x
rer a new trial fag\ denied, and
a Jf. ae F
againat the-plaintiff)\ end
The parties lived in Peoria. George Reacan was
ha]
-oto «xmbA .aiwod «Tat
»taeliegas
»Siztced .¢D .00 mort CasqqA
: -saifeqqs
me 4 ab
Cliw vest-ett to -xintwoexs ent -yo-tHiee-s-et edt
J —— } ot:
stilt fas dt ised) See deemed “3
5 are Introe wots
mo eiwed .2@ asmodT o¢ eefishas yc bewsel ‘yotLog eons
fsit Loe ,d{8k gauewA mi Lit asidet esw afwod -$£@L .@&
—tdguerd—bae-kiviuvexs smnved Stiw-eth .éfef ,.af do
to atlitenasd Bole x07 bebivexrg yoliog edt + Ao
-1s se e2w oteiT .bisq etsw atiteaed dota off .dssw x0
eter ssofg aistisd .yotfod sit noc moftersfost etal:
tefio siatiso bae ,benieteve aax totwwmeb 2 doidw ot
eit .beniog saw suset doidw dogs bard? ned? stew
-ad oben tobmset &F.8f£% of as toooxe .tad mat doss ere «
eOueet ietsosy beltifegp ect esw ssig derit edT stivea 9
& ebon ese goltsoifqes od? edt etew asoig. gotatenet
sd} moou khevesi aaw yoilog od tscdt Eas ,.yotfLog ait to |
-ce od at atuemetate od! Las myimerg edt to sotter robis
toitsoticoa edt at etmemstste suo lisy bas (of nods
“get ixicece .Leinel siew ekweld to dilsest boog edt
siew coucel Los .easeig istoeqa odd ot belt? Stew anoit
TYmE Yo Leirs sey cad bas eamtoitsotiqar bise AOQN | be
botcuttent dxv09/ etd gomet £¥e edt (is ae 26
toifisv Nove ‘bag wtosineter tot Poqeroy 2 gtutot of \
fae ,tsinek /as>. {airs sea 4 tot
‘
/, Ss
baz Atititnisidseds tenitsge tedfAt
~~ DOE EOMES HE Ste he
te Jocss eer oanead easels (eettoe at bevt.
IN
Orferde ees
Saat se 2% Peoria, and this policy was issued from his
office upon an application brought to himby C. K. Geries, ho
was alse a life insuranee icent. Lewis aopalied to Gerdes
fer health ani.life insurance, and Gerdes aoplied to Reagan.
Apparently Gerdes prepared a first draft of an application
end this application which was granted, was in fact written
so far es the typewriter parts were concerned,( which were
the ones that it waa claimed were untrue), in Reagantsa ofice
and by his @tenozrapher, by Reagan's direction, ani leliv-
= Na ace s .
ered to Gerdes. It #6 claimed that this arplication waa
ifraudulent. Therc is. no proot.of—tnat—execept-by-infersnceas
Gerdes aigned Lewis' name to the application. Lewis never
saw it. Gerdes testifiei that he considered himself
authorized to sign Lewis’ name to it. Geries testified
that he tock the statements as to the condition of health of
Lewis from applications which Lewis had rade to him some yesrs
before. Gerdes denied any knowledge of the fasts concerning
Lewis condition of heclth which teniPo mike this application
untrue. The application was untrue, «nd_if sids—b.—Lewis-or—
if wade hy Cer. se-his-agent If would invalidate the ~perieys
ee ra ge sought to show that Gerdes was in fact
eo PES Ds \ eet ek
acting for eae and had frequently acted for aadei.ee
before, the court sustainei objsctions to the questions by
‘which it was seught to preve the connection between Gerdes
§
PO a ht
and | = He was allowed to state that he had acted
——
wire PES
for ee. but that answer was then exeluied.|2e—
gent fer anpellee and not for Lewis, then it is
& serious question her a@poeilee weulli not be bound by
eae
— 4 ~ "
this policy, unlesa, indeed, _appesred that Gerdes was en-
~~
gaged in an sifort_to defraud his prinvipsl, the appellee,
and there ig -tlo-sevijence sufficient te warrant that con-
a
we ore of opinion that the court erred in reftsineg
eo
clusion:
Yow 0 oo dade Fass ren od ters ted we soneb
ods ,eobteD .X .0 yomid of diguewd aokteotiige me toa
esbitso of beiigues ciweld .drene sonstuedt stil « oe ic
gotisolticcs ne jo tis terete betscstqg sebrod yLlinets
getiiar foo? st asw ,betastg sew Hoitiw fotteotiqgs ald
stew doidw ) bsarsonoo stew etraq nettenegyy et ee
sie o atasresh af , (sxttas stew berkslo Sew tt ait @
~yilof Ens moltoerib . 5 *hegsel yd roam a
over aiwod .motteotigqge ent of smar a weil edit
tisemtd bersbhtango of eae Lettites® ‘nebred!
beititssd eshred-.tt oF Smet Satwod- mgiood* bi
to dtised to mottifsos sit of es einenetit’ 210 Xoo?
Sitaey emoe mth oF sbani ben efwel do itr enottsoilqqe Ok
nalatsonoo atest. sift = egbelwornk s caclecaiatnens —
Syericd Sat steLiioval finow oe Saves :
fost mt dew sebtred fadt wore oe ‘Cage sas
eukidins tol betes yitosupett wan wa x
yd anotteusun eft o¢ anoltostde seiditbe aicae
eshte) nserded agitossnog art ewer ot ‘feigwoe eow FE.
FP Wett ,eived 167 you One 0 fee: je ToD Hrepd a
ed Brow ed ton Diwex _Seileqns rods ro WOR PU
ete cov cbbisd fad borage Pes boat vane ine %
wSallecgs Sa? hegbatifre aki busta tpBe
fea at here Riles: “Oth: aif? woiktxteo |
Va
ce cr,
S atte .| the proor showed that Gerdes
did not receive any pay from Lewis for obtaining this insur-
ance, but that Reagan was entitled to a certain conmission
h
+
as between him aan tak and that Reacan paid a part
of that commission te Gerdes as his comcensation for the vork.
_®
t intraducéed in evidence a letter from the superintend-
ent of appellee to Lewis, diated Fobruary 1, 1915, notifying
him that the company had cancelled this policy, and that
ab)
i
sao, in fudd
Te
they enclosei therewith their check for
of the premium which Lewieé had paid «
Le
d interest to that date,
and algo a registered return receipt admitting the receipt
of this ietter of February 1, which was signed "Thenas B.
Kewis per G. C.Lewis." Objection was made to the competency
of this evitence, eni that objection was overruled. There
was no procf who G.(. Lewis was, nor that he or she had eny
authority to sign the name of Thomas B. Lewis to that receipt
nor that Thomas B. Lewis ever 3id receivs that letter. ]
This ijence was incompetent until the agenoy of G. G. Lewis
had been eStablished, or the fact that the letter did reach
7
+.
Thomas B. Lewid By this improper testimony” the record was
Pa
Claimed to have returned Yee premium and the intsrest thereon,
the plea of tender, by whit at alleged that it had tenderdd
$19.73 before the commpricement ef the suit, which tender it
had kept gcod, shoys that aopellee ica nani ticn 3om8 liabd-
ility unddr thig’pelic ey besides the liabilNy to return the
premium and Antereat thereon, ani the nature ~ obligation
which is“so admitted is not shown in the case. For “ws errors
specified the judgmsnt is reversed and the cause reman id
wd
SE n
an y*
im Sika)
kes
“ Pd hs rf
ncifegiide siti To ouster: dis haw wrosTadé J
Sede ee dotity- getteia
sebtsd decd bewete toot) ‘eitt|
tvani sid prtoietdo cot etwed ott esq" ths bthet el
notesinvoe stotreo & oF weeks ae corny egies snd “sue
iTS? .
-breitttisque edi mor? tetiel’ s Semebiver AE S@bdLD dea
arivtives :266h: i yrautdet Besar” csi ot" s*Selstaci®
figt at — vol Assxo rod):
,edeb tedt-of fas <atas Ore PSC See ‘abied: anand
tetecst eft olf times ‘tyleser adet Lazdteiget "oe.
eomott" Bangia’ sor dotinw gh yrautdéT Yo “ester: ‘1
yorstsemos SF of shan “Ger sing 8 al anise vas DeReg
@
ot
1g
a
ty
(ea
e
Ke
ce
y
3:
a
a8
a
—e
o
by
oe
oS
iv
+.
&
ep
=
Bi
rey
es.
Scisesy test ef Biwsd 1.2 denosdT to Smen- arn
ays dor dads stieset ctf eve ehved ‘adnod? tadt
oad Piten Yast eqmesat “aon eondl
act teach $oat sist ‘xo (Beddtidserés ase
@By Lroger ae? Synod dust reedxgint be 8
aged Kat moe rodt secuetat ‘pay meEmety odF waite
asifeqia es ‘Souesent oe eS Sonodt 4 ngs tesies Yd be
s1OStSHF Feersinl siz ‘tis samme" we sage ot 89 }
aired so. 2) te yores
FS
fosst bie “RES
setae
eS ear
‘
,
bs.)
y
-
w
a
a
‘3
gadht bbe “Wate beet dited Yadt-
4.
eit asutes of yEsT bet off aebtaut: vette
etorre: es age .seeo Sas mt ‘nworte Bic ide
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ls
SECOND DISTRICT. oe
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
I, CHRISTOPHER C. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of : in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and es
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
oe } ; ALOU ' LO"
3 + } 4 * eo a eS) > op ON . a ie r 22
MHI Ha ithe ¥ ea iP) SIAR IOTSIHED of { VTOLTTald anon
afro vals Fe nice Isangs imi: Io shete add do ‘gornterd booos@ hige ro? fi :
ST martes ord lo ape cinta at eninge? oft todd YUTEAO YOUANT OF Ont hosted
with yot at biovss to sao baltitae avedis odd ui 2009 ote
de wilte bin bine vo foe uteiered I AO sta yuosoreaT me
26d eed) i ult otallegg /. bisu oft to fete.
WO Drink vie: $6. sey wl asi a Ans wh
am
e : : - = bow botbapil ais brraieddouh ms ie
aye uw sinttaagt, sAY Yo aus ?
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, ~
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
E
é
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding Justice.
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice. |
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. A) ¢ Aes
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. |
E. M. DAVIS, Sheriff. }
Pe
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
AVG. 1.0 1916 the opinion of the Court was filed in
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
ad
5 taroniiirlI Yo stss3 ed? ta foi
.20ftaptl yarbiraerd
eoilary.
4 _ 2a Sar ee
ane Ga oe : S€ ..e80itact
ir
Jt
,SUABEIM iM BHOL “Aenea
SHAHAG. .C EMAUG .coH
-d@3a10 ZORAAROG: .c0
wvafd ,¥YPEUC .O. SEHGOTST
Tie ae Mf
tp,
he
mic 3 Wrox
got Bslit
asTugil bas ebtrow eft ai
ebyewratis isdt
26W itgod sft Yo nointgo sdit
cumaeumsa TE 2
e#1TU00 Bise Yo
an
‘4
‘= ©
Gen, No. 6293.4
Dumont, Roberts & Company,
Appellec,
“vo Appeal from Peoria.
Alfred L,.MeDougeal, et al,
Appellants
DIBELL, J.
On August 8, 1905, Alfred L. McDougal delivered
his promissory note to Dumont, Roberts & Company, 2 corpora-
tion, for eleven thousand four hundred and sixty dollars, due
one day after date, thet being the amount then found due from
him to them upon a settlement. He paid some interest. On
Novenber 9, 1907, to prevent the payee from st once suing the
note, he executed to the payee an assigmment of his interests
in the estates of his mother and of his father, who were each
then living. The estate of his mother is not involved here.
By that instrument he assigned to the payee of the note " all
interest which may hereafter accrue to me as heir, legatee or
devisee of John IfvDougel." That instrument provided that
may
if the note should not be paid at his father's death, it shoulé
st which/accrue +o me as
then be paid " out of said inte
heir, devisee or legatee of said John MeDougel, wy father."
John McDougal died June 18, 1914, testate, mking certain of
his sons trustees and givine Alfred four species of property;
certain real estate at once; a share of the personal property
to be distributed by the executors after the payment of debts
@ Share in the income of certain real estate to be held in
=
. voottegaa cite tate
- .Sivos® proxt Eseqqh Ld, SORA
og
eins l Leggs
boteviles Legwoten ri SorErA (208 x agp 0-43 : :
-S20TT0o 8 ,yracmed & aduado | eironsr@ od eton yrosaimo at
exh atsh fob yates ine Ses bast rok penne paea te # xa.
sO 8 6.deetetnt omoe bisc of pe aetien: EN
end agive sono de mori seysq ent jneverd oe Toer 4 tod
eteotetni ais ‘to dromrgtase ne coved esi ot bodwoexe: ont
dose ecew ony ,xeritet wid Yo bus seddos ast Xo eedstee oath f
—- s
7
; Bas) nail : ,tiset as on ot sirrsos cottes nett yen pei tae
¥ tant Bebfverc tnemordant ten? " teemotett | cf
; bSsosie Si Mitesh atvoitet efit ds bteq od ton pisos ites
wens
A ac en ot suvoge\doitw teovetmt bie» to do * Skeg od
“,fontiat ya ,Legsotiol ofot Skee to svtagel 60 soatve aa
‘ to Misdtes acitas ,otateot WEL ,8f ennt bets Lagsrodoit ufo’ ee
: iYFtogowy To aSetoo en wrok Hott&lA scivhe tos eeodaurstd artoa
~ BWrecowe, Tasosuicec oct to evade s joonto. ta otintes. teew
ss to txomysy aft tothe arotmoexe odd yd macarbe:
BE fle oo. of sistes Kept mhedveo * enone ort
——
trust till March 1,1915; and an interest in said last mentioned
property in fee on arch 1, 1915, if Alfred was still living.
The debt was not paid, and on June 27, 1914, Dumont, Roberts
& Company filed this bill asainst alfred and against the exe-
cutors and trustees to obtain the payment of the balance due on
said note out of the interests so assigned. Alfred set up as
g defense that the note was without consideration and that the
assignment was obtained by duress. The cause was referre* to
the master to take and report the proofs and his conclusions,
He found in favor of complainant. Defendants filed exceptions
which were overruled, Thereupon, by leave of court, Alfred filed
en amendment to his answer, in which he set up that between the
time of the execution of said assignment and of his father's
death, he filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy and scheduled
this debt, and complainant did not prove it against his estate,
‘
and he was discharged in benkruptey,and thet said assignment was
defeated both by the discharge in bankruptcy end by the fact
that the assismment was void because it was a contingent in-
terest. It does not appear by the abstract that said cause
was again sent to the master, but it is treated as if th
had been proserly heard. There was 2 decree finding the amount
due the complainant to be sixteen thousand three hundred anéd
nineteen dollars and thirty-two cents, and directing the in-
terests of Rdgagq in his father's estate to be sold to wey thi
debt. When the bill was filed not all the interests of Alfred
hed become fixed, but they had 211 accrued before the decree
was rendered. Alfred and the executors and trustees appeal
from said decree,
Setotinem incl Sis
surtvil (Lise ecw SotttA TE ,eLer cat doe 110 88% ak ‘
wox6 Sst duntess fits : aaah demteoe PYid aket “warn &
32 a5 den ee Seay ie 198 08 ateeeotad ‘eat to iso ster
esd vert. de no itesebbertoo troddiw Baw et ort odd taitd obs
: gt Serteter asw oesse of ; siotinleind: Morey oleae.
y samoiuslonoo eit ans aroon oat deog om fitte sxlat of
ano isqooxe BOLE dhohnetod " dieetettqme te ere
ROFES AGHRES .Oeneo DO evar yd [nooweredt” | besintiove Biba:
sat msewted datit qu dee of gotsw nt romana BM of &
bi
e
atredtct gid to Bas Sronigheas cial to’ © notions et ‘to. si
a Be liberos Ans woe ‘it to Mived :
r | ,edatiBe ali
«Sew dnommpteas Sige is epiedon: é
wi Fest ahd yd Bite otc tte bc ott we at
4 gases ise Fane téendads ‘on OL de ndbien
¥ oiaot! ef ¥i ted ,todeen ode ood :
4 donvoma oct skintk getseh oe sar Stent © litee Qeeeqdag t
2 iis Sferhatn sort “Binsasorts nootete od ot ‘Phacréteiiod of
wat oft sfiootib bin Be eo’ owt yr EG veces ‘eHAELOB nv
fextt Yor o¢ Boe ed of dtetdo et eed at eh ok Heat Loe:
SeeZiIA IO adeorvetinit oft ffs fon heft? sew EH oftdmbtho8
herds of? orcred Heiwode ‘Ith Bee yey dan Boadk os
Sheaga woeserre Ane azoitiigns orth Were boutEn wl
ex
<e¢ssam edd tt as
ie ai 8 ae * ¥; ne!
et , ' Wr Peele ie, Nenad
It is the settled law of ths state that ee in ex-
pectancy may be assigned and that the assignment will be en-
forced in equity when it ceases to be an expectancy and becomes
a vested interest. Bonough v Garland, 269 T1ll,. 565; Cummings
v Lohr, 246 Ill. 5773; Bolin v Bolin, 245 Ill. 613; and many
other cases. The fact that a will may make the expectancy
contingent does not defeat this rule. Ridgeway v Underwood,
67 Ill. 419; Hudnall v Ham, 183 Ill. 486. Where the assignor
of such an expectancy is afterwards adjudged a bankrupt, and
is discharged, subsequent enforcement of the lien created by
his assigmment is not barred by his discharge in bankruptcy,
He is not personally liable, but the Lien which equity imposes
upon the property so assiened is not barred by the discharge,
Bridge v Kedon, 163 Cal, 493, 43 L.R.A.(N.S.) 404, and a note
upon that subject in the last namefi report; Citizens Loan
Association vyB&UR.R. 196 Mass, 528, 82 NE. 696: Mallin
v Wenham, 209 Ill. 252; Wabash R.R.Co. v Meyer, 119 Ill. Apo.
104, In Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence this su
discussed in Chapter 7, relatine to Equitable Liens, and in
Seetion 3 of Chapter 8, relating to the assignment of pos-
]
sibilities, expectancies and property to be acquired in the
¢
future. There are authorities in other states holding dif-
ferently on this subject, but we regard Mellin v Wenham,supra,
as decisive that the decree of the court below is in accord-
ance with the law prevailing in this state.
Tne decres is therefore affirmed.
Niehaus, P.J.,took no part.
ate mE dodedds Fad? ofete add 26 wal’ gh ey edit BL
mo ad iftw? TOMMGLERS eat feat” bas sirakaes a bee
Gewdhod fae Yori seqxe- fis ‘od oT gonseo “st
enitiiae) ado IT Cae eared ¢ ‘dgrox0d
quent bets GEL . LET Whe jabror ¥ ntfoe “We wnt .
4
ote
yorstoscxe ont ofa year ti bw e det "Pook edt
v4 ors Be
veoh bot
ioe. re D,
Soowretind ¥ yewesbit solves abit Seoked p=
womeioge Sud exsuiy 588 Ltt eer msEl v Eesha ers
Bes ghoswined ¢ Bosbsibe esuanedtts al wonstoocx>:
yd Botsets Nett aift “to dnetseorotesie treupeadua
oe eee Bie
sYooqrmingd Mi eptatoa if: wir we Bread ‘tom at dumasrgts
WRG Mee oh a) Sr
gexoqnk qWirpoe doitw weft oat dod olsatt ere oS ton,
‘ rors ire pase ian Paya: 2
= s@e@tetiog? 5 srit yd Borrad + bie ‘wt ‘Bony taae 08 ‘Yiteqote 2.
vegies Al Faeeer
Stora faa BOK ( (.8.0).4. fet ea eek .fe9 Bal nobel ~
. rae ee) '
is Pt Ruy 5 Sei Be
Ntod- ates itso serodek’ Pea ‘Yaer ont mt too bdoe
i Waren” cae and ated
whilst 7503 Wasi SB 888 | a: seen “3er ‘2.8 fie cy moi Pati
—
=A)
; Obed ‘try € fees
\ Gk WLIT REE puoyow v 6040.8 £ HasdaW see 1 eg |
a Yhint at toot dre oti? > e oto bareqantet Gi ie atyoreno nt
: rar ‘< ae se) a
Mi bia oneal Sided tops ot: schielon v ‘reba mi bea
3 “ aie or eo ‘sd
adoq to Fronmigiave os o¢ sitttates “3 Setehan to. & "
oes Gaeta Dos ard ®
a @ity mi hatinpss od oF washecouar Bes 29 Lome? oeqxo ‘ it
i #65 MkROLOR soteds vadte ick Bot voiture :
Stare sine + KEL Hee et ow urd root dem,
-fiooos mi et woteu susros oct *o g0R005. anit men
ay
aia eB LD eras get gabE bowen, Ww
York the
Sees EEE ey) “albino oa ae. eres oct
STATE OF ILLINOIS, }
SECOND DISTRICT. \
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
a I. CHRISTOPHER C. DuFFy, Clerk of the Appellate
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony WHeEREoP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of_ : = in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and ————_______
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
(
rs hy to ted o¢ — a) PaATIOTE AE oT {
Slt Vast it nae le dena poititas’ ave
; od Zits bog towed pus toe otoieed 1 yamaha ve YOM Peat
. AGS iO te ort50 onellone & bine odd to ne
HHO ba] a ~ to eb
tinh je (no% sd oerg,
om
_ Bue te orig orvins butniatods
ae
— |
f i % .
we .
é
é Z
2 é
Fs Z
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Justice,
Present--The Hon. JOHN M. NIEHAUS, Presiding
Hon. DUANE J. CARNES, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
:
CHRISTOPHER C. DUFFY, Clerk. DAA TA FOO
Sheriff.
tee MM. DAVIS.,
MA py |
TH.
Peavy
ee ee
’ UC Pansy 9
|
|
|
|
1]
|
|
|
FORE TY:»,
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
the opinion of the Court was filed in
AUG 1 0 1916
the Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures
following; to-wit:
_ hi A iy Nis
ta ©
~fitaqd to ysb ditoot odt ,ysbesuT ao awetto on bt. f
,asaixte bos bestbeud sania bassuodt sao brow 1uo 40 naoy 3d
* \
sionmifiIl to siste
wa
Hy) te totrserd bnoos8 age tot bas a
a s9ifaul ‘enibtsard ,QUAHUTW .M ae 30H adit = ae
-aeiieul ,2RMGAD M @UAUC . ook
sortenh. phinaid TOMUAGAOG éa08 ed ae
Gok 3 » £4 pp okye to /yETUGa .D ABHIOTETARO
| 4 | ivad@ .@IVAG .M 2
to 2.09 Ci suse iis tedd
r Bort? egw dTHo79 sat 1 agtaige odd
297uSti boas ebrow ond a
?
Gen, No. 65035,
Charles E, Farrell,
Administrator, etc.,
Appellee,
-Vs- Appeal from Peoria.
Reuben Bruce,»
Appellant,
DIBELL, J.
John Farrell lived in Peoria and owned his home 2né
the household furniture therein and other real estate, and.
held some certificates of deposit issued by the First National
Benk of Peoria, and hed these and other papers in a box in the
safety deposit yaukts of that bank. He had had several wives
who iad been diverced from him, He had four children, all
grown, but was very seriously estranged from them, His last
wife was not the mother of his children, When she procured
her divoree from him in 1909, shs resumed her former name
of Margtta., He had long had the intention that none of his
children. shovld receive any of his property. In 1912, when
he was about eighty years 01d, he became seriously ill and
feared that this would be his last illness, lirs, Maratta came
to him, became his housekeeper, and took care of him till he
died. He had formed the opinion that e will wes much move
likely to be contested and defeated then direct gifts in the
lifetime of the donor, On Septe-ber 14, 1918, he sent for
deed
9
friends, including a justice of the peace, and had
of the homestead prepared, conveying a life estate for her
life to Mrs,lieratta, with a remainter to Reuben Bruce as
mais
eS CKQS % < prow: Leos
seviw Laxevon Sat Sed of chal oat x0
ffm ,petbhlino wot fad oF
eel eiE amet mont Seanerteas aniedaall eer aew tod <i :
fetmecrg ere sedi Werhfivo ekt Le sodton axis don ath etiw a
ae OTe
ome temtot tol bemrmox one ,COCE ak mid most oorovih
Sa ae
aif 20 omor dadd mottnedns oft Bod gaol Bet oft “sohtonatt to :
moms ,Si€L mI sWwrorote sid ho ges ovitooet - Btwosta
firs ILE zE rroe ansoed ed ,6fo axeey whilg.to trode ‘aa a e
OMBS Alden wt pool? deal ett od birow eidd desit Soret
or ELléd mil to exweo alood PB yg ‘<coqoonl amrod ats emeoed tit of
oom domy aaw (fir « jadt soimiqo ond Bomrot hed of |
ont ME adie voorth mars jetected Bue Betaotnos od ot
“ot duoe of .@Ler ,AC xod ott: m2 stomob ort to. omer,
63 $8 ul bah paose: alt To eeltenh 2 gatbetonk » sabne a y
‘et Sel ciate lil 2 gabjevdos 4 hemegomg: hoot want
ats
Regie of tetra lees © ete Bhies
5 agg
Cat
trustee " to build an old man's home,” Imthe deed Farrell
reserved 2 Life estate to himself, He executed that deed
and delivered it to irs, liaratta. He caused to be prepared
a deed to Rueben Bruce of other real estate owned by hin,
reserving a life estate to himself, and executed that deed
and delivered it to Bruce. Ho caused a bill of scale of the
household furniture #fom himcelt to lirs,laratta to be pro-
pared, and reserved therein a life estate to himselZ, and
executed that bill of sale and delivered it to \vs.leretta,
He sent two-of his friends to the benk to procure his box
there, and sent with them an order directing the bank to
deliver thet box to them. Whon they reached the bank thoy
did not have the key without which 1t could not be obtained,
They went back and he gave thenthe key and they retuned
and brought the box to him. The certificates of deposit
were taken out, snd vy [nis direetion one of his friends
began writing on the back assignments to Reuben Bruce and
‘he began signing his nane to those assignments. He was in
bed,and when @ paper wes ready for him to sign he was
propped up in bed with 2 book,placed on his kmees upon which
he did the signing. sin ale tired and only partly wrote
his sicnature on the fifth certificate, of which certifi-
eates there were twenty-five in all. An attendant sug~
gested that he leave the sisning of the rest
day, ond he handed to Bruce the five which he had/signed ond
*
. ” 4.
hiss debts
“
told him with them to poy his funeral expens:s and
and the rest should be his, snd told the a out he wished psid
on one debt, whieh he did not wish paid in fll as he con-
sidered that the amount charged him was not inst. He handed
Pw
[ferrel Seah otel “omer a"sen bio es AEEsd oo 3
fesh ted ‘etwosxe ef Tisamis of otatee “StiE 2
G fetagext od o¢ Beaves oh .addamstias of tf bosevitoh
quis yd bomwo stcts so Iso rerio ke eonredl nodonf oF |
beab tans hotwvexs fem ,TLloambd e7 oF otatde oRA0 a at es :
eit to els: to Lffd s Bouts of sous of $2 hesovtts
~orc sd oF athens.’ ot IL goumkel MOkk o J Loses:
fiia ,xfesmict of states exe & Es sede daveeane bie bss
satdereviexl of $4 fecovifoi Das ofee to Iikd dad “bods
xwod aic stweotq o¢ dacd add of etree kerk abst ro Es
| od ined och gicttberks tobto a8 eat at Br ‘thes bre 4
. weds riged.end boctombe yortd mei’ * sted od “ged Rare |
sbondetdo of dos Biles: or eaten Sin SEE “Seat You |
» Semmtox yertt dus yest ottnd dt over out ‘Tice! oP hg dicow
disoned. Xo eetuslt tices wit “tit Sa
aon od Sie od whet ro® aah ope | bie ms .
Hoists wogs goerct ety! mo feoofe stood “e vedi S8 oo GP les
etowm Eltisq yh Bim bectt ae Bra el Eh
wtitsco dott to yovorrt tines AA exit @ ERS a
“gra. Jooinetic ah ITs nt evita a .
<adbne a sasy ett! to ancheebe edt esa” sane bs 5
ox
leet Bodine \ Gait od ctoditw. ene Sie eau 08 Sonat it Bis
bag pedein on coo oft Ofot Dae ,abt of = feat
$00 ol ew fit. mio hie moby Por oes” elinncey
bebrati ot) Joa ton anccmad Beste: 1cthedae
was reversed by this court in Perrell v Bruce, 190 [ll.App.
309 for the reasons ther: stated. Unon a second trial tho.
administrator hed a verdict and a judsment for $2,119.88,
-
from which Bruce prosecutes this aopeal.
As incidental to the main controversy, appellant
contenis thet this action cannot be main ained both because
t rover does not survive ond because appollese eashed the
eertificates in the lifetime of John Farrell. We conclude
that if appellant wrongfully obtained these certificates
oe
and converted them to his own MEO trover would lie in the
name of J ,hn Parrell, and that that action survives to his
administrator under section One iiyndred and Tventyethrec of
the Administration sct, which provides th t actions for the
conversion of porsonal »roperty shall survive. The fact
that appellee caused thom to be cashed would not have do
feated an action of trover by John Ferrell, because it would
only prove that appellec had converted them to his own use.
”
Therefore, that fact would not defeat his administrator.
,
The proof is conclusive that John Farrell did assign
these certificates in the manner described and dcliver
them to Bruce and that Bruce kept them. ‘Thoir possession
2
peo n
by Bruce was evidence tendins to show that they had
duly end lawfully delivered to him and that he owned them.
The authorities upon this subject were collected by us in
O'Connor v Messenzer, 185 Ill. Anne le Appellee's con-
~
)
)
tention was and is that on Sentember 14th and 19th John
Farrell was mentally incomvetent to transact the busines
SEGA. ffi GOL , soonest y Thoteet at drives whit a boazever
om, -OSS. Lore? Suogse's mood botatea baripryint se
_— idem PP Tok: Tusa hel ss Sat ithe? 8
>
B+ A
Ls pia si ; par are ary
c) < 3 B?
5 Pn) ¥ i) eee ( eae ry
foaileags orci nim
oe
‘
:
h
shaskonco. OW “Eteract + sa moa vs
eel teed ‘Seta ‘verre tomes xo a 10
“oh ovsé tos Sige balage. 9 ik Os atest Sees. |
Boor ol smrnaced _ilertst BR ae ua) TOT ORS te OLS 5,
sORL Ic ois ot sroats bog rong Hans oeiRoqan tadt Y OVOME A
tod erdaimie: Se eit dooteh ton stereo — as. aie
“age. 1’ aol Lezak
MGR MIRE Brie MRL vedstodqar sto faa’ a Pt
S@ethasd silt TORT ot al alas ‘itetans 8
of transferring these certificates to appellant. The burden
of proof was upon appellce to show that condition. Waters
v Waters, 222 Ill. 263 Dickerhoof v Wood, 267 I11. 503; ‘he
proof did show that John Farrell was hateful, bitter towards
his children and profane. There is no proof thet he was
acting under any insane delusion. ‘The harshness of his senti-
ments ani his pafanity were not srounis for setting aside
his disposition of his property. Snell Bb Weldon, 239 111.279,
We mask find in this record a very strong preponderance of
the evidence that John Farrell on September 14 an? 19,1912,
was in the full possession of his mental faculties, was en-
tirely competentto transact the business in which he was ten
engaged, and was doing what he had long before plemned to do-
nonely, to dispose of his property to the exclusion of his
children. Probably the jury were actuated by a Feeling that
he ought not to have done this, But this was his property,
and if he had sufficient ental capacity he
=
had the legal richt
to give it to others than his childven,+Dickerhoof v
SUPLSe Anmf& for aught that we can Imow he may have been
~
os
justified in doing so. But whether he was justified or not
is immaterial. Appellee contents that the verdicts of two
juries for him should be conclusive upon us. The duty of
appellate courts to set aside a verdict that is cloarly a-
cat *
gainst the weight of the evid.
*
t
nee has been neny times an-
‘nouneed by our suprome court, ( Chicaso City Ry.Co.v Mead,
206 Ill. 174) Here the burden vas upon appellee, but the
y
clear preponderance of the evidence seems to us to
be wit
ie
ate
oh eit icalloage.o¢ valoobteitens ogodit sk cro Lans’
; PUN Ale diaye an its
mod aie. yee cat Pai wos C are poe han
aie rains ts am “a i
K ey aves, Tener actors ; Rey"
ebrawnd ‘<odtd _tifktiad a ot
aaw ac dat Hoots “On Bk ‘omit
~itnou aint to neendaiad one:
odtes galttoa cok neon ie
sQVS LIT GER esi BLE € front”
to commrehmor oxi gconha: yer an Ont iL Soe
szter, ef ‘ban BF sadn tgoe ait: ieee aot + tot a by
“05 ast cob tion Eston wid ‘to
cord paw oi deters ni Seon Bele ‘ene toean ot ote
-oh of Becinate exoted atef Bad ea: Fisterie mitioh aew brs, .hoasyate
Gin te mokattoxs ond co yhegety eae ri
touvlt putlost 2 yd Sotcrtos otew eee orl} Yldedoxs > afte
wihteqo aid gay Bide dee jet Smen “event od tox Sgn oat
tinke feget out bat ot ytbsaces Laie ‘tm ottiee bedded. gst:
.DooW ¥ Tooltofoke4,nocb tity wht nematih azedto. Sfatdremtanet
Steed oven Yau oad wont nog Bw tautt becpge! iat ih ora
fons Lefiitexnt saw on cout 9 ri dot 08 atone Boxateot
owe to atobitor ond Perth 2 ietedsrge ‘obiTeqga “sTabrod eam at
To Wah esr oak mos oiykiae form ® ed biroste mks or atest
“8 Glcnolo tlidadd tosicay :s. bins doa ot “adswoo 93 :
AGO gon? Yer noe? act pore hive out xe Hestiy ‘i ie |
fn hes a ae } beh Ae bey aon
ABBE Ve Ode Gl CLD org oh. | wgu0o bith Sha
. Sane Rabe y
RD Sed 4 salLeurs. cogs As siete oat oxo es
- De) Pe ae
Ee Od OP EO goroon ootiebire oad te peamee
er ae! Boat Feat
oe
appellant. Appellant's witnesses did not state every dotail
of the transaction exactly alike. The
cr
@
a
cr
™)
g
ch
ES
fo)
ey
2 & sve
on the citation in the probate court did uot always corre=
spond precisely with their testinony at this trial. p>
pelloe arsues from this that the while story is unt ue and
was framed up by these witnesses to deprive the lewful heirs
of their father's estate. If there ha@ been absolute harnony
between the several witnesses and in the testimony of cach
at different occasions, yars apert, this would be much
stronger eviden:e of collusion ond s manufoctured story.
After all the eriticisms upon this evidence are considered,
we are of the opinion thet it is still clear that the pre-
ponderance of the evidence is with the ancellent and tht the
verdidt shovld heve been for him. We concluée the issucs
should be submitted to another jury.
We find no reversible orror in the instructions given
at the requost of appellee. The fifth instruction, given
at. the request of apneliant, is defective because of an
omission near its close. Soke of the refuscdinstructions
are sufliciently embodied in those which were given.
Several instructions, though otherwise correct, were improper
because they omitted the vital que tion whether the deceased
had sufficient mental espn city to transact the business in
which he was then enzased. Other instructions were proverly
refused. Tho modifications of a» ellant's instructions
were proper. We find no reversible error in the rulings
of the court woon the instructions on which error is as-
nae
avin Kedt agro. shtand Gat: ase .
| sormge syorte hort bb dekeo © odio:
“fei! oitit.gs napa “se
Sets oxinwr ah pede edGaate betel
F entod Lfvtral «std. Brbeaes of.
Hose. 30 qhonttead “oslo ek Gate: ines
sone od ae ad ee exe eamttoase
} Mae tee
be
“OR xe + tas pean
ore t we hog tee ileces. oft aieauioneatasi
goresl elt ofnfomes oT
el ee
ee 0)
7. we
4 ie
bs nevis and Bored anci pyre aut norte os
P rovis «moRsoirsteci he oni i sesttoces & |
7 He Yo oauessd evdioo | ag Be aan J Ret bat
| motor ankioasier ods ® oHloe “eee LD at,
; erin oto dolow ceorld fk fo. khodie :
a Tocotimé atey .dsornds be bortedto. Spavorts stato de areyen
; ; is : : A a oe Mi
beesoneh odd tadiorw Koktiesp Deady oat Dott tag, k
| ae Uree | c
Gt seeming! edd tosnnetd: 02 ‘ite aqnt Lote | dgets.
: i . Ae
Whose eter sito td ue tart: wold © erent. stot sow
: ey 7, ,
BOS iosts at! at fea S Loi be! doit: sththor Sai | ae
" ii y bie ; 4
Beatie: os ek cave: % fu hevnoro vn See ow
mie ait weemea hy ted ve si Hoa ne eat
signed.
For the reasons above stated the judgement is reversed
and the cause remanded.
ond sen
4, as pst
OA Ok
rai Me ‘oe
gPTAGR a Be 744 2 nai nee: “get
| i Bet oo eo Ke athe ee
aS PY Ride, NES, a PS alae ke act
PW SEGAPS RE ARSE hs nt apa apap he oe biwes ;
i ee ee a
vet A
STATE OF ILLINOIS, Iss
SECOND DISTRICT. as I. CHRISTOPHER ©. Durry, Clerk of the Appellate
Court, in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records
and Seal thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TrestiMoNY WHEREOP, I hereunto set my hand and affix the
seal of the said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this
day of in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and_— _ = _
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
Fs hiv
St 7‘
Se uke
‘a eed é ;
ri os oy 4 ¢ ‘
4 We _ : i ie
¥ A = <
- v : = be oe me
; ber Sa
aay 7
by ee tel, <5
a 5 i
7 > :
“ - al
re ~ 4
>
~
; me
_
> : = *,
i
4
BS
ia
R:
2 | SIOMLIII 90 OTA
“Bolloqyd ade te shrok>y vada |) amaerersy) po ee |. worsrera avon
histel euld Yo Jniadaia bsmose bise ‘of eos:
oni ai ded vary AG YAQtwH on Joowesld
seffto yer of bios to cece boltitas svi sd? gi 11 nOr os
SAT xf Deen his! tes Joe otmporod { oars We" YuOMITeT ui
HO 38 p10 odgl hoe A flan at To [gee
SUG Ott awi tu tray ot tT
sniaseH ahi to qods! bits wadosif{l vi
POI 20 nOtisiet st Hs Vigo 908d 6 ai unious
Srds Ay
To yeb. Ie
. = ben borhan! sain biisenodt
=e — : ‘ ;
> :
a
Pree Y AGiiscc, sAvXc Accs
Oetober Term, A.D. 1911. Agenda Number O1:
Defendant fin “rror,) “rit of “rror
to the
Cireuit Court
) of
Tazewell County.
)
\
/
"rrore
ELDRTDGE, P.J.
2001.4. 600
ek E Plaintiff in error sued out this writ of error from this
coe the Cireuit Court of eveil Caunty for the purpore
of having 2 judgzent in the a. court against him and in
: fevor of defendant in error reversed.
Plaintiff in error hee filed a pnlea in this cause tn this
_seurt which avers, in substance, that the judguent in the cir-
quit court was entered on the seas tah of 3 Jareh, ta auae
oe ik (ak ng that Axa Judeydat wae arene an action of
replevin brought by defendant in error againet the nlsintiff in
error; that the declaration alro contained a count in trover
and that the property sought to be replevied ware not levied on
under the rit of replevin; that said judgment was entered in favor
of defenda%t in error and against plaintiff in error for the sum
of °©200.60 and coete of suit; that on the same day on vh ch said
judgsent wae entered plaintiff in error srayed and wae rzanted
an appeal to thie court conditioned upon the plaintiff in error
filing his «ppeal bond in the penal sum of 500.00 with surety
to be . er by the clerk of said circuit court; said srreal
bond, together with Paty Le am of exeeptions, to be filed in 20
days from the paid day of ‘arch, 1911;
that an appeal bond was duly filed by plxintiff in error on
the first day of April, 1911, and was on the enme day aooreved
by the clerk of said court; that defendant at the ay term,
A.D-1911, of this court, made its motion to have the judgzent
of the circuit court affirsed, together with damages, beeauss
said appesi sad mot been prosecuted nor an authenticated cony
of the record filed in this court within the time required by
law; that c&id judgement of said cireuit court was, on the
17th day of June, AeSelG11, the sane being one of the resular
Gays of the Yay Yerm, 4.D. 19121, of thie court, affirued by
this court with 10 po>r cent,damages; that said “ay Ferm, A.J.
1911, adjourned to court in course on the 20th day of June,
AeDe 1911; thet no motion for rehearing was filed by the
plaintiff in errer in that apreal, nor war 2 certificate of
importance prayed “or by, nor akveced to, plaintiff in errer,
nor was leave given to t=ke an appeal from said judgement of
affirmance so entered by this court; that the 10 p=? cerit.,
damages so asseresed against plsintiff fn error by this court,
| have been paid by him to defendant in errer; that the pending
' petition for writ of error wee not filed by the plaintiff in
| error until the 27th aay of duly, AD. 1911, that eaid judg-
(nent of affirmance, se entered by thie court at esid “ay tera,
| he eDel911, is etill unreversed and in full foree andeffect.
To mid piainere in error has filed his replicaticn
which avers, in substance, that the said suppored judgement of
affirmance was and ie the only judgement of affirmance that
was ever entered at any time in said cause, and was not 2
judgment of affirmanece upon the merits of said cruse; that
: fod on
-3<
Meone of the records, nor any part thereof, nor any transcript
of the record, or any part thereof, nor any of the merits
whatever of said cause in the cireuit court was on file with,
or presented to, or before thie court in any manner or form
at or before the time of said-judgment of affirmance, and at
no time prior to the 20th day of July, Ae. 1911; nor at any
time prior to more than 20 days before the last day of the
Yay Term, 4.D.-1911, of this court was there s record, ae is
required by law, on file in the office of the clerk of the
Sireuit court frem which a true and complete transcript of
the record in esid above entitled cause could have been made,
as reqghired by law, to be filed in the office of the clierk
of thie court, or in any manner ar form presented to this
court, as required by law or by the rules of thie court;
nor wae there any such record written up from the minuters
or any other memorandum of either the trial judge or clerk
of said cireuit court and on file in tne office of said
circuit clerk, or at any, place at any time prior to the
20th day of July, A-5. 1911, and that the lack of said record
of eaid cause and te tranecript thereof wae not brought
about by the orocurenent, consent or connivance of either
the plaintiff in error or his enid attorney, nor sny one else
pat hie or their instance, end that none of the nerite of said
| cause was ever at any tide or place presented thereof to this
‘court for consideration until the suing out of the present
Via of error; that the ssid judgment of affirmance by this
“court was an affirmance for want of prosecution only and not
(upon the aerits, and that there was never at any time prior
| thereto any opportunity to oresent said merits of the said
{ cause to said court, etce
whe
te this replication the defendant in error has demurred.
\She Judeeent of affirzmance of thir court upon the acveal wae
that the judgment of said circuit court be affirmed in all
thinge and stand in full force and effect notwithetandine the
eaid <atteres and things therein sesicned for error. “here
ie no rule of lew better settled than spreale and write of
error to review judgents cannot be proeecuted by piece seal,
rae and tist when an sppeal or writ of eevee is prosecuted the
figment thereon is res adjudicata mot only ae to 11 the
errors assigned, but ae to ell the errore that might have been
assigned. (Paldwin ve “enecy, 204 i]3. 251) And thie ie true
whether the judsment wae affirsed upen the netteyor fer other
Fearnone. ‘Sor can the effeet of a judemmnt se ree 2djudiecata
"be affected by showing that though an appeal wae atteanted to
“be taken the judgment was sfTirsed without sonsideriaz the
“eauee on iis merits, becaure of the abrpence of 2 sufficient
“‘agesignment of errore, or some other defeet in the spvellate
“preceedings.* i *reesan on Judgments, “ec. 249. his
question was very ably coneid-red in the case of “sliey ve
People, i828 111. App. 76. then the apseal bend «2s filed vith
the clerk of the circuit court and approved, the ar:neal in
thie cause was perfected and the ciresit court lost =11 juris-
diction over the sane. sudgwent in this court on thet appeal
affirsed the judgment of the Cireuit Ceurt, nd an anomalous
ay situation would be srerented to hold that this court, having
once affirmed the judgment of the circuit court upon an a>-eal,
ean agein review the same judgment and reverse it upen a vrit of
Circuit court, and cannot be varied, exolsined or
errore “he judgment of affireanece of this comrt on the apreal
| purported to be a final judgment affirming the judesment of the
a
—
Se a
f
\
\
a
contradicted by parole. v.87 .L.& P.RY.CO.vs Peterson, 115
Ill. 597. In the case of Salley vs Feople, Supra,it was
held:- "The effect of this writ of error, if sustained,
“would be to cause us to review the same judgment, which
“upon the former appeal we affirmed and directed that it
*should stand in full foree and effect, notwithstanding
"the said »atters and things assicned for error. it seems
"to us clear thet we fave not the power to do this, and
"that plaintiff in error cdnnot compel defendant in error
"to defend the judgment of the court below twice in this
*sourt under these circu stances.”
The demurrer to the replication is sustained and
the writ of error is tierefore quasied at the ecorts of
plaintiff in error.
carci rN
leaky hares ik fe 4 Sf oe ae
Number 6295
April term. A.D 1915 Ag. I
ae Croation Sodiety of the)
. United St°tes of\ America
Appeal from
Appellee Circuit Court
\ Logan County
Vse \
Mary Pavlie Appellee
Jurs vavlic . \
Veronika vavlic Spaeniant,
2001.A.601
ee Se pete ditmatibeastt ibeattinass eee eee
ELDREDGE. P.J.
| Brestntr vavite was accidentally killed February 22,
1913. The deceased died without issue, leaving only his widow,
Paicy Pavlic, @prettes. At the time of his death he held a certificate
of life insurance for the sum of 5650.00 in the National Croation
“eciety of the United States of America. This certificate was issued
to him November 14,1907, and the beneficiaries named therein were
his father and mother, Jurs and Veronika Pavlic respectively. At
this time he was living at Jerome, Arizona. He subsecuertly left
| Jerome,went to Farmington, Illinois, and associated himseif with the ©
ledge of seid Society located at that piace. When he departed from
Jerome he left his certificate with the Jerome lodge, though he paid
| all dues and assessments levied by virtue thereof under the laws of
| said Society, and was at the tise of his death 2 mmber in good stond-
Pine. At the time the certificate was issued ts him he was unmarriedy
dpe do ng Parvtte
but on November 28,1312, he married appeties.
On February 4, 1913, he wrot* to the lodge »t Jerome aske a
SES :
=
id his certificate because he wanted te change the benefic-
wrote a letter to the Secretary of the lodge at Farmington, Illinois
nich contained the following instructions: <
"At the same tine I beg you, dear Hrother, to chonge the
sbeneficiaries to my wife, Marija. I do not hove a certifiecste; it
, is somewhere at Lodge 138, Jerome, Arizona. Therefore, write to the
'® National Croation Society that it is there and let them find it*.
Q far as appears from the record the certificate was never sent to
him, nor to the lodge at Farmington, snd the change in the beneficisries
as never actually made in the certificate,
On August 18,1913, aaectree Mary Pavlic, widow of the
insured, brought an action in assumpsit against the society to recover
ins amount nemed in the certificsrte, and the society by leave of court
Sixes a bill of interpleader making Mary, jars and Veronika Pavlic
parties defendant thereto, An affidavit of noneresidence as to Jjurs
and Veronika vavlic having been filed, notices of the pendency of the
] .
suit were duly published in a newspaper snd mailed to Jurs and Veronika
Pavilie at their place of residence, No. 7 Banovino Street, Lie,
Croation County, Austria, in accord=nce with the statute.
On Way 26 1914, the defendants to the bill of interpleaded-7
Jurs and Veronika Pavlic, having failed to enter an appesrance or plead }
a
TESS ee
seid bill, were defaulted and the cause was referred to the master in
ery to teke the proofs anc resort his conclusions as to the law aia
facts. un sune 25, igi4, after the saster had heard the procfs ond
announced his conslusious, the defendants, Jurs snd Veronika Pavlic, by
ir attorney in fact, Charles i’avlic, their son, 2nd a brother of the
eased, entered their motion to vacate the order of defsult ond refere
C and for leave to file and answer to the bill. This motion was overe
the ceriificste to agsetter, Mary vavlic, =
(Only hes-epretteh—
The decree te-sought to be reversed on two grounday Pirst,
that the Court erred in refusins to set ssidce ihe order of default snd
.
reference and to allow apsellant to file and answer to the bill; and,
second, that under the constitution of the cociety and the terms of the
certificnte the chenge in the beneficiaries wis never consumncted,
The sotion to set aside tie default was sup .orted by an
affidavit made by Charles Pavlic, a6 attorney in fset for Jurs and
Veronida raviic, in which he stated that he leamned of the institution
ef this suit Kay 20, i914, when he wrote to his parents in regurd thereto
and that they replied by letter directing him to engnce an attorney to
look after their intereats, snd that on June 15, ivi4, ne employed an
7
“attorney for that purpose.
Wie ‘ AS
| On August 25, 1913, Loa cea Pavli¢giad execut-
A
a power of attorney to ssid Charles Pavlie authorizing the latter to
esent him in 211 legal matters, to aeiiees any money 2nd take all
sessary steys in regard to his deceased son, Kresimir Pavlic, to re-
present him before any court or outside of court, to sitert my kina of
proceedings, to accept sumions, to take any verbal or written etions,
to d£sist from actions » tomake settlements, to accept and to lowfully
receipt for all money or moneys , amd to perfors everything whatsoever
‘that might be necessary according to his opinion. |shween—the seth
hhe_firet heard of the institutiod_of this—cuit,—le—hed-had—this ower of
autho : ——— answer-the bili. The
default was not taken until May 26, 2 week after he nad learned of the
f
institution of the suit, but he waited until June 23, over > month after
he had knowledge of the sit before he took any steps in court te re-
i
present the interests of the ppéllant, Aspvellant himself made no af-
fidavit denying thet he had retei ed thenotice moiled to him by the clerk,
f
/
fhe affidavit was net suffifient eibner te show that appeliant did not
receive the no tice moiled jn secordance With lsv, or that his attorney
in fact acted with dilige ce.
However, from the view we t2ke of this case appellant has
——P#Fnwead an hewa hy the action of the Court in refus
ng to set aside
A Ree eee
, could do to have his w made the beneficiary in his certificate.
e only section of the costitution governing the chehge in beneficisries
ip as follows;
"CHANGE OF BEQUZST*
A member may change his beneficiary te whom he hes willed
yh. s death benefit. He can change same by a written notice or testament
- in a legal manner approved by 3 Notary Public or other competent -
‘authority and duly signed by the BubeAssembly's President snd Recording
®Secretary and stamped with the seal of the sub-Asanib ly.
- westaments or written notices of change in death benefits
. =
“shall not be noticed if not put in the general book and on the certificat@
The only part of this provision that is of much weight is the
first sentence. “hat little mesning may attach to what follows can
eertainly be but directory end not mandstory. The censtitution gzve him
the right to ae beneficiary. Re did everything he could do to make
the change 2nd we think the devree is right in holding that, in law, such
change had been made. Fraternal Tribunes vs Teutsch, 170 I11.App.47.
The deeree will be affirmed.
Er. ica
pasts
fi CaN Ch ark,
SA Soret
Asenda Humber 4
re6343. April Term A.D. 191
can
See ‘i
iad -
Pleintif¢e tin \Srror
© People of the State of illinois, } Wdit of Error te the :
e } Cognty Court of a
Defendant fin Srror } MéLean County.
Tees" )
Charles L, Johnson ‘ )
2 }
)
200 I1.A. 603
< Brhe defendant was convicted of selling intoxicating licuer
te in the City of Eléomington, the same being
in Violation of the sts
a i- salon territery,. unde mly called the ioeest Sstion Act
=
entitled- * an Act to Provide fo i@ Crention by Popular Yyete of Anti-
Lee
intoxicating i%euor and the
oon ierritory, <ithin Whie ‘
censing of «uch “ele Sh9il be frohibited snd Yer the Abolition by Like
leans of Territory ~o Created. “ in force Jaly W, 190%. 4
i]
Aas j
There <> ample evidence thatthe sold ¢ molt Llicuer contain-
; We
various percentages af alcohol called “temp bres* it t2-sasneeth
contended thet the ~ourt erred in civing certein instructions on beholé
0: thePeople, which in substance told the jury t42i the whjdae “intoxicate
r ek n
Es¥) cy ‘ciate Anelade all distilled, spirituous, vinous, fermeyted sand malt
ore preereines ef whether seid licuors would, a8 2 matter of fnct,
~
roduce intoxication, ihe DS eng offered severn) instructions,
A
hich were refused by the court, siating in substance, that the burden wie
the prosecution to prove beyond 211 reasonable doubt that he sold
ASE
or whieh wae, in fect, intoxicating, 2nd the refussl to give them 2
4 IES a |
SS Sy 1, re ee ae ;
=...
age
bal .
\
ie)
,
. ar th i” a ith |
ie eee
Section I7 of theStatute provided: ~ "In all prosecutions under
act, by indictment or otherwise, it shall not be necess2ry to state
a kind of touor sold." the Statute itself defines intoxicating licuor
Section x. is follows:- " intoxicating liquor shall include 111 dise
lied, aspiritiucus, vinous, fermented ond malt licuors." That the legise
ure had a right to declare malt licuor to be an intoxicating licuor
spective of ite intoxicating character is well extsblished, State of z
Hine V¥V. Fredrickson, I0I le.37; State v Guness, 16 K.I, 401;. Commonwealth
ee i eet do bln y22, birt: el Ctl, 77
7 uae
Anthis, 12 Gray( Vass.)29; Comsonwe2lth v Breesford, I61 vags .61
vertain Intoxicating Liquors, 76 Ia. 243; State v. ¥oodsworth, 30 “onn.
Youglas v. State, Ind, App. 302. in the case of Comsonwealth ¥. Snow
Mass $75, it was held proper to refuse an instruction thet the gury
ist find from the evidence that the lager beer sold was intoxiecsting where
statute declared that it should be ceasidered such; and thet there was
duty imposed on the State to prove that it was intoxicating. That the
fendant was guilty of selling intoxicating licwor within the neaning of
e statute there cen be no question.
the other error relied upon isthe eclsim that the witness,
A.W. Homberger, chemist of Jeslyan coer c was permitted to testify
to what was the legal definition of intoxicating licuor. de have exe
the evidence given by this witness as shown by the bill of exception
are of the opinion that this contention cannot be sustained.
A ary
The judgment must therefore be affirmed.
— ————
oes
ze
ies
“s
o ee
~
|
i‘
Al
General Nuaber 6355 April Term, A. D. 1915 Agende Humber 10.
ERROR TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF
Plsantifte : | 20 0 1 A. G69 4
ELDPEDFET P. J.
@ plaintiffs in er were convicts’ upon an indictment containing -
vs
2
The Town of Decatur, by 2 vote of ths people on the 7th. day of April
A.D.1918 became dry territory. The evidence gor the A PRE Sere that
the defendsests, whe had been in the salcon business before the town became dry
territery, continued to run their dram shop in the City of Decatur within said
town openly for a lone period ef time thereafter. The defendants did not testify
themeslves, nor offer any evidence, and made ne defense whatever. The Court im-
posed the minimum fine and the minimum jail sentence under each count e«gainst each
Aart
a defendant, and tw ES areed that the aggregate punishment © excessivs. Ike
ty for viclatiom ef the set is fixed by etatute, raich this court has no
“a. ie
my
ria
4
pean
rf
sutherity tt changes
Sone-eritic! m is made of the-fom .f the-judemont) E aie ring
judgment the Court erdersd and adjudpsd, Im substance, thet the defendant, Otie
Jennings, cake his fine unto the Pesple of the State of Illinois, in the sum of
$20.00 on sach of the first 70 counts, and thet he make hie fine unéo the Peorle
of the State of Illinois in the sum ef $50.00 on the Inst, er 7lct. count, a Lo
said indictwent; that he bs confined in the ceamon jeil of Macon County for «
period of ten days on ench ef the first 70 ecounte of said indictment; that he be
eonfited in the common jail cf Mecon County for = pericd of 20 duys on the isst,
or 7&st count, of the esid indictment; that the jail sentences inposed herein
fun consecutively making a total of 720 days in jail; that he etand committed until
eaid fine and cogts are fully paid, or until he shall be otherwies discharged
stcording to law. Subetantially the ame form of judgment was entered as te the
defendent, Michael Ellictt. Ds ea ea ae
teraait
structions ere \given on bekal fof beth the People
y
f
and the defendants
‘Ne
Ce
on behalf of the Pecyle. Thetawas no reversible arfor in the rulinge of the trial
court upon the efi seion of evidence,
The Judgment is affirmed.
i ‘
the court below, and 2 lers& amount of evidence wae introduced
r eye giming or refusing of the instruction.
. 4 -
EEE 7 (13530—2-60)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT—THIRD DISTRICT
or “sr ‘“ » rae
, &
\§
: } 5 } i ‘o if iL
‘St VJ Aetso WT WW ay
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held for the Third District of the State of Illinois, at
Springfield, on the FIRST TUESDAY in OCTOBER ALD, 19152
PRESENT
HONORABLE EDGAR ELDREDGE, Presiine Justice
_HONORABLE GEORGE W. THOMPSON 4 Justice
HONORABLE EMERY C. GRAVES, Justice
Geo. L. ep Oe
Attest: , Clerk.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterward, to-wit: On the 13th. day of
October
, A. D. 19 15. there was filed in the office of the said Clerk of said Court,
an opinion of said Court, in words and figures following:
F
L bk BD
Oct 13 1915
Geo.
L. Tipton
Clerk
Appellate Court 3rd Dist.
General Number 63483; April Term, A.D.1915.
63495
63503
6351.
The People of the State of Illinois,
Defendant in Error,
Vi Sins
Adolph Schlick and Bernhart Kile,
Plaintiffs in Error.
The People of the State of Illinois,
Defendant in Error,
-VS=
George Schenk,
Plaintiff in Error.
The People of the State of Illinois,
Defendant in Error,
-VS-
Charles Seibert and John Seibert,
Plaintiffs in Error.
The People of the State of Illinois,
Defendant in Error,
-VS-
Anthony Shearer and Harry Meisenhelter,
Plaintiffs in Error.
ELDREDGE. P.J.
~~~ nr
oe Nn ww
)
)
)
Agenda Number 7.
WRITS OF ERROR
TO
CIRCUIT COURT
OF MACON COUNTY.
=e
These are writs of error to the Circuit Court of Macon
County to reverse judgments of conviction against the plaintiffs
in error on indictments under the state law for violations of
the act known as the Local Option Law, in force July 1, 1907.
By agreement of the parties all the writs of error were consoli-
dated in this court. Trial by jury was waived in all the cases
and they were tried by the Court on agreed stipulations of
fact. The stipulations of fact in these cases are identically
the same as those which appear in the case of the City of
Decatur vs Adolph Schlick, et al, 269 Ill. 181 page, with
the exception that in the latter case the judgments ap-
pealed from were obtained by prosecutions brought under a
city ordinance of the City of Decatur, while the judgments
from which the writs of error were prosecuted from this
court were obtained by prosecutions under the statute.
The above case is referred to for these stipulations.
The only question involved in these writs of error
is whether the several defendants in error were guilty of
violating said act by means of shifts and devices. The
Supreme Court upon the same facts having decided this question
in the affirmative, it must be considered as res adjudicata in
this court, and the judgments are therefore affirmed.
3
e
bs C re MNe wClerk,
tse : vag Po ae pee es Sing
RARE rik
Agenda Number 13.
General Number 6359. Avril Term, A.D.1915.
George ®. Van Cleave, )
}
)
Apvellant, 5 APP“AL/ from the
-vs- ) ounty court of
f Macon County.
P. He Fitzsimons and )
Katie 8.\ Knox, )
i
Appellees.
if ,r an 609
/f 9QO L.A VY
é Kp VS
#
BRDREDGE, F.J. ff
Jf
in vacation after the Decenber Term, A.D.1911, of the
County Court of 3 ek judgment by con-
fession ss tees ywiissory notes for the sum
of °531.26, together w : ) At the December Term.
AeDe1912, of said court, 3 ma 3, the judgment
wae opened up, and they wereyxXiven leave to plead. ‘hey filed
a plea of non-assumpsit, é epecial plea purporting to be a
ples of usury. to the speial plea, which
fe elected to abi e by his demurrer; where-
r of appellees. [the
only cuestion presented on trie avnveal oo sufficieney of the
was overruled, and
upon final judgyt was entered in fav
| special plea.
oe the suppes-
‘Sre-evettel plea, in substance,
ed promissory notes in said declaration mentioned, were for the
pgment of interest at a greater rate of interest tian is al-
lowed by law; that tvey were not taken nor received by the
plaintiff in the usual course of trade, and that the plaintiff
at the tine ndreceived the said notes under the endosnenent |
=De
thereof to him, well knew the consideration of the making, exe-
cuting and delivering of said notes. |
Pa
wf.
Usury is alleged in this plea in general terms onty,
eee eae A :
and the avejleeats are but mere con¢Lusions of the pleaderd. Et
« is not sufficient to plead in general tems that a transaction
| is usurious, but the facts \eonstituting the usury must be set
\
forths Stanley vs. Trust & Savings Hank, 165 Ill. 295.
/ : x
The court erred in overruling the demurrer in this please
aN
The judgment will Aneretore be revé rsed and the cause renee
| with 2 chectacicaas An sustain the demurrer to the please
eee Tete le tae,
General Number 6565. April Term. A. 1915. Agenda Number 19.
The People of tne State of Illinois.
a Appellee,
TSe \
William Coleman, Jr.,
Aopéal from
County Court,
Jersey County.
‘
Seine? el i Maar Me ent Nl
aa
ea, in
Rates’ Beh EEE fi
ees
\ .
200 1.A.610
rom the judguent of ete | ;
on the sane é the - =
ry
finding -heat ajfellant was the father of tyé bastard Ei of
\
Cra Tuckere
On August 26, 1914, Ora Tucker filed her complaint
before the justice of the peace charging, " that on or about the
wecnre--day of April, 1914, the crime of bastardy was committed in
said county, and naned pt as guilty of said crime.” e—
is assizned thereems The child was born Cetober 25, 1914, and
the proseontriz testified that the acts of intercourse which
caused her condition ao singe on the evening that she attend-
ed a show with azz ie the Vodern “oodmen !all in the town
of Fidelity, which was on ae last eee
and also on the following Sunday evening. *ppebieant admitted
in his testimony to having had many acts of intercourse with
| the prosecutrix, but that she having positively testified as cf
to the particular dates when such acts took place which eauced
| her condition that she must prove those acts as of such particu-
lor dates, and ae the preponderance of the evidence moet inat
cet »
ny, ff wor
~
. >a.
>
|
ft
{
AS Terme
he was not with her in Fidelity at those times the verdict <>
@ her evidence as
contrary to the evidence.
the acts took place on the
showing a positive assertion tha
last “ednesday in vary and the following Sunday, but rather
that they took place aia timg when she went with appellant to
a show that was civen in tye/"odern Yoodman !!all during the month
of January, 1914, and on the Xunday following that time. ‘or do
we think that the preponderance the evidence showe thet ap-
pellant was not with hér on those o@easicne. The prosecutrix
we < ‘
3a corroborated in her testimony bin Line trgecdoy several wit-
were
nesses who ere -t least as disinterested as those who testified
q 5
toleomb ve te le, ? Ill. 469.
It ecthex contended that asthe complaint charges]
that the acts of intercourse took place in April, 1914, and as
the prosecutrix sarki ies abate trial that they were committed
in January, 1914, OES AAES VBE taken by surprise and did not
have sufficient opvortunity far procuring evidence to contradict
her testimony, and in support of the motion for a new trial
affidavits were filed by several officers of the Fiderity Caup
of the Modern voodmen OO the effect that no entertsinment of
any kind was given in the Yodern Woodmen “all on behsl@ of the
Sedern “oodman on the evening of the last “ednesday in January,
1914, and one affidavit. stated that no entertainment of any kind
was given on behalf of said camp in said hall on any night during |
oon
BD
4
Be
the same as those which appear in the ape of the City of
Decatur ve Magoh fehlick, et al, --- me ak rages with ah:
- the exceptio that in the latter case the judgacats ap~ -
Ly
pealed pees hy prosecutions brought under a
eity aul the city of Decatur, while the judgments
from which the write of error were prosecuted fom this
court were obtained by ieaniutsons ander the statute.
The above care ceferred to for these stipulationse
_ ‘The only question involved in these writs of error
gewhether the several defendante kn error were guilty of
| Viobating said act by means of shifte and devices. the ¢
eided this gizetion
eee
28 res adjudicata in
this court, And the j entea ses fawentire a ‘4rmeae
“the same facts fi ing
e, it must be considére
might during the month of vanuary.| The A were not
show that there war not atventertainment of some
-
having hyd gAny acts of int=rcourse “yee
eaid month of January. But it eel a ea2id kall was also ye
used by 2 society known ar the ®oyal Neighbors of Aserica, oe
* : a.
| i “the vooamen fall on behal@ of sald"
camp of tie—batterorgrmiertron on tie evening rE thee
the affidavit aga not state, and no
affidavit was filed, stating that there was not in fact an en-
tertainnent gaven on behalf of the ‘oyal “eighbors of America
in said hall, cr one given und-r cone other suspices, on some
Said hall during said month. Nippellant admits
nfliect in the evidence ashe to the t
took pl which is iomaterial, Ga 4 as there is
/ She judgment ef the County Court is affirmed.
=!
Sas
General TNumber — April Term, A.D.1915 Agenda Number 7.
P
6%50
6351.
eee
Lt
The People of the State of fllinois,
Defendant in 'rrore
ve/
Adobdph Sehliek and Sernhart File,
Plaintiffs in “rrore
The Peovie of \the State of Illinois,
\ Defendant in “rrore
\
\
\
\
ve
Seorge | ehenk,
\ Plaintiff in “rror,
ee Oe td
FRITS OF ERROR
ve \ TO
3
x
4
The People of the State of Illinois, CIRCUIT COURT
fendant in “rror,
OF FACON COUNTY.
vs
Charles Seibert and sam « ‘eibert,
sail, aia in “rrore 7
fhe People of the “tate of\Illinois, vi
- Defend 1% in BETOEs
\ Sf
vs Seo
Anthony Shearer and Harry Yeisenhelter,
Plaintiffs in Errore
et eet Mie ae Mil 8S Since at tel Bll Mae Mowe @ Hit Meh
BLDREDGZ, P.d.
Theee are writs of ror to the Sireuit Court of Macon
al
County to réverse judgments\of viection against the plaintiffs
in error on indictments un he state law for violations of
the act known as the L Law, in force July,1, 1907.
By agreen of the parties all the writs of error were consoli-
dated in this courte Trial oy jury was waived in all the eases
and they were tried by the court on agreed stipvlations of
fact. The stipulations of fact in these cases Os aan kt ial ies
7
yy
‘
e, ‘
“aa
4 ‘ 5 ; Ay 2
ae Gen. Ko. 6374. April Term, A.D. 1915 Age-da Number 28.
The People, ex rel Sar D. Price, |
Ap elles, :
-va- i ! / Appesl from
i} Cireuit Court
C.A. Asking;, 5 ae A Shelby County.
Apkellant i/
~~
x
%, 4
me, ee
/ 200 1.A.62 1 |
agsinet acs as Lh tn ee EE Tyee a goks , unis, ste., 7
Reports | =
pot_hebedtrefeyuas school treacursr of towns ip 10, renve 3, Fact Sy
: A Ww ee
of the Third P.M. in Shelby County, Illincie, It appear# from the ee
record that the trustees of ssid echool district met on April 11. 1934. __
oe a ee & president and treacurer. At this time "a
fe rine, eos holding the offices of trencurer, having
been appainted therete by the old Board. The record of the moeting
npn
=> ag follows:=~ State of Tllincie, Shelby County, ss.
Trustees of Schools of Tornship Ten (10) Range Three :
set at So. 6 Seheol, nietrict No. 47, directly efter the election
of rustoe}, and proceeded te organize by slecting H.K. Archey, pre= ad
se ex
sident of the beard cf Trustees. “g
$.4.D. Rowe nominated C.A. Ackirg for treasurer of :
the board fer the ensuing term. Lar
é
Z.F. Banning nominated Sam D. Prica.
H.M. Archsy decided tha nomina i’ by favoring
) Sam. D. Price for treasurer for the coming term.”
a The record of thin mating res written up by as
Bon: readers ae clerk of eaid Foard. The sagen a
Ee
1 Aceh ai
y
upon baing
Sam D. Price, was rot at the meeting of the Board, but
)
| notified scubseyuently of his election as treasurer, executed 2 bond
in proper form, thich was approved by sach werber of the Roard, and
;
. :
| delivered 2% to the County Superintendent of Sehools he andorsed
thareon= "Received, Approved 2nd filed in wy office May 4, 1914.
Lee ¥. Frazer, County Suporintendent,* Thereafter the ralator made
@ written demand upon ii iecrey’ fans turn over to him the school funds,
| _- ooks and propertias es treasurer of said school district. This ape
poest refused to de, : Gre tf
tant evidence it is unnecessary
therete if there is @nf-
to sustain the judement of
ined bf by appellant was
TR
first, that the record of the meeting #eee not show that the relator
wae @lected treasurer; second, thet the record of the meeting act naging
been eigned by the president and clerk of the Roard of Trustees, it was
not authenticated and should not have been received in evidence; and, third, —
that th-re was no proper approval of the bond of the relator by the County
Superintendent of Schools.
se
ord of the prycegdinze eas written up by the
<<
appellant\and he cann w complain of orm. In our cpinion it
sulficiently\shows sag ott tion of the relatok as geoacurer. It is
insisted, howevex, £hat the provisions of the stftute directing that
the minutes of egth Weeating be signed by ths AresiWent and clerk is
3.
is mandatory, then 2t became the duty of appeliant, ac clerk, te sign the
record himself as such, and he cannot defeat the right of is successor
in effice by his own *ilful misconduct. The attit&ade of arpellant in hie
brief and argument seems to be thet he has some vested right te thie office.
Sehool trustees have the pewer to appoint a townshir treasurer for the temm
of txo years, and to remove iin fer goed and sufficient cause; and this
power of removal requ res no formal charge, no notice te tie incumbent,
no form of procedure, and is not subject to review. Hertel ve. Roismenue,
229 Ill. 474. The bond was ap-roved and accepted by each of the trustees
by endorsement thereon in themanner approved by the statues,=- Holbfook ¢s
Trustees, 22 Ill. 539; Bartlett vs. Board of Education, 59 Ill. 364,-
\ ae it wa also by the County cuperintendent.
The fact that the County Superintendent did not give
“relator a written certi‘icate that he =a2 such treacurer eannot affect
Ee relator’: right tlerete. The bond wasiin proper form, approved and acee;rted
| ey the trustees, and it vs= the duty ef the County cuperintendent te reeeive,
approve, file and recerd the enme and give relstor his cartificate of office.
es ve. Poismenne, supra. Ghe ralater is prima facfe the school treaeurer,
and as such is entitled to the funds, ete., of ths school distriet, and his
title to the office cannot be tried in an eacticn cf eandarus. Hertel vs.
Boismenve, supra; State v. Jounson, 15 Fla. 2; State v. Ostes, 86 Tis.
$34, State ws. Shérwood, 15 Hinn. 282;;Stote vy. Gellackan. 4 N. Dak. 482;
Warner v. Myers, 3 Ore. 218; 19 k. & £. Ency. baw, 7of- =
Ye can seo no merit in the antenticns made by appellant,
and the judgment vil: be affirmed.
Agend«: Bumbor 31.
Arresl from
i Circuit Court
SPATT BONK OF LATHES
Logan County.
cores
. | Llant. ed ©
iq Appellan eo of Gi eS)
pet EX a
on Pd Zi Ski. Cierk.
an
ota BRA
in the latterts Deak.
OC Lo rtH-
for sevarni iyears had been = tenant on farm land near Lathan, -
Tilincis, sich wae controlled by one Osear J. Luese and bad become indebi«d te
said Lucae, for which indesteinace ha bed given threes prosicsory notes. Troe of
these acotes were for the erincinal sum of $2000.00 each, and one of thea had «
e@redit on it of $200.00. fhe third note was for the principal sum of about
$450.00, #hich, at the time $7 the transaction in cuntrovorsy, a pagt cue and
on shich, torsther with the Meumulatead interact, there was due $529.31. appelies.
war sleo indebted te the Bon, evidenced by a promissory acte, om which was daa,
including the accumlated interest, $273.0. Im order to pay off come of this
indebtetnsses aeressee pee 2 gale on the “ans and rejueated Hr. Valter Vells,
Gaehier of the bank, to oct ae clerk at tue exnla te lock after the precesds, hy
of the cele the amount due on hie note to the bank, and turn the balance over te —
Mr. lucas. On the ay after the ezle Mr. Tucan and Crete ont to tre bank to.
make an aprlication of the Suebke of the sale. Ths total ascunt cf the pro- t
| age ae on,
¢sede of the eale was $965. 18. Sepeticects neto te the bank, «ith the accuse
ted interest, amounted te 2279.80. The bank vureheeed the cotee given at the — a
sale from focetiedh a discount of $26.00, anking the tetal amount due the bank :
at that time from to, the eum of $3607.20. The balance of the precesds
rs
of the sale, amounting to $657.38, “uc dsposited by Velle in the bank to Loge
i eee ae Os
ae SO eerite
i Ve ae
ae
¢redit. Some property belonsing te other poreons wae eold at the same sale,
and the protsede derived from such property amounted to $86.23, and this
smount wae checked out by ss sea Cae the parties to whem it belonged, leaving
the amount in controversy $571.15.
n
Phen eetetice and Bucae cane to the bank om the day following the
sale, they went inte = back room for the rarrerxe of carrying en their nerotiate
ions. After this conference the tamk executed the following paperse"® Latham,
Tll. Peb. 11, 1914. “lo.----- State Bank of Latham, 70-1408. Pay to 0. J.
Lucas, ® or order, $571.15. Five:Hundred and Seventyeone and 158100 "Dollars.
Charge @. S. Richey." Thies wae endorsed on the bats by ©. J. Lucis, and
etamped paid by the State Bank of Lathe, Illincie, February 12, 1314.
| pla Hp.
Towarie the latter part of Mares or the firet part.of Avril, lean
hed am overdraft at the benk of $40.00 which he paid, On the 7th day of July,
1914, Lucas took judgeent by confession on the two $2,600.00 notes for the sum
of $4,041.00. Ong ones of the acteg were the endorseeerte:- "P2id August 30,
1923. *fwo Hundred Dellers. Paid Pebruary 11, 1914 Forty-one 84-100 "Deliars.®
ph
On July 1, 1924, Lutae and seated Gale . written agrecsrent shersin Luc a6
agresd te extisfy said judmeent of $4,041.00 in consideration thet ipeiiee
deliver to him one gray bars, ond the undivided oneeholf interest in 120 ccres
of corn, which Cestiad aarood to husk and deliver st the slev<tor in Latham.
The fudgaent was therefore satisfied of recoré, by Lataa. It was not until
after thie judgment «as antisfied ef record thet appetiwe mate any claim to
the bank that i% nad wrongfully paid the amount in eentroversy to Lucas, and
aid not bring suit te recover the eane until September Sl. The above facts =e A
VO eel
the bank se the cinda a: Shamed that be never suthorized the bank to pay the
$571.15. te Lutes.
aeeslies ‘denis at he ever told Volle te ¢ ay any part
all Mndicputed, and the basis of Yyie avit for the recovery of thie amount from
of the preceads cf said sale to Lue«ea.
sje
| cross examination was asked the following questicns= ® You owed the bank there
some money that was taken out of the sale money, did you not?" To this an
objection was sustained. 3 ri : 3 3
heing part of the—wes—pestas, On cross examination he was aleo asked if he
did not tell Mr. J. H. Miller that all the procesds of the sale were to be paid
or turned over to Lucas, to which an objection was sustained. This question -—ras-
o—=ethorized
Fr such protssds. Further, on cross exatiination he was asked if
he did not tell Volle on the moming of the sale thet all the procesds of the
sale were to be turned over te Lucas as a Credit on what he owed him. To this
aleo an objection was sustained. This ceestror-wat Clsariy proper umer the
issues-tr-tites tase. Also, on cross examination sppettes was asked if Mre
Lucas did not turn over to him at the time his conference with him in the
bank after the sale, the small note of HAR 00, to which the witness answered
NO. It was the contention bic amt on the trial that at the necting in
question between Lucas and rd ee the former turned oyer 6 ee
the $450.00 note, and that out of the balance that was ane Spree se Pes of the
proceeds of the sale there was $41.84 left, which Lucas endorsed upon one of
the $2,000.00 notes, -ane
were the true facts—andte_corroberate at—sppelies-told.
him to pay theee-proe-eds-te-huceces It iy undisputed that the $41.84 was one
dorsed as paid upon one of the $2,000.00 notes, as heretofore shown. Bhere—did—it-
ba fer HSS = Pea tf.
Bueseh. Further, on cross examination counsel for eppeiient, asked appolis.if
A
he did not owe Lucas a note about that time for about the sum of $450.00. To
this question also an objection was sustained. He was further asked if he
didn't know what notes Lucas held acainst hig, to which an objection was suse
tained.
rea. Ths entire tese
timony of the witness Lucas was stricken cut of the vert feet ceesae
am ee
and the ¢curt © nace te motion
[=
made by 5 ence Sana te strike from the record all the testimony of the
A acreage
witness Sits about and concerning conversations had between his and Lo §
A
about =e and about the preceede of his sale i:sofar us it pertained
to any authorization to make payment of any portion of the procasds to Lucas.
Witness Volle testified that when he and on aaa wig in the bank on
the day after the eale he delivered to aesshlas the $450.00 note and gave bim
credit for the balance of the preeseds amounting te $41.84 on one of the $2,000.06
notes, and he i gorrovorsted by the $2,000.00 nete on which this credit ceveare™
wre
It +¢ undisputed ment Repeeers ew thet bank had turned over the balanes ef theese
procseds te Lucae fer monthe bSfors he made any claim for the came and even paid
am overdraft of $40.00 on his account after the same had been done,] andthe-
fs
ral bank_te turn over. BRE SALINAS OF -Shn_yeeboee 10k ae thet heat hornerte-eahs tee
ite seticn-in-sco-doinmes If the yeetswon of ths witnesses, Volie ang Taeas,
limits as it was, had not beon | | SC Sa extluded, it would be, our daty to
reverse ® judgment on the even that it is contrary te. ake ole ar und
manifest weight evidence.
Phat we have eaid prac tically dispages of the various objections nade
to the instractions. The judgpent is ee baice Sack cause renarided.
” Se ees a
ee, one
01915. <Agenda Number 34,
Charles P, Wilson,
\ Appellee, i
\ Appeal from
VBSe Cireult Court
\, / Vermilion County.
The Hartford Fire Insurance
Company, & corporation, /
OPPest ants BaD ta ce 6D,
‘ , ZOY ine Vet
Eldredge, P.J. “ie vA
Re
(ae)
This is an prem Of asscumpsit to recover upon a
parole agreement to renew a fire insurance policy at the time
ef its expiration. This case was before us on a former ap-
peal and is reported in 185 Ill. App. 181. The evidence in
the record on this appeal is substantially the same as it was
in thet on the former appeal. We held on the former appeal
that as the original declaration did not aver the ownership
of the tede appellee, nor that he had eny insurable
interest therein, the giving of the two instructions which
stated,in substance, that if the jury believed from the evi-
dence that all the allegations contained in plaintiff's de~
claration were true then its verdivt must be for the plaintiff,
were erroneous, as peremptory instructions must include every
element necessary to recovery. After the case had heen rev rs-
ed and remanded, anc reinstated in the trial court, appellee
filed an additional count which contained substantially the
same allegations as the original count except that instead of
merely averring that appellant agreed with appellee to renew
the policy, it was further alleged that"defendant acreed with
oe ‘Sh lu fii»
e Fe We BTR tepey!
Fie Wye ele Hoy th
yrs ae by Mee 4 eure
a . ie y 7"
\ a i ae
. W ae of Rone ; °
és ah ee
. q
an; 2 aie ait stake hare saeah
7
| i; CONS youd 4 tration. sete neta
ar oe 4 t
Vi R= oe hae dat werent!
at fi ieee Sy. Gere
; SR tier RL aneaga
Pei. he
>?
| ; RDN conc TF ‘sabia
tbh Mt gbaetien, sure tet, ik:
>," 9 i
| 7 ; " te ; wnt ih “vi ie, tl
=
aa
a
ie
Sasi) aut wines by eR ; me idea
: 1 Pe ,
rt 2» ; aly
; vas oa A ; : ra Nes, rie y Y i
Diy. WOR ANON S| Helier asl hala i at
=-D-
plaintiff to renew the policy for his benefit and in his
favor", and with tho further exception of an additional aver-
ment, “ that at said time, ond at the time of the loss of the
policy, the plaintiff sf was the owner of the same." lMany
@ uestions raised on the former appeal are again presented,
but as to such our former opinion is res adjuticata. The only
new question on this appeal requiring consideration is the con-
tention that as the policy contained a prevision that no action
to recover upon the policy shall be sustainable unless com=
menced within one year from the time of the loss, anc as the
additional count stated a new cause of action and vas filed
more that ane year after the loss, appellee is barred from any
recovery thereunder. The answer to this isthat this suit
wan not brought to recover upon the policy, but upon a contract
to renew the same.
There being no reversible error in the record, the
judgment is affirmed.
DE WS a) Te OAS aa ee
Meee SPE Mie Bey ."
Sapa Shc esha ae eaptcecay fy
Oks Eee 8a dae”
UNE eg gem
‘ys head vy Emr if Re J iv i
ie
ves 7 TR od Ge seg
oy ‘
OU OE a INOR heranaiaaiels
ot ee a) as
Ppa, nee we Pe re
genet ES Pie imoryhey tp apiagl!s
uk Seog si obiede o
' i 7
iin ya Fea 9D (oro? Sia
¢
: hy he = ;
‘Je say gate dod orci |
ona
General Number 6391. April Term, A.D. 19 Agenda Number <3.
Chas. jean Hardware Coe,
Appellant,
mea} from
Circuit Court
Fulton County.
VSe \
Boeara of Faucation of School
District No. 96, Fulton County,
Illinois, ;
el OO lt tat ae ht Mal
Appellee.
%
&
Ss
Fldredge » Pede a v4 4
Appellant filed its bill in the Circuit court of
nN
2
me)
;
i
on
CO
33
Fulton County to establish a mechanic's lien as a sub-con-
tractor on the money due or to become due the contractor for
the construction of a public school building in the City of
Cuba, Fulton County. ,H.Gard, the contractor, was de-
faulted, but the Board of !ducation filed its answer, which,
among other things, denied that said Board ever received any
written notice of appellant's claim. Upon a replication
being filed to tne answer, the cause was refcrred to the Master
in Chancery, who found, among other things, as follows:-
"SIXTEENTH8-I therefore hold that the account of the Johnson
*Haraware Company against the sald \/,H.Gard which was Ge-
—‘livered to the said J.0.Applebee, president of said Board
‘of Fducation on the 10th day of November, 1913, was not
— “sufficient in substance anc form aS required by the statutes
—‘“of the State of Illinois, to create a iien on said funds then
~ "pemaining in the hands @f said Board of Education.” Upon a
heating before the Court upon appellant's exceptions to this
finding, the same were overruled and the bill was dismissed
for want of equity. The bill is based upon Sec. 25 of the
c - l
Mechanic's Lien Act, which, in part, is as follows:-" ane
-
a id waiay*
iad ; H 410° ie ih
4s 4! f : a . |
h
7 ‘ ; RES A ee a we 4
Y SPD i wy “i Lhe:
= - ane cas a Ga
Laiteeaxst: pete. hed
rie. Pr wh Fees, Na a oh ere 3 Fey MRT tS . opea at ey! ee
ah! sity & t i
aa ry ' mA ind 2 1th
,
: j
1 ‘ ‘vf
\ « i ree
— : et wre ite
a
i ; ae ee |
- ,
. - Kad
Theres
Fe Jute
; ¥ ; A ne: aN : wee! ‘Nye ie
‘ x4 <f F a ae peniy ©
Fi Awl Ae ge RE ARLE | ae Lf Gt y
fet: i H Vow i
. ’ A
Pe ey
, ’ AI, mt
- 7
Same ¢ : : 1 Fe fa * i ay
Ader
ee af Te ls
% As
7 “eric f ‘ é ,
‘
“Zs
~"pepgon who shall furnish material, aparatus, fixtures,
“machinery, or labor to any contractor for a public improve-
‘ment in this state, shall have a lien on the money, bonds,
~™ or warrants due or to become due such contractor for such
~ “improvements Provided, such person shall, before payment or
“delivery thereof is made to such contractor, notify the
~ “officials of the State, county, township, city or municipality
~ “whose duty it is to pay such contractor of his claim by a writ-
~Tten notices"
The written notice of appellent's claim delivered
by him to the President of the Board is as follows:-
[ "Peoria, I11. Nov. 10, 1913.
"wr, W.H.Gard,
Bought of Chas, Jebnson Hardware Co.,
£025 South Acams Street,
PrsS sire. < res Di = Lea sy rd 33 van Leen Tes aa - Cy
Tin, Hard Stoves, Furness. ygre—-ame State Roofing,and house
Furnishing Goods, Builéer’s Hardwesne, Carpenters! and Coopers!
Tools, Belting; Packing, Steam Hose, Steam-anée—Hot Vater Heating,
jaary—Copper_and_sheet—ren— ork. =
Nov. l, Contract Job, Roofing, Galwd. Iron and Tin
Work and Sky-lights on Cuba Schools- 1,160.00
CY e
Sept. 15, By Cash- 500.00 660.0
The question for determination in this case is whether
the above is such a written notice of appellants’ claim as is
contemplated by Sec. 23. While it is true that said section
does not provide for any form of such notice, yet mechanic's
lien laws must receive strict construction, In our ppinion this
alleged notice is wholly insufficient. The statute provides
that before any person can establish such a lien he shall notify
the officials of the municipality, whose duty it is to pay
such contractor, of his claims by a written notice. The notice
in this case does not claim any lien on any unpaid funds, does
what
not show/materials were furnished to the contractor, and
')
pin ae een
: : >. ae
ghee \ tease: a ledaodan ate inact state ‘ort vores bs
. a a : 4
Aye
eTae— * Be Pre Ef “ap f Cee at aye.
Sy Po 7 oe Piles Been ¥. hee grt WPS ai Rs to wu? Hone
ae ii iver’ q
9 — er Sie Papeey Bite
; ne? SE ee toes un
ee ee 3 449 .ot eka to afaka,
ot ii PS eo oir aL sites) 88 he MSFT Eeay heat
Be oA et
: om
=i ef Pe sy Sat dune ae wife
B ; = se
PS] uy g ; <) <n 4 ie 5 4, She
re « a Oey a ‘
,
- at he
. wr.
hal
Waal iti
aa o
he co Vee
sa edi ng ee pe
£ a ey Et
“apts: el hod
ism eae ER Boy
: WM Se Say ye abon! 8S Paniive. ca
i -< : Ved ets” “Opes steges
Oo oe
: “neo yet «al &
ai* , @ r . - : : _ ;
4) wu a - SS ete ees weeks
: od] - . 7 oe ae
: 7 iw : ; z fe a " a A ; . a)
. eS Ot en et evode apie
ates
7 y
; es RE ate Seen as ders aos) 4 SOG wee Deda Foy Oo Fete
oe itd
: —~ yt eer ar Ne Ht ODE vies Son
t. : c Ce py [ tr « a3 '
7) gRae ae ftp Pt far 3 Rae rhoas ri hum owet
: @ Wi fetal eLyewy we
aa ia de’ OMY sy
" 1 ae He Peon jyeh 2,
hy te hs es Z tf. toswwage tai
pews CER SN SO Ont ia) eee Bie moan a
Paefor woe :
eLidmans aan\woete he
=
does not even state that they were furnished to the con-
tractor for the purpose of being used by him under his con-
tract in the construction of the school building. There
is nothing in the notice that can in any way apprise the owner
that appellant claims a lien upon the unpaid finds under the
contract with Gard, or that he furnished any materials to
the contractor under his contract for the construction of the
building. From the reasoning in analogous cases we must
hold that this notice is insufficient under Sec. 23 upon
which to establish a lien. LaCrosse Lumber Co. vs. Grace I.F.
Church, 180 I11. App. 5873 Germania Life Ins. Company vs. EKlewer,
27 Ill. App. 5893; Davis vs. Rittenhouse & Embree Co. 92 Il] App.
5413 Watenkamp vs. Billigh, 27 Tll. App. 585.
The decree of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.
IEG wid APA y. YN & y Peth te SOLTOR scl? gk peieiee
ONS Hehe PUT AP iar os pa Sek eg ao hel PR ere
“ -
0” ella? bois Scere Sy
Ss | ©)d §6o <hn20 Ade pee ‘:
= Se mi ei i tas ede Re OO Sheth eeu: soJonititep a
”
*
—
‘OP30% SIT Mott jee
2 39 wee. 6 ihe: MSG Ee) «at 20 os del fees. ed eee
\ Ta
| ae Poe dh 795.0 bra tye ii Of eattom eidd gate
qMem@eTN ce Yitsip) ark oS ote sme :VeRlgaga . Eee OSE
,4a
a9 220 SP On Ohh Jil 3a” Sivas 2968 .¢¢4 fe
ta
P o2°L Y2 quis ris vey Gusta ay)!
va
2 srs"). Sits OG! 2 po Bh orld t+ gees este oe
a a a a EE te ae ae ee
as
April Term, A. D. 1915 Avenda Numbor 46.
I ADRAHAM,
& corporation, Appellant, Tt yountr
-vw-= rror to the — Bs { X. 9—
SARAH KANNDR, = cians a
SangonammCounty E
= S74 2001 A. 60
|
Ne ee Sel Nell Saal Sell nec mama Mona
Appellant oreught its action in assumpeit agninet appellee te recever
upon the following written instrument executed by nerstf* Fobruary °3, 1974,
Ad Ay, Sarah Kanner, in consideration of my love and fond memery ef my
“late husband, Isadere Kanner, ond in furthor consideration of the funeral rites
—*perfermed and to ba performed upen ay said late husband, hereby promise te pay
“the present encumbrance upon this congre:at ton, Bnai A -rahem, ot Sev nth and
—“Wasen Streets, amounting to $1,900.00 »ithin six wonths from date, I hereby further
"empower the trustees of the said cengresation to enforce wy said prowise.
Smey i Sarah Kanner,
” itnossy /
Appellant appeals from the juégeent of the Circuit Court sustaining = general ; =
and special demrrer ef appellees te the secend amended declaration, which censista .
of two cant. The first count avors that the plaintiff is a religious organization,
organiazcd under the laws of the State of F2lineis and «as the owner and possessed
ef certain real estate lecated at the south east corner of Mason snd Seventh streets
in the City of Springfisld, and there carried en a place of worship in accordance
with the dectrines of said church, and thon ani there bad trustoes who “ere duly
elected by said congregation; that one Isadore Kannor, late husband of agpeiles,
in his Lifetime, was a member of said congregation, that on the °38d day of
Pobruary, 1914, appellee executed and deliversd to it the decusent hereinabove
mentioned by which said promise in writing appellee then and thore undortook and
promised to pay to appellant, or to its benefit, or to ite mortgagess, or debtors,
the sum of $1,900.00 within six months from the date thersof for the use and bene=
ft of the appellant congrogation; that at the time of making said promise in writing
appellant was indelted to the Pirst Trust & Savings Bank of the City of Springfield
pL, 900.00, which said Eptadintease was then secured by a certain a
Ne
Deas, ORG Sama goal
east:'S ela, hick ad ote Fr Pana 4, ia Wetec ye Sel he ie ee
- d i"
mortgage deed executed by appellant through ite trustees; that deannd had
bean made upen appsllant for the paymont of said sum of momy by said bank
and that said trustees had been required to pay out aiditienal money to
prevent forselosure of the samo, that appellant has requested the payment
of said sum of $1,900.00 from appellee by its trustees, and that appolies
either pay the same sciatic |Vamecaa er to appellant for the purpese ef liquidating j
~
sing mortgake; tut thet appellee has refused se te deo, etc. The second count is
substantially the same with the addition of the further avernents that the . ;
funeral rites specified were performed upen the said Isadere Kanner, Musband
of appelies, after the making of said sritten instrument and in consideration a
thoreef; that appellee knew of the existonce of said mertgage licn upon the oaad_
real eatate at the time she executed said promise in writing, and has since
known that the same is unpaid and whe the mortcago@ was: that appelies did not
pay said tank within sia months from tho date of said writton promise said ie
» whereby and by means whereof appelles became liable to pay appellant the
sum of $2,900.00, and being se liable then and there undertook and proazised ®
to pay appellant when thereunto tad, the said sum of $1,900.00, that
appellant requested appelles to pay said trustees «aid sum to be used te Liguigate
eaid indsbtedness; vet appellee refused, and still doos refuse, to pay appellant, —
or its trustees, or te said bank, said aum, ete.
The instrument itself deos net purport te be a promise by anybedy to
anybedy except by the maker thereof to herself. In our opinion it is a sore ‘
naked written personal pledge unsupported by any valid consideration whatever,
and one which appolles may carry out or not as she sees fite
The judgacnt is affirmed.
<i
Sao
ae 5
a oe
wikus Manes Rede ; x
: vs : ue a 7 Poe - *
4 : 3 tc set fed aoe rm
4 gat Altes a tad E> weE Ro
z : ; Se eed at.
3
re
oy grat é faba
General “umber 6404. April Term, A.D. #915. Agenda Number 5<
GUARLER CRUE,
Aprellee, Apoenl from
County Court
“dear County.
G 0G ele ft SF * % RY . €6 a)
AXellant.
SLDORYDGZ, P. J.
eh etl Teil Mili srl al Sal eel incre
2901.4. 641
“Snes
Appellant anceals from a judgment for the sum of
2175.06 rendered against it in anaction on the case in favor
of appellee for the failure to furnish proper and sufficient
cars for the transportation of hoge from “aris, l?linois, to
Rast Cambridge, “Massachusetts. The case was tried upon the
third and fourth counts of the declaration, which are sub-
stantially the same, and aver that on the 10th day of December,
1913, appellant received from anppellce «2 l«rwe number ef hore
to be carried by it from the city of ‘aris to “ast Cambridge;
that it then and there became the duty of appellant to furnish
proper and sufficient care for the tronsportstion of said heegs,
and on account of its failure so to do appellee wae comrelled te
and did ship said hogs to indianapoliec, Indiana, whereby tiey
became greatly damaged and lessened in value. .
It appear rom the evidence that Ve
LS to furnish double deck cars for these hogs, but thot
eee wae unable to procure double decks cars, but did fur-
nish single deck cars. ‘it dees not acpear that/t ei made
any protest upon the character of the enre but accepted the
Plast
- ee
._™~ |
%
2
Cu! od Meehan
ae VY Pe
asain and shipped his hogs to Indianapolis. s+seetiee terti-
fied upon direct examination that he ordered the care for the
purpose of shipping the noge to “art Cambridge, but on crors
examination he stated that he wae not sure whetner he ordered
the cars in order to make the shipment to Ssst Cambriége or
to % st Buffaloe Sep Yorke The records ef a% ; chw
that his order was for care in which to ship the hoge to “ast
Buffalo, “ew York. The evidence showdtiiat one carload of
hoge wae sold in Indianapolis at ~ 9-50, and the second lead
at ©8.95 per hundred soundse ina further testified that
just before he made the ntcumiss that he had telerramnr from
the J.P. Squire Company, perk packers at “ast Cambridge, that
the price fr top hogs at tiat place was °11.50 per hundred
pounds dressed for vorke “e also testified tist the eost
of shipping the hogs to “set Cambridge would be about §2.50
or °2.60 per hundred, and that the freignt rate war 324 cents
per hundred. A few of the hogs were sold to local ~arties at
Paris, illinois, fer 8.50 per hundred pounds. There += no
evidence as to what the hoge weighed at Indianapolis, or
whether the price received for thea there ws for live hogs
or for hogs dressed for pork. ee ee evidence of the
number.or weight of the hoge sold at “aris. ee gree
evicence of any kind in recard to 2 shipment of hoge te “ast
Buffalo, Sew York. eek 30 ue evidence thet the cars frr-
niesned were not proper and suitable for the shipment of the
hoge to “asst Cambridge exeept that of ==-seee nincortel
aiied €@ to the witness stand 2s hie own witness,
and he testified that the care he shipped the hoger in were
ordinary 40 foot stock cars, snd that he made no complaint
of tne character of the card. ©n cross examination, over ob-
jection of anpelliant, he wae permitted te testify that the exrse
he used in the shipment of tre noge to Indianapolis were not such
as are ordinarily and ueually used by well
'
int
iA
4
+ lt
Y pe
yarns 7
De
_ regulated railroad companier for the transberistion of live
etoek for such a distance ar from “arie to “aet Cambridze;
flee that double deck care with water trougis in tiiem were
euch a¢ are ususdly ahd ordinarily provided by well recgul -t-
ed railroad companice for the transport:tion of live stock
between said points. This croes exsmination was itoroper,
as appellee wan asked not/ing in his direct examination in
regard to thee matters. The evidence is uncontradicted
that double deck etock cars are not in genersl owned by.
railroad Comoaniéssthemselves, and that acceliant oned na
Buch care; that the double deck stock care are owned by
special transportation companies and are leased to the rail-
road companies as their demands may require; the reszeon for
this being thet railroad companies ecnnnot afford to keep on
hand at all times special orticular kinds of cars such as
refrigerator enre, phlace steck cars, cars for the trans-
portation of seate, dining cars, parlor, cars, sleenine aqurs,
etc., and that the business of one railroad company in one
part of the country in certain fteasons of fhe year demand a
large number of there various kinds of care, while othr rail-
rosd companies in other parts of the country in other seg¢sons
of the year demand very fev of them; consesuently, most of
these snecial kinds of cars are ownet by various different
compamies who lease the cane to the railroad comoanier as
their demands may require. ‘It is undieputed in the evidence
th at appellant made efforts @o0 procure double deck cars for
nopellee, but vase unsuccessful in geiting theme
From the state of tie evidence in tis record we must
hold, first, that there ie no evidence wnich a j: ry could
estimate any damages; and , s*corig, tat there was no competent
evidence that appellant failed to furnish proper and suitable
2 - BOP Speen
-
General Basher 6407. April Term, A.D.1915. Agenda Bamber 53.
MARLEY J. SIT,
Apmalles,
Betean County.
200 T.A. 643
BLIREDGE, P. J.
Appellee resovered 4 Judement im & foreible entry and
detainer sroceeding acainat appellant for ths esssession ef cer
tain preeisus known as 502 South right street in ths City of
Blconington. The avidense shows that appellant refuend te nay
the rent under the lesss and was uoins the samt for imweral
pursosss .
The vrincipal contention made in this court is that the
trial court errad in overruling aposhlant*s sition to diemise the
There is no
eait for want of a written complaint on fils/ Ssoeecexkion
1 of exceptions on this motion.
are os Hs ee LPGSO NS SSR ST OG EK ESERN RSET BE AR
geustcinoerammesrx Ths esuse sas heard in the Cireult Court
on an apoest from a dusties of the Peace, and if the eritten
eomplaint wee found to be misefar from the files and had Been
lost or dacstroysd, usen ine proof havins bean sade thereof a
eopy could have bean substituted thersfer. Thats .teing no bi2}
of aveestions on this metioa, it sill ts presenid that the court
‘properly raled thereon. Sheshan vy. Richardson, 147 [11. 366.
The judgewt of the Cireuit Court ia affirmed,
Clerk.
Agenda Number 56
Appeal fyom Circuit Court,
4 Christian County.~
R. FP. JouNSOR, .
Aopellant.
a)
1-4
2001.A.644_
: |
BLDREDCE, P. J,
Appellees are partners engaged in the abstract and real ene
tate business in the Citysof Louisville, Clnsy Sounty. ‘They reeovered —
a judgement in the sume of 575.00 against appellant far commissions for -
consummating thesale ofa 240 acre tract of Land. The. question invole
wee is orincipally one of fact 2s “ what was the contract. Appeliant
nines to own 502 agpres of lené in Clay County, which was divided into
two tracts, one contsining 240 and the othe r 262 seres. The necotize
tions between the gsarties beran by appellant recuesting appellees *
ZL
sell the@ 50X acres for him at a ne€ price of ©32.50 pe& sere, appellees
to receive as their comwissions 211 they could procure above thet figure.
After some correspondence in regard to the matter aopellees claim that
in a conversation between appellant ond appellee Erwin on February 20,
1913, the latter told appellant that they had a chance to sell the 248
acre tract but tiet appellant refused to sell this waect separmtely *rom
the other; that subsequently appellees mace the WP obsition to sell me
240 acre tract to the prospective purcieser thereof at 040.00 an acre,
u at they (appelieesa) themsel ves, would purchase the 262 acre tact
—
TE haan RM Ho O08
if
WY
at $3250 s acre, and would pay $1 ,006600 cach down on the latter
: 7
aenet and sive 2 mortgarce back for the baloanec.s id wanpica agpellant
: agreed, but when appellee aprpruached the rrospective purchaser the
latter did not want to pay all cash for ne 246 sere tract, but egreed
= pay §5, 000600 enahsand give Ris avte for the valnaces. Auout a
week Pay war tae, necording to the testineny of Erwin, he told sppele
lent what the prospective purchaser had agreed to do ang clained that
dm that converestion appelinnt sisted, in subst«nee, that it cidn't
make any cifference to him whether ap-ellees boucht the 262 acre treet
or not; in fact, he would rather they would not buy ite. ‘The reason
a by the prospective purchase of the 24¢ sii Serna for sot paye
ing e#ll ensh was a inorder to rsise the money he woulé heve to sell
some of the securities he orned et = discounte «rwin testified thet
_ @ppe@iiant told hi« thst he would poy 2 Lif of the loss otessiscned aby
the discount in order to -et #ll each for the fearu; that subsecueste
iy the prospective purciecer tendered to ap eliees the full enount of
the purchese price, 613,600.00 ond appelient refused to conveye “pe
‘@llant testified that ‘e never «at sny tise agreed te seii the 246
mere tract severately; that the final agreement with sppelle es was
that they could sell the 240 «cre tract to the »rospective purchaser
at $40.(C sm secre thereby giving aprellees 6] .oG0e commissions, on
condition that av-ellees purchased the 262 acre tract st32.50 per
mere, paying therson the ¥,300-00 comaianions received by thea, sl uve
in addition ang the balance in three years without interest. Ape
;
?
t
z
z
L be eakios offer noV atteapt to
purehase the 262 cere tract. Appellent did not, in fact own any of
thie isnd.e Ye had wea a) i the land, whien, on its face wag absolute
Y aarcboay was, in fect, 2 mortesce, ene eonsecuently could not heve sold
the lend in sny event until he hed procured title thereto. ‘lowever,
this een but osrtinlly affect the question at issue. If the contreect
Wee as Sta euad by theanrelisnt, then appellees are not entitled to
daisies any iid sokens becsuse they hove never attempted nor of féred
to ful fil. their part of the contract; while if the contract was as con
tended for by aprellees, then their right of recovery is ext-bl ished
The vital questi.sn is, whet were the terms of the contrect. vn this
es
question the evidence rAl elose and conflictinge Upon the trirl ap-
peliant offered in evidenee tie following telegrem which he testified
he Feceived fra the Yestem Union Telerrevh Coapany in @== due
course of businessj-" Louisville, ill. Merch 38th 19136
* ke¥. Johnson,
*susumption 11.
* ire us suthority forthwith to make contract of ssle for the two
hundred forty scres. Very important.
“ Grwin © Kaxwell*
The Court sustained an osjectivn to the introduction of trie tele
egram on the ground that the originel only woulc be cospetente This
iS iesiine had e tendency to suppert appellentts en that he had
never suthorized appellees to sell the 240 sere trect oy iteelf. the
+t
5 id}
§ ‘conie erred in refusing to admit it in evidence. The telecras pure
>erted to be sent by eprellees at tneglom initistive, end they theree
by aede the telegraph compery their SEBATe In the ease of “he Anheurer-
3useh Brewing Assuciation vse ~ tmacher, 127 111.652 the rule ae to
the aduieeéen Of ‘telegreas in evidence is very cleariy siated as
fsllows:- “ tue applieation of the “rule of evidences here coitsaded
for must descend upon whether the geverges Gelivered by the telLegrech
anal to tndprcantite er those deliverec. by the defenduit to the
telegraph ogerator are, 2s between the verties to thissuit, to be deens
ead the oricinsle. in Durkee veVetmont Sentral failrosa Jog 29 Vte
i27, the rule wh ch we consider the most reasensble one is ini€ down
vizse, that the original, where the person to whom it is sent takes the
risk of its trensmiesion, or is the employer of the telegra:h, is the
meneage delivered tu the operstor, but where the percon scnding the
mesesce tekes the initiative, so tet the telegraph comeany is to be
reg-rded as hia agent, the original is the anesage actually delivered
at the end of the lines See also “%nveland vse Green 40 vise 431;
Seatern Gnden velegraph Cos v Shotter, 71 Gas 769 Yileon V .. snd
Si. %e Radilrored Goe 31 Winn. 431; indie Ve Noberts, 35 Serb. 463;
Grey on Commnicntions wy “slegraph seese 104 129. ‘the same rule wee
adopted by this court in Organ ve ihe feople, 59 ya 586
= The fret eee the defendant tock ‘he suAthateve in vend=
ing the telegr-ms, thus employing the telegraph comany os its scent,
eeariy shown by ita letters to the plaintiff rend in evidence.
iswing thas ‘eaployed euch agent to convey commuicativua te the plaine
Seaer it musi be held to ve bound by the nets of its agent te the exe
“tent et leant of meking the seesares delivered oricinslse thereby
*eonstituting them primery evi Gence of the conten ts of the nesesres
"sent.® |
Tn this case there eos nv suggestion on the trial
thek the neseage was inaceur =e ,or that aprellees cid not, in faet,
iwead its
Appellee Uirvin, after testifyinc upon the eviaa on
eross examination that the aut ority which apc-ellees hed for -élling
the land ons jverbel one, was asked the following questions and gave
the folloving snswers: “ @ Sy word of mouth ouly no writing of any
kind or charecter? Al think we had ietters to that effect too. io
You sey younad lettere to that effect before tint tive: Ael think we
had letters. GeB would like ts have you produce those letters please.
Q- Where are those letters." %s the last question om objection was
anddone sustained on the ground thet it ~ss imasterial. If appele
lees had eny letters from spvelient showing what the contrect war
they ceri einiy Weald be very asterial in the tiel of the issues in
thie ends
ey jhe examination of the appellent «after Ke usd dee
treiled the conversation he ciaims he hind vi thhwpedee Srwin, in ree
errd to the contract for the tale of the land, he was asked by his
eounsel this question: “{ Tell the jury whether or not you at any tine
modified, or if you cid «wkke any different vrereement with Hr arwin,
other then thet you tes'ified to, aade on the 2uthy* Upon thia quece
tion being objected to the Court stated in the orescence of the jury:e
"It assumes an agreement wes made on thet day, that isn't warrantea by
the evidences You 2xssume by your question, sm sgresment was made, the
assumption ian't eervanted By what this witness kas testified to; he
"hasn't tes ified tnat any -greement was ande, he has tofd « converssta™
hagas 16
that took place, between he ond Ur. Urwin You ere calling ihai an
" agreement*.
“he objection to the scant s akenk properly Arve been
gusteined en theground that it cralied for mere conciusions; but
the osi'ive statement of the Court that the previous testiuony
of apoesllent detailing the co ersations he had tind withnuirvin in re=
eerd to the teras of the agreement, as te claimed thet they were, did
not constitute an agreement of any kind, could nave no otuer effect
then to destroy sprellant's whole defense, and clesriy inVYeded the
orevinee of the jury.
. Three instructions were given fer the plaintiffs.
Bach one instructs = yerdict and ia based svlely upon 1 contract
fer the sale of the 240 acre tract of Isandé clone, ignoring entirely
the theory of the defense that the 240 secre tract wns not to be sold
unless s°pellees silso purchased the 262 secre tract, es sentisned
abovee “he civinug of these instructions was 2leo errore |
Ser the errers icdiented judgment must be reversed and
the en ce renmandede
- ein Re
. Ray = tp1O
GFNERAL NUMBER 6413. Agenda Number 61.
MABEL TAPE ANDERSON,
Appellee,
3 # Circuit Court
THE DECATUR RAILFTAK & LIGHT i
Macon County.
COMPANY,
Aphalleant.
el a ee al et aa Neel el ral ell el
ELDREDGE, P. J. Onn TA, 646
Appelles recovered = verdict and judgment in the sum $2, 500.00
against appellant in an action om the ¢ase to recover dsnages for personal
injuries claimed to iave been received through the negligence appellant's
servants in the cperation of a etrest car.
appellant operates a stret car system in the city of Decatur, Starting
from the Union depot . line of deuble tracts run weet of Eldorsdo stroet to
Broadway, thence south on Brosdway one bleck Fact Nerth street, thence west on
Exet Nerth street. On the nerth side of Zaat North street mbout half a bleck
weet of Broadway it maintains « car barn. Mill etreet, running north and south,
entere and terminatoes in Fast North street on the ecuth side theresf eppesite
_eadd Gar barn. On the south side of East North stract and om the enact side of
Mill stroet appellant maintains another car barn. Switch tracke run from the
north main track into the car — on the north side of East Nerth street, and
switch tracke run from the south main track into the car —, the south pide
of said street,
| me accident happened about 9:30 ofeleek on the evening of Pabruary
he 25. 1916. There had been a heavy snow stern ond appellant in cleaning the snow
tet Pepe - 3
“Ze
°
from the tracke running inte tie north é€ar burn hed piled it up in an om
bankesnt on the sxet side therso?, which extended out into the street te
eithin sbeut tro feet of the north rail of the north main nee
The csuse wae submitted to the jury upon the first end esceond counts
of the detiaration. fhe ‘iret count charece, in cubstanse, thot while the
pleintiff on the evening in question wns riding in « sleigh drown by « bores
upon the ctreet, which ae covered with enet, and wherein the defendant Bad —
piled upon tha north cide thereof s bank of snow te » height of tiree fest
| so that it became neteeeary for vehicise going west ia order to pase such point,
to turn south upon the north act cf tracke; that sbhile plaintiff @ae riding
in the sleich foine weet upon tha north side of tie street she tured sate
the tracke of defendant to aroid the ence tank, and that =t the time eee in
the ¢xsreice of gue Sere ani caution for ner pee that it waf the duty of
the defandant te run ite care in = reastnadls mannar and te use reasonnbis
Q@are not te etrize the vehicle im which plaintif* wae riding; but that, nest
regurdine ite duty, it ran ite Gar upon and ersinst ths vebicle in elich
pldatiff wes ridine with great feres and vielence and thereby she was throen
te the ereund, and injured, etc.
The second count is based upen the failures of defendant te ring
a bell cor sound some cther alars te warn plaintif! that a etrest car was over=
Sehing the sleigh.
- _[torenise ise = married woman, sbout 23 years of ore, and on ths
-j-
evening of ths accident wae riding in « sleigh drawn by a single horse with
two women companions. The evidence for appelles tends to show that she had
driven a on Broadway to East worth street where she turned wect on to
East Herth Street in which direction she drove on the north site of the latter
street wntil she approsched the enow bank in the street when she turned south
en to the north main tracks and bad proceeded west thereon 2 shorth distan®c —
zhen 2 etrest car operated by sppeliant struck her sleigh from behind over-=
turning the same and throwing her and ene of her companions onto the cround, that
before she drove south on te the tracks te acid the snow bank she turned and
4
leoked east but saw no Gar approaching. There wos alec evidence tanding to
show that when this car passed the ter barns on ite trip eset ot the depot,
the conductor drovped off the cor to wait at the barn until it returned, and
that as the ¢ar spproached the ¢ar barn, the motorman, instead of looking ahead
along ths track, was watching the tar barn fer the conductcr to get upon the
ear; and there wae alee svidencte tending te Bhow that as the car procesded
south and west around the corner of Broadway and East North street the trolley
thereon slirped off the wire causing the ear to become dark, and as there vas
ne conductor on the cor some little time elapsed before the motorman could
proceed from his pesition in the ear to the rear end thereof to replace the
trolley, retake his pesition and start the car, and it is argued by counsei
for appellee that it was on account of the car being in darknees that aprelles
failed to see it when che looked back before che turned on to the tracks. There
is no evidence that any gong wae sounded or warning given of the approsch
Pee.” aks aan :
of the car except immediately defor it struck the sleigh, and there is no
ewidence thst appellee or her companions saw the car bofors the eollision.
The evidence for appellant tended to shew that the trolley did not
come off, and the car thereby become dark; that the head lights were burning;
that the Gar was proceeding slowly in its usual way, and that the motorman did
not — the sleigh until it abruptly turned in front of the car too late fer
him to stop the car before hitting ae
Under thie state of the proff the questione of the negligence of
appellant, ond the contributory negligence of appelleo were @dearly questions
ef fact to be determined by the jury «ni the ccutention that the verdict is
contrary to the evidence aannot be sustained.
In the croce examination of the witness, Ruby Delong, who was in
5 the eleigh with appellee at the time of the accident, an cbjection was suse
tained to the following queetionj- ® QeHad you any other accidents or upsets
that evenihg while you were out riding in the sleigh"? It is insisted this
wae error. Nething is shewn in the record that wight make it have any materiality
whatever to the issue. A question of the cane import was aeked of the witness,
Eva Marie McDougal, to which an objection was also for the save reason properly
sustained. On direct examination of the witness, Mabel Young, who was a
passenger in the street car at the time of the accident, by counsel for appel‘eg
she was asked if she heard the conductor say snuything, and without stating
what th conduc t eoid, she answered: "Ti oro was something said." Shs was
question, te which an objection by appellant was overs
= S-
a
ruled; ® State shether or act that fixed in your mind the fact that a sleigh in
which seme persons were traveling had been struck by tho street ear upon that
eccasion?® To which she ansvorei: « I corta nly think it did." It is urgod |
that this testizensy «ase incompetent because the witness did net see the accident
and she was thus permitted to testify that an accident haprened fram piaieue. There
is ne controveray over the fact that the acciiont happendd, and tho error, if
any, was harmless.
The third instruction siven on bohali of appellee atatos an
abstract proposition of law as te the resoective raghts of appellee and appeliant
to the use of the strest, and one of the criticisms made therete is that it doos
not refer to the evidences in the case, Abstract propositions of lav never
refer te the evidence. An instruction «hich is based upen the evidence is not
an abstract chi tap of law, nor can =6 systain the far oo ee jection that
tally hr a wrhker neceth ine bruilens
arnt
it amounts to a persmptery imstruction, for appellee is as fsllowsr-
® 4 The eourt instructs the jury that if yg ‘elieve from a prependsrance
of the. evidence in this case tha the servants of the defendant in the operation
*of the street car in question, in the nceretn of ordinary eare for the safety
“of others should have sounded a gong or an alarm of some kind upon the ssid ¢ar
"to warn the plaintiff of the approach of such car, and tha’ the aaid car, while the
Splaintiff wae driving upen the tracks upon which tho said car was operatod, Cane
“inte collision with the sleigh of the plaintiff by reason «hereof ho ws injered,
* and that she at the time was im the exercies ef erdinmar care, and that the
—
dofendant failed to sound: a gong er other alarm, and that by
Fat ie £ i :
=6-=
roason - such failure, if the prependsrance of the preff shows any euch
*fadlure te sound such a conc or other slarm, such cellisien occurred, then
* in wach stute ef the evidence you should find for the plaintiff, if vou
“further find from a preponderance of the evidence that thy plaintiff, was
"injured as a resvit of such collision.” it is urged that this instruction is erren
ecus because it assumes a duty upon tho part of the motorman to sound a gong
at the time and place in question, even though the motorman did net know, and
had no reason to expect or anticipates that the zlaintiff was upen the straet
and in such close proximity to the car that sho was likely to bo struck theroby.
We cannet see ths force of this eriticiem in view of the evidenee imsoduced
on tohalf of apseliee. The ear “hich emauasd the injury came areung the curve
-en to East Berth «treet only about half a -leck bohine ths plaintiff. The
motorman kenw of the embankment 6 snew thrown acress the etroet by appellant.
et beve known that anybedy driving west en the north side of the street
would have te turn aguth on to the tracks of the company in order to pass this ea=
banknent. It was his duty te uso reasonable gare im approaching this sarre:
part of the street to avoid injury to persons who might bo traveling aleng
the stroot at said place. It was a dark @inter night, and there "as some
evidende that bhe motorman, inctead of loeking ahead of his car, was watching
the car barna for the approach of the con'uctcr, It has beon repeatedly held
that it is q question of fact for the jury to dotermine from all the evidence
in the case whether it vas negligence on tho part of a motorman on a street
ound the gong er give a signal warning of his appreseh. Thus
ah
-7-
we held in the case of C. & J. Electric Ry. Co. vs.Barrovs, 108 Ill. App.1l.
®4t the same time the "street car company is charged with the kage ls dge that
‘the public may lawfully use the entire street and it must, in operating its cars
"on the streets, use all reasonable means to avoid injuring those whem it knows
Sany rightfully use that cart of the atreets eccupied by tisir tracks. North
*"Chicage Elec. Ry.0Ge, va Peuser, 190 Ill. 67; North Chicage Stroet Railway Co.
Svs. Smadraff, 189 T11,155. a is the duty of the setornan to exercise ordinary
"care te sania if the track ahend is clear, and he is bound te notice what
"yehicles ahead of his car and near the track are doing, snd a he goss one going
"upon the track or so near it as te 06 in dancer of seing struck by the car, to
®warn the driver of such whicle, and, so far as he is able for the purpose of pre=
‘venting a collision, to arrest the progress ef the car. South Chicage City
"Railway Co. v. Kinnare, Ader. 96 T11. App. 715. It is a question cf fact for
*the jury whether or net the oll or gong should have beon sounded and »hother or
it wags negligence
"not the-se2t-er for « traveler to attempt to cress tho track at a reguiar steed:
"Chicage U. Tr. Co. v Jacobson, 217 Tll. 404; €. & P. St. Ry. Co. vs Maianor,
®160 Ill. 320; Canfield v. North Chicago Steed Ry. Co, 98 T12. App. S.* Nor
fio we think this instruction is in conflict with instruction ‘aumbor & given for
appellant, which, in su»stange, told the jury that if appellee sud =" and une
expactedly and witheut ledgs of the dofendant, drove the sleigh upon the
‘
dofendant*s tracks a
Moby plated hers«i{ ime position of danger; then in
.
_erder te charge t)~ defendant with a 4uty te avei@ injuring her, the plaintiff aust
shew by see in the cacy that the cireunstances were of
~ Ss $3
euch character that the defondantts servant or servants had an opportunity t
become conscious of the facts siving rise to such duty, and a reasonable opp ort
fourth instruction to an hypothesis of fact favorable to appellant, and there
fis ne conflict betwesn the two instructions. ft &
The fifth instruction given for appellee is as fellorep =
5. The court instructs the jury that if a porson is in the exer,icg of renee \.
“able care for his own safety and io suddenly placed in position of pxeil DY
Sa
1
"snothor, he is not requirsd to exsreise the highest degree of care to save
Thinself trom injury but is only required by the law te use the ear thet an
"ordinarily careful and prudent person would have exsreised undgr similar cireume
"stanees te those in which he was then placed.® This instruction should set
havo <sen given, aa there was nothing in the evidence to warrant it. Appellee
had no knowledge of the approach of the car until i$ etreck the sleigh, and «
sequently there was no iseue in the case as te the degree of cars she whouil.
used upon being suddenly placed in o position of peril; but we de net think that” .
that any harm to appellant resulted there from or that the <iving of thie instructs
4a such an error «s should cause a reversal of the judgment. ‘The iseves in ths case
were *theroughly and definitely defined by the instructicns as a shéle, and these
a for appollant protect every phase of ite lia ility.
,
>In support of the motion for a new trial an effidavit ef BH. C. White,
i ie
a filed stating that he had interviews sith the
Be
€
“i
os
as > oe een
te to tell him the details of the results of said injuries rees ive « ‘by apps lle
on the claim is now made thet en acsewht of said ommiscion, appeliant as taken
by surprise by the evidence of the
Eee SS ;
.as to the extent of appcilee*s injuric
for this reason a new trial « Se been granted. There ‘is ne
3
er .
?
= Ree
affidavit te shee that the » miarcpresented am
WDE Ses
appellee's injuries, and from aught that appears from
4
"4
mm oo
ror ame some Gi the
sults of the injury «ay have developed after the views of
<i
t
f
fi
Be are of the opinion
there is no r
ent is therefore eifirm .
ro: rae
' a,
“ = Z
-
-
le.
:
-
-
a
——
-
-
a
py?
eee ee Ene ee Lee a ise
sonatas
S
eer w
te
gir brneascctigraatt
eT
t
.
Tein wicerg yo be
minnie cies sora
Patieesneiir ay
Dy ePabedetee
Pereteked ee
Wars Rate
Gedotarvetedetods oeptete
itt
sf t
aeteslavevire aaa
% it iy ie fue
Sirah Aa eet ac tate dt : ‘
Pita ama natch hie dae ip
icra 4:5 bee
Haltae : é
oe Seed Meanie
Het oia a 5 :
Eee Ge
ae
BO edaat .
sere Tt tae pete
San aatarat rated e ie ae Restate
RP acai tenho ital ocenc are
Sota alsiatent Ht Rarer eat
Satpatpieessr sar suaienns ‘ie
kay
phen 8:
fy
Ahrre
i bdunel ern
ier tea at
Seiten act
ethira eds
Sy :
speek srtses
HVS Sea wont
Ripa teers
rf
YE a por
Ty elie emote ait ee o
seit CHaiiitrabetatia dite a
Pee dae os ER
REPS LE HIS Ee
WN ater tana g
Aare es
Hibie Suuieeie st tiekt
sede
aes ae
ae Sie iv
oe
Pia
fetes
= See ee “2 oes
Seca 3 Es
SSS
Feecaniertg eat
Seer i Dea)
32S BEES =F Ee ae
a Se re Sates
AT SN
Soe Lea
tee ie
AS
See ee
Taek
ie
HM) a
si it
Diet
tt
vaerpeie Woes bee tert
hbase
Sain Atosameteyaeinets
= seats a essed
Geese St hea
S
en
Fah
aks
ii
1%)
Stieathcee
rerklg ek ae
‘abaee a Nete eit {iy
Hold totel by we spate 3
“nase rey
eh
hy?
rT - ves
- aa pe 8 ee a eke seee ~
7 AAG A PPPOE AT aa aa a tee e Poteet ribs re-kepre-o ot ae Ae
: ee aie teeter towne : eH
= See rer eee Lae ence ene
erties irene eiremiatette
ene elle pape enna ree pares
‘
SECU ewrts ts
Torey eM ts
oo
one
os
arene e Gre se OT par ge aeenen ate aa
Sgn a re rece gigtoaneener bie eee es fre ere
Semen ene 6 a a One OS eee ee rem se ee pean se
x Seta tf ac near are ene Saou gd
Seemed
abies ese
wes
acy ee ew
Wh Platte
Hi
elie
eleyel ie
i}
irate wy ela
eos aweongcoleee sees et tae Saents
aed ystate
Sipeet aap Seti eee
es oh tetestareny eens
gerne re tow bee SOAs eee a pete etree sagt
Se oe pagreete eres ae 4 ere ween. (weet erect te
pacar ei ee ae ne eee Se ahengm one ceeee tps ve 0203
reg ee prea rae ee peers
poem pines Sioa nnet 93)
Kaetieay
RF eee ance las eee
ae esta’
Bg
ONL Ped
hits!
+
ee hee
Pee Cash Ree eee:
hace On
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11