Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats

Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 

in 2010 witli funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois 

96 - S62C2 \ 

flsQtLS Of XHX STAtlVCJ IhLlSOl^, 

li«f«ndant In rr^. 



BMrXB L. vstniAi, 




•':RnOR TO 


Plaint if f^n rror, 

221 x,A< 


On a trlttl before the court had March 25, 1920, In 
which a Jury was «KiT«d« plaintiff in error was found guilty of 
contributing to the d«>linciu?ncy of a child* In mann'^r ond form 
as ehargod in the indietautnti and we* sonteneed on the Terdiot. 
A BOtion haa been Made by the ir'eopls to strike the bill of 
exorptione frcn the record, and to affirm the Jadgnent* 

Defendant «ue »llo««d thirty daye frnei f^pril 2^, 19?r, 
vithin w*.ich to file hie biXI of exoeptione, and the mittinus 
« 8 stayed for tbr-t tiBO. There wae no further extension for 
the tise of filing a bill of exceptiona, but on « ay 19. 19S0, 
the aittiMUS was again etayed for another thirty d&ya. This did 
net, of oourae, operate to extend the tiae within which to file 
the bill of exoeptione. ( People ▼. 'iananoTioa . J?8ft III., 37««) 
The trial judge certified to the bill of exceptions on June 17, 
I9gc. There ia nothing on the face of the record to ahov that 
it »^^ preaented before XhfX tisc. It vri.8 filed on the sme day. 
It is on thi« state of fbcts thnt the osotion to strike ia 
predicated • 

As no order appears of record extendinis: the tine for 
prssentntlon of the bill of e«c-ption« beyond Kay 20, and the saao 
doos not appear to hare been presented until nearly one Kontli 

■V «** ij .xi»- ji. X v> ■"-. 



letcr, the setlon to •triln muet, in accordano* with thtt ««11 
•fitabliabftd prnctioec be allowed. 

vliilo a Btlpulntion to incorporate Into th« record 
•aid bill of exottotiena, instead of the orlginsl, its inii'*rt<>d 
in the record ns bound up and trannnitted to thle court, it is 
in no way aade a part of the rocord &n& cannot be cftneidered in 
connection with the motion. 

A« no errors are argued or aeslcned in the brief of 
plaintiff in error except those th<^ t ttire predioated on aaid 
bill of exoeptlono, there is nothini^ bt^fore this court for oon- 
sider>^^tion, hence the motion to affim the Judgvent smot also 
b« allowed. 

Gridley and tfatehett* ii3», concur. 

M • 36262 


iLLUiOlS, / 

l/ef endant in Srroap, ) CRROR TO 


/ i 


EDWIH L. vsimrAV, 

Plaintiff in Error. 




On MajT 3, 19S1« ve struck the bill of «xceptiQna from 
the record in the ahore entitled cause, it thon appearing there- 
frOB that said hill had not heen filed within the tine allowed 
therefor, and aa the errors asRigned rested entirely on the 
stricken portion of the record, the Judgment of conviction vii?.b 
affirmed* Subsequently plaintiff m error sugfrested a diminution 
of the record, claiming thut a true state thereof would disclose 
as order of court extending the time for filing the bill of 
exceptions beyond the time within which it was filed. Leare was 
then given to supply the alleged onisaion and the Judgment of 
affirmanoe was Taeatec] and a rehearing Allowed, The record oon- 
taining said order is now before us end the People hare again 
BOTed to strike the bill of exceptions on the ground that the 
recor-i still fails to disclose Jurisdiction of the court to 
sign said bill of exceptions. 

After the rendition of our decision so set aside, the 
trial court, ae appears from the supplemental re fiord, entered an 
order extending the time for filing the bill of exceptions nuyoc 
pro tunc es of the date the order wab actually made. It recites 
th-it the clerk ^ t the time of the motion for such extension made 
a minute of the tame and of its allowance in a book of the pro- 
ceedings of the court regularly kept by him from which he made 
his entries into the Journal, and that through misprision the 


.iifi Blue* 'iPd-y.ifU e*«#« a*nf.t « jr.5irf:# i^mX^a ♦l«tftB«^ «i£# to 

nl«9» »Ta{( vlc^'r^^ 9A» ban nsi etolrad woa «1 fe^To &!;«» uMioisi^ 
6;f J -^ .- .J t« amiivttbtixul f^aoir.isi^ o> aXJtAl XXi=fi V'^ea^-t 

9fc<Mn nckHrt9txit ctowe tot ivni^tos ftrfji ^0 9itd* oHi ie HtBia 9d$ trnUi 


entire entry in the day 1>ook showing such extension wb not fully 
transcribed by hl« into the Journal, end that thereupon the 
record was corrected so ea to speak the truth. There could he 
BO question that suoh meDoranda made an*) kept by the clerk in 
the due course of Judicial proceedings wbs nufflcient to authorize 
the nunc pro tunc order, Acoordingly the People's pending motion 
to strike the >)ill of exceptions will be denied. 

The indictaent w^a one for whj-t is designated by the 
statute as contributing to the delinquency of children* The 
felony count was waived and the cause sulmitted to the court on 
a Jury waiTer. The misdeBoaner count ch-^i^ed defendant with 
knowingly, unlawfully and wilfully doing r-ertain acts directly 
tending to render one Oretchen -vngelbreoht under the age of 18 
years, delinquent. The court found defendant guilty and imposed 
the sentence of six Konths in the houee of eorrcction* 

The only direct evidence of the s'Ct oosplained of was 
given by the girl who wns of the age of 16 years. Her te^^tiaiony 
in substance wan that wnile she wpe Bitting on a settee besids 
defendant with a little girl in h(=>r lap di^f endaat drew her hand 
evwr under his overcoat tew?ird his trousers, which she observed 
wei*e partially unbuttdned, and that sha withdrew her hand. Ha 
claimed th)».t he took hold of her hand playfully because he 
supposed she had picked up a pencil he had dropped which was 
used in a game they and another person were then plnying. After 
the pencil was dropped the other person stepped into an adjoining 
rooB to get another pencil, and wa.s apptvrently absent only a 
minute or two. The . et complained of took place in his brief 
absence. Thn room was a parlor of a hotel, conducted by the 
girl** father, at which all the p rties lived. Defendant denied 
the intent imputed to him, giving the act an innocent inter- 
protatien, and there was strong evidence of his reputation for 

.f«t# »i(* if.<»sq« »* a« 0« &»#a^te» mw Jb-xsoai 

.b•i{«9^ '■ ■" - - --^>-- ■-■ -- --- ■ ' '•"- 

tno-*:'' - • . •-^.!«v; dX le ©Sis: ftda Iti «*«* oif* jC^A:;) «fCi ., .-vij^ 

til*:: Ht% 40$.Mt'% atiV -ttnOtU^lfb 

n^ijif» »»<J«l<W*| ft«< •Jtt X£9n«»4 •5i« MjS *rf* *»5 0-:^«!f.»». 

ttil:i<r •!« Al ^Ailf ^Iftei to 69RiiiX<iar>a *»:i Mtf ,ew4 to *i»fflrli« 


deoenoy, reop«otabillt]r and g«ntlflnanly oonduot. 

Ihc girl nede no onrnpleint or report of the sot for 
tve diLys, and said she "thought nothing of it,** and did not apeak 
of it until sh« heard another girl, Betty Rhode, tell her exper- 
ience vith defendant and aay that he "trieri to put her hand down 
there.* Betty 'hede did net testify. Ho direct evidence of her 

experience waa giren. It was br»>ught into the caae only by hear- 

evidence o 
•ay/ On that groiuid a motlnn was aiade at the close of the oaae 

to strike such teetiaony fron: the record, hut the court refaaed 
■o to do on the ground that objection was not mscie to it when 
offered; and the People urge here in ^.nawer to the aosigned error 
that an objection to teutinony vill not be considered in this 
cvrt for the first time. The aacsigned error, however, does not 
rest on the overruling of an objection, but upon refusal of the 
court to strike out inadaiesible evidence which, fron its rulings 
and reaarks evidently entered into its consideration of the 
question of guilt. The court is not justified in retaining in 
the record ineoapetent testimony, even though it was not objected 
to, where a motion is made in due time to have it excluded from 
the court's consideration. And where it appears that inadmissible 
evidenoe was given weight and consideration by the cnurt in re Ach- 
ing its findings, as in the ease at bar, the refusal to strike it 
out is fatal error, for which the judgment must be reversed. 

It is contended by plaintiff in error that the delinquency 
of the gitl is an essential element of the crime under the statute, 
and as it was admit t<^c! that she was not a delinquent there could be 
no oonvlo tion, and reference is made to two decisions in this cnirt 
•0 construing a former statute en this subject. But that statute 
was repealed by the act under which the indictment was returned. 
That act now in force was apparently pasaed to remove the grounds 

for those decisions and to render » person originally liable for 


%9% tptt^&jpt t« i.t!;ft%ft« 10 4'«i»X<M«"« ©ft :*l»(»8r. *«*»■■*«»' 
l«449 iikfi A|i^ M« *'«i'i t» i^Jidiirfta .^iiSM!>*s^^: 'su^ Mas. £mi- c«<««^ ovrcf 

iivej» ^»wf tarf im ©^ taliJ" axi *.a-r xm f^t» #«afenst»fe ifJfif^ &04f»-t 

. oonsibive 

.<■ »ii«i«B-#«S)« »)«»»■. «0iiJo,«^rf^ i:M$::^&miES mli- Mf> oB a^ m 

art-* "io .a«Jt*,e'X!»bia«»» «*i ©liUi ,I>«'sj®*|4» •.^i#a«ftJtT6j »j(i««!?;*!t 'xcm 
mil* h<»htd,m9 it «9«t^ e>& aiiijU a^ st& lOMat ttl mfUmt s ^ustSe «^# 

• »it«rjii;f8 <t<li> t£o£uiV flmi'jts sift tA ^ci«at<»£a X«itf-n<aa»» £t« «* .l^.^^ ''^^^ • - 
•<f birxoc o'iif-td; ^e«i|p'ai.X«l> i» i7on iutat 94k <^«a(i' iv«»;^^iaii!^ 4i»v #1 •%» Isne 
1*11.(09 «.£ij;r mi 9tt9Ajai»9it oiNr o^^ »&«« jfti, MrfttHX? %«»*:. 6fM ,iKoi;> S3i:7ff«9 oji 

. b«in iwlsi 4fKP AitM^aJk Anil oi!^ itoMw ie>biiir >»d< •fi^ v^f It^tt^^i^n »«« 


any act knowingly and wilfully don« i*iich jiiractly cant?itut»« 

to bring a child under 18 years of sg*! into \i. zt^iXa ttr dolin-quaaoy 

as defined in said aot. 

C'c'idlcy, r. J., and Korrill, J., concur. 

.aeaiospfl oka cj amTVu; 

'-' ./ .< 


01 - L?58X6 


B«fend«nt In Krrer, 


TIlfCDOftS iLtiK (Also kaotm »•, 
inr'^DosK m?i^)» m/ki:; fi^, 


'#AaiiKa, savip n. r.A?ursR, /ms 
1. SAisfiR, pmhivs, c. i>#r/.. And 

KAXis CLmss&i indiTi|€»lly and 
•• •x»«ttirlx vf tlw J«at will «aA 
i««taKcnt of K4'iQAjtJPrr LABO, d«Mr.««dt 

2^ 8 

{bBAOa 70 

d iJ 

) CIHitUn* C{TU«T, 



Si:AT:BkJr?BT or TM:^ CAoS, By ihl» mri% of error it it 
•oaglit to reverse « doeron of foreclosure, entered by the Cireuit 
Court of Cook County on SoretRber 17, 1916, of lui InetrttRient in 
the font of » «mrraiit/ deed, dated Tieoonbor 11, 19C0, executed 
sod dellTerod by Mnrle %lenz in h^r lifettao to one John Ksiser 
in hie lifetlno, end conveying certain frenioos in Cook Ununty, 
Xllinoie, known »• Bo. 234 Vino street, Chloafco. It was decreed* 
^nt e r alia . Uist said instruDont eonstituted on equitoblo aortgnc* 
upon said pre»l808« seeurine to the cmpleinant,«irlee c. C*Kalley, 
as ottccesMor in titlo to said John £«iser (doeer^eed), iho poysont 
•f the 8tt« of ^2«riA.30, with iaterost thejreea at 6 per cent yor 
•aau freoi Dooenber 11, 1900; thnt there wus due and owinc to said 
0*BaIle7 f9T prineipal And int»reBt the sgs;r«iiate ausi of ^3,680.94; 
that by Tirtuo of said Instruiecni esid o 'Bailey had a valid nnd 
subslating lion upon said prenieos for said li>,et aeBtiencd s«nK, to- 
gether with his eoste, end thnt the rights and interests of the 
•hOTO ttmed defendants in said pruoiises were subjeet thereto. Pur- 
suant to the decree the preaiisos wore sold at a aaster's sale en 
JMmery 3^, 1017, to Jemes /. r*Callaehan or t^>e sub of )a200. 
The naeter*s report of Sftle and distribution wpb apprered by tho 
oeurt on Fobraary 3, im, from which report it eppeare that ths 


prooa«4« af tloc selc wire lnAufrioi«ni to pay ih« moont found 
dB« by Dm deeroo and ihut thore wft» a defieloney of $1!&27.3S. 

On V«y 2S, 19S0, o motion for a scTeraae* was M&da la 
tliia Appellata Court and it waa ariorad th^l Katia Cleaona, in« 
diTidually and aa cxaoatrix of tha Inai will and taotnaant of 
sarcarot I^ac. daeaeead, preaf^euia tne writ of arror nlane. Ihe 
erlRinAl tranmcript of ih« record wei« h«ra flXad an ^ovamhar X2« 
191©, and on Ootabar ^, 19?6, after d«f<"ndftnt in arrar YmA 
auggaatad a diminution of th« riicoir l« a aupplam^ntal transcript 
of raeard «e« fiiad vy hlji, 

Iha vriginal %ill to foraeloaa ««£ fllad an April 27« 
1904 in iba Circuit C<?urt by said Jolm Kalaar «ik o«apl«ittant. 
Haarlj throe yaara before, wd July 3,1. 1901, $«ftrK*'*t i-ang bad 
filod a bill in auld Cirauit C^urt acelnet 'JAlaar, praying for 
an aeooantinK and thnt tha lagal tltla to aaid proioioaa b*» 
daeraad to ba hold In truet for Yktr by hlat and tbat ha ba erderad 
to eonrty aueh tltla to her. This prior oaaaa, after b»lng put 
at laeua, vaa r9ttTr«i to a Knatvr In ehaneary, who, after hear* 
ing OTldanea, laade a report finding in aubstanoe that aha waa 
net entitled in an neetnintlng frop raiaar; thnt oaid ittotnnant 
of ^oesibar Xl, 19er', fro» aaid Karia Hans (»atbar of i^arfarat 
Laag) to Kaiaer, vaa intended a« aaeurity for $3019.30 and waa 
in effaet a Bortgage on Oaid pr«mis«N. Before deerea Vargarat 
i'BBg died, and her fxaoutrix, Katie ClcBene, and Katie Claeiana 
aad Haaiia riad. her aola lagataes and doTlaeee, were aubetitutcd 
aa oosplainanta. th» enurt adopted the f Indiana of the naeter 
and entered a decree In cenfonelty tharealth an Karoh 31. 1904. 
?ra» thla d«ora<» fiatia Clanona, IndiTlduRlly and as exaeutrlx, 
and i>a»ia Fled appealed to the .<uprea« Court of Illinois, and 
on oatabar 34, X9^A, that Court afflmed said deero'f except aa 
ta aertain directiona a» to payvant of eaeta. ( ciewtene t. 


*<tlMr . 311 |11. 460, 4A7). ^tter tstd d<TOiBlftn by tk« :>iii^r«R« 
Court John Kaiser, in %hB prvsent ft5u«9«, filtd en April 18, 19r.S, 
his MMnded bill of CflRplitint aiff«in»t said ftmtic Clonons, indi* 
vidually and os 9«oh exccntrlx, MniRl« Fiod, Th«odere Ions (a 
•on of Mario ^lons, deoo^eod), and othart, prftying for a foro« 
elOBuro of oaid promiooR to ^ii.%i»ty osid debt of $3M&.3a, te> 
tothor with iatoroota jind eoato, 1t>y Tirtue of »4id iaRtnuRoat 
of I>«cerbcr 11, 19C0, vhieh th« court h^d doore^d *^9 in effeet 
a «ortcag« on sold prtqaisoo. On eptembor Zb, 19<r-5, Thaodoro 
■%lonc, Moaiio 7ied, and K«iti« (lemane* Inlivif^ttally «JBd e» wtdh 
exAcatrix, filod their Joint and oovernl answer to oaid eaiesdod 
bill, in vhieh th«y deniod that the e<R^plainont. Kaiaer, vas tho 
owner or holder of said alleged inatruBont ef Doaesibor 11* lOor, 
doaiod thiit any nun w«r.3 due caBpluin»nt thereunder, and d«ni4!d 
that eeaplaiaant «»a entitloi to th« rolieif pr«yod or to cay 
relief. Tho oimce wns pat &t issue, ariti "^n July 2^, 1606, wes 
referred to a master in chaneery to t»ke proofs and report his 

liile the Of^BO was pending before th« Master and 
after eoasiderablo OTideaoo had been token* Fred Fotthant, oa 
SoToabor 9, 190t^ filed his petition In ; i»id oimse, setting up 
tho prior prooecdings and alleging thet on or ab'^t J&auary 29, 
1907. he had acquired frosi said John Kaiser all of tho latter *s 
right, title and iaterost in and to the o<iuitablo Mortgage of 
l>eoo»ber 11, 1900, mad in and to enid premises, and thi>t aiaoe 
said dato ho had boon and wms tho equitable owaor and holder 
of oaid Mortgage ead of all ef oeid £«iser*s interoet therein 
and in end to oaid preaiaee *nd tho wibject «atter tt tho ct^ase, 
and prayia^ that ho bo substituted for said »4tiser as party 
QOBplaiaant and thi.t ho bo allowed to file a bill la the nature 
•if a sttpplonenUl bill against %M parties already aade defendants. 


To thin »«itltlon the defendnntu filed mn sn^mr, Henrly two 
yewrs l6t«r, on OntoV«r 13, 1911 « thsro vus « k«Rring on the 
»etiti»n« ond tho court orderod that fotthaot l» »ufc«tltnt«d as 
eoBplftinoat in the esu»9 In plneo of Kninar «ad Ise P'^rmitted to 
prooeouto tho ^etloB In his o»m b«h«Xf and to fllo hie ^111 in 
the iMtitre of « sttpplootontnl bill, i'otthsst fil?»^ his bill. 
Baking Bttbotiuitittilly the am^ nll«gi«tion» fs.^ were contitined in 
K«i«er*e Mtonded bll\, sotting forth the trjmofer of Kftloer'o 
iatereot to hin, etc., ngnd nllegln^ thst slneue the transfer of 
oaid iatoreot John fjuloer had, In th<' month of i>oc«n,ber, 1907, 
died iatcBtato, l<*aTin«c >sl« ourrlving his widow and certoin other 
pf-rtioo »o hi* only hoiro ';t Iaw cmd next of kin, aa^ th^t no 
otfKiBi atretioB hisd boon ht»d upon hio estate. .&id heir» Nt 1«« 
wore Bodc sidditionfel pArtios defendant, were oerTod and »«ro 
•uheoquontly dt-fDuulted. ^uhaeqiiiiently, on Jtmuary lt<, 1013, 
Potthont filed un tmmttiAtii ujip ilemont&l ^111, making oddittonol 
ollegetionB. o»d on April S« 191'4, the dof andante, Theodore lens, 
Xonio ?iod, ond Katie CieK<»ns, end m'. exeovtrix, 
filed their Joint ruad ooverel nnooor thereto* there w»o o 
reference node to the tame Koeter to take further pronfs oithcut 
piHiJadioe to the prooetdinge ther4toforo hnd or the testimony 
theretofore token before hin. 

After further eridi^nee hod been token before eold 
master as • opeciol ca)Mlr,»ionora "herlos C. C*R&lley ( defendant 
in errnr) on Mn« 16, 1915, filed « petition asking Iooto to 
file e bill in the nature of a nupplenenttil bill, eevtin*^ forth 
tho prior pre««edinge tmHI. alleging th«t en or obout >epte»ber 
17. 1914, S9i« rrnd Fetthost wno dnly sdjudie»ted a bonkntpt 
in tho Diotriot Court of the United ^^totos for the Horttern 
Distriot of Illinois, that the Centrel Irust Company of Illinois 
wss thereof tor oppoiatnd trustee in bonkruptey of said i'otthost's 
esteto. tk»t it hod oc(iuired all right, title «ad interect ia 

and to 8a.i<l «iititt«» tlMt ♦» or nVout Karoh 37, 191 f^* Vjr order 
•f aald United ; ta^tea •'iatrlet Court, «&id Ceninal Trust Oispany 
aald and trfjiaf«rr«<l to Bn^th C*]K(}ill ell ri^Jat, title isaA Intercat 
whieh aaid x'etthaat had in nn^ to »etid et^o.lta.'blff Mortgs^f* and a&id 
preatisae* «nd conve^irad tine mfmft to oaid ''*RciXl, auad the t thera- 
after, on or ab^^^ut &»vreh 29, 191S, >f-i4 P*SeiH eold ji*! conveyed 
said aquitablc «ortg«ice and all rigbl, title and interest ic and 
to aald preailiMBR to a^id <**KRll<!y. The emrt granted ieavt to 
C*Salle]r to /ilo bis bill »B<i thsr^t he iMt eubatltuted «u) coRplaiaaiit 
la place et caid i^otthaat, but viilirrut prejudiee to fiAy proee«d» 
io^s theretofore hetd or eTidenoe ilu^r^teforc tctlRenf uni on July 
3, 191S, tho def^Qdnata, fkeodore '.H^nz, MmbIo Fiod, i^rank Fled, 
Sieliael V. Kannally xoid f.etle Clejseas, individui^lly and aa 
executrix, filed their Joint and several anaevr to the Mil* 
Further OTidenee mut ta)&en before a&id epeeial oonmiasioner, and 
on July 16, 1916, he -vhts ordered to return into court all teotisony 
taken before his, both &e aaei^^r and aa special loner, bat 
«i(ho«i bis f iadince of fact or oonoluslone of Irtt thereon, 'i^ich 
he thereafter did. On Moire«-b<!r 17, 19ie, the decree here sought 
to be roTeraed ena entered by the Cireuit Court* 


Thnte i»«lntB «r» »«m3« »tt<S rrp»ed by oounevl for 
pl»lniif f In err©r ee grrundft f ©r n rsTeresl ©f the <»»cr«e . It 
1« first oontondrd thf t th<:r« i« no cvtdrre* of C*KRlley*« lnt«r«tt 
in tht »li<^g»d mortgage of lit- member 11, IBtfC, or th<^t Jrhn Ksl»er, 
th« original complsiBftnt, had trer partud with his int> rest. Ih* 
flndinge of fr.ot ccni»in«fl in th« deerep «f«5 to th« contrary, %nA, 
after it eojrsnil exiurlnr; tion of both the original •n-i eu.pnle«p«tia 
trar««cript» of th« rf^oord, «w think th' t said findingti pre «Bply 
supr^rtod by th« «Tidlene«. 

It ia n«xt eont«nd«d th&t u?oa the de&th of John Knloor, 
tho eriglnsl tele oospl' innnt, b«for« deer««, the ection atoould 
be roTiTcd only by hie h«ir, devisoc, •x<»outor or a£!«ilnistr«tor» 
ftAd that* ftTon sssuiaing 'Ttd Pottheist to be an ocsi^^oo, it cculd 
not b* roTivcd »t his inutcnoo. '• do not think that thero is 
•ny aMrit in the eontontion. It sppoi^rs th«^t on J»nu&ry 39, 1907 
J^ohn Kci^er erei^ed and oonToyod to Fred Fotthast »11 hio int root 
in and to f>aid n>ortgtige of voeembcr 11, lOOC, and in and to oaid 
^roaioco, and in Mid to the subject amtter of the enit. Ihio wan 
done nearly o year before he diod. /t the tlso of hlR death he 
h&d no int.«3r«et in t)w premises or the litii^tion* ajdi, under 
tho established ohioneery prtotiee, JPotth»st, after SAid aeeigaBent 
and transfer, «be entitled to sot up hie Intereet in the peadisf 
action, and seek to obtain rt^liof , by filing a bill in the nninre 
of a supplfisiQntal bill, which he did. (10 noy. JPl. it frao, 
1120; ^C id, 1039; 2 Snnioll»« Chnn. PI. Is J?rac,, 6th ;'«. ^d. 
♦p. 1513; with T. BrittenhMs . 10» 111. '!i4r, 549; yason r. York 
and Cvwberland j^, Cjj,, fiP. raine, »?., 10«,) 

It is Infitly oentended thnt the Circuit Cnurt erred in 
treating the question, na to whether the deed of Deeeatber 11, 
190e, vas an equitable mortgage, aa harlng been so adjudioated 


in th« foi««r »Qti»n «f iUc««n» t* Ealser. ^11 111. 46C, as 
«e r«ftd the opinlen af the ^upreae Court in that ot^trn «« 
think that thr^t <ia«8tioa vftc there ee «<)ju(tleRt«d. And we 
fartlMr think thrtt vnder the eTidenee In the present o»e« 
•aid deed wee properly »e eonRi<l@r<'a, eT«n if the doctrine 
•f r^B adjuijcatf t h« n«t upplied. 

Finding no «rr«r in thv record the deeree of the 
Clroait Court of Cook Cnunty is sfrinBe<!. 

BariMHt Jt-, J,, imd llatehett, J** oonour* 


ex • awn 
• ••ryorstioai 

count 07 chicaoq. 

j 221 1. -^-^^^ 

mi* jruaixcu 0«xiJi.»'Y s«i,xv»i«fi tm orzsxoR of tmi cruw. 

Gb 8«9i««[b«r 3, Xno, is th« »ttni«i»aX Court •/ 
Chicago, a Jjadgwini bj oonf«(i<fieii was eni«r«<i in fotTor of tho 
plftlatlff, Kldwist CoXlcetiea IHiro«u, And acftlnot tho dtefoBdaat, 
CrotttB, la tht 99m of ^3X«S!6, on o «vitt«n iastnoieat d«to« 
■artii 30» ItXftt aai oxoeutoil by ittmn^mnXt vhsroie ho sulMiiirlbttd 
for, oaA «ekne«l«ic«<i ^* reeoift of, o oehoXarBhif) in the i'nce* 
0»Tio JohooX {oporftt«d by the Fim«»Q«iTia Cmoiiftay eiad of vhioh 
sAt^ T. i^ac* **<^ than tho pr«»14oat) eoToriais a oorroopoadoaeo 
o<»trao ia lutvortiolas* aa^i vhoreia ho pronloe-t oad «4proo4, saeag 
other proaiooB, to pny to «Ki<l MwKt4 ¥• Pa^o, or hi* order* tho 
oan of #110 in «««kly iantnllmoato of oa« dollntr oneh. Ia v^ry 
fino priat an tho faee of tho iaotnmoat thoro io eeniaiaed tho 


**fiftli« if def«Mlt i« aaeio in tho payHoat of nay 
oao Rf Umi nfer«»«id inetnXteeato n^oa tho oaao hoooa«o 
dtto thoa tho ecrtaia wKdHBt roaalaiag aapoid et tho 
tiao of Ml eh dpfaalt ohtai hooeaa at oaco dao aadi 

Thoa foXlovo « eXituno nathorliciag tho oatry of a Jadpioat hy 

eoaf osoioa at any tiao for such an aaoaat »o »«y thoa appoar to 

ho aapaid. togothor vith ooato aad fXO attoraoy** fooa, (^ 

Soptonbor 4* X9XB, ohmit a yoer prior to tho eatry of oai« 

Jud«aoat, ooid ^>d««rd T. ?««o asiiigaod aXX hio ritht, titXo, 

iaioroot, oUia or do«aad ia aad to oaid written iaotvaaoat 


to plaUtlff. 

em SeptcaWr 13, X919, •?! d«f«n<l«Bt*» «dUfln mpportftd 
1»y affldaTlt iM mts ffiTttn IsiiTt t* m»lM Ms 4«f««««, said J«<lpi«at 
to «t«iiid ma soearity. On OctoliwT 2Xt 1.9X9, «fter a full teuriaf 
before tho court vlthaut * jury Ui« tsovoo «er« found ocalMi 
pl»iiitlff« Mid Judpiont «a«i ontorod a«>!;iik«t it ftir oeoto and trim 
that JttdfiMat tho prooont uppoal «»» takon. 

laotrvaoata in nritiag al»il«r to the oao hare attod 
upon hoTo pr«TiettoXy boen eonaldorod t»y thia Appollato C<*uv% in 
tho 0^.600 of 2|ct V. fUtfflfl* 2X5 Ul. App. 2W. wnd Hldooo^ 
.Cf^X«ct^frf> Bu£SM ▼* Qyoawiad. l^X4 XXX. App. 468, oai ottok 
iaatr«a«Bio woro tluiro hoXd to bo apoelAX oontri^ota and not iMro 
proMlooory aotos. In tho Xatior o«ao it la oaid (p. 478> that 
the iastraaeat "Is w«Xl OKdeaXatod to dooelTO aay person oho 
mi$hX heooao a p«irty thereto.* 

Xa Tiov of the heXdiaga la thooo oasoe, aad boiac 
further of tho opinion that the laatrttKoat saed apoa in tte 
present ea«o la ^o Xaotcinf la MMtaaXlty of oblicatlMS th«tt ao 
CKUae of aotiea eaa ho prodieaied thcreoa* «« have rcttched tho 
ooacXaalon that the Judgaont of the IfitBieipaX Court «»a ri«:ht 
aad should bo offirmtd, and ii la so ordered* 

Baraost V* 3,, aad Vatehett, J., coaeur. 

11^ • 2MM 




ottXiBiTiit, ctmm iic^/oPf, 

a eorperntleB* \ 

221 1-^^^ 634 

In an wetlou f»r d» ••.•'.: n sXleftisd br«««h of « 

T«rbel oontraofc, plaintiff, uj^on th« trerdict of a Jury in Uia 
iVvor «i«relii his 4aaH^«« w«r« aa««8S*<l nt UtQ a\m «f ^^;o, r«« 
eoversd a ^ui^env against dsfanaant In Ui« uircuit oourt of 
cook County for aaid extas, it ie «ou{(i:it toy XJaLa a}.^};tial to rs* 
varaa tu« JudipsBt ea the isr^ntud* askong othar grounus* that 
the trial e urt arrad in nst granting daf aniant'B action far s 
now trial baoauaa plaintiff did net prova hia easa by a pra- 
pondaraaes af tba avidanoa* 

^aintiff'a eri»{innl deolarMtlon eon«l«ttad cf a 
ap«cial aeant i»nd the <tomst«n oaunta, ?»afer« ;}u']|><K«nt plain* 
tiff, by lenva of ooiirt, fi1«d an fUB«niad »i>*<llal o-^un^^, to 
arbiob cinf«nclaRt*a pi «« ef th« i^enaral iaaua tharatofara fil«d 
«fia crder«d tc 9%Hrni as a plaa. It ia avarrad in 8cii4 count, 
in imliat nea« U^t an »&y 3, 1»17, plaintiff, at daf<ndant*s 
raquast, bargain od with dafandant to buy of it, and dafeadant 
oolti to plaintiff, •«!! af tJba iron ^nd natal, to-:<it, 76 tona, 
in tba baaaawit of Uia daranuaat*a plant en Auatin arauua in the 
flity ef Cii^iaafiS, <••• at vbe prioa of, w>-»it, gl7,l>0 par ten for 
coluans, aoaftinga and pipe," tc ba daliirarad by defendant te 
plaintiff and to be paid for by plaintiff on the delivery titere- 
of; tftat in eonelderatien of plaintiff 'a effar defendant, on the 

^. -p 

dMj mtcrmmmii, proialawa plaintiff to deliver siiici iron and vetal 
to him; thiit thereafttiir. on June 4, 1«17> Aa pureuttnoe of said 
•gr««Beni, plaintiff reoei-red from dofendamt a portion of aald 
iron and ^etal and paid defendant tix« eusb of $S8fi therefor* smA 
to Uiat extent eaid oontraot was performed; thMt, ultnou^b the 
time for'tha delivery of tiie ixdanoe of said iron and netal haa 
long since alapsed and plaintiff bas always been ready and will* 
i»e. to aeccpt and pay for the aaais at the priae aforesaid, de- 
fendant did not deliver the b^lanoe of aald iron htm metal to 
plaintiff but refused so to do; «h^reby plaintiff has been de- 
prived of gr<»at gaina and profits i\nd has suff^i^red f^r^at dsmage* 

Plaintiff was a dealer In old iron nnd junk. There 
had been a fire at defendant *d plant on Austin avenue, nhicaffo* 
and 8e»« of the naehinory and piping had been taken to defend- 
ant* s plaee of bttslneas on jaoKsen boulevard. Chicago, where it 
had be«B sorted and the Junk tiiroim into a r>ilo« lairing the 
AOBt^ of April, 1917. plaintiff had e^ oonversation «ith n, r>« 
Bssinett, d«fendant<s «ag,iti«&x, at the jae>:scn aoulevard plaee 
r«gardin«( the purehase by plaintiff of the ^unk Uiere loo<'.;.ed. 
Bennett introduced plaintiff to Prank 4, aueriff. an eo<ployee 
of defendant, and further oonversation was had regarding the 
purehase by plaintiff of the piping and Junk regaining at the 
AUBtm plant* on April SA. 1917, plaintiff paid defendant fOO 
and Bennett «ava plaintiff the following p«par: "Reeeived of 
)., eeldatein $50 as deposit en iron to bo^ taken out at $17. So 
a ton,« subsequently plaintiff rewoved the junk, emcunting ta 
nearly 12 tone, fre» the jnekeon boulevard plaee, and he alsa 
reneved several waKon leads of junk froa the Austin avwiue 
plant, Aocerding to tJie testimony of Slek GallO, defendant's 

«»%«tiis«n fit ii^« Au»tin aT«n\ta rl*nt, plaintiff on one oo&a.BioQ 
attMq»i«dl to briba Gall* witk^ » tftn doll«7 bill ao %h»i, plftin- 
tiff night be Rllo«v«d to take «^>nty a load of J\<iik «ith«iuit hnT* 
ia4S the same w«iglx04. («n4 thab he (Oi»lle) so aotlfied ^.i^riff . 
Plaintiff denied taa att<eBpt«d briblnf;, Shortly thereafter, 
«n June 4» 1917, » eettlttnisnt aa esade for nil th» .lunk tiaat 
plaintiff h«d taken e^wy from both plaoea by plaintiff paying 
tc defendant, throu^^U Jb^riff, the sum of $^^36. At t»at tiae 
^eriff g«y« plaintiff the following j»«}>er: •!<eo*iv»d of },, 
6(»ld»tcln 423li. '?otal due per wei^Oit $268. Tesa dep«ait |5o, 
Salaaoa |238.* The defendant thereafter r«futied tc. allow i-'l'itin- 
tiff to take away any aiore MAterial. ilaintiff, s^t ttxt trial, 
did net elaia da«tag«Bea aeocunt of defendant'a refuaal to allow 
hia to take a«ray the rcBuilnin^ piping and ^unk, but did elaitt 
dattacaa for tiefendant^s vtet-xnM to allcv hiia to take away eertain 
iren oeliiranit, mui tti? eontreverey, by adiotittslon of plaintiff** 
attorney, wholly relfit«d to B»id eoluiane. 

After the fire »t the Aiiatln mYenua plant th»re were 
left etandin^ 86 iron ooluunne in tho bi^aacent whicrh h»i •u]>i»orted 
the floor above. laintiff t«atlfi«!<1 thnt they «*fr« etill 0t»nd*> 
Ini? A«n he toek »'»smy fram the plaae his l«et load of Junk; that 
he never scot any of the eoluKne; th.»t the defendmnt «»• osuppoeed 
to take thcBi dom; " that asourdin^i: to hie «»tiiimt» they wei«he4 
abeikt a ten and a half apieoe; and that they were worth froa $30 
to l&u per ton. The preeident of def<fla;i»ot, V. a. (furinlan, tne- 
tified that at tiie tiiB« plaintiff was taking awa/ Uie junk the de- 
fendant vaa keeping eaid eolunn* for the purpoee of ueing, the« 
in the eonstruotion of a new building. 

Th6 sole bft»ia for pltiintlff 'a claiii for dMBngea on 
4«fendant*s refusal to «llcw hi* to take fi*ay said oclxutnu la 

bla own testlMttoy, to th« eff«ot that shortly »ft*r h« first 

Ti«««d th« «r«ek m% th« Austin nvenu* plant h« s»« :ih#rlff ?xnd 

■«d« hlu • Yerbal bid for nil the iron th»t ^sms ih«r«, t1»: 

*>417,So for ih9 pipe aed e<^luwn»* »rid whni^rsr aerftp ihirr« ^m» 

«% #13»" nnd thttt Sheriff seo«pt«dl tli« offer. In these Htnt«. 

stents r1alnt,lff is flatly eontrmdieted by ;^'»rifr« «fho te^itifiedi 

«I nrrer i^ad any conTersation with plaintiff in »i!ii(ili 'i said tliai 

he oould hskve the eoltuaas fsr 417 «S0 a ten; vr« were laaTln^ the 

eeliuute tuere at ti:iat tijatt, as »e oonteiaplatftd rebuildlBi; the 

plaee; »«• l nerer hnd e talk witk kia vhere i. told hia he 

•ciild hRT« all the iron In the basaBadnt," 

^^ it«»yoK T. bfusptooi , 7o ill» App» 80, f*a, this 

Appellste court saids 

"It it be said thi»t there were proved ciroiisistisnees 
in the a.'^ae thrtt t an ipit to sHpvoi'*' apy«1. les 's clai®, it way be 
antrvered tri«t tnere i«ere as msny o ih«r proTe^i cii-em'Hiit.nuaem 
thrtt ^^r-ndod qulti? as Btr'OTi.i;ly to supvort app^l suit's v^raica 
of %hv contraot. jt ie a famllinr nil* that a plaintiff «u»t 
aak» out his or ,hf?r oai»e by «i prpT'onderflmce of the eviicnce, 
IB this case tii-T« «*» -'i fjl i»ar failure by tho 9pp«*l 1 «?« in sueh 
r«{;sr<^, ^n*} ^<? n,r<? hcuwl tc hold tunt "Ud v^Tiiict '^aa eo ajftnl- 
festly fepaln^t the preponderance of the eri lence >*a to r.^nuire 
us to reverse the ^ud;3tt*nt, ^:cawie t; v. f:i-pi»8 « 61 iii, M," 

I» the j cnsl^e e ot^se, anore cited, it i^ aaid (p,95}i 

•Th*re ere Y«ry f<»* caa'-'S in 'sfhioh a jury siieuld 
find a verdiet for the pl«i«tiff upon nls unsupvnrted tes- 
tl0.eny alone, .Jhcn tiiat ttsstiLcriy i© j,{,«itiv6ly contradicted 
by tlie defenJant. it beiongs to the plnlntiff to make out a 
c»ie«, the burden ol proof i» wppn him, niad .,u*-re the isme 
rests upon the sworn affirix^ation of one p«rty and ine sworn 
d«ni«^ rf i.ut.» bctn iiivTin;- tfcts uhuxk inkuna of xnioia»a« 
tion una both unli[fip«aoli«A, emd testifying to a etnte of f'leis 
e<|ually probable, f. conatoientious Jury c«/j anl^- aa;/ ihtit the 
plaintiff has failed to establish ui» cleiA." 

in Hrsdy v. caiaffee . 163 ill. A p . ^A£, 246, this 

Appellotft eourt said) 

"An ftffinai^tive atateraent by on« tfitness, s»et by a 
flet eot#irerlcal df»nlnl tv an»«th«r, cf equal ciedibjlity, dees 
not aeet the flm^mitnxj requlrerrent of the law that a plaintiff 
PVflt KiflJce cu*. his or her c>»8« by a pre, oncoranoe cf th« «ri- 
oenoe. ** Th« defendant in error, not hftTing proren her eas« 

by a p r«i enderane* of the «Yldenoe, ^ind the v«ralot being 
a^Alnst itoe deeid«d >f«lfei:ii «f Ua eviaenee* it i<( tixe duty 
of tiiis court to r«v«rs« tii« jud^jnant ana rw-atmi ths c»ua«." 
(Citxnj\» uaueit.y 

un<ier tLa law of tixlat iiitat«, Mjt'i after « csretal 

eeneideratipn of th* testiaieny« v« are of th« epini&n tiiat tti« 

plaintiff, oeldst«in, did not proTe hia cnee oy a prerOiKiavanea 

•f tii« «viaeno«, Pn.1 tlist lh« trial court erred in net graniinis 

44tf«a<tent*a aetloa far a new trial en that ground. AooorJinKly, 

the Judgment of th« Cireuit eourt i» rpv<?re«(l nad th« «aua« r«* 


m^miSTm Ami mmfOi-mia, 

Bamas, I. j.. »ntl ateUett, ^i., conour. 

127 • awfft 

fAtBIC& N. 0*DOt«.ieU., 


A. M-imm, 

Appellant, / 

MpmAi, rum 

COOK c<r5iisty 





Gb AngMti 90, 1916, la tli« Cireuit Court •f (^ok ccmttty* 
Fairiok B. C>*i)«nn«ll oagw «ae«4 ms neilon «m tli« etfi«« ac«in»t aIm 
I'rimk, i^acley Reyiw (Mud H^nry A. Scrgcr* AvftnAcuBt** aa^ oa tlM 
a«B* <i«y im fll«4 hl» deelAmtioa eftattieilag of cib« eouitt* Th« 
muMMta vtts MVYcO «a tl»« d<»f«ftdRat8 H»yae «tt<l lf<i<rg«r, tut «• to 
ilM defcn^aat Frsak vn* retara«d aet f(Mftad* To a^K «euBi fltayiM 
•ad Bcrgwr filed « plect »f th« i;«narel i«mt«« <^ (iewRbcr S« !•!•» 
%h» eeuri Allowed tb«» i« »lth4r«nr their ple» ead te file » geaerel 
sa<l ajpeolMl 4L«mTt»r te mniA ei»itnt* On th« •tm* dejr tlM plelatiff 
filed by lei&ve ef onurt five »dditl»a».l emmte* and ea uornmhmr 9, 
1918, Uaeley Reyne and Berger filed a geaeral deaarrer te eald 
addltleaal eouate. Oa SoveMl>er SO, 191d« the defeadoai Fmnk erne 
•erred viib preeess, mat th« rv-c^rd <lec» net dleeleee thet eay 
further yreceedinge ««r« tnlMn mB te hia. Oa iepteaber S9, 1910, 
the eeurt Mi^tblaed the deaarrftr ef Reyae end Berger te tlbie eriglaal 
eoaat and te etieh ef the luiditienel oaaate, lad, plelatiff eleetlag 
te etead \t^ hlit deel^r; ilea, entered Judgaeat «g«laat plalatlff for 
eeete, ead thle appeal feliewcd. 

la tlw eriglaal eouat pleiatiff , after etetlag ib»t 
^fere ead m% the tiae ef the eenRlttiag ef the grl«T»aae« ceaplela* 
ed of he vae a yn^etlelag lawyer ef good vtMidlag hM reputfitlea la 
ChlOftgo aad Ce^k Ceuaty, errere la euh«t«aee thAt ea Jaroery 1, 191«» 
aad frier aad elaee th*t date, the 4«feadftat8 ooaeylrvd to fi»leely 



accuse and, "by means of false and faljricated testimony, to procurs 
plaintiff to be indicated and conrlcted of conspiracy and of 
subornation of perjury; that said Indictments were to be returned 
against plaintiff upon the fabricated and perjured testimony of 
■aid Frank; that the defendant Hoyne during said times was, and 
is now, the acting state's attorney of Cook County, and that the 
defendant Berger was, and is now, an assistauit state's attorney of 
said county; that after the defendant Frank had been paroled from 
the penitentiary, he was, by Hoyne and Berger^ "coerced, intimidated, 
cajoled and corrupted to give his fabricated and perjured testimony" 
against the plaintiff to the grand Jury of Cook County at the 
February and March terms, 1916, thereof; that Hoyne and Berger con- 
spired to falsely accuse the plaintiff, and thereby oppress and 
wholly ruin him and destroy his reputation and law practice, and tt 
that end presented a petition to the Chicago Bar Association seeking, 
ex parte and without notice to plaintiff, to institute disbarment 
proceedings against said plaintiff, which petition they afterwards 
abandoned; that afterwards Hoyne and Berger, cmspiring as aforesaid, 
presented, ex parte , a similar petition to the Supreme Court of 
Illinois, whioh petition they afterwards abandoned; that Hoyne and 
Berger afterwards knowingly permitted and eaused the said proceed* 
Inge taken before the grand Juries to be published in diTers of the 
newspapers of Chicago and elsewhere, thereby greatly injuring plain- 
tiff; and that, by means of the premises plaintiff has been greatly 
injured in his credit and reputation as a practicing lawyer, and 
otherwise greatly injured, to his great damage, etc* 

In their demurrer to said original count, Hoyne and 
Berger, as cause for demurrer, showed (l) that, it appearing from 
said count that at the times mentioned said Hoyne was staters 
attorney of said county, and said Berger was an assistant state** 
attorney thereof, the acts complained of were performed as Judicial 

fcb:: ; no^'fi 





officers and were privileged; and (2) that three separate and 
distinct acts are cnnplained of in said cnunt and made the basis 
of the cause of action, vizo (a) the act of procuring false 
testimony to he given before the grand jury, (b) the presentation 
by said defendants of a petition to the Chicago Bar Association 
whereby they sought the disbarment of plaintiff, and (c) the 
presentation of a petition to the Supreme Court of Illinois where- 
by said defendants sought to institute disbament proceedings 
against plaintiff, and that, therefore, the count is double. 

In the printed brief here filed by counsel for plaintiff 
no arguments are made that said original cnunt is sufficient in 
law, but the arguments seemingly have reference to the five 
additional counts. While we might be Justified in treating said 
original count as having been abandoned, we will say that, in 
our opinion, the count is bad on general demurrer because it 
sufficiently appears therefrom that the acts of Hoyne and Berger 
complained of, even if done maliciously and without probable cause, 
were performed as judicial of ''leers and are therefore privileged. 
(32 Cyc, 717; Griffith v. Slinkard , 146 Ind., 117, 121; Parker v. 
Huntington, 2 Gray (Mass.) 124.) Furthermore, we think the count 
is bad on special demurrer as being double « 

In none of the five additional counts is there any 
allegation to the effect that, at the time of the connnlttlng of 
the grievances complained of, Hoyne and Berger were respectively 
state's attorney and assistant state's attorney of said county. 
The allegations are apparently against them in their individual 
capacltleso In all of said five additional counts it is charged 
that all three of the defendants maliciously, fraudulently and 
Illegally, and without any reasonable or probable cause therefor, 
"conspired" to injure plaintiff. 

In the first additional count it is averred in substance 

si "Vi^.f 

. .. . ' ... <-ta^B 

ihftt tb« dcfead«atN en yebnir.rjr X, ma, aMlieiOttaljr «s« unlavfvlly 
ooa«plr«d to em»9 to b« pr«ferr«tf and rttturavd in tlie CriKin4il Ccurt of 
C*ok c«B«ty an indieiai«ai iic&lnat plnlntlff . e)inrgia« hi« vith the orisc 
of oeaaplracy to do an illegal ««ti and thfct la puraoanoc of aaid eon* 
•plraaj th«y, oa ^prll 1% 1M«, aallcloaaly, «al«^ully aad with«>ut 
provable entt^t gavo, and enuaod i« 1»« giiran. falao« fabrieatod aad p«r- 
4ttrod %«»tl»ea7 to the grtmd jury, to the gn&t damgo of plaintiff, oto. 
la the sooead ndUtionAl oeuat it ia arorrod la sub«taao« that Um 
dafoadaata on ythru-jry 1, IMft, Mallolously aad anlawfuUy eoaaplrad ta 
doprlTc snd hiad«r plciiatif frm folloviag aad •xereialni? hia teaiatna 
aad prefeasiea »a aa attantays «»»4 «!»* U purMaato t aald veaapirady 
thoy, ea April 12, IWes, aalieimiely, lUagaiy aad without prehahla 
eauaa gave aad eaaaad te ho publishftd in the Chloaga Daily Iribuaa the 
Ufomutioa th»t the plalatiff h-^d Doen ladieted, te bia groat damgo.ote. 

Xa tlw third additieaal oount It ie cYorred ia ettbaUaee that the 
def eadaata, ea Fohrtt«*ry 1, 1016, SKlioiottaly aad nalavfally eoaepirod to 
doprlTt aad hlador plalatlff fr«H felloviag aad oxarelaiag hia Vuaiaaaa 
aad profaaeiea ne im »ttoraey, aad therehy greetly iii9ev«riah«d hia, te 
hia great dNaage, ete« 

Xa the fmrth »dditiea»l ecunt it ie averred ia wbataaee thut ea 
Fahnary 1, l«l«, the defendaata* together with other pereme eheeo a«MB 
are unkaem te plaintiff, oeaapired te falaely aad Kalioieaaly, mmi with- 
«at probahio *mtf» charge aad aceuae plalatlff, aad te enuae hia te he 
i^rged aad aeeaeed, ef hawiag been guilty of great eorruptlen and ether 
■*•*•■••»•«'• *»* foleaiee a» a prAetleiag «tteraey aad of hawing oerrupt- 
Xy ehatructed the due eourae ef pablio Juatiee in aaid Cook County, and 
that eaid defendMnte, in purauaaee of attid eeaapiraey, ea April lC,lPli, 
■alieieaely aad aalawfuUy gawe aad eaaeod to be given fnlao,fabrioate« 

«*d perjured teatlaeay to Uio April Oraad J^ry, te plaiatiffU great 
4«a««e, cte. 

Zn the fifth additional count it ia awerred in eubstanoe 
tk»t, on the day and year Hforee»id, the defendaata, together with 
ether pereona lo^ae naaea are unkaowa to plaintiff, oeaapired te 
falaely ohargo aad aeeaae plaintiff with auberaaUea ef perjury 


la « e«rt»iii ci>.»m «luir«iii plalatiff «m« rcpr^Aentiait • d«fe»diiist 

^ftrg«4 wlili m. crisM undnr a eeriala in^lotmcRt; an() ttuttt in par- 

»tti^n«e vf »«^14 ewneplrAojr ih« 4«fendieata, on /pril 10. 19XA, 

■«Iicl«uely and ttBl«tvfull;y and vithout »ny prebe.M« oftute, g*T« 

and oaaacd to tm givn fnl9*t fal»rio»t«<i and p»rjttr«4d toetivsajr 

to Uie A Til OniAd ifttry. to piAlntiff*« gr««i dtnutfe, «t>e. 

w« d0 not think thui nay «tt« of Xhm tin «daitlonnl 

em»ts atnlet n food Ofluao of !>»eil<m. In | | .ai«hf r v. JUL^Mll* ^^^ 

Ul., S51, S64, It lo s»14: 

"Th* ualavful aRtiii dene in pursuitneo of a eflnaplr»e]r« 
and not t)a« f HOt of thu aoaspirK^ey, s:ir« th« giot of the 
ot^oo of (totion in Hn <; ration on the^ c: ue for aalieiotto 

preaoeutlon, i^SSmX,''' MS&. '^ lii*. *'? «gffAM?B ▼• 
<*ilt» . 39 Kleb., fiaa.) in th« HjaalXton cwb® the low 
govomlag a <Ak«vfo of aoaoplr«iey la « doelar^tlen llko 
this la «oll ataiod lay Qi'«tvoB, J*» «« folXowK (p. a3c): 
*Xn TAry onoloat iln«« all escticna for amlleloae proBO<mtlen 
«er« Ir.ld* wlMiro two Or More d«fend«»»ta woro involved, witb 
» etato^o of e«H»aplvuey» and tbio prftetloo i* aupposed to 
lurro beea adopted f roa analogy to the sfta^tntory fora of th« 
Old writ of oonsplr^ey. Bvtt tb^i e^rlj pr^ ctic« h>'>a boon 
long eliaoleto. 7h« cti^n is not for ooneplrf«cy. but ia 
aluqply an action on tho om^o* ftae glot of it la nnt tbo 
e(m«plr»ey* but ih#* damago to tha ol«vtntlff by the wrong* 
fax note of the dsf (?n£)«tata; and thie ia ot^uitlly t«otlanahl« 
okath«r it he thts r(>attlt of conspire c:y or not* ^^e nsttor 
of plodding th» eh»rg« of ooaaplraoy ia »ore aurploeage '^ad 
only eatltlod to b« loolcod at «^k a matter of aggrAT^^tloa* 
aad tho laaertlon of %,hs nwonaoat of It doaa not chaago tho 
natara of the .otloa r.t (^1. it la atill «in rction on the 
oaae and to be trie . nd dlapooed af accordingly.'* (Citing 

'^w ^«^lof ▼• BldwolX . 65 Cftllf ., 489, 4©n, it la aald. 

noting frea th« language of Chinf Jaatloe Holt, In •;aTlle v. 

•-Roberta . 1. Ld. Saya. ?op., 378: 

"Ka action will not 11« for tho graatewt con»piraoy 
laaglnablo if nothing be put in exeeatlon: but if the 
party be dt>%<!iged the "Otlen will lie. ''ran whenoe it 
follawa th«s daaago le the grooad of aotioa.* 

*» Hawse re w« ioarero . 217 Uo., 541, B»», tho ocurt, 

after <nteting frtn Ceoley en lorta, 3nd Xd., p* 143, to tto 

effect that a eonapirmcy eannot be mt^e the mbjeet of a olTll 

action ualeea aeacthlng ia done whieh* wlthtmt the ocnnpiraey. 



wmkXA glT* « rleUnt of »eiioa« «aya: 

*B«n««* it fell»w« that tb« rtp««t»d ali«g«'iion« 
of ceanflraoy b«t«««n %li«a« def<tndr<nt» Yutf \ni, llttio 
«iipilfieaii««» UBlcsti in fi^«ii.ti«n th«r« it st&tcd a. eon* 
eretc e'sua* «r • ction." 

Jfix«aiiala£ pcriiMilarljr &» to the oansret* acta raapaotivaly 

dinrttaA in the fire additional enuata to haw b«en done )>3r tha dcfaad* 

aaia in pttraanaeo of the BMld allaged eenapirnojr, we do net find in 

the third osunt any mentien of any concrete net* In the aeeend eeiuit 

the Bejre sikci.rgt» that the defendtinta eislioieusly* ttnl;v«fttlly and «ithei| 

any prnhaUe eanse* 4(«ve to, and eeused ie be jpuViii»hed la a Chleagt 

ne«»frai»er infomi»tion iho^t yilaintiff had he«n ittdiet«d« doe a not* •• 

think, aufrioiently atnte o cfuuse of 'Ctien. In Mm firat. fourth 

and fifth counts the ch^rte i«, in aiibstAnae. th«t the lefendjoitn 

RalieiOQBlyt uaX«>.«ftilly and wlth'nit pro'babXe cause, snre, er eaaM4 

t« he giToa, f«tlae, fahrionted and perjured te^tlnetty to a grand 

^ry* It is net alleged in any 9f theae eounte «h»t the fnlae and 

perjured teatlnony no glv«a wn«, or that plaintiff, ae a result of 

M«h t««tiaony, was erer inflietcd or sxrafftttA, or if indlotad vaa 

a«4aitted of the oharge ia the iBdiotaeat* urthtraors, *ao aetiea 

t»r alaader vill lie og^^innt a witneas for ^^h^X ha ?ays or writes in 

girini; evldlenee in a Ju(Ucl»0, i>r'»ce«?<iing, n'^tvlthetfln'iing it amy he 

■alioiotts er fftlse; the privilege, th^t exenpte a witneaw frM eueh 

notion, ia aheolQto} an notion of elander vill net lie for testinoay 

given ia a eaee, if suoh tedtinony ia pertinent and natarlal to the 

subject of inrialry.* ( t^cDnTitt ▼. Boyer . 16© III., 476, 488.) And 

it ie aiiid in Yod.»r ▼. Cele. 2»a Fa. 8t., 8^9, ftll: "Publlo poliey 

and the aafe etdrinifitr««tiOTi of juetiee reinire th^^t vitneosea« «ho 

are n n«eeeaary pai'i of the jndicial M&ehinery be privileged against 

any reatraint, exeeptiag that iapoaed by t):e penalty for «M»rjury.* 

And it is said in laylsr ▼. Bi ditel; . s npra: •The avements with 

rsspest to the defendants' mabominK » witneaa to awear falsely 


ia ill* ertaiiaAl yre0«eatl<m t^Ainst tbe pleiBtiff do »»« «on« 
•titttta a e»tti»« ef tioiioa for di^iaiMceo" » oltiiM; :, i|ittj t. L»«is.« 
3 Johaa. a, Y., XJj7, imd Hoii«r v, yio%. 1 riok. 441, iioo, uXoo, 
ISHM V. iooq*!. 37 App. ilv. («. ^.) 3«S, !J«S; SttaXoff T. OXMd oB. 
ax KaiAo 43S. 

Car eoaaluxtlon is thai tlto 4«<lcMtai of Um Ciroult 
Court t^bottld be affiraMd* 

Buraao, ^* J*« bad MAtohott, J., eoaimr* 


128 - Z^99 

PATRICK B. \p*SMB%U.. / ) 



^ ^ 29.1^^ A. 6^4 

Ai>mAL ntoM 


COOK eoosTY. 


^ M«]r •• ins, la tlM Stt{>«rior Court of Cook County, 
Patrlek B. 0*D«aaell eaB»r.«Ro«d an action mi the «»&• aiswiavt 
Kftolay Keyne eh»rgiag Milleious proa«outiett* la hi* deelara* 
ti»B plaintiff nllec«4 in nt^ctane* tlu^t tlia dcfandant Hoyna 
•n T9'bTut>ry •• 1916, at Cook Cottnty, Illlneie, "did falsely, 
nalicieasly and without any reB»enablo or proba1»lo wuf what* 
aooTor* elMrK* tlio plaintiff with haying canmittodl ttul>ernation 
of porjnryj that defead^oit upon e* id ch re* fnlsaly and sali* 
eieualy onnacd and proeared tb« plaintiff to h* indietod by 
the grttnd ^ury of Cook County, and OMtaod aaoih indiotaant to 
W retumad into opoa oonrt, and esaoed plaintiff to bo arrootod 
and laprieanod; that oftarwax^a on Bay 1, 1917 "tho Staioa 
Attornoy, in and for tha County of Cook aforaaaid, Maelay Hoyno, • 
rofnaad to proaeeiit« oaid indictnont and eanaed tha ord«r of 
nallo prooa r^ j, to b« «at«rad of reeovd theraon) and thrt by 
■aaaa of tho preaioos jilalaUff haa boon graatly iniurad in hia 
orodlt and ropntT'tion, «to. and haa auf farad grafet dasac** ote. 

Juhaaq^antly tha defendant, Kaolay Uoyne, filed a 
cenaral and apeaial demrrar to plaintiff *a daclarittion, in 
alii A ho act up that it appeared froai plaintiff** daolaration 
that ha, Kaolay Hoyne, tha defendant, vaa :^}t*to*a Attamoy in 
and for aaid County uX tha tisio of th* eonsfiiasion ef tha ettppaea<J 
flTioTaneeo allowed, and that all tha aete and dainc* tf tho 


dcf«adaat as «li«c«d ««rt privlXeged, 

te B«pt4niter 37, 1919c tlM eourt, sftsr feictirlas 
argim«ats« ■untniiM'S th« <)cnttrr«r aad, pluiatlff ftlftctiiij; to 
•tajkl by hi« d«eXMri&ilon, ent*r«<t Judgn^nt ftgntnst ih« pl«lntilf 
for eoste Hiid this appftftl followod. 

^ «r« of tbo epinloa t]U).t tli» »eti«n« of tAi« iriol 

court in nuetftlnlnii; the vl«»irr«r oad in onterlng tlio Juigmft 

•pp«»led froa vero eorreot. ta S2 Cye«, 717, it la oKld: 

"A prooooMtiag Attomoy, Wing ^ Judielhl ofrie<er 
of tho otnto* i« aot llftblo in drARgeei for aots don* 
ia tb« eojrso of hiit duty, nXth'n.jgh wilful, nalicioua, 
9r lilMlleuo.* 

Xa T*iraoh*Bd on ; loader and l.ibol, 3d od., pur. 2?r, it i» eaid: 

"For «h«BPirer dutios of s Judioiikl oaUire hT9 
lapooed upon a labile otticv.r, the due sxeeutioo of 
iihieh d«p«nd« vpon hl« om judj^avnt* feio la oxospt froM 
all rospeaaibility by nottna for th« aotiroo whloh 
laflucnoo him «n^ the noanor ia vtileh s^ i<! Outioe aro 
porfenaod* If crmpt, ho »«y be lapcaehed or iadieted, 
bat he cannot bo prooeeuted by &« Indi-ridaal to obtaia 
rodresa for th« sremg »• ieh ff.ay ' a^e been doae* 80 
public offleer to responsible In m ciTil euit for a 
Judicial detoniiaatien, however erroeeotta it »ay be, 
•ad koeever mtlieiOMB tht* im^tire vhieh prodaeed it.* 

Sao also, Griffith ▼« i^lintaurd^ 146 lad., 117; i&sJBBL ▼• 

Hm itiagtoa « 3 Omy (Kaew.) 124. 

/koeerdiagly the jadgaaat of the siuperior Court ia 


Baraoe, !>• J«, aad Matehett, J,, eoaoar. 

48 • zmk 

WILLIAM HAKRiadi, ^ ^-^ rt , 

>^ atf«ndant In ^W^r, 2 Z< 


IRA «• jOHMaicar, ^^ 

i>li|int;ypf In i^rror. 


^, 634 



In this e&M the plaintiff helew sued the defendant to 
raeoTer |674.X3 upon an account atatod for aonoy adranoed by th« 

7h« defandant in his affidaTlt of ■orlto denied that 
the account had boen stated, thet the »aeunt clained or any part 
of it vas due, and farther* set up thet the plaintiff *8 claia was 
based on a geabling transaction and therefore Toid. The case vae 
tried by the court without a S^ry* It had be«n begun by attaeh* 
ncnt. Ihe attaehsent was disaelTed» bat judgment was entered 
upon the merits ttr the amount of the plaintiff's clain. 

The eottrt found the facts to be "that on July 25, 1919, 
plaintiff and defendant ordered Koyes Jt Jnckson, brokers in cotton, 
in the City of Chiosgo. to purohaee on the Hew York cotton exchanse, 
end to charge to plaintiff's account, tm option to buy one hundred 
bales of cotton. That neither plaintiff nor defendant ever intend- 
ed to exereise said option » but intended to resell before sMtarity 
and to settle on the differenoe in the ■arleet price at which pur- 
ohased and et whieh sold. That plaintiff and dsfendant were speeu- 
latins upon the rise and fall of the market price of cotton; that 
at the time of entering into said transaction, plaintiff and defend* 
ant agreed to share profits and losses equally; that ae a result 
of said tranmciction a lose of 11,348.26 vne sustained, whieh plain- 
tiff paid." 





Netwithvtnndlng this finding as to th« facts the court 
h«ld as a propeaition of law that the tranaaetlon did not ottM 
vithln the inhibition of the 8ta1»te; that *the omalderation 
thereof vaa the adjustment of suoh lose hetveen the plaintiff 
and defendant;" and the court held *k8 a natter of lav suoh eono 
aider!?tioa ie a legal eonsideration*** 

Zf in accept tlu» facta ss f «iund %y the oeurt «• think 
this proposition of law was clearly erroneous as np piled thereto. 
See aoos. 130 and 1?1, chap* 36» Criminal Code* 

Defendant in error has not appeared in this court t hut 
we hare examined the oTidence carefully to aseertain if the find- 
ing of fact is Justified. This exainineition diBolosee that the pur- 
chase was not an "option" to buy cotton, but on the contrary* that 
plaintiff had an account with Noyes Is Jaek8en» who were senbers 
of the fiew york stock exehango; that plaintiff aiade purchases of 
ootton through these brokers on an agreeaent with defendant that 
he and defendant would share the profits or losses resultiagt 

The evidenee for plaintiff shows only the ordinary 
transaction in Baking such a purchase. 

The defendixnt*s sTidenoe tending to sustain his pl«a 
of an illegal transection is to the effect that they were "speeu- 
lating on the market. * He says: "The latter part of J^ly 1 told 
Harrison th«t we were both foolish to speculate; thut 1 hsd lost 
about #14«000 the last year. • * X had newer dealt In it before; 
cotton was advancing, it was about 34 cts. X'r. Harrison said it 
was llksly to go to 60 cts. a point •* 

In order to Invalidate a contract under tha statttto 
It must be proved that neither of the parties intended to deliver 
the goods, and that both had the Intention at the time of making 

)09 »9& 

.... ttd 

t^Oi W « A 'tuiwc^ 


the contract tlmt tt wonld !>• settled en differenees. Sutler t. 
Part£id£g., 183 111. >^»p., SSOj Hartwlf t. Booth . Bo. 24694 
Appellate Cnurt* First Braneh, not yet reported. 

The erldcnee for defendant falls f tir short of making 
this proof. The court entered a proper Judgment, although en 
an erroneous theory. It will, therefore, be affirmed, 

Barnes, P. J., tani Gridley, J., ooncur. 

57 . 25823 

Defendant in v^ror,: 

\ / 

\^ / ) 0? CHIGAOO. 



riaintfff in 

221I.A' 634 


Alfons* ^asiulis* the plaintiff t>«loiv and d«f«nd«nt 
In «rror here, brought a suit m aitao.'iment again at ijOBiinlok 
BudTitia claiaiBi^ that the eata of S500 was dluf^ to iiim frrai the 
defendant as cotaqpensation for {^rocurio^ a purotiiiner for certain 
reM estate oimed hy the aef emiej^t, iieveraX statutory grounds 
for attHohaaent were alleged, 'i'he irrit of attae'<ai«»nt issued and 
vas served on the defendant and also en one Auguatus pocua as 
garnishee. 7he cause was tried "by the court without a Jury. 
The court fo«iX)d the iflsuea agninwt the plaintiff on ttie attach' 
reent but in f»»vor of the plaintiff on the nerita of the ease »n4 
assessed plisintiff 'a daiaages in the auia of *>S<JO, for ^nrhich antouBt 
Judf»«it was entered aigeiniit ths defendant. The only asaigament 
argued i» thnt the Judgment is ai^ainat the annifeot weight of the 

The plaintiff testified that he h'^d known defendant 
about two mentiis at the time or the tran»aotion. The defendant 
told hiro he wished tc aell the property invol-ved and that if he, 
plaintiff, would get a custoaer for uim defendant would pay hia 
$bQ{', lie further testified that one ..jeryila wits present at that 
time, »nicn was in the aorning of the day that plaintiff brought 
I ecus, the prospective purchaser, t.i' the pl^cs, «nd that plain- 
tiff told defimdant he had a purchaser for the property but did 
BOi introduce the customer to plaintiff. The plaintiff also 
testified that in a aeoond oenyersation the defendant promlseA 

hi* ^50C if hf» would brinj- s pnrehaser for the property and that 
GU8 l^oouB waa preauit at that tiaae. Th« plaintiff had Just retjti?d 
a salccn in tiie building in queation from dafendara, 

lartin .i«rvila» vidao t» so ovmed a saloon nearby, tea- 
tified ti:i«t he waa present and heard defendant aay^ "'acroe of you 
fellows oould broufeJit a custcaaer on Uiat property* 1 will feiva 
you #5o«;.« That ia all he aaid." 

I'OOua taatified that hp, h-.d known the plaintiff for 
about two montha; that plaintiff tcld him the j Iftoe he, the 
plaintiff, ran as his «alocn waa for sale; tunt plaintiff went 
upataire »nd <;cot the owner and introduced the o^«ner tc i-tra, the 
witnesa; that plaintiff ahowed hiia all around the building and 
naked hia $2l»CC0 for vhe rl?'ce; th«t ^itneaa off erad 4X8,000, but 
plaintiff aaid that waa toe cheap and wallred out. He aaya, •Then 
we ciake little by little. | give him ei^iitean thousand nnd the» 
he ccffle down to twenty thousand and we make a deal for nineteen 
thousand. '>'<fe eloea up the deal on the first of 'eptoraber. I 
give hiui so Bttch deposit. » » •» He further aaya he eUd not 
knew ^r« iMdvitia at the time and did not know Mr, ^^aslulis* 

Julia ic»c», another tenant cf defendant, t«atifie» 
she waa present and heard def^ioant say to plaintif f ," Uf you 
please bring back this man kv. looua, wirxu ie gointi to buy ay 
property, I will aell to hi«.» i.x, iaaiulia aaya, »¥©u know I 
aa so busy .1 have no tijae to go.' He saya, ♦wh«t do you care 
of that, 1 giro you ^500 in eommissien if you orin^- Vtim br^ok.** 

The defendant teetified that he hr.d sold th^ saloon 
to liaalulls for |20C, that he then told K^aslulis that he wanted 
#ao,000 for the whole property, but would let hira hare it for 
$500 leas, but that he nerer offered a commission to wnybody and 
never offered plaintiff a oosimlasion, but did offer ta aall it to 
hia for fSoc leaa than twenty thousand whioh waa his prlee. 

Tlie teofciraony of i^oouii is somewhAt disoredltAd by an 

affld«Tit vtrhicii he mad* just pricr tc the closing of th<? cl«al in 

which h« atetes tiiat no pfsrty was in any way reaponaible for the 

Bale »f the preuilsee to hin and that hfi had nerer spoken to 

plaintiff about the sale of the premises before th« contract of 

•ale was entered Into. 

Several other witnesses Hi so testified regarding 
stateroents HiJide by focus Thioh are inconsistent with his sworn 

The witnesses on both sidta were not entirely fatcdliar 
with the Kngliah lanj^ittai^e And this m^kee the tasic of nn appellate 
court in determining where the preponderance of the eridence lies 
acre than ordinarily difficult, Jn «ucii r oase the general rule 
in favor of the firji!iing& of tlie tri»l 4,eurt w/iieh saw and hoanjl 
the witnesses ie peculiarly appropriate, the burden of proof was 
upon the plaintiff, there i a h shejrp conflict in the evidence, 
focus is certainly discredited* but on the ether hand there are 
eirouastnnces tending to corroborate plrtintiff and discredit the 
testinony of defendant. The plaintiff was the only person that 
defendant can certainly remember havmg tcld tJrmt the property was 
for sale, and a preponaerance of the evldwnce indicates tioat leeus 
learned this f^ot froa rasiulis, 

tinder all the cire»»Bistninoes we ptp net f»ble to say aa 
in BersKisn v, F^ 3. B. & I,. Assn ., 169 ill, App. 32©, nnd other 
eases on which appellant relies, that the evidence does not es- 
tablish plaintiff's cffsa by a preponderance. 

The Judi^ent will therefore be affimed, 


Bsurnes, 1-. j., nnd cridley, ;., concur. 

112 - 29M3 

HOBiisiT J. FOLcarm 

De^ndant In Krror, 


a oerporationn \ 

Plaintiff 4j[<^Brror, 


g O & 


^ly 18» 1918, defendant In error began a suit in 
eesunpsit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against plaintiff 
in error retttrna>>le on the third Monday of September* A decls* 
ration was filed on the ntme day and atta<^ed thereto was s 
copy of the aoenunt sued en. and an affidarit of nterite setting 
up the nature of plaintiff's clain, and alleging that there wae 
due to the plaintiff fron the defendnnt, aifter allowing all Just 
credits. $1,018. laly 51at thereafter, the appearanee of plaln> 
tiff in error w«b entered by its attorneys, and on Auguet first 
the plea of ntin ssstmpsit was filed. So affidarit of merits 
vas atts^ed ae required hy see* S5 of the Practice Act, Hard's 
RoTised Statutes, 1919, chap. IIC, p. 22Bb, Kay S*, 1919, th»re» 
after, on notion of the « ttorney for plaintiff "default of said 
defendant is entered for failure to file its &ffidn:v-it «€ sierits 
vith its said plea, and Judgment is entered for the plaintiff and 
against the said defendant in the sun of $1«018«0C.« 

JUly 3, 1919, the defendejit aade a motion to raoate this 
judgment, and In support thereof filed certain pffidarits in which 
it set up facts tending to show a good defcneo on the merits, and 
that the default and Judgment wore entered without its knowledge 
or netieo; that the esuse was not reached en the calendar, hut was 
talwn up and tried ex parte , out of its regular order. Thee* 
affidavits, hewewer, are not preserred hy bill ef exceptions. 




July 16, 1919, the notion to raeato tho order of default 
and Judcmeat wm denied *y the c«>ttrt. Mguet 9th thereafter, the 
plaintiff in open court &,clmowledged pajnent in full of all dmagen 
and eeeta, and it vae ordered that the Judgnent he satisfied in 
full of record. 

Plaintiff in error arguee, first, that it was orror to 

assess daBases with plea on file, and second, that it vns error to 

assess damaKes without notice to the defendant, the appearance of 

the defendant being en file. The firet point raised has heen 

decided contrary to the contention of plaintiff in error in Craier 

▼• Ill« Coa. Ken's ass|>,« .« 260 111. 516* whsre the eourt discussing 

this euhject eaid: 

"Counsel call attention to the fact that there 
was sfTcnteen pleae and the order was in the singular, 
hut it was not necessary to strike the ploas front the 
files, although such a prRCtioe is proper and not un- 

In the same ease Brajdwood ▼. «eiller « 69 111. €0€ is quoted with 

apinroTal. In it the court says: 

"The store usual way of taking &dTantage under the 
fraotiee Aot of thw want of an affidarit of aerits 
aecoMpaayiag the plea, when the plaintiff, as here, 
■akes en affidavit of his claia, is hy motion for a 
Judgaeat as in caac of default, or by notion to strike 
the plea fron the files for want of such affidarit,* 

And in the aore recent esse of ^irestono t, Qinebera . 285 111. 1S3, 

tho court says: 

"Where an affidavit of aerits is insufficient it 
is proper praetiee lo strike it froa the files, and the 
plaintiff is then entitled to judgaent as in case of 
default. After an affidavit of nerits has been strioksn 
fr«B the files, it is not necessary to strike the plea 
frea the fileti, although the practice is not iaproper 
and is eoamoa.* 

The eases Oited by plaintiff in error iadieate that it 

has failed to distinguish between theee e?ses in whleh/ineuff icieat 

affidavit of nerits has been filed, and e^ses where, as here, no 

affidavit of aerits has been filed. Plaintiff In error's first 


iiom ?'•• 

o««Jtav *mlc 

;<1 lift 

« sea ail 


'»S,4m« aiisU 

Sl-iS--. i'-iOLH 

^ .><■?':., 


• 3«. 

point* therefor*, CAzmet b« cuetalned. 

In discussing the second point mar attention is called 
to rules 20 and 21 of the Cirouit Court* These rules* howiTerf 
like the affidaTits Mentioned, hare net heen aiade « fart of tho 
record* sad ve cannot taJoe judieiiil notice of thoa. The record, 
therefore, fails to shew, as in lewargystya t. BaroimitiSa 139 
111. App. 94, en vhieh 8p>:«liant relies, that the Judgsent was 
entered without notice or the case called out of its regular 
order. It is very doubtftil, in vidv of the languafo of the 
SuproiM Court in Craaner r. 1 1 1 . Oom» Men* a Assn ., supra , p. 821, 
end the opinion of this court in earorete ▼• Mewtoft , 211 111. 
App* 494, tritiether in such CKse any netioe would ho necessary* 

VoreoYerg the Judgsent has heen satisfied withmt 
ohjoetion in open sourt and the questions raised by plaintiff in 
error would, therefore, sees to >>e Koot tiuestions. 

Tho JudOMBt will he aff iz»«d« 

Bamos, p. J*, aad Gridley, J*, oonour« 




124 • 2S899 

CATHsaxn s, mooosough, 

PlaUtiff io Srr»r, 

« corporation, / 

Z^nm TO 


Defead«nt IjI ;*ror. ^)/r^ -^ T ^ AO«^ 


The pl&intiff in her atateaent of clala alleged that 
there vas due to her froB the defendsat, upon an aeeeuBting 
under a written contract, the sua of $1»347.0S« The defeadcat 
in its affid&Tit of merits admitted an indebtedness of ^371.46, 
hat denied that it was liahle for any further aua* The easo 
vsfi tried by the e<rart without a Jury, aad the omrt entered 
Judgment on a f Indian for plaintiff of the amcunt admitted to 
b« duo« but refused to find any further iadebtednose. The 
plaintiff, therefore, bringB this mrit of error* 

There doee not se« to be any dispute upon any 
material ftueBtlea of fact. 

The defendant vaa in the stesM heatiag bfueineaa 
and '• J. McDoaough, the husband of plaintiff, «&s secretary 
of the cflmpany. 

The eoatraet aued on is ia ^Titiag dated April 9, 
1913. By its terms the plaiatiff sold and delirered to 
defendant 96mZ/Z aharea of the capital atoek of the corporf^tien. 
The total number of aharea of etock of the defendant oorporntian 
vaa SCO, and by the f irat elaaao of the OMtraot it vaa proTided 
that Hilaon Brothera agreed to pay, and plf.iatiff afroed U 
accept ia full payment for the 96-2/3 aharea of the stock, the 
actual net worth of the eaid aharea of def eadaat corporation 
to be aaeertaiaed aad paid as in tho eoatraet set forth* 






thm <Si8p«t* between the pttrtics Brlses «Ht of the 

eoBstructlen of elevse 6 of the oentr&ot, which is e^s follows: 

"The said HIIbob Bros* hare heretofore entered 
into three oertain eontr> cts fer work Ir the Jobs knows 
«■ the Beckley ilalaton Job, the Cook County Hoapital Job, 
•ad the Katherinc Hickey Job. All of thene Jobs hawe 
b«ea tamed ever to \ J. Keroaoagh CoBpaay. The pnrty 
of the first p&rt &t the d»te hereof* has furnished oertain 
labor and material for anA oa aeeouat of said Jobs. It 
is further tigreed th&t the party of the secoad part will 
apply a sua cqUK.1 to the cost to the party of the first 
part of all raeh l«bor aad aeterial delivered to or wrought 
lato said jobs t-nd paid for by the party of the first part 
upon the purchase priee of the eheares of stock eforeeeid. 
It ie further agreed that the party of the aeeoad part 
vlll pay to the partiae furaishlag tlM s8a«« for r11 
■wterials delivered to or wrou|^t into seid johc, for 
whioh tne party of the first part is liable at this time. 
Ua^ payMoats to be aado withla thirty days fron the date 
hareof • aad if the p^^rty of Um soemd part does not pay 
the Oiaio or ell of the s^se withia said tiae, the party 
of the first part shall hare the right to pay the saae, or 
su^ part thereof as restains unpaid after thirty days froa 
the ^ate hereof, and to take credit for the aaount so paid 
apon the purc^tase prioe of the ahnrea of stock aforesaid.* 

Before the Job was turned over to the McPonough Cenpany 
lilson Bros, seat ever to the Cook Couaty Hospital Job pipe whioh 
coat |la8&7.83 and expended for labor oa the job tho sua of |775«6<« 
The pipe was not i^at is Known in the trade as "full weight* plpo» 
which was speeified, aaA with the exception of about ^75 worth of 
aaterial it waa all rejected by the County and w&s reaored. Plain- 
tiff elaiaed tho a«t lenis thereon should be bomo by defendant* 
while defendaat noatends that aader tho teras of the contract the 
loss should be borae by plaiatiff • 

The plaiatiff reqaested the court to held the followiag 

proposition of law: 

"Thtit no aaterial or labor furnished or doae by 
lilson Brothers in connection with the Cook C<mnty 
Hospital job is chargeable acaiast the plaintiff herein 
shore it appears that such aaterial was afterwards re- 
■OTOd, aad did act remain in said hospital building 
Mid that such labor wns done in ronn^etien with tho 
doliwery or install 'ition of aaterial afterwards re- 
BOTOd froa said building." 

Tho oourt refused so to held, aad aasiaiaod a aotion 




Of the defendant to find the iscuee for the defeadaat as to all 
■aounte olaimed in exeese of $371.46 adaitted to be due* Tho 
errors assigned are based on this holding of the oourt. 

The plain Innguace of the contract seems to he against 
the contention of plaintiff in error. The Intention of the partioa 
to a written contract BRist he gathered fron the language of the 
Instrunent ahere words are nnenbiguoue, as here, fostal Tel. C9 . 
▼. . 0. Tel. Co. . 155 111, 33S; bowler v. Black . 136 111. 372. 
It was the "coat" of the naterial and labor* not its Talue, which 
by the tems of the contract w»s to he ci-ofiititd to islllson Bros. 
It WAS the "cost* of ■pll", not n part of these that was to be so 
erodited, and it was for the "cost* of "all* labor and aiaterials 
*deliTered to or wrought into eaid Jobs and paid for", not such 
only cis vi^t remain therein, th^t the credit was to be giren. 
There is no aabiguity in this contract. 

Koreorer, the evidence shoY/s ihat the fact that this 
■aterial had been rejected w- s Icnown to toth the parties at the 
tlae the written oontriaot wns executed. Under these eircumstaaees 
the ruling of the court wfs correct and the Jadgiicnt vill b« 


Baraos, P. J«, aad firldlsy* J«, concur* 

164 - 2S93t 


C. 3. aORCCgl, 









Tke plaintiff l>elow sued for personal injuries claimed 
to hare been sustained l»y her on Magr 29, 1917. Her statement 
of clain alleged that on that date she vas walking across Mich- 
igan arenae at its intersection with 31st street; that the 
defendant was then and there driving and operating an autonobile 
along Michiewj avenue in a southerly direction; that the plain- 
tiff WPS proceeding with due care, end defendant disregarding his 
duty negligently and carelessly drove and operated the automobiles 
and by reason thereof ran it against the plaintiff inj^uring hero 
In another part of the statement it was alleged that defendant's 
carelesenees consisted in (Irix^ing the autcsioblle at Ci dangerous 
rate of speed thereby inj^urlng plaintiff. The affidavit of 
merits denies the si legations of negligence and denies that plain- 
tiff was in thfS exercise of due oare. The ease wae t-ried by a 
jury which brought in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $750 
upon idiich the court entered judgment* 

It is argued by api^llant that the verdict is manifestly 
■gainet the weight of the evideaoe in the ease and this ie ths 
only point nececHirxy to consider. 

Two witnesses, apparently dielntercated, tentified that 
as plaintiff w> s orosBlng Klchigan nveme at the intersection 
thereof with Slet street .lef endant, disregerding signals on the 
poet in the middle of the street to slow up,ran his automobile 

Ir^miiS:'. « **X 


at a tpsed of 36 niles an h«ur etr Iking the plaintiff vho was than 
orosBing the etreet at th&t place. 

The defendant testified that he hkb driring at a speed 
of only IS Bilee >!i hour and says that his nachine ran only about 
25 feet after stril^ing plaintiff before it stopped. The plain* 
tiff*s witnesses testified that the machine ran about 100 feet 
before etepping. Appellant points out the apparent inconsistencies 
in the testiaony of the witnesses for plaintiff, and says the facts 
as related by them indicfl;%e that the machine was not moTing at the 
•peed claimed. Probably it was net, and the teBtimeny of theso 
witnesses to that effect must be regarded simply as their estimates* 
Bat defendant adciits that he was driTing at this crossing at a speeA 
of 15 Biles an hour and, m.^ think, on his own testimony it was a 
question for the Jury iidiether he was guilty of negligence tending 
to eaase plaintiff ^s injuries* 

We hare examined the facts as it is our duty to do, but 
we do not find anything in this record whieh would Justify a 
rerersal of the Judgment, and it will therefore be affirmed* 


Barnes, F. J«» and Gridley, J*, concur « 



29 - 2S782 


ni^intlff In Jtrrw, 

'«AY COVPAIY «a« tt"l"t||^'; K :>T^ 
»AlL?f*iY CCHPaBY, opi3netiii« tulder 
ilitt IMUM and style of\C!!iC 


) SRiBt(Wl f0 


This wh9 « peraonol injury suit. ri«intiff wirui • 
paascn^cr on « »trcet o«r of nao of ih« d«fen4anta, operating 
under Uia n««M end ttylo of ('hie- ti9 <urfa«o Linoa, and «aa 
injnrad vhilo aliehtlne iharefr«i ebont 10:49 a% night, 

Th« deolarstiett la pr«i4iOAt«d upon th« alain th^t 
aftar ih« ear heA anna to a full atop, for pas angera to alight* 
it vaa negligently atarted up while plaintiff vhs alighting 
Vharofrofli. On that i|u'eetien of f&ct thera vaa a elasrout ioaua. 
Plaintiff wna tha only vitnaaa in har own bahalf oa thnt ph^on 
af tht taan« 9mr taetiMony onpFortitd h«r oantentiea, hut thot 
of tha eoaduetar nni two ditiintaraatad vitnaaaaa, vho atood an 
tha platform from ahieh aha &lij;ht«d, auppartad defenfanta* 
alein Vhnt plaintiff ali^^htad frn* vh« oar whila it w«s in 
■ lotion slowing <lown for a atop snd b#forR it hnd atoppad for 
har to ali^t* Tha iury oTld»ntly aecoptad d«f •ndanta* theory 
aa ia tha faata and ao ronderad thoir Tordiot nn tha narita 
•f tha «aa«« -a oioinat asy that tha VArdiot vao against tho 
aanifast 'f'oight nf Um> viridoinoa. On the contmry, thara appaara 
to ha a olo^r praponi c-ranoa of oTldenoa in (iofandanta* favor. 




IX la ttr««4 by plolntlff 1« «rrar, )u»v«T«r» tkint ^« 
iras pr«Jucllo«d before the Jfury 1)y the e«iurt*s au«t«lalac ftb* 
Jcetleas to Tnrioaa hypothetical ^peatione* • nr tn the smm 
4|u*»ti«n i c Tnrimi«]iy «n<liflo4, • pat by hrr eiHuiaal to « 
■•dienl axpsrt, onlliaft for hln apinlen wa to the* r<?I;>tion of 
th* aecideitt to tha Injuries oonpAcinsd of. v« have excnineci 
tMa <|ueatioria ankad, &nd «rhll« wc think the e^urt «>-« amply 
Justified in its: niilaca, yet, if it vera not, it haTing per- 
mitted tha hypoVhatioaX <^eetiAn, as fiimliy leadif i«d and 
praaentiag onunaal's theory, t« be aaawarad, plaiatiff got the 
bea»fit of tha taatiataay ahe a^uglit to adduce, aad htta little 
grrtUBd far eMaplaint. And if the Jury belioTed fran the pre- 
pond ranoa ef the ctridenoa, » vhleh they »»nif«<titly did,-tK«t 
plBiatiff*a injuriea «ere th« rf»mlt of h^r e«a, «nd not da* 
feodaata* necligenoe, thea eoBi>i<i«?rntioB of tha palate e-^ught lo 
b« brought fli»t by a&id ()ua»tloB«, n«.«ely, whether her injuries 
were attribot^ble to the < ocident, wna iauBftterlal. Heaee it 
o.-innet be abid that plaiatiff *»a prejudieed oa tha iiain ia»tt« 
of negligence by her eoan»al*8 uniroeeeeftfttl effarta ta get 
before the Jury by the (tuetftinna ruled agrMiast, prap«rly or 
laproperly, tcetlaioay tenclind to attrihate plaiatiff** injaries 
ta a oauae for vhieh the Jury did net belloTo defend^ata vere 

i laiatif f in vrrtir ooapiaiaa of <lef«>adaate' givea 
la«tructiOBa Haa. S, 7, <} oad 14. Xaatmetian 2 atated Aorraat* 
ly the 1&« thitt & Ottrrler i« not nn Inetur^'r of the ftbaolute 
aafety of a petaaaiiger. Tte infttructiaa ie eritieieed beeaaaa 
it did aat alee lay ^lawn the lav «a ta the earrier'a duty, 
«hi«h, howoTer, »aa eorreotXy atated in aaather ia»tnietiea. 
The Jary preauaably oaaaiderod the inetruetieae ta(<ether. ind 
eottld aet hare been atialea ne to the waaamre of def eadaata' 



duty. Und«r th« «ir4nm«iMneeti «• do set itoink the giving cf 
tbe iattmetion «*ss rtveraiM* 9rr9t, 

Zastraeiiaa* 7 And 9, bearing on tbe siaU of facts 
9rt««iit«d by th« eYidene«, haT« been so fr«<ia«»Uy giTcn »nd 
6tt stained in eimiXiur e&««9 rotttiAg on the smmi ehttrs* of n»s» 
ligeaoo* that r«f«r«ne« to thom is ttiuMe«»«()try. 

iBfttrttotlon 14 r«lstod t» th« duty of plaintiff to 
uso her fctcaltido oo i»8 to h».rf> avoided iajurioo on %h» eooaeion. 
^'laiaiiff cent«nd« that it ahoultf also bavo atmtod tito doetrin* 
■•re fully as to the oxerQioe of e^re* which however «t»s fally 
BBd eorreetly otatod in another instruetion* faking than ta* 
gather, as the jury probably did, the inatructionamas not nis- 
laading or erronooos. 

But ahera it ao elaarly a}»paara th»t the eaaa vaa 
daaldad «f>on its K«rits nnd thnt the Jury eta Id not rsAOonahly 
have rendered m vcrdiot other th<^a wb^tt thdy did« and whan, in 
view 9t the entire reeard* aubstHntial Juetieo seems to have been 
doBo* it has baen fra^aatly held by this onurt that the vardiat 
will nat ba aat aside b«eausa nt errar in the inatmctlana. 
( fait; V. ChiaagQ City ax» a»-» 11» m* *»»• *•!. »•*? Heller 
Chietiga City -ty. Ce, , 2G9 Ul. App«, 140; Hletes ^haep C£. v. 
Oregon >^faert hJ!^ Hj[* i2S*» 1^^' ^^^* ^»>» ^^^» 884.) 

Aocardliigly the jadgpant will ba affimed. 

trldXay and Hat^att. JJ., oanear. 


103 • 2SI74 

iMMU. i, Mectiiit, 

▼a. \ / ) 





sovfi-Hiiiai CAMP motanai or / ) cook cmair. 

THK WORLD, a oftrpor^Ufln, / 1 

"'TV ' 221 I. A. 63 € 

. JBga.i^mimim opxfitoii or th$ ccory, 

PlftlBtiff herein sued e* Iteaefielnry of her deoe»aed 
hushand ea his henftfielary eertifie&te la the df;>f»adRni*B seoi* 
ety end reeoTered judgaent t«t |2,000, tram ehleh said aeei^ty 
appeal* • 

The eertlfieate was dated April 15, 1912 « The insured 
died by his ewn hand January 6, 1018. JTiotuary Z, 191S, he paid 
to the elerk nf the local efusp hie essesnments of $3*00 eaeh fer 
each of the preTlme tvo months. Vheae payments were duly credit- 
ed to him upon his pass henk, receipted for fey th« clerk withr>ut 
tmeation, trannnltted by the latter to the gr«»nd ledee, and re* 
turned to the local oeanp by the erand ledge after deeMent*a 
death, latere they nre still held, the beneficiary refusing tender 
of then. As a part Of the proofs of HoCune's death the lee&l 
elerk oertified to the erand ledge that t the tiao of his doatk 
MoCtta* was *iB goad standing* in the society. 

It appeared trim the eridenoo that the elflrk of the 
local CMHp was acoustesied in pri>i«;tiee to reoeiTe dues and asseso* 
■onto of delln!;iuent mewbers, including decensed, sjjd to forward 
thesi te the grand Indge without complying with conditions of the 
by-lawo requiring in such c^sos en pajment of arrearages a 
oortifieato of good health or an &ff idawit or other statement, 
•a to facts required by the by-laws, and th^t the grand ledge 
kept such payments apparently with knowledge of those conditiono 

:&!".' « K(st 


and without prot«iit, ar •nfnroaaieat nf its rttUa, MeCuae'e pass 
book 8h«w«d that he «;>• frequently dalinrsuent in th« ysera 101&, 
1916 and 1917. and that his arr«ariig«a at sueh tlBten« and up t« 
hia final paynenta, irara reeeiT«d vitb^tut queetioA in a month nr 
ao after they beoene due* 

to defeat the elniis appellant relies on ita hy*lave 
proTidiag, ttRoag ether thinga, thnt if a Kemher'e monthly asaeaa* 
■ent ie net paid the first day of the month following he will 
ataad suspended, and during his suspenRien hie beneficiary 
certificate is T«id; that bis mesibership may he restored (1) within 
tea days from suspension en payment of erreerages only if be is in 
good heelth and not adciieted to the use of iatexie»<ats or nareotios ; 
and (2) after tea days and within thx^e mohths only if eueh oendi- 
tioas precedent are made to appear by a written stateneat or guar- 
anty thereof; ih^^t nen>e«Kplianee with any of the several oondi* 
tion precedent will bar recovery; thnt no efficer« etc** has the 
right or authority to waive any such eonditiens; that the euetom 
of any otoip or its members to the contrary shall not have the effect 
to waive say eueh reipirements; >«nd th«tt if « member dies by hia 
own hand or act, whether sane or lassne* his certificate shall be* 
come null and veld and of no effect* 

It is urged by appellee that in view of the facta above 
set forth showing that (iefendaat reoeived the dues sad assessments 
ef tha deee«8ed» as well hs those '^f other membere in arrears« 
«ith<^t reviriag easplianee with each provlsioae of its by-lawa* 
it must be deeaed to have waived them, and we think authoritiea 
bearing on that subject in thia state fully sustain that position* 
It is eaottffh merely to elto them* ( 9 rand Lodge ▼• Laa jbrnaBn , 199 
111. 140; Court of Honor v. Dinger . 221 id. 176; Jones v. Kntahta 
Of goaor . 596 id. 113; Dr ewgold v. *oyal Me ighbora , 261 id. 60; 
fi'alker v. (aMriaen Order of Porestera. 162 111. App. 30; Jakee v. 

I2£i2l ^i£riC£ia Snloa. 180 111. App. 1.) 

The by-i*w whleh Mkas « e«rtiario6U null «nd toKI in 
•••« ef ft .ember' 8 rolclde. :1o«b n«t «««. u apply after « oer- 
tifieat. hK. been i„ fore, for flTe c.nsacutiv* y,*,. l«n..dUf ly 
preceding tha «««l,*r». d«ath rhlle in gec,d «t««diag. i^.r «nothar 
••otiAii of def«nd».«t»« by-lawa reads: 

•^MwB a beneficiary certificate baa been in fore* 

death, irtiil. in good 8ta«dtn|?. ef the^rerrter hofdiSI 
the 8»»e, the pajmeat thereof ehall not be ooateetef 
O0 rny grm»i»d other than ihist hia death mna iHte«ti»».nw 
o.«,jed by the beneficiary or benef icLrii:! inr^Sr"' 

Sji^« tir*J?*' °' *''*'*' ^^'^ ^^'««* '*««" 0** drinking 
S?l! r ^*if '^®"» *' *'^«» **»« "«• «»*" oPlot«». cocaine. 
Iii!rii *l •**^'* narnotio or potaon. or shall die ^f * 
•Wjjd in i»*.r except in defense of the United ttatea of 
««-ica or engaged in a or prohibited ©coupe tion." 

Appellant contends thrt the dec««aed, being delinquent 
fc afore s£ id, 8to«d euepended by opc^retion «f the by-l«wa, and 
that, therefore, si the tttr** of hie death the eertificata had not 
been in force for five e^YnneoutlY* ye«re immediately preceding. 
Ihie argment, ho«erer. fall, to th« grmiod if under the doctrina 
of waiTer aa cforecPid. he ^us in gond rtj^nding ^t the time of 
hi a death, for und^r the dnotrine announced in the c;)8e of 
ESSSfe^n T. gJLdelUv Ineuraqoa Co., 343 III, 488, there wae, undior 
such ciroutt stance 8, no interruption of the running of the fire 
year* . 

Haneo, aa the certificate had baan la force fra« April 
1", IMS, and, therefore, for vore then fire yvaro ItnEed lately 
areccdini; tho member » a defth, and It ««• not ehoira th»t ha Mat 
death under any of the oirouaietancee that rendered the certif icato 
oontaetablc. ae prorided in the by- la* laat refprrert to, and aa 
u»dar the doctrine of «r.iyer he i>f>.m not delinqu<9nt or 9ttapande4« 
Wt in -good et^ding* at tho tiao of hia death, there appear* 
to b« BO valid ground for eenteatiag defendant** liability. Aa 
the eTidenee wwa auffieient to austaia the Terdiot, tho Judceeai 

will be affimod. 

Gridlcy and lAatchett, J-J-, , concur. AWXanD. 


121 - 26892 

VACLAV BUDlXCValdr, Ateinistrator 
Of th« eaUtc of IdARIi BWDILOVaKY, 

I Appellee « 


eepi^rtnrrs doing Vusino 

Am; ON Lli'tHARI AKD ^0% 



221I.A. 636 


Appelloe as adninistrator of the eatate of yarie Budiioraky, 
doce»ued, brnught suit against appellanto as oimerii of an autamelsilc 
and ae enmmon earriors nf pasaengera for hire, to recover for duaagea 
on the ground nf tt»g negligent operation of aaid autoaiobile «hile de* 
ceMaed vaa a pasaenger therein, whereby it collided with a atreet ear, 
eauaing her death* 

While the drirer of the &ut<»Bebile testified to the effeet 
that he lost control nf it thrnugh sudden dOTelopnent of a defect in 
the atoering gear, the OTldenee was such that the Jury night mil 
find yiat the accident was the result of his negligence in turning, 
withmit the exerciBe nf ordinery enre for the safety of his pasaon- 
gers> into the track of the atre^^t oar with .hioh it collided, irtien 
it vme 00 near as to render the collision aMoft unsToideble . 

The autOKobile was of tho limsuaino type and hired to takt 
six woBon, including the deoeased, to a funeral. On the return froa 
the offinetery they stopped at a restaurant for lunch. It wns while 
driving frOBi there on a north and anuth stroet, on which were dnuhit 
tracks of a street ear line, that the accident took place. The road 
was unpaTed except between the street ear tracks and for abnut four 
to six inches beyond he outside rails. The autnnobile was going 


south ea the westerly oar traeks, and tbo Btro«t ear north on the 

easterly traoks. The eTldence tended to show that Just before the 

auteaoblle orertnok & wagon, also going south on the vesterly 

tracks. It turn«d/the westerly to th© easterly track when within 

50 to lOr feet of the street ear that was moTing at IS to 1& vile* 

an hour, and that it continued forward on the latter track and 

passed by the wagon before the oollislen took place. At the tine 

of collision the wagon was about ^5 feet away. If the Jury did 

B«t belicTe the drirer^s testinnny of a defeot in the steering 

gear« then the oircunstanoee disclosed by the evldenoe were such 

as to clearly indicate negligence on his part. 

For reversal it is urged that there was a fatal yarlance 
between the declaration and the evidence, th^t there w&a no proof 
of the Joint ownership or control of the autonobile, and that there 
was error in the adaission of evidence. 

!• The C2*'>und of variance is based upon two allegations 
of the deelsrgLtien, to the effect that defendants were cramon 
carriers of passengers for hire, and that it was their duty to 
carry the pliintiff'e intestate safely and without injury, and ttp<m 
proof that defendants were private carriers* 

Yith respect to this contention it it eneuf^ to say that 
the allegation with regard to duty is a mere conclusion of law, 
irtiich, though it does not haxmonise vvith the facts relied en as a 
breach of duty, does not render the declaration insufficient to 
sustain the Jud^Bont* if it contains* as we think it dees, facts 
sufficient to raise the duty of which a breach is alleged. {£, & 
A* Sl« ££• ▼• t-lausen. 173 111. 10( .) The duty, if any exists, 
nnist arise fresi the facts stated. (How dtaunten Coal '"o . v. 
Fr2EUa» 28* Ili« '-B*.) AS was said in Calkins v. 3?orth. 215 III. 


•If the f»eta alleged warrant the railef -nd »y» 
supported by thee.Tldenc*. then the Sere err nne^ bo on 

fhi i ♦r* <'3:*''*"^<* ""'^<'^ the fact, would not preclude 
the granting Of the relief, or f ra J within tee Ejection 
-f rariance betireen th. allegations and the proof .- 

Disregarding suoh conclusion of law as to appellants* 
duty as surplusage, ^s we smy, and also the word "cawson- in re- 
ferrlng to ths oarrior. as «ot essential, the other allegations 
•howin^. and eridonco tending to «hnw. negligence and a hreaeh 
of duty, whether the carrier w.s a prirate or oo»moa carrier, it 
was unnecessary to proTO saeh aXleg«tionB. and, therefore, i.- 
»»teriBl if the eTidence disproved them. ( Postal gel. Jahle .Co. 
T. ijltes, 226 111. 349. 36S.) It has heen repeatedly held in 
personal injury cases that it is not neoes«ary to proye isimateriel 
allegntions, and that in such otions it is sufficient if a party 
prore enough of his declar. tion to make na% a crso. f geet at. Lnoie 
Con. ay. Co . ▼. Altgen,, UO in. ai3.) a. the rule that proof must 
correspond with allegation does not apply where the alleg tion may 
he stricken out as surplusage without impairing or chani?in^ the 
legal effect of the declaration . we think the contention «8 to 
Tarianoe is not well founded. As said in ate amy ▼. Hejdy, , 138 
111. 119: 

'•*hon the transaction nut of which the onatroiersv 
arises is the a.^^e vtH^ the substantial o&u«e of dawiges 
is the seme, the r^rianee is regarded as lawaterialand 
is overlooked.* 

2. One of the pesaengers, fiagdalena Budilovsky, testified 

thet "as soon as we got the autoBohUe hs (the driver) started to 

g» very fust," and added; -then 1 said to hla, •den»t drive so 

f«st,»« and that the d»eeb«od "also kind of turned to him and aeid 

DonH drive so fast. Ynu e«m drive us through the parks and tten 

take us ho»e.»" Objection weo eiade to e^ch of these BtoteAonts, and 

the court overruled motions to strike the« out. The evidence tended 

to show thnt theoe atatments were jjiade Juftt after the automobile 

left the restaarant. How far that restMtraitt was trm the plaee 



of the aoddent d««8 net sppenr. It nay hare 1»e»n, for eoiglit 
%k9 ree«rd nhnra, a aiH* «r ■«?• mwmj. It waii at le&st mor« thsn 
SSO feet away, for there whs cTidAnoc ths^t after IcftYing the 
rtstnursnt the satsnobile ernoRed » bridge th?ct disitanee away frcon 
the plaee of the fscoldent i^nd did nnt turn into ths ettnterly trv^ek 
VBtil later* Ihere «aa no <:»Tld«nce ns tn the speed of the oar 
after aach renarks vera made, or tending to ahow that ita apeed 
vaa the praxiaate ari»«« of the Txeoident* 

Vithout fixing tine nr, another witneas. Oyer 
Objection, v»» pexwitted to toatify thttt aaid Sagdalona. Badlloraky 
said to the drlTer, "Don*t run ao fu»t n-. I didnH aiake sy will 
yet.* KoBO of thin tcetisony was relerant in the absence of a 
showing thfit the speed at which the suitoKobile waik driren -taa the 
proxinate oauss of the injury. ?er aught th<>:t appee^re to the 
contrary the automobile may here slowed down ««fter such restnrks 
of cflatioa were owde* Plaintiff iBanlfe«tly relied on negligeneo 
in turning: into the track on which the street cfr wse coning; when 
it W..B 80 n9tir R3 to sake a collision ineritoble. linch testinony, 
therefore, whb olefcrly prejudicial. The Jury nsoy hare inferred 
therofroai thAt the car was boinif driven at wa oxceesire and 
dnngernus rake of apeed a it turned fron one tr^ek into the other, 
aa4 ita ^dslisslon and the failure to strike it f^ut eonstltuts, in 
our Jttd(pBont, roTersible error. 

3, In Tiew of the neo-eseity of reTersing the jud/cment 
and remanding the eauao for a now triel on the ground stated, it 
is unnecessary to consider at length whether the etridcnee warranted 
the werdiot against both defendants. Thsro w»s an attempt to show 
their Joint ownership and control of the automobile in lueation. 
It is extremely doubtful whether the eTidonee so showed. The 
4ofondaata Antoa and Joseph Linhart were fnther and sen rospeotl* 



f. ■• a 


Tely. The fomer wt s an undertaker ?nd the latter worked with 
hlB in the Imsinesa of cnnduoting funerals. It wse not disputed 
that Joseph Linhart bought and paid for the RUtomobile, that he 
applied for and obtained in his awn name a state lioenee there- 
fnr for the- year 1918, when the jiccident took place, that he ob- 
tained frOB the City of Chicago a limited Hcen :e, or permit, to 
use said eutonobile for the sirae ye>r for carrying persflns for 
hire, and paid therefor, and that he hired Uni driver in (faeetion 
end paid him his wages. The drlirer tertified, too, th^^t he never 
did any work for Anton Linhart, ^nd there was no direct proof 
that Anton hid anything whatever to do with the letting or the 
ownership or control of the autmaobile in ouestion. The only 
evidence tending to show his connection therewith wi^is the existence 
«f the sign "Linhart & Lion* at his plnoe of business , frmt which 
the sutomobile wms let, » hut not by \nton, - and that Joseph was 
permitted to draw checks in the name '^f Anton Linhart by himself on 
the bank in which Anton kept an account in his own name, and th«it 
the driver of the autrnobile in question vna sometimes paid his 
wages through checks so drawn by Joseph. There was no attempt to 
prove a co-partnerahip and eh»ring of profits and losses in the 
biiBinese conducted by Anton Linhart, or in the use of the ^itomnbile 
in questien, or th^t the bank Hccmint w^s in fMCt used in connection 
with Kny pfttrtnership transections. Joseph's U!:-e of the bank accntnt 
was not incnnsietent with a mere convenience Accorded to him by his 
father. Under the statute neithf^r of the defendants enuld testify. 
The best evidence of their co-partnership w(«e net resorted to. 
Plaintiff called neither of thOT te testify, nor for any books or 
doeumentSf except certain checks, thit might throw light on the 
question of ownership and cnntrel of the oattttobilo or limousine 
in (paestion. 




.... Oi-i 


Orer •bjeotion, pleintlffs were permitted to introduce 
in cTidenoe checke of other persona shown on their face to have 
been given "for liKOtti:^ine to cemetery,*' and sRpde payable to 
"Mr. Linhfsrt*, one drawn in Way, 1917 » and two in 191&. Thes* 
checks were not ehown to be connected with the limouein* in 
question, and only one of them with /uten Linhart* vhoise sig- 
nature wfis on its back. Cennpctioa of the other two checks, if 
not the oae ao endorsed, with the cptcetion of ownership tuoA 
control of the liaousine in question w« deem altogether too 
remote to warrant their iidmission without further proof, «• 
think it V!"S error to receive them* 

For ^e errors stated, therefore, the jud0Bent will bs 
reversed snd the 0{:use remuinded for a new trial* 

Gridley and ]K!6tehett, JJ*, concur. 


76 . 2«ast \ 

F3.GPLM 0? tHS «tif« W 



FXftiBtifl- in isrx^r. 


2|21 I.A. 636 

int. VHsainiMQ j^&ttcs BAfunts 

Plaintiff in et^rw «»• oonTioi«d df «k »l8dnMma«r 
vyMi trial th«rcf»r in the Municipal Cnurt df Chieagft. th» 
J«d0B9nt Mast 1M r«TerB«d »nd tha eausa r«a&Rd«d baaauaa* 
as p(»inted out and not qaeatienadt thara was no praof af 
▼enut, which, of e')uraa« «aa easentl&l to astablish tka 
e«urt*a JuriBdietion af the eaaaa. 

Oridlay and Vatobett. IJ.. ooneur. 



179 - 26350 \ 


Dal^ndasit in rr«r, 

i'3.»lntl|f iH/rror. 

) ^HOR TO 



or CHXc^oo. 

21 1.A. 636 

PlAlntiff in error tr»s e«ttTieted on an infemtatlon 
filed in the Kanioipttl Cnart of Chiomtn, ch'trgin^ ih«.t h« 
"unlavfuliy and wrongfully did hitsv« in Ms posR«ssiftB « e«r* 
tain deadly naaymt, to*«it, a r«TolT«r, wtth^nit first hsTinic 
procured a written lioesee fron the general latiperint indent 
of pAliee «f 8Aid Qity se to <to, in Tielatinn of section 1» 
of senate Bill 9S, in foroe en &nd «B,fter JUly 1, 1019.* 

She infomiAtion wns lntend<?di to be baeed on the 
BOt te roTise the law in relntion to deadly ««CLfflne» in 
feroe July 1, 1919. (Sese* Lewe of 1919, ^, 431.) 

Seetion 1 of said aet reeds: 

"It shall be unlawful for i»ay perenn to cmrrj 
or peeeess «« • « eny bl&ok«jAok« slung- ohot* send* 
bag, aetnl knuckloe, bludgeon, or to e«rry or possees, 
«ith intent to aee the •rmt unlcvfully sgninst snnther, 
a dBgger, dirk, v^illy, ^Sanger'Jus knife« rwsor, stiletto 
or eny other dengerfws or dendly e*«pon or instrunent 
of like oharncter." 

Seetion 4 of s«id aet mokee it '^unlawful for »ny 
person to earry oonseeled upon his person, »By pietol, rerolYtr, 
or other fireem, eithnat • written license th«refor," iei:«ed 
as in said seotien prescribed. 

Zt will be noted that seetion 1 enuneretes tvs 
elasses of eenpons or instruMnts. It nakes the mere oarrying 


or pe»s«0slMi of w vocipen nf tja« first nentloacd olnas unlawful, 
but to b« unlKwfal for '^ne to oi^rrjr or yoosooo • woapon of tko 
•toond fiontioned eXftOO thoro amot b« an "Intont to ueo th« oaao 
unlowfuXly oitainet another.** 

Ceunaol for th« ionpl* contends th«t the InfonB&tloit 
eon r«ot upon sold oeetion 1 by rejeotlng- sia eurplusogo the 
vordo "wiUieut firot proearing^ a r^ritten li^envo*" etc« It io 
elomr that b roTolver cannot bo included in the firot claos of 
voapoao 00 enunorsted, • tho nere pooaoHoion of whloh is viado 
a -floletion of lav • beo>«»e tho stfttuto by oeetion 4 oxprtoaly 
ftutherisoe the oarrying. siad thorefore the ^o^osKlon* of a r«* 
vnlTor under aoa<iition» therein wontioned* If « hownTor, prooeoatioa 
vAs iatoBdod for carrying veapoae of tho oocond nentioncd elasM, 
thon wo think, undor tho dootrin« of oJuodofi SSSSLlJi* * roTolTor, 
or "^firoam" no it ie (!l«i0»iified in e«otlos 4, ervonot be doeaiod 
9 "voapon or intttrament of like aher' ct^r" I© weapoao of th?it 
cloooc not onl;y boettauee they sro dt^signed and iatonded for entirely 
different usee, but booeaoe %h« statute ia oeetioa 4 epecifioally 
deala with firoenia, in«lndittg r-eTolTero, ao e eoparate alaao of 
oOHpone, and does not prt^ibit earrying and poaoeoeia« thoB under 
eertain ooaditieaa. 

Bat aero poaaoBHioa of weapon* of **»« fifat aontioaod 
olaoa ia aaie a Tiolatinn of l»w probably bcoisuoe they are aoesing- 
ly dottignod aad uaed eeloly for anlKwful purpoaoa, v^iile poaeooaion 
of those of the eeeoad aentionod ali^e ■ io rendered anlewfal only 
ahoa there ia aa *iat«Bt to u»<r the e;<aie unle»'fully agslaat another." 
Hoaoe. cToa if a rorolver wore intended to bo ineluded ia tho 
aeeoad aeatioaed claaa ae a deadly voapoa yet failure to alloc* 
ia tho iaf*ra.<)tioa an 'tatent to use the oaao ualawfully a«ainat 
aaothor," readoro it fatally defectiTO. 


If the infonaatlon was lnt«nded to be based on section 
4« it is defeetlTo for failure to allege the esrryiag of a 
rerolTor \>y defendiat *eoBeealed uj^en hie person," whieh, as 
well «a the aliegfttien, "without n vritten lieen»e therefor," 
is essential to a fall statement of mh^t const itutee a violation 
of thi't section* 

It is apparent, therefore, that the j\id«iient of een* 
rietien o»>^nnet stand (1) heonnsc a reTolver is not included in 
that class of weapons vheae possession is absolutely prohibited; 
(2) bee«ttt8« if it b« included in the second elnse of weepona nen* 
tiened in seatiea 1, the inforeii tion fails to allege the re- 
qpiisite intent; and (3) ^nncmxae it is not mere possession but the 
oarryin^; of a rerolTer concealed on one's person vithoit n 
written licea.'^e therefor that la prohibited by section 4. 

Aeeordiagly the Judipseat is roTersed. 

Oridley and Satehett, JJ,, oonour* 



174 - 26a33\ 

III HK S.itATS 0? ASIA 3X6TA, / ) 

Oa Appeal of KARdiLUIA l.>\BOdA, / } 

Appellai^, ) 



y»^^- ^.?1 1. A, 636 

BiSLIV^SB TBI €ij?l5lOS CT IBS COja*. 

App«llee has mitTed to strike fr«n the reeard wliKst 
1* referred t» as a "parported bill of exeeptleae," and to 
affira the JttdgBeat of the lover er>art. 

Tkere wsb first filed » sbort record, and later a 
eupplcMental record certified 1>y the elerk to be a cMnpleta 
traaeeript of the record vith the exception of what «»b oea> 
talaod la the short record, fieither transcript ooatains a 
bill of exeeptiens. a^ile the later transcript* ao dnabt 
thrmigh ai sapprehension of the natare of the doeuaentt vao 
marked as preeeBtcd to the trial judge, it is not certified 
to by hte and does not purport to be a bill of exeeptione. 
Her do the transeripts purport to contain one. There is* 
therefore, no bill of exceptions to be etrieken. 

the transeripts iaproperly recite aotiens, support- 
ed by af^'idarita, the OTerruliag of which appellsnt relics on 
for roTereal. Rut as they are not preserred in a bill of 
exceptions they cennot be considered, and it will be eonclueirely 
presuaed that the action of tl» curt was correct, ( Cfli«iseioners , 
etc . T. Carroll . 295 111. 485, and enses there cited.) 


It would have been of no arail to appellant had said 
metione been preeerTed by bill of exceptions for it appear* that 
they were made at terms subsequent to that at which the Judgment 
was entered » and that no motion was made whereby the court 
preserved Jurisdiction to those terms* 

Vhile said motions and affidavits might on motion 
therefor be properly expunged from the record such a motion 
is unnecessary as they cannot in any event be considered. 
As there is nothing in the conmon law record upon which the 
assignments of error can rest the Judgment must accordingly 
be affirmed* 


Gridley and Hatehett* JJ*^ concur* 


^•^ /.(^^es-t 

leafiOR tc 

\ / \ CIHCOIT cn«»T, 

f "^"^T'^s 7 

naiatl|rf /fa ssrr«r, % Si •*- 


Th« defemlMit, V. fhilip 8lMburg» a«ek» l>y tkls vHt 
of error to r9fT»* a Jatf^aont for |ieOf> rendered acoinst hlai \s 
th« Circuit Court of Cook County, on Octobor 17, 1919, m nn 
ootioa on th« oafie for lllicl. 

1h« »etion wf s oeaRioneedi en ^uly A, 1919, ftg^inet 
OinzlMrg and en« Jooeph lAilmor, oad lioth wore oonrod with 
oummena, but ih« procoodiinsa ware aaVafquantly diffieiaead aa ta 

fl«intlff*8 daelaratian, irttioh eonaista of one cMiot, 
arara in aubatanae that on fabroary 16* 1^19* in amid coaaty, 
tha daf endiiAt, OiaalRirg, viokedly and nalielously did eanpaaa 
and ysbliah* and asMaad to be eoHpaaad and pablialiad, tt vtA 
eoneoraing the plaintiff, in a oortain nawapapor, aallad the 
"jundny Jawiah Caaricr** wharaef the defenduat ««« than and 
there th« e<!itor and proprietor, a aortaln felae, aoeadalaaa 
and defamatory libel in th«* Yiddiah languaca, aa fallova: (here 
ia eat forth the nrtiele in the Tiddieh langaafa); that aal4 
worda aignified ana meant In the ^^ngliah lAagaasa aa fallowa: 
(here ia aet forth the ^^liah tranal^tian thereof); ond that 
by neana vt tha ca»?tittin« of aoid grioTaneea plaintiff haa 
been and ia injured in hia good na»e, credit and repuistion, 
Mkd haa aaf ferrd grant daaiaga, ata. 

On Saptanbar 83, 1019, tha defendant, Oiaaburg, not 


h«riaf apy^arvd »r flit A a <i«mrr«r or pl««, wftii dcfnttltcd, cad 
Mb«e«i«Btly plaintiff *a <«M»;ne9« ««r« a«att«B«d by » Jury st th* 
tma of $1000, and JadgBi«at th*r««n enierad. 

Afi«r ih« t«nr hnd panned th« defcMdani ayp«jAr«d and 
BOTvd IIM e^art to ««t »t}id« th« JadeKaNt* Mpporiing the a»tio» 
by affidATlia. but tlM atmrt f laHll;$r donlad tha motion. 

cita ef t^« gr^iunds! ursed far » r«T«'r««l is thott tlM 
daolATfvtiaa ia ao dcfeeiiT* thnt it cannot •UKtaln tha Ju^cnant. 
Xf thia la aa» the defect say be takaa Rdvaataca «»f on «x-lt of 
•rrar. ( ^'llgan ▼. jgyrloli^ 3« 111. S4, 5S; Klyit ▼. l.<Lch teB6t.»ln . 
7» Zll. SS8. 361.) 

<c hare raad tha ^n^lisk traaalation af tha allagad 
libalaua artlela «a »«t (Mt Is thd daelari^tioa. it 4d«'. B«t 
ttcna the plaintiff. And tha daelariitlon Aa«» not ullage faatv 
ahovlBK that tba artlela appllad t^ad h«td ref^rtnoa ta tha 
plalatlff, or ana uadaratood by Its raadara to refer te bfan* 
Tbia daelart tlOB la ayparantly l»oitln« in iaduaoMant, and tlM 
raquireataat of an Indaoaatant eaanot be aupplied by Innuaftdoaa. 
( HiTlTier ▼. y reach. 104 fad. »op. 278} itei.«wfl:iain ▼. viaiiar. 
13« 111. Ill; yaopla t. Keithlay . 168 III, Ap». 11.) «o do 
not think that tha dc^oUratieB !• aaffieiant to austAla tb* 
jud4pH»nt. Aocordlngly, the judfpRant of tha CircMlt Court ia 
r«Teraad and the e^use ia renendad* 

Samoa. F. «t., ^id Kateliatt, J*. oonOHT* 

X67 • 2i9i9 

so^vjm duoa^it^lK aad 

aa OttsgcalMia H Co., 

\ App«llea« 





the plftlRt iff 8 maed t^ d«f«nd«!nt, Oftln««« in th* 
XuniclpAl Centrt of ChiOixgo, to r«a«ir«r far the ye^lue of cartaln 
IMUnta and nerehaiMllaa sold amd dellverad dttrlBg tho aoniho of 
J^ae aad July* 1916, clsiming ^1.4A to h« duo aad usj^ald. Tha 
eaaa v^a triad befare the omirt without a jury rasulting In a 
findiag aad jud^aant la favor of plaintiffs far aaid auai* aad 
defendant appaaled. 

%• have rtttiA the OTidenea as diseleaad in the abatreot* 
la ttsafUl parpaaa will he aerved in dittcusHing it* i^ffiec it 
to aajr that «a think thnt the finding and Judgaiant ^re fally 
attpported hy the eYid«nae» and the Jttdgneat la* thereforop 


BnnMs, ?. J,t and Vnti^ett* J», eencnr* 



aSQSSB MAMGUfiASi «% «x. 


17f - S»94« 

AMTSAI. turn 

) i^fmim COD at. 

Ml. Jtl TIC?: ORXHL^ P 'LIV:<ir iJ Ttm OFIKIOB 0)? YHS OOWHT. 

Thit i« «m ctpp«al frMi « deorae of fereeloKure ent«r«tf 
by ilM ovpcrtor f >f>urt of tiooir Couaty, Oetebar 39» 1919, la ttvtw 
of ftadi*lph J. aiu«akll«h, conplaiRRni* aa4 erdcrinit t>>»t the 
•■•aded arosa-blll af the prlnelpal d«f«ndsntt a«orge Haogiars** 
ba 4li«ai«»«d for vaat af equity* 

On Aaa^ist I3( 1913, oae ::^pire« Chrlstayoalas antcrad 
lata «a agraevent in writing vitk 'I, B. KandiULl, doian a raal 
«*iata bu8ln«aa aa K. h, Kasdall A Co*, la Chiaega, for tha 
purahaaa af tlta premlBaa in quaetien. the agra<Hiipnt proTld«d 
for tha paymoat of tlM porohB«»e priea, anmintinff to $1,7&0, in 
inotalla^nt* riz: $AC upon thn ex«eutiaa of th« ogmentent and 
tha balanat of $1710 in monthly pMysentu of $24 ar aare aa the 
10th day of aneta aanth, and further provided that eaid Kendall 
atmld atmrey the prer^ieea «e soon aa nna«half ^ tha purah&aa 
prio* had been paid, proTiding thnt Chrietapouloe «xaeut«d a 
note, oe oared by e tnist deed, far the unpaid balance due en 
9T before three yaere frees the dete thereof with iatereet «t 
tii per aanoa, payable eaei-anmally. Chrietopoalae Mde the 
payaenta »• pravided in the a^nre^rent, and en »pril ?4, 1916, 
Kendall OMieed a deed to b*' cxoeutwd by tha Cbieoge title and 
Tmat Ceapaay, aa traetei», oonveying tha prenieee to c'hrietopoulaa, 
and aa the oMae day 'hristoponlOB, &e pert of tht purehaee priae 



A»4 f tTi4«nec th« \>a1mi«« then ran^lninin due aad pnyalilc vniittr 

%h» t«r»« ttf a«id •grcem«at, •xseuted nnd dsllTered to Kendall 

hi* nets f«r $AOr, payftlil« to tjfie order of hiaiMlf and \>y hte 

•ndorsedf «ad da4i os (»r ^afere thrcn y«tirfl, wltlt lBt«r«8t «t 6:!l 

p«r anmni* »• •▼ideneed ^y aix interest eoupon BOi«» for $1& vaeh, 

«■• swry tU Bsoatk* th«reaft«r, alaa exeeutad «ad d«llTcr«d to 

SMidall mM payabU t« tha ardvr of 'lirlstopnulos »ad by hiM 

•adaraad* Ta aaeura hla payatent af said principal nota nf $900 

and aaid iritcraat aotea c^hrietopoulae «a the 8««« day axeeuted 

and daliverad a trust daad oanreylnK said praalaea ta Kendall, as 

tnistac* and »«tiA trust da«d wfis raoordad. All af tha payaaata 

aft4e by Ctirlttopaulas la pnrettwnea af said a^raaxaat vera ma'^a >»t 

tha afflaa af Kendall & Ca., and on Deeembar 36« 1916* Cihristepevilaa 

oaased ta 1>a p)Kid« by }iX(t friend an < aj(«at> i^aaiopulaa. at aaid 

afflaa, tke first lateraBt eeupon ante of $1% due Cetaber ?.A, 1916. 

aad aaid ante was than Marked paid and cuuBoelled by i^eadall 4 Ca. 

About tbla tine 31ueokliali« the eenplAln^iBt, for a caed eaaaideratian. 

pvroliasad fr«a Kendall ft Ca., and be ease the evaer aad legal holder 

af aaid priaoipal nata af $ftOf<, tegatliar with the fiye uaeancelled 

taterast eoapea aataa of $16 eaeh. Glueeklieh aaaertaiaed froai the 

baalta af Kendall * Co.. that Chriatopaalaa' aiiireaa vaa no. 721 Blue 

Island aTanue, ChleHga, aad on Jaaatary 30, 1917. ha arete the fellow 

iag letter t<s Chris tapoulas: 

"Kindly talca notioe that I urn the holder af the f500 
note exeeated by jm on April 2A, 1916, eeettred by a trust 
de«d of snae di»te on the lota ymi benight in the Kendall* a 
sabdivisian, SelsHmt & 50 th Ave., chie<^a. aad all fain re 
payaeatD, iaeltidiac latere nt, forward to «y J«li»t Address, 

105 i?bLitaey Aire. only. 

(;;i«aed) Hud. J. Olueekliah 
Jell«t, Ills." 

aiaeeklidh testified In aubataaee that he perseaally 

•aelaaed the letter in aa envelope artdreosed ta lipiraa t:hrietopi»loe. 

at Ke. ?«1 J<lue lelaad avemie, ChiOMiro, Illiaais, plaeed a twe eeat 

po»taffe stMp thereoa aad depoeited the envelapa ia a ?Taited StaiM 




■•iX ^x in J^«Li et, llliii«is{ tliat on th« uppfT l«ft taMld •om«r 
of %h» envvlope wtt» the follewinst *Jos. '>«hllt« BrvwUf CeafMuogr; 
•Xtvr fi days rcbarn to '<. J* <:itt*eULieb, J«itittt* 111,;* oaA tli«t 
ill* letter so «4dr«ft«ed md milled mtut never returned to bin, 
(Oltteoklieh}* Clurletopflvlee tcetifie4 ttaj>t he aoTev r«eelTed eniA 
letter or ajay other letter of similar iaport{ ^At he aeirer at oajr 
tUw httd resided et Xo. 731 Blue IslMid «Teaoo« Chieegn; that 
darin« the year* 1016 end 1917 he lived »t l»o. 1639 l-ftrk avenue, 
Chlcneo; thoi hie friend ApoetoXopoales, and onother friend. Kttkoe, 
re elded at 121 Blue lelend « venue, Chit«!>g;os ^^^ b* (Chriete]^ettlec) 
»e» o peddler by oe<»]pAtio»t that he eoQld not ape»k or re«4 Sac- 
lish very well; thet in hie deolincs with Kenddll ft Co., relative 
to the pvroheae of said pveainoo oad ankittg bio poyKoato thereon 
he fro<|aeatly ec'nt one of hio friende, Hoeiopaloo or Apoetoloyonloi, 
to oet in his etoMl. The evidoneo further aisolosed that an soveml 
different ooeasiono during the year 1913 Christopoulos had reeeived 
froB Kendall * Co, letters addreseed to hi« st lie. 731 Mac Xelaad 
avoauo and ihi»t ho had taken nation porsu^it to thoae Inttere. And 
Christepouloe further teetlfied on erase exMaiiaiitiOB that Apeetole* 
pottlos direeted Kendall * Co. to send letters to hia (Chriatopouloa) 
addressed to 721 Blue leland avenue, and that the arran^^eaent was 
that Ayoatolopottloa would hand the lettera over tn hia. 

\MriJim the aonth of hareh, 1017, "hristopoulo«, and his 
frisad (vnn a««nt, Masiopules, hud negotiations >ith r.««rg« Haagiarao, 
the principal defendant, relative to a sale by Christopnulon to 
Hiomiaras of the pr«raisos in quostioa. Ca harA 14, 1917, 
■aaiopaloQ, soeosipaBiod by Apoatoiopules and ChriBtop<Htlos, eallod 
at the offiee of Kendall & Co. for the purpoee of paying tha 
prineipal note of #»00 (vhioh Christopoulos hart oMouted nad de- 
livered to Kendall oa April Z*, 1916) aad all late root due, aaA 
haviag the truet deed to Kendall aeouring the ohm released. 



badall tna a«t th*n in th« off ie« and tlM a«c«ti«itioiis «er« 1m4 
vith VieUirson* bonktesysr f«r Kaadiai ^ Co. At this ttaa 
8a«lepoX«s f«r and nn bt^iaXf ttf airlsto{iimtloa paid Ktndall ft Co. 
^ elMok the imai of |ft09«X7« aad reeeiTod « receipt clidied by 
lottdAll ft Co., per Miekorara, tnr said aaiottnt, lt«»lxe<l »• follovo 
*VtC« #9f^^{ interost #6«f7; rel»»«« d««d fS.AO; total |509.17." 
!^t irhoB this psyBMiBt «»« sMido Sfid prinelpsl note of $6rc, and 
ths f Its unoaaoftlled int«r«8t eoupon notss »er« net thsa In ilM 
ofrie« of Ksndall ft Co«« tmd noither said KaslnpuIo« aor said 
Chrlatopolous et thj»t tlate or ut aaty mbsatiaoat tiaio raeeivod said 
prineipal aets or aay of said latorest aotoo* On tha saas day* 
Marob 14» 1917» Vaaiepuloa net Hangi«r«», told bin of ttie payaaat 
of t>s $iG^ not* and iat«rest, aad exhibited to him nv^lA ree«ipt« 
aad Baatfiaraa accepted a warranty deed for said prenloea excepted 
by Christopottlos, aad the acaM «»a reeorded on XarOh 16, 1917. 
8asiopttlos teatlfiod that at the tl»» Haagiaraa received deed 
he (Saaioi^les) knoar that the trust deed seoarftag said #l^0€ priaeipia 
note had net bo^n roloaood; that whea ho delivered the ebeek for 

509.17 to Keadall ft Co., Hicekoroaa told bin that K. P. Ksadall vao 
T017 ill bttt that he (Siekeraaa) mmiM haTO the aetes aad the re* 
leaao deed in a few days; and that was the reaaea «hy he (Vasiapalos) 
olosed the deal with'ntt the produotKm of the aeteo or of the roleaoo 
deed, im .'■, Kendall afterwards died. 

;3heB the soooad Interest coapon a'»ie of th« $&00 prineipal 
aote given by christopouloe fell due oa April 24, 1917, it was not 
paid, or -Ht any sabsequeat tiiM, and the then owner aad holder 0* 
said prineipal aote and aoid f iwo naeaneelled intereet eoapon notes* 
Olaeeklich. elected to doelare the prineical aun due, and, on Jteao 
14, 1W7, filed the present bill to foreoloee the tmat deed exeeutod 
by Christopoalos. The def«ndaata answered and oa Vobraary 10, 1919, 
George iiangiorae filed an ssMadsd oroos bill prayiag for tin 

■ i^n 


turr«nd«r mnA eaao«llstl<m of suid fBf^o prlnelpAl setc, and iai«r«»t 
a«t«9, and tli« r«I«i»«« of the tmst deed u&cnvine, tim eeae. iti'ter 
the ef4i*e hud be«B put »t leeoe the »aiw «»• referred to a iteater 
iB dienoery to tote proofs and report hte eoaelueiono of low oad foot. 

After heorlag evldemoe the atoeter reported, f Indlag the 
fecta MihetoBtiftlly oo oboYo outlined. 9he Msetor farther fouad 
that, froai m preponderoooe of the evidoaoe, the onid letter of 
Jeaaory 30. 1917, oddreoood by the eomplft-iitent, Cilueeklioh, to 
Ohrietopoulo»« v«e a auffiolent notice to (.lirietepouloe that 
eoaplKinent woo the «nmer of e^iid prinoipol note of ^5^^ end ooid 
five iateroot eaapon aotee; that Kendall & Co. wore not the ogoato 
of eoaplaiaojit; thot eonpleiaont did aot reoeivc ony port of tlM 
eainvknt paid oa Mareh 14* 1917. tn £end»ll S» Co. by Chrlstopnoleo, 
or any aoaey oa aec«fiiat of ooid i^riDoipal aete of $hW at oaiA 
eoapoa notoo; thot there ie dae eoBplaiamt the eaa of |7/;i.52a 
iaeludiag eolieitor*s fees of HOC, beoidoa oooto aad expeasoa; 
that said tnist dettd is a ralid oad OMbelctias Ilea acaiaet said 
prealoos; that the oijttitioo ore with the eoaplsinaat; nnd th t the 
oross-ceaqplttiaaat has failed to prawo the siAterial mllcg«tbion« of 
hie erooii*bill. The auaeter roooaBaadod that a deoree of foreoloauro 
be eatcred ia aocordnaeo with the prnyer <^ ooMplaiaaat'o bill, oaA 
that tho oroos>bill of 3eorg<< Haagiarao bo diaaioood. 

(^bjeetieas to the Master* e report were overruled nad 
tho ome wore ordered in stand as oxoeptioao before tho e^nirt. 
After o hoariae tho Cnurt OTorrulod the exceptions, eoafiraed the 
Mooter *e report and eaterod the deeroe appealed froa* 

Tho decision of this oase, as we view it, depends upon 
the ii>teniin»tioa of a oaention of foot, wis: Vos Christopnulos 
antified by Glueoklieh that the latter wae the holderr of enid 
1600 principal aote, aad thnt all fa tare pfyaoato thorooa, ia- 
oludias iateroot, ah«ul4 bo aado to hla, prior to Maroh 14, ItlT. 


wben Christapouloi? yftl<l th« aaottat af 8ftl4 n«t« t« . B. K«a4all 
& Cot *th« rttla i«. that the a«»lgn««, to pr«t««t hiaealf frcn 
p«]pYn«nt« by tba atertgager i» th« Bortffas*** muet girc notice to 
th« Borticagar, MOtasl or <ron9tntotlT«, of tht oaelgnacnt to his." 
^otai/ilt|t T, xIi3S2JSXliJL» 1^1 m* '^*'» ^*^» «»* CBaee cited.) Iha 
•Tldenoc shotn tttpt Gluecklioh, nn Jaimary SC, 1917, frcn Joliett 
XlllBois, nailed auoli e natioe to Chriatopeulos* eddrfte^ ed to hin 
at So* 731 Bine Island avairaea Cliiaago« which addretaa w^^s tho ana 
to vhioh th« orl4sinHl ainrtfagac had been diirect«d to aand latter* 
to Chri»tnpouloB« and whieh aaid lettera had baen reeelTad hj 
Chriatopoaloa uid aetad upon by hia. He* ho««T«r» deaiad that ha 
oTar raceirad aueh a notiea, Froof thnt eu^h r natiee v»s put in 
aa aavalopa, properly Rt«uBp«d aatf |ir<^iSi«rly addresbad and aailad* 
la preacmptiTa evidenea it it« rseaipt* (X£XS£ ▼• Krohn^ 114 111. 
574, fta«i Aahley >ra Co, t. Xllinoig ^tael Co.. 164 111. 149,158.) 
AXthnuRh tha preeaaption thua created May ba rabatted by eridanaa 
that tha notiea was not in feet raeelTod, naTertbalaaa "tha poaltiTa 
daalal of ita raeript by tha poraon addraaaad does net naecR8>)rily 
nallify the preauBptiaa* bat laoTaa tha qaaatloa for tha detenainstion 
of tha eourt •r Jury trying the ^«»tiea, with auah wai^t givan to 
tho prasusption a» it auiy ba entitled t«, bat with the burden of 
proving receipt of tha aotiee renniaine upon the party aha easarta 
it.« (gfti. T. ^aierieoHn Bottle C^'* 1*2 111. App. flag, •42; eae, 
elao, 1« Cyo. 1070; heyer v. Krohn . aaPTf . ) ia tha praaent e^a* 
tha Be^etar in ahaneary, who aaw the witaaaaaa aad heard th«« teotify, 
feaad freai all the aTidenea. in effect, th«t Chriatop'wlos did re* 
eeire the notiea aad the enurt ia ita decree auntiiined that finding. 
ihilc it ia true that, where all tha ta»tiaieny in a ehanoary pre- 
eaedlag ia taken before a auketer and tha ehaacellor dees not hear 
a«y of tha witnaa«ieB» a relieving court ia not bound by the rule 
that tha fiadiag of tha cheno»llar will not be diiiturbad ualeaa it 


«Q9 Zli. 434); still It 4m t.>)4 r»I« UirI "^ihere the mustfjy has 
»eon t^« .YitnAstsan and ob»flpre<^ tbAlr manner nn4 (*«»«an(»y i»)til« 
teQtifylas, the finding of facta wadts by hlsj is«4 t« da« 
wartght*" ( Kani >»r v. Matte , :?39 Sll. »»«, 595, »n4 o«?si«« oitt<l.) 

Uad«r ths fncttn rit8elo«e«i ^^ ?~:r« nnt dlap'n»)(^d to 
int«rfere with th« dnoree of the tiiu|»eri<fiip ?<>eu*t etf Oook Couaty 
•ad it ia aacar^lnQly ntfirmtt^, 

BRraasi r. 7., and l!atela«tt, J., oanoux'* 

*.T to 

134 - 2S905 


AJkMUree . 

AFFEAL racm 

90 1 T /f«^*/«^,'% 

^ Kxf JL. jL.t,t^-i '^^' ■■*-• 4 


The facts la tlila eae« ur« nBdlaputed. the plaintiff. 
Jus tint It. ^h«Bkland« irtin Is th« divoreed wife of the defendant* 
Hslph %, i^hanklnnd^, bmufcht suit in BSetuspait against Ui« de- 
fendant ftllcging in hnr deQlnrntlen th« nan-perfennftnoe ¥y the 
defendnat ef o<>rtain prtHnlnee nade by hin in » written eontraot 
heretefere entered inte between then. The eele defense relied 
on is that the eantraet ie reid »!■ s^aiast the public peliey 
ef %his ^itate. At the oenclusian ef all the evidenee the trial 
onurtf being ef the efinien that tiae oentraet «»s Teid fer that 
reason* directed the Terdiet in favor ef the defendant, end froa 
the jttdgMftBt entered th«renn this appeal is taken. 

Ihe eontraet sued nn is set ay in haee v erb a in the 
declnratiea «tnd ie as fellewa: 

"Be It Kneim, th&t fer tctn years leat past, and up 
to and until about l^ay 1st, 19r<4, Ralph >> . i^hankland and 
Justine H. :ihaaklaad, taixeband and wife, lived tet^ether 
in the city of C'lie >(;'^, Illinois, but ainee the d<ite l-et 
«ention«<i have net lived together or cohabited, becnuse 
ef the disinelinstion >*nii refusal of Mrs. Shankland so to 

■That they have on« child, « son, by nsKO ;^alph H, 
Shanklead now of th« age of nt"ut ten years. 

•That, ^^liereas. said :talph M. Jhanklaad has this day 
obtained a decree of divorce frea the snid Justine M . 
ihanklaad, in the -irouit Court of Conk County, Illinois, 
in o«ee General Me. a7«772, by the terms ef which decree 
of diveree, said J^ntiae K. -henkland hns been awarded the 
outitedy of eaid Ralph K. c^hankland, the sea of said parties. 

'And, Boreas, it is the deeire of said i^alph ». 
.:>hankland that hia son shnuld be aaintaiaed in the style 


•nd m&tiTitiT in vhlob he hne %e«B r.ceoat««!«tf , B.nA thmild im 
■urrottnded vlth the cnmfnrts nf a properly equipped Mfid 
wlX ori' red hone! ^^('t h« shmild >>« «urr«und«d und brought 
i(< eentaet with people of refin«B«nt.» cultu m and good 
^arr< eter; thtii hie education «hrtuid proceed »long lines 
te fit hiai adTantaeeottsly fer a profeesienal career with 
credit te hiaself and family* »nd realising the enn»ider»ble 
expense inynlTed therein la order te cerry out the propesitien 
herein nutlineii, nnd to provide the means therefor, it is 
herehy smturlly &greed hetireen the sisid ialph ?/ . ^hanklend 
and JuHtine i> , -^ihankland , th»t the said Justine • :>h«nk:laBd 
shall and vill. oontimiOtt8ly» during the isinerity of the as id 
sen, eatablish, create, maintain and supervis* a cMifertahle 
h«me for herself r^nd her s»id sen; th«^.t she takes it upen her* 
self, carefully, te take oare of the welfare and happiness of 
her son abere nsmed; te assist in every poesihle vay in his 
dcTelepnent and education from a liberal standpoint; to proride 
bin with such comforts, so fnr ns practicable, as he has 
heret^^i'ore enjoyed; te assist in his educ&tien to the end that 
the said son may be fitted for a profeesienRl life, nnd te 
give hijB 8uoh adTantagOB and opportunities ae are possible vlth 
the means ^t her disposal; thut she will guard him ag inst in- 
proper associates; and, on the contrary* to surround his life 
«ith good influences only* 

"She said Ralph *» t^hnnklaad, in order to proTldo the 
means necessary to o >rry out the desires of the parties hereto, 
herolqr agrees and binds himself to pay unto the Sfnid Justine M. 
iihanklsnd theram of f^l25«00 per month, in installments of 
$62*&0 each, on th« let and ISth Of each month, oe long ae the 
snid Jnatine U* ;:hankland shall have the e«.re f>nd euetedy of 
the said ?<alph H. iJhankland, tjUfivi unt JLl hi a wadority ; proyidid , 
however « should the said Justine fe . -^hanklnnd re»marrry, then 
eueh payments shall eeoee, nnA this «bli|fation b« Toid« 

"The said i&Xsti V* hnnkland further obligf^tes himself 
te pay the neoee»«sry tuition fees for the education of his son, 
and also any extrHordlnary expenses thi«t may be incurred on 
account of the illness of snid child; th^ sums nf money hereby 
referred to j^iJUL &S. BJ£A SSA fia^^nafa lA iM '^^ftgr^tJM ML 
the said Jn a tin e U, 3h«nklond t in carrying out the spirit ant 
purpoBS of this agreement e^ shall maks go aoenuntiiig j0£ |a£ 
disposals th ereof , n»ll oonfidenee being had in her iriso 
application Ai such funds for the purpose h reinsbOTe indicated; 
and in the erent thist the said Ralph le * Khankland should die 
before hio said son shoulJ rench th^ age ef 21 yearr, the con- 
tinuM) payment of said allo«(inee is hereby made a charge agniost 
his estate, and payable by his executors end adminiutratoro, 

"The said Ralph li . ihsnkland further agroes that in een* 
sideraticn of the care, custody and control of the said Ralph 
H, .^hankland by the said Juxtine M. hnnkland. and upon her 
eosiffiittirg no act which wnuld bring di&oredit upon herself, 
or her said child, or render her an Imprnper perofrn to hare 
the custody and control of s?iid child, » id Ralph M. >hanklanl 
will pay unto the said Juailao H. ShMikland the further sum ef 
$100,00 per month so long as she may remain umnarried, and have 
the ca% and custody ef said child; and Bh<nuld «ald child die 
before hlo majority, or ,.rrive at the age of '21 years, while 
in the care and custody of his mother, then said -^alph U. 
ohankland binds himself to p«y unto the said Justine V, 3hankland 
thereafter in considfirstion of her care and eduo^tion of said eon. 

• 3* 

til* mm of #13t.0r p^r nonth* In Installmenta of 6Z,hO e6«h, 
on %h« Ist imd laxh Amf of vndi aoath« so Inag as she ronoino 

"^'Oid Justine ^ . /^hanklond hertby agreee thr^t soiA ouato 
OS herein provided for 9htai \ft, whon ise rseeived, a full and 
eanplete roleaeo ond diardiarge of tho 8al4 Kalph U. i^)i«ailclau»d 
of All olai«o oad doaando AKainat him* for th« core end ox* 
penso incurred ^y h«?r, in the eupport, educKtlen imd aminton* 
anec of ihe euid child, 

nhi» ftgreenent is exeovted in duplicate « ond eoeh 
iuplieoie copy io hereby «ado on orig IaaI. 

*It !• further oKreed that should oaid Juetine U, 
ii^hankland re*mKrry while ehe h^« the custody of said oh lid, 
and before his majority, thifO asid *^alph b . ^hankland a^^rees 
and hinds hiaeelf to ptiy alx ths nec«88j/.ry expenMOS that «ay 
ho iBOurrod in the keeping, siRintenwnee and education of 
his sen.* 

The oireuTHStonOfo under which the foregoing ontraot w»s 
•attred into were »o follows: June 22, 190€, the <^«fpndnnt, -^alph 
V* Shankland, as conplsinant, filed his l:)ill for diveroo «g»inat 
the plaintiff, Juetino i^. tthankland. On the SOth day of that month 
(eight days after the filing of the bill) a deeree was enterod find- 
ing thot the d<!f fnd&nt on the f iret day of May, 19C4, wilfully de- 
•orted eomplainunt, and it was adjudged that the narriags between 
thim should bo diseolTed* The deorer «lso proTl^xd that the oustody 
and control of the son^ ^^alph H« i.h«nklBnd» who was then a l&d bo* 
twoen ten and eleyen years of ago, ehnuld bo glToa to the aether 
"until the further order of eourt, and that the eooiplainsat hare the 
right to Tisit and have the eompanionahip of said child at say proper 
tlao and as frequently os he nay desire.* 

The hearing on the bill w&» had in court on Juae ^'•th. 
While the eentraet purports to haTo boon enterod oa the day the 
dlToroo «&s o>>taiaed, it wns, in foot, aaiie prior to that tiao« 

The hueband and wife had been 1 It lag apart for aore than 
two years and there is nothing in the record to iadieate other 
than that the dlToroo wue entirely Justified upon the graunds upon 
lAieh it was granted. The oontraet is not aentioned in the deeree. 
It was aet at aay tiao subsiitted to the eourt. It wae exeeated ia 


dupllent*. lira. vhfnkl»nd wne represented In th« ncg*ti«tloa« 
by an attomey* lir. uhuey. ;j1i« sl^ed th« eeatrnct In his 
of fie*. Kr. ihanklnnd was also represented by i^n sttorrMy, 
Mr. OppenhelK. Tliese attorneys c'^nflult•d ab^t the eontraet 
and agreed upon its tenns* 

The parties wi^ their jatterneye met in eonfereaee 
on June SOUi or Plat ia»t prior te the filing of the bill. The 
• ttemey for Hr. ;>hanklaiid testified "Thnt contract «»s prepared 
during this ennferene* by Kr. ;:>faney. He was the one «ho did 
ment of it; have no independent reoallectien «b to whether tlM 
eontraet was signed at th^^t time, t^y iwpreaoion is thet it vae 
signed preTieuB te the ttntry of the deeree in the divoroe suit, 
think Mr. ^huey sign«^d it prohebly before X filnd th» bill, and 
that I held it for s fev days until thk decree was granted or 
until Mr. :;hu«y deeired it to be d^lirered to him. I think I 
held the e crow, as he eolled it* t^r a few days, how irsny days, 
Z eottld not aay." 

The sole question to be deeided is whether tfaia eon> 

traetttkUB executed and delivered is void as egeinet the ^blie 

polioy of this >>tate. vVhateTsr the policy of eth«r stntes may 

be it is settled in XlLlaois that the enurts will carefully 

scrutinise suOh eeatr; cts, and V.»t if the effect of the contract 

is to ctimulate diveree it is void. In ajlberaohmidt t. ailber « 

setBitdt . 11 ' 111. App., 69, this cnirt said: 

•It appeared by the testimony of appellee's solicitor 
in the divorce suit, erilled hs a witness by apnellMit, that 
the agreement wks made pending the suit and prior to tho 
decree, a learned nuthor, ooimnenting on aurh agreements 
saye 'But if the eontrnct is of a sort to stimulate the 
divorce, to diBcnurage any defens«i| or in «ny wpy to impo£>e 
upon thr eourt, it will be void. »or example it *ill be 
void if 80 frmmed as to have effect only on condition th-a 
a divorce is granted with^t alimony. «enoe prsotlcally, 
and almost and somotime quite es a natter of law, an agree- 
ment of this sort should be laid before the judge, iriiea to 



aa •xtA^'nt not re <gily definatle, it will be ill If 
lie dlaa«nts «»d ge'xJ if he r.pproyes.* 8 Blahop ^n 
IfArrlafQ, Rivnrce nnd epartition, »i«c. 7 B, ihe 
eevrts d© not ft;Tor but ntther Incllce sgainet 6ueh 
Agreemeote rp tending t« oollueion ]»«t«»«n the jMirtles, 
nnd Mlae tending tn f«cllitat« divorees.* 

Hw»tlt«n V. Hwoiltew . 89 111. o49; tfa^rtiB v. KarUfl. 6» I«. 286; 
K£JSl '•-!«». ^ ln^» 19*; ^Sfigeti ▼• '--agprett . 8 ?«ig« 809. Aal 
1« ■->tiiekty T. ;^tac]»y . 122 III. /».pp. 955, it wft» aaid: 

"Although after a deorda of divorce has hasn granted. 
upon a till therefor filed in good f«ith »nd without 
oollttsioiit u.n agreeMt nt b«tii««n the pf^rtles as to tho 
cacunt end tfvrms of alim'^ny will l»e rsoogaisod and enSoreed 
by courts, ( vter«y v. taroy . 135 111, COS) it is otherwisa 
D^en such agrec^nent is made prior to and iDdepc^ndent of th« 
•anetioa of a decree for divnree« but based upon e di^eree 
thereafter to be obtained." 

Xb the 0R8« of ?^ilton v. H<»tilto». 89 111. 349, where the wife 

had iaatitated a eult against her huaband for diyoroc and for 

aliaoay, the Jttpr«R« C ^rt said with r«f«r«nwi to a contract maie 

pending auch auit: 

"The majority of the court, however, are of the 
opinion that the contract set out in the d<»olar$^tion ia, 
in ita e^Boaoe and ehfir>^^iet«r, ag^vinst pul>lie pelioy, and 
that it aufit be held invalid upon that ground* ^Jhilo 
divorce* are authorized by l.w, they ought not to be 
•neouraged. In thie contract there la no expr«>68 agree* 
■•nt thttt the huaband wculd not resist the >'pplic tion 
for a divoree, or th^^t he wuld conaent to a divorce* is thr>ught thnt to p«';nRit a«^ a contraet aa thia, 
to He cnforoed in the courts, voiuid open a door for the 
attainaent of divoroea by colXuaion, and upon thia ground 
tho dedaien of the (?ourt in sustBining the denurrer to 
the deelarntion ought to be auateined.* 

am* the ntLtnral tendency of thia contract here aued on 

to rtimlate the divoree between the partieaY Looking at its 

tenuB and eenaidering all the circuastaneea under which it waa 

Bade imd deliverod, we f^re forced to the ooneluaion th»t eueh 

waa tho iaevitnblo effect 0t it. Had the agreement bei-n aub- 

■itted to tho court and approved by the deoroo a different 

rfueetioa would have arisen. Thayer v. Ihayer , 19/^ 111. App. 8. 


It !• pftrfeetly spp«r«nt thnt the deei«e in this ease 
cnuld not hare b«6a obtained in «lght days after the filing nt 
the bill (ae it «ae) wlth'iut aobm aaeietanee to the ooBplelnant 
froa the defendant. That Illinoie it not the only state enf«reing 
thie rule with vigilanec is ^p parent trrm an examination of the 
floitheritiea* Ad wee t. Adaaie > 2b Minn. 72; Martin ▼. Martini, 
65 la. 259» 

Crninsel for appcllent in diecttssing Hwiilton t* 

Hwilton , aupra . ^otc frnn ft diaaenting opinion by Juiitioe 

Dickey, end eay: 

"Thie it soma to ue ia a more reasonable 
ground upon ^c^li^ to bnae a conolusion." 

We are« howeTor* bnund by the majority opinion* 

The Judipent will be affinsed. 


Bamea, F« J*, and Oridley* J., concur. 


«1 *. M844 

▼8, \ 


mtintiff in-, ferret, 

«t« au^XCiv: Ji£.AT&£I¥'l ii$i,l^mm ttiS. QUrUim UW 'Sm COOH-T, 

Plaintiff In «Tror wio wrT^ai^'fiwd en wn lfif«»Ts;Rti«» 

in lawful !««n«:/ cf tvi« >.«Dited St»t«« of <^PTio«, thp exuct d^nowil- 
B«ti*n of whlett 1» wn>rnewl» *.«s *iht» nff iimt, of %fe« v»lue of f(«»r» 
t#frB 4«llsr«, t.h* f>«r«cR«l ftc"^* «n«'^ r>yT«*ty of r.winri?* '• , t*«, 
414* tb«n Rfsd tit«r« *r9«rf«1ly »n*l wniwrftilTy tiip>*» it***! *n4 efrvj 
m'*t^Tf, etmtrttrr *c *H« UtstKt*, ;*»t«j»* K« s«*1v«kI » J«ry, «:nt«r«d a 
pi** that h# w»« **?«jlTty 1,»s jffipysT^ffi" »«c fer?« »» r-^ftrK!?!' In »niA ln» 
for/.«tl«ij." th* v«o«trf< further r«)«it«« that ••«!« def*itid«int b*ti9« 
4uXy »dTi»*<i 'Hy th« eettvt «• to th« •ff«et *na conflequerce* ef 
mid plWR, *f!d j>ftti« <itef«jd«Bt ittlll pftviatim th«r««n, tb« ocurt 
ora»r« »«id rie« tc b* «o««|fted uni *«t«r«idi of reeerd «^«ln«t wi^ 
Aftfenviftnt,* tb« yisiinttff In error wn* arrttJt>«e<S tc r«y • l"in« *»* 
•erv* ©»# yr»r 1» tKe 3Srwe« <>f Gptrmtien, m ^tll t>t tjxcertl'p** 
««k« l>re««!rr*d. 

n l» first «rfw»a *y plaintiff la ©rrer i.t»i tk» 
»«««-r< fikUr t» s»1j«i» tjint ttor> «(eo«.««iiuftace* cf cntf^rlng tb* |lr« 
^•rf fv.llr ritTl*'in«>'' te fcl«, «n« tiAt «rrt r fu»tjj«r «ir**i'» f'«» 
tk« reecrd 1b th»t thf «r«rt fj>llP«J if bpur •Tl<J#n«'« ar»B *>^* ii**» 
Wfcintlff iB -rreir r») \^» rm ••(tticn «121, ehwr**' **» ^ Jmi»« A 

'• ^•nr4p , rtpB . 26t 111. 46, end the oonstrtietlen thor* »dcpted l», 
7« think. aonolutlTtt «{^«ln«t tJuea« oojatentiona. 

It Is n«xt arr«d tu«t th<9 lnfem«tlon l» d«feetiT« in 
that It f«il« t© J»h«w the t>rcp«r <t«no?)ln»tionii ef the money «l}ef;«4 
t© hAT« "benn Btplim, bbcI that the reooril failts to sho-fv th«t nnf 
«fiA«nn* tHfc« hward tci suatftln th« uTO-rmmt tbot the «x80t dtwomiaR- 
tiona »f th« money wwre «nJfrtown. On thiiB lost, pulnt ,rl«l«tiff in 
trrcr r«li«« on fiic-p} «f^ v. >iub|^ . asi ni , 446, 

*« think thp infRfsnistlon wu* net d«f«etiv«, and «• A# 
••t think thnt th« e«»e oit^d is R|»plicabl« here* In UiAt ca««, 
unlike this en«« a bill of «jxe«ption« vms pr«*erv«d. 

It 19 n«att lnel»t«d t^kat th« fladlni^ of thi> ccurt n» 
to the Tftltt* ef tli« prc^iarty RllAg<Mi to b»V9 be«n stolen i» ln<» 
8ufflel<«nt. i'egplL/ v, J:*t5Lia» '^^<'» ^6269 Aj}p(f<il»te uoutt, ta elted 
on this point, but th« fi-«'iin|f thttv* held Inouff icifMSt is materially 
different from th«» fln-»inK hero, wdeh we think lo isv>ff ltjl»nt to 
•MOtnin th« JuidlfSBont, and it v^ill thorofore %« offire^ed* 

BarnAO, t, S,t «n<i Orldl«y, 0,, concur. 




O o<^.. 

^nsAZ. rncM 

▼• \ /) CSlfiCUlT COUKit, 

\ / ) 

^ 221 1.A. 638 


•f the Murt, 

On Jtumaqr 84, 1930, viwn this e*tta« «a« h«r» b«nir«« 
aa Ojplalen vae r*iid«r«4 rtTinrsing t)t« JuiflgKcnt «r the airouit 
8»ttrt» aad aonoladin^ «» follows; "ThAt thi* oauee b* rmundAd 
to th# Circuit Court af Oft»k '^«»tgr vlth ctireotieaB tta*t » p«r- 
«avt«ry writ of gumOanM b« istuvd te renter* itw |t«tltioniir 
to th« orfiwi or poffitioA fron vhioh h« has boon lllOKall/ ro» 
»DYo4« and for tHo furthor reliof «• to hi«t oaloivx «» pi'«jr«tf 

for.* (ne iii,Ar».M3,} 

In tho QCKirt Itolev* at tlko flrot h««rin£ of tho 
«MM«, tho triol oourt lMi4 fouad tho ioeuoo in favor of iho 
4of«n<uu»t and dloMdoood tho potltlon. Upon a writ of «rror 
%|r tho poiitien«r, that Jud^^ont vro rororood and th« oauoo 
ronuuidod witti dir^^otiono, aa ahOTO otatod* that a poranptox7 
writ of ^ndanuo ho ioauod to roatoro tho po^tionor to tho 
offioe or position fro« «hi^ ho had hoon rMWTOd and for 
othor roliof ao to hi« oaiary. Furouant thrroto, tUo poiiiioa- 
or than filod in tho trial oourt. » nandato of th^ final Judf* 
»«nt of thia oourt« and ontorod a ootiOB for Jttdgmont in 
aooordaneo with tho oaodato. ^neurrontljr wit^^i that aoiion. 

%h0 patiUowtr h«t«4 UMt tit* per«%fit«r7 mrli l>« 4ir«8t«4 

On Juljr 10, 1«80, tl3<p trial wurt •At«r«4 ^iwMtmflmt* 
Igr tliat Ju^ssamskt th« oosiaJLseieavr of pul*llo work* and the 
•Mipts>«ll«r »rt4 th« city trMMittjrar w*ff«t mmdti j-»«pen4eRVe to 
th« 9«tiiion* ay tlMt Judipawnt, alto, th» trial o«urt •rdvrwA 
• p^mm^tnvf «7li of Mandaottia te iswue f«>rth«ith ooaMaa«ilfic 
e«rt«la «ffi«t«'r« •€ tfi* ^t^ of ClhieiiK* to pmy wtttaAn loftaoy* 
to tb« p«titien*r eAd «!»• t« r«»iaet«te hin ia tb« offioe of 
««B«nt t«»t«r aitii to r«>«t«r« t« lila hia aaleury af (»8SO«00 yar 
laaath, and further, ttet tht* City af <^iloafiat ita «iV elarik* 
itagrar and Oity (touaail • all af iiAiaaa nanaa f th<>r«iR aat 
farth • do Approprlata in tlia Appropriation ardiaaao* to 1n> 
aaaat«4 naxt fellowian t>i(» a rvio* of aaid ^aron^torjr writ of 
— itt^aawa » ( gl r a t^, Uw» mm af $SS,99ft»&0 far th« ]^«gwaat of tHa 
l»atitian*r far aalar;^ aa ottnont taat^r fren Jamiasy X, lfO0« 
to April 96, 1080j(aoi3oa4}. Uia X^thor mm 91 |tS,0O0.0G fttr 
tha oalarjr of aaid affia* af aaMwat taator for th* root of tbo 
fiaoal your af 1920} (third), aoaamia an« oajeia thai a» »aid 
afpropriatioB boiae auada tha *Mid reapaadaat, Citjr af 'Jhioac** 
tha lUgrar, •;:aB9trollar, Tr«aouror and Oaaaiaoioner af iPublia 
^•rka, o«ah bains aaatod, forthwith, par and o^tuoo io bo paid 
th* nboro anouat.0 to tha potitloaor, l^tor Q, itaArdUlo. 

Tha Judipaant of th* trial aourt aloo providod far 
farthar appropriatiaaa for hio aalary and Ita papMOnt to ULat 
and that tho potitien«r aliauld teva loaro to ap^ljr to th« oaurt 
to the ftttara aa oeoaaioa aiight ariaa or roquiro in 9r^itr that 
tha r«liof prayod for mlKht bo aoa^lotaly abtainad, 

Gawiaal far tha roopendanta aontand (1) UMt tha 


Olrowlt :ourt w»m without JuriscUetlen to ftnter th« jttd#ai«nt{ 
(S) that It ^sft »TT9r to Awira th« writ ati^iilnst %hn oltjr 
oftuaeil sf th« ^^V vf JMLe»fg» Mt<( th« aiirll Mrrvle* oocniiaatioa 
•f tb« <3ity •£ (3Maa«tt, vkwvltffi' neither of vhloh b«dl«« ««r* 
l»ikrU»« to th«> original p«Utioii| (S) Uml ii ««c error t« 
dir9ei ih« el^^ e»unail to ftp^ro£»riftt« the •(Uary «i the j^vU* 
ti»n«r} (4) tli»t. ite« •r<i«r or ifo« 9««iri gi»«« )»<iyoit4 t>io oMp* 
•f t]^« pr«jr«r of Um 9«Ution in that It TirtuAlly giT«« to 
tho i^etitlerii«r » lifo ^«oition »« 9Ktt«nt iootor ragnrdlooo 
of his f«t«r« «i»A4ii«t; ftud (S) thsi it «r«.» orr&r ie provltio 
that thw p«»titi*B«r might'pl'y at fmy tii^o in tlii^ future for 
« tt«« writ agninst any future offievr of %hm OiV vf cmio%e» 
to oaforoA hie ri^tiito. 

(1) Ao to t^M) <%a««tticri of jurls4)i<3ti(in. XiMunmcAi 
mm iho 4H4«:»ont of tM trial oourt ««• r«v«r««d and ih« esuao 
r«i«wuloA tvitli dirnetioBH that a p^trcistptorjr writ of aumjaamku 
iM io«u«4« ote. tuadl the '.muoo vtto «ul»e«c!U«>Kitljr reik>(akoi«4 pur* 
ouant to tlM Bouiiteio of tMe oourt, it fellovo ih«t th« OUf 
euit Oourt km4 ituthori^ itiMft JuriodiotioA to do »Xl thot tMUi 
aoooooary to th* io«u*ao« of tHo writ wMeh, ef twuroo, ««ul4 
isAitdo • Jud^fpuint orolior ^wording tiio »rit. ^o o|i«oial fom 
of word* oro sooooonrjr in Urn |«dffttont« of thio oourt in ro» 
▼oroinc «aa rmm»n4int with dilr^gtioaa* 

(8) Wo* it orror to sward the writ oisiaaoi Ui* Oi%jr 
Oeuneli of tho c;ity of aMosi^ tund the 'Jiril f>«ryim OeMai«oi»a 
•f tito Citjr 9f ^AtisttfO, ROither of vt.ioh bodioo »or« portioo to 
tb« origiiMl potltionT Of <]Oar»o, originally it ««o onljr Roo> 
oooary that tii« v!ity •f (l^emg* onould b« t)ri« reopOMdont* but 
oubooquontiy vhcu it tHeri omro to ordor und i«iR40 tho writ 

i«MMNidi AS iv. V9ul4 bAeoa« ii«««B««jry th*t It nlMitad b« •err«4 
ttfOH •<»• one •ir aK»r« 9t %h« a«*nis of th« CIV «h* veuld Im 
•«Bp#ll«4 to a«t In diaohurg* of th«ir atttl««« it v«» pro^^er 
tlwt XJMs m«tib«r« of th« aitjr Sounoil emi of tli»« Civil u«rvi«o 
Ooiaai««ien »houl<l both b« pttrttoa aad bo oervod. 

SS4, 1^1 4^ wao « bhumIocrui oaioo, too oourt oftitf* *It wonid. 
ihorofore, in tlio jbrt'-wnX <3«so, deubtI*o«t h«yo boon Kufri«4*nt 
to )wv« fllod the »«tiUoa ««»iiiot the> toicM, without lumlae in* 
dividttftlo, to httvo obt»in»<i a porojmttxy itMii4«tt»8 to «»«h of 
th* a^ionoieo «,iid ineiroHtontalitioo throagh wHi d& it smot ftot 
to aaJco yoijniffint of tho alsia Avm %ix» relator; 1niii> it « to oo»» 
]^ot«nt to mak9 Xh* in4X^liti&%» wl»»e«> «(«ty it ie to sot, :partieo« 
»» w«o h«jro 4oao. (Yil^i^ta of aionooi^ ▼. THo Jg-ottplo. 78 ill. 

In oitiwr «v«ni, Uw aotlon oi c^ <i^r90Ta%* ^4^t Mui not tlM 
oiotloa of n»tur«.l porrsono, mm ottoh, iMiroly, t)«A( its;< to bo en* 

(3) Md tli« triftl ooujTt mrr in dim sting th« Jity 
Ooimoil to opproprlsto for tho eoinyjf of tMo i»«ti tiaaort Im 
tho opinion imaAm4 4oor la thie oovro bjr this court tho follow* 
Ing la»|pM^ «ns ttOo4: *He obstoolo oziettn to the; ^r»atlnc of 
aoagploto roliof in mmm i»rooo4»4isw. Th* ri^t of 4of«nAant 
In orror to hiir o&laiy' io no oltmr mm hie titlo to tho offloo," 
lattOBuoh »o tho Murt founi that tho i»«tition«r vno tho onljr 
l^oroon o«rtifio4 tmd ftjoi^o^niod U th« offioo of ooaont tootor 
«n4 thjit ho ««o novor loyally tiikoa from tliot ofiieo, it fol* 
lov* that iho ooatoatioB of tho r«opond«nt tta^t a j|o footo 

•ffioor hao b»on rooolTiac tho oolarj for tho offie* ic ia»» 

t«tMVl •• 

(4) ii«4»tt th« itrdmr vf tiM trJuRl iu4«« «xi«nd 
tiiiV«ii4 th« •«opA mad prnifgT of Uk« 9«i&iion ikati virtually 
flT« to th« 9«Vitioaer « life ponltion am o«simn% iftsior 
rftgiir4lA«e vf nia future ocn^uetf Ix will b« e^servftd that 
Um 1«mcim^ of th« erdi«r of tht? trial J ««!«[• ^ycTiiloe f»r 
Ml anaota «j?propriAtlon for th* aslajry of th« offle* nn4 
th«n dir«et« Uia {MigriMnt «f t^t aAlarjr only vkile Xhtt 
9«tiii9na)* f^tfrfema th»' work «mi r«»£.«JLit» aa inowtlMmi •t th« 
•ffte* «f c«<%«nt. t«»i«r. XHat i« In aawrdUitiiM uriUt tH« lav. 

(ft) Mti th* «»nri arr in yroTiding ia Uw ardRr tlw% 
th9 pctliioaar ni^Ht apply at any tl{«« in th* futtura far a 
new writ acaiast aagr future affio^^r for the City of Slxk.mts<i> 
to enforeo his rit^littt Xaaesauob as th« relief praye4 for ia 
•Maples and for it« fulfilliaent ro<)uiroe aetlon en the part 
of the ▼ariotto agente of the mimiolpalltir. it i« net uareaaom* 
able tiAt the court 1^ its orcier eteuld pr^Tiao for a reten* 
tlaa of Jarl»«ietiBn pemdlair the eottOtaanatioa of all the 9iu> 
90000 of the liilgatioa. 

riaiiinc no error ia the rooar4 the JudgMoat io 


236 . 264CI9 


IB, ^ i 


Appcllimt. I ) 


i^F COCK QQimtY, 

2211 A. S3 8 

In an ncticn for p'Tnenal awrvloeB plnintiff had 
Jud^/^^nt for ^365 on the yr^r-llct cf s jury, wnrt defeniunt 
brings thff r«cerd tc thla court for r«Tirw. 

It iipp«»»ir9 thr»t ]plfi.lntiff workwd In the fs-^tlr of 
d»f*n(i*»nt AS a Qura*, «t the eiwe tl»e doing ssMft cf the ((«ner«l 
heus«ihcl.i ooric; thnt 3h*» ^forked for thirteen vf'wks fJurinff the 
fan of the 7*»r 1918, and that rturlnff such tii»« def pndnnt'« 
wife miffpred fre» the influensa at that tlaa d«adl y preralent 
in Chicago and alaawhera in thi» ocuuatry, and that plaintiff 
nursad defendant's wife while she was so suffering, ea «r«lX as 
two of his children. 

The dispute between the parties relates to the oc:ib«> 
peneation te be paid plaintiff for suoh serrices. Pefendant in- 
sists that the aRrewent was to pay a rwaeonatole price for plein- 
tlff*o serrtees, while plaintiff ln«i3t» th»t ahio ^m to be paid 
fire dollars a day therefor. riefi«ndant paid plaintiff one hundred 
dollars. Insisting that that mm wae « rftsscnable price for the 
s*rTle*B rendered. The Jury returned n rerdiet awarding rlelntiff 
ecmrpnoation at the rate of fiTe dollars a day, 

^e think the verdlot is eesily reeonoilnble with the 
contentirn thnt fire doll ere «i day is but a reasonable price for 

th« 8«rTleea rendar^a by plaintiff aa a nurae durln(< th«© of 
tbe Influenza 9pid«mle. ]<iura«8 w«re not only in great damnnd at 
that tim«, but difficult to procura* and the jury any hnr* !>«•> 
liavaA, »s w# do, thmt flv« dollara a day was hut n r^aaonable 
prlee fcr rlalntiff'a e^rvloaa at the tlxa and <mdar the elroun- 
atAncaa they were rendered. 

Upon this theery we find no rulinRa en th«» evldenea 
or in the inatructicns which fidv«rraely nff-sctwd tb.« righto of the 
defendant. The questiona 'befere th«f $ury werfl of fnct, and we 
think they reached bv thffir verdict a rlRHtaouB ccncluslcn, 

there i» n© errcr in th^ reeord celling for n r«- 
Tcraal of the Jud/nsent of the iiunici]pal court, %rA it Is thera- 
fore affirmed, 

L>eT«r and J>ia<iurely, J»'., concur. 

844 - 86417 


"• \ 



tiL miM JiUSlGIitAL. CVVWt 


2211. A. 638 

Dm.ivisiu';D fur opinio?? oi? th^ cow^t, 

7hio i» an Hppftal from »n cr6nr of %h« municipal 
eeurt denying the motion of dcifendftnte to op«n up th« ju>i^')n«nt 
trndmrnd by ernfessicn «nd te permit them to in»ke « <J«f onae, 

Tli« affidavit, if true, def«cn«tr«t«8 t>i«t the note 
on ■which the Judpi«nt «»s confensed wiis pr<?oured by frnudulont 
neans and that no oonuiderntion pftsned from plaintiffs to (3e- 
fendants therefor. 

Vrtm this Rffidevit it appeKra th«t th-* defendiint* 
OB ?IOT«fBber 29, X910, cwned resl eatnte known •• 142S Oornell 
•▼enue, Chifl*«:o; that en or ebout thst date defendenta wiahed to 
•♦11 the re»l entste ftnrS were ▼lilted by th<» plnlntiffo. who told 
Jen Zttmivraohm th»t they wottld eell defendant* • real eetete for 
eeeh tmi that they wo'ild gire all eaah for the property, althou^ 
»e partloular •va was mentioned at the timej however, pleintiffa 
were told tc po nhead and sell the real eetate for oaah; that at 
this ti»a defen4«ot», who are netlTes of rolanfl, and «« not urder- 
•tntid the FiBfcliah lan«fu»f!:« or Ameriran nuctcae, oigned the notes 
upon which Judgasent was entered; that r<?it.her the contract which 
was ftlveti to plaintiffs «t tliat tlae authorlr-lng them to sell de- 
fendants' real ewtate, nor the notee, were read ever to thee or 

*lth<»r at th-m; th«it til»lntlff« did nc do bc, BByinp it wae un- 
nftepa-iarr b*««u«ii» th«y w«r« tiftklnfc Cft^e of the wholft mnttsr und 
of nil d«»f«nd«nt»» IntereBts, «nil that th«y n«cd not worry about 
th« terras ef t,h« p*T^ftr«; that tbe pnpera thwy w*re sij^ning were 
p«rt ef thw rnpf»r« i»«»d*d to sell th* real uetsti? for o«»h; that 
In sifmins Mid loapera th»y relied upon euch 3t«t«;ipnt8 of plain- 
tiff e; th»t pl<»lntlff», instead of a»1 3 inp th« real e»tr*t<> for 
ceah* »9 %h«v rrcwl«ed» offsTed tc d«fflnd«nt» othnr .prc5F«rty in 
tr^de, which thay deellnrd to aec«pt a* not Xieir.g within th« 
tnrrce of the agreeaent, ataiiag tiiey did aot want to trndo th<<lr 
prcparty for ether property, but dia ws^nt te sell It for cash. 
Thereupon th* judgwont In eontroreray was eoterad. 

It l8 clear, if th« fjiCfca sot forth in aald afl'idnvit 
ar*» tru^, that a prowa fraud waa p«rp«trK,t«d un'on defendanta, that 
thpy wera d^eeivad In th» trannactien, anfi t,hnt they were not 
.inatlr indebted upon tii*^ judj™«»nt nctsa or th* contract to plain- 

A Rotlon of thl3 eharnct«r is addroaaed to the aound 
judleial dlacreti'-n of the trisl judgs, nnrt If ♦h« affiaa-irlt 
filed in auprort ef such aetlen Bhoas upon Ita f»ce that the 
judf-ment is unjuat ©r againat equity nnd poc '■ corsciftnoa, it la 
the duty of the oourt to grant the iwotioii «»d let the defcK'innta 
in to plead and daffwid, raiowing the JuJ^^fluoDt to »tBnd aa seeurlty 
until the oaaa can be tried. 

It la oontecded that dafetuianta f « il sd to act with 
that promptnaaa In making their motion flhlcu th«? l«w requlrea in 
auoh eaaaa. the ignorance of defendanta of the laMt;uB<?e aod cuatoma 
©f this country is, we t/;inJc, auffielent to axcuae their tajfdinaaa. 

The denial of the Motion to open up thi^ Jud;;Mcrt waa 
an abuae of the oourt* a diaeretion. 

The order denying the notion appealed froe la re- 

versed snci th* oku«9 1» reoBnded with diroctlona tc ullow the 
motion ef d«f«ndftt)t8 to open th# Judjcaent wnd to be let in to 
defend to the a«?rit», with the lljDitntion that iii« ^u&fmmt 
ettund ae eeteurity until the eauae e«n be heard on i»euea Joined. 

Brrer wnrt F«aare1y, J J,, concur. 

863 . 26437 




Appall «n\. ) / 

f 0? COOK uoumv. 

2211,4, 638 

In a Jury trlail th«r« "*»» » T»>rdlct nnd judfco^nt for 
$8000 ther««B In »n acti«m fcr reracnwl lnjurl*«, und d«fftn!l«nt 

Th«r9 ar« n* pr«oa*ttrnl errcr* anlling fcr « r«T«r»ftl . 
The lB9tructlon ehftlJ enpe'-S Ij! -without Infirralty. It «es dlr«cted 
to thff ©l«i«r!t(i of da^soge plaintiff was antitled to recoY»r, 
and WAS predioAted upon ttia jury finding ft verdict of guilty. 
It did net cont«lB th« elmnnnta n«Ge>B8nry to b« proven to on- 
tltl* plaintiff tc recover; It weft not ijiven for that purpoac. 
It iram eonfin«d tt? injuriea snfferod by plaintiff rs r reault 
of th« accident for which hp rm« cntitl «d to reccmpf^nee. it 
dia not Uroet a v«rdiot. othfT Inotruotiona were eivfo vhieh 
sufficiently directed the jury's nttiRntion to the necessity of 
proof that tho plslntlff suet have teen in the exerciae of due 
care for his own saffsty at tha time cf the injuries, and to every 
other eleswit easentini to warrant a recovery. 

The JudfijBent «ttBt, however, be revfraed frr the ins- 
proper and Intmperate remsrko cf plaintiff's counsel fe the Jury 

in hia elosiiiK ar^ument^the roost Kl»fin#fly injurioua of which 

vas the raEsark that "the shook of the injury end the shook of an 
operation does not eat over until after twenty-fcur hours at 
least, and they asx hi« to rsfltember all these things. Jotoehody 

vf,i^bs - «5f^ 

f fs C* 

ottrci^t tg be satiaflsd. l«on« ef the»« pocplo (!i«>^'^. /^xid Uity w«r« 
B»i indiotvd for nurd«r«" 

Xh« only office ef such Pe»nr>t» tmiat l«?t« If**!!! to 
loflasic th* minds of tho Juror» !»ffiiln»t tht?- rJflf«nrt«nt, m; I it nay 
b« tfcut the fiaount of th« ▼#rdlot, r««ult«(l fr.m prft.luflic*' thus 
cagender^d, ^11* it i« tmm thut an el»J«etlon to t,hfls« remarks 
was Bu stained by the trial JVitif?*, «tni th« indleoret ten in making 
t'ooa was not atone*! fpr t.Vi«re>>r nor thnlr i»r*»,iutUcl«l eff<sot 

Other remarVe wrrr !t..i?A« opI ciH "t^d to improperly In- 
flUi?oee the «in<1s ©f the Jurors, ohj^etlcns to «7hlaH the omirt er- 
roneously OTwrrulod, Aocnr o*her statflwientM ?».» the fnlir-^inc: 

"It la not the rseiilt cf » were aoeldent or anything 
<*f t:-.Rt l;ln.'. it i' oni' of txie rottonest cases cf recklessness 
thet has ever been presentpd tc p ^v.v-' in '..cri. county, "•nr' it is 
ty ycur v.raict in th«be cases that we «rc (jCiniK to put a check 
to the operation of autrtrto^ileo ttycn the puhlic etr«»ft8 cf this 
city «;n'3 tc cper&tion of the atreot cars in oonne^otion there- 
with «^sn they 8i»e waoifilnes 3-5);-'rortouing aa tc ,iet«r th«B «»nd 
let thtwr: know uimt Uicy ctmnot Rf.t ov*ay with it, no <aRtt«r how 
abl<» th<? counael are they present cr their h>»Iialf," 

Another obserreticn of eeuneel was tt:at, "trtieo people 
g«t tc that condltien of wind, oreretlag otreirt oars and operating 
their autcs3Cbile»» «^fn tney aa?** passengers to say, *'*e f^re on 
the strofjt »nd the public be damned,' then it is ti«e fcr the 
Juries to step in and say, • Ve will call a ii»lt en it or we vill 
take youT monev If you hurt these pesvple.'" An objection to 
tlieae rewprTts was •▼erruled hv th<« trial Judge, Gli»ll«r reaiarks 
have frequently been ocnderrned bv thl j imi the aa-prewe court as 
oenstitutinff rsnrereible orror. Cbiruiao Pys , Co. ▼. laiSil* '"'* ^^^* 
App. SBl: Biah^}? ▼. 9f J. u. R. Cc . ^69 111, 69. 

Per the foregoing reasons the jTi<if;»*mt ef the Circuit 
Uourx is reversed and the cause is reaanded to th«t <:ourt for • 

B«w trial . 


D«yer and Ke3ar«ly, JJ., oenour. 

269 • 26445 / 



a corporation, ^^ 

▼ 8. 





221 I.A. 638 

this is « Qas« ef the first cla«» in the )k.unioipRl ecurt 
brcurht upon five contracts for advertiaini: with th« plaintiff 
cciar«ny, extendiiag over a period rf about fire, 

tba fiocount Involvod man/ itetaa for ndv^rtising 
4urinfr tb« period of the oontraots, touountin^.; to $17,66(>.2a. 
J'ftVTOf^nta made sidded tc the ajnnunt of the Jud(PB«Jnt, ;^14&9.18. 
balj^no* the aeoeunt. 

The trial was before the oourt without a Jury and 
thffre wa» a f in Unft fcr the full nnount of th« elnim and a 
Jud/ment thereon, frow which def»»ndBnt proeecwt^a this appeal. 

In defend>^int '8 affidayit of msrita he mnkes this 

Btnt.«r«nt J 

•Qaid defendant reserTes to hireaelf all bftnefit of 
advantaire «»nd excertipn«, •■^hich nav bt> had cr t«V;«*n of and 
to the many insuff icl«»r.ct»B of pl-^lntiff 'e nniended ttntff.rr.ent 
of cIbIjb, or nrv insufficiency of proof offered in said c^use 
under said «w.ended statporffnt ef claim, wnd any ▼arlance be- 
tween eny proof offered in 8«id cause and aaid wnendert atate- 
aent of claim, or pny ou<»*tion ef competency of erldencs whloh 
may b<» offered, or nny eiiier mattar ef def«n»« which siay «rie« 
upon the trial of aaid auit.* 

These words nre o»«anin^lesa in h oo^Ti^-.on l".w "otlpn and 
constitute no defense to plaintiff's claisi. .'.ost of t)^" words used 
are found In replioations to answers in equity pleading. ThsB fel- 
lows a denial ef soaie specific items and the claim of insertions of 
differsnt adwertising matter than thot requested by defendant. Be 

likewise setfi up as c d»f«c3« the diBOtmtlnuaBce by plaintllf ef 
the publioation of its nowspnpw April 28, 1916, which he ol»iB«4 
r#ndi»Ted rlalntlff po*t«rl eno to purferm its oontmots; also that 
ther« WB« nn aoocrd fsad siitlvfnotion between the partiea after 
plaintiff ceased publication ©f th«» Chicago Korald, 

In plPlBtlJf 'e »t»t*t!!flnt of account it aet forth 
«Vfry lt«m of Its clfj-m, Rn-i the ccurt held - corraotly, we think - 
that all the iteas ef euch aacount net sreolf IcrU ' deniod by de- 
fendant in his affiaavlt of nwrita stood adn^itted; so that in th« 
first instance plaintiff nas only required to mate proof ef the 
it«B8 disputed in the affidavit of defense; and tha court further 
h«»ld that a9 tc suoli itc»as a priag f&eie case v&» siade out. 

llaintiff made proof of all tiic items disputed in de* 
fendftnt*8 affidavit of defentiS. 

In January, I91t, defendant save ; laintiff a cheek for 
$716,49, whleh paid for all of the itesa in the April, 1917, ee- 
count. Defendant offered in mridenoe a full pnga fscsinile of the 
adYMrtisement ef v^ril 8, 1917, aeroee the face of ^l.ich was written, 
"Ce»pHm«r,t.s of the Oiioago Herald," and Insisted that the adver- 
tisesnent was oo«plia'f;nt*iry »nd that there should b«».Te been no ctvarge 
Bade thfrefer. There was nc proof pis to who !t)»»d« th« writinf: across 
the fnee of the advert ieem^nt, or that there ws any agrcerawnt that 
the advertletBasscnt was to be without charRe. There is nothing in tlsa 
contraeto by which plaintiff af;re(4 tc pubUah any a-'vertieenenta 
of iSefendant without charge. As to fourteen iteiys clsirted to havs 
been published without autliority in the sionth of January, 1916, 
seven iteaa w»re proven by plaintiff to have borne the "o, K.," of 
defendant; it alse proved that the remaining iteaa were publiiihetf 
in the Chicago Harald en the several dates called for. 

Other itoaa defendant elslmed were published ^^iti.out 
his approval, but that they were published is adtiitted. 

Ilaintiff ccRt««as that, it unt not ii«»«e«»iiry that Bucii 

sdTertieementB sheiuld >taYe the Kpomral of drfen-ant biefcro rublloa- 

tloB, and refsro to th« fellowlBsr iroYlslcn in the contract: 

•ii«r«I<J win not be liRble fcr «ny error in RdrT- 
ti»inF puMl'hed hf»rounri»?r. nnl«s« prccf of suoh stntemftnt is 
r«ou»sted in wrltinjr by the Bd^crtiseT «nd r^turrnvi to ':»r<»l(1 
effior '7i.t;i *!uch crrnr or oerrftotJon plr.inly noted in writing 
therecn in anplo tl»« fcr oerroction bofore jorwld edition 
RtifB tc prciso," 

It vatj prcven thjit dcfctidnnt reoniyed proofs for the 
ftdTertiseoonto on-l it dc«s not appear frcsn Uio flyidenoe of dofend- 
nnt thi»t ho proffered any oorreotlens on thsj procfa aubmltttd or 
ordered my chanpe in copy. 0th «»r itetcs oompluintsd About wore 
proverj to h^ve- r«c«»iy«d the *•' , K." of defondwnt, 

T^fondant ccntsrjndo thst there r/esj im '•ccf^rd and satla- 
fectien when he vU*liveroii hie eh»»ok to flftinttff for $115S,50, July 
26, 101 H, en tUo fihoe C'f *»hlc5i wfts written, "i«id in full to data.* 
l)«f cndar.t cent«?nd» thut th« ahec)< t«« iiiven en tt 8«ttl esit^t modo 
b'it'ween tii«» j>erti«t «iipn e'h.l "Ottcn* woro mde by dofondmnt to 
plaintiff's oh«rge«, Rnd that ho ^frrotw tho words, •'J»l<'i in full to 
date** befcro dollvcrinp; t.h<' eheeJ*. It 'tsr de^ilRd by th*» t*'8t wony 
of «o-?«rRl witnesses fcr plaintiff tJvit thi» nords "i«id in full to 
date" were en the eheek at tho liiri«? ii was oelivered to plsiniiff, 
or «t the tiae it was deposited by plaintiff in its bank neoount, 
end the claiar. of sn fcgrcfenuent fcr an aeoord and satiefAOtion wae 
likewise denied. 

Ilaintiff, tc discredit defendant •• oontontion and to 
she« tJiat the aoocunt between the jr-rtiee was otili open, introdueed 
a letter of defer.<:*nt dated Auguet IS, I9lt, - ft date subsequent to 
the date «f the allefred ajrreement of aoocrd end aetiefeotion - in 
?fhiohceinplaint8 were wade «bcut the account, »ho^in<: ccncmsively 
thet defendant understood, ."«t least at t>»at tl»e, that the aoorunt 
was unsettled. 


Th«r« i« B» cfldence in the reoor?? Ju«t-tfying ihtt eoa* 
elusion that plolntiff ««nt eut of bu8in«»S8 or oeeaed publishing 
its newapar*!** tber^bv putting It siit of its pow«r to perferra its 
sentract witii d«fend*nt, and ne eTi<J»me* th»t defendant ri»qu«8t*(l 
plaintiff to perfoWB any pnrt of itw c«!«tr««t which it fallwi tc dc. 

Tha trial ^d|^e «»w the witn«ss<»a, obsenred their man* 
B«T uron tha vitnesv atand, and th«refr«« waa muoh b«tter qualiflad 
than J»r« we to dfter?un« the eradit to b« (Jfivaa tc the testiir.ony ef 
the sevKtral <!rltn«ssaa; and as va arc not able to »ay fron the CTi- 
dcTica found in th« raeerd that it does not supjiort the 4udf>,^ent, or 
that the judguent is manifestly ai^ainst the weight of the avidence, 
we are not permitted tt^ reverse it, lr< th« nb9«nee of the rules of 
th« Municipal nourt, this court trill prpauroa that th«? trial «:udga 
noted in aoRord therewith In the h«»arinK of the eTidence and the 
entry ef the Judgment, I^aee^). v, Cochrane, 2C4 111. Apr, 418, 

Tlsere beinp; no reversible error In thp reoord, the 
Ju<'riB<«nt of tha t-^unicipal flourt is affirmed, 


iJaver and Ke^iurely, JJ.» ccnnur. 

314 • 26488 



Oil' CHjaMO, 

2 2ll.'^- 639 


Tl9ilf\tiff 9nM -lef-ndflnt on hia pr-isiaorry not« for 
$90C, t>«v«Mc to flalrstiff *B crf}^r, an^ bXho susxl mn. sn attacluaent 
In rtid, iTl ^pifjp fhwt ilef ^ridfiot, was about to f rftutVul ently conceal* 
«»8l«cn, ©r etV»erwl9«» dlape»® ©f hia praqperty or ©ffects bo as to 
hinder »nd d«l«y his or«ditrra, mik) jiliiciio'a©^ def«ndftrit*» nutoi);: - 
bll '-• t!-;.»re«nd«r . 

A trlAl b«fere th^ eeurt witaeul a jury rttuultad la a 
rindin? Bustftlnlng the attaoi^ent nnd a .lu^f^jtswit vjiou tii»? iKerita 
for ^5C4.56, froisa whlnh dcfeociiint prosfteutea tlda epj •:«.! , 

HfiiBtiff hoffl filfd rrc8» errors en thft ml jijr of the 
orurt ttustiftlnlfic ^««« cbjectlen t,c the qur»8licn» nnke& pletntiff, 
•tlo you know --fhethwr Ir, Jiethln h««i f-rer be'^n nrrpatad?" and "^lat 
were your T>reviou» dnnllnfifl wi'-h fer. Botkin?" llsintlff'B ceunstl 
sti»te<! thmt he intended Yty prpof te Justify the firot (jueatlon ea 
th«s prcund that defendant bad a g an eml '\in savory" reputation. «nd 
that he hnd n reaoona'ale approhenaien that def en lant *culiJ o«rry 
out hli» thrent tc fraudulently dispose of hi* propnrty, fto. 

7e think th<? oljjeetions to th^ee oueatlena were prop- 
erly euBtnined, «8 the ma^ferB, if i-Rrraittod to be given, would ehed 
no lif;ht upea the Rrounda aaalgnad for the iseuo of an att»oh»ent In 
aid or as to the aorita af plaintiff* claia en the note, *hioh «aa 
net diapated. 

Two witn0»««i t«»tifi»<l In th* oi*iii«» - Tisintiff f>nd 
d«f*PdBnt. rifflntlff testified th«t hp had a^ri^rtti enrjr«>r»»ttien« 
with defendant after th» note !)«»««»» <!»», In whlcVi lr.«» irld i-l* 
bP eeuld net p»y th» fiT«t day, >>«t t«( ewne th«« fclTonririf^ dnyj 
that plaintiff «ait«d npen dtf^n-ient on 8pv«»r!»1 follcwinp days, 
^tn defendant told rlsintiff hr* una p-t It«: to inali hia '^JUoiinitBa 
«nd M» lapohine »nd *be»t it" »t»t o^ t.cim; thftt hn '^s he»ylly in 
debt anf*. tha^ he could net do puninesa in -^iiltJftiPic. 

Defendant de^l^>d wwklnp the atati^rRota thr.t h^ va« 
Roinp tP sell hia buPlne»B and his w^iGhir!? and "bPRt It" cut rf 
tonB, but admitted that he epnter*rlrted soil Irif- hlr "t'urinnsa ac 
tldat he eculd *iB»ke iroed on it." <.??? ereaa earpmin'^tion defendsnt 
teatlfied that three T'eracna were preernt rMtm thft ccnvprsatifcna 
were had te«tween plaintiff nrsd hlmnplf. 

The el«wif9jt»ry principle of law tbst the plrintlff 
raaat aaintaln hi« on»e by a T>reT>ff?jder'ince of the ^Ti'lenc? ia not 
cempllffil with when an affirsistive st.*t«a«»nt b-' the vi^'in-if^ is 
poaitlTely denied by the defendsnt. As there were thre*^ other 
witnesaes to t)\e»e c^nvrgpt lone ^eeidee th« -p^i^^itPB, i>l»intiff 
r«3 net ^ithatit »utJT>ert tc hfs »»vi 1if:»>ce, If '»fh«+ h** tr;9tlfi«».1 to 
v?«8 tr'j"^. 

?TRud is Be»ver Inferred; It ruat be i>rpv,en. Defend- 
ant •• «tAte»<«nt repardlnitr hla Iptentir.n to fcell hie prererty was 
not for the puri^eee of defrauding plaintiff er an" of his eredi- 
tcra, but with the intention ef paying his debts. This evirteneo 
of defendant Una not been o-rercope by that qu^ntuci of prccf which 
the law re'>uires. to ottaohseent in aid ie purely etatutory, a 
draatie remedy in the rnf crc<"is«»nt cf rhloh no preauapt Jena Till be 
indulged. It WAS obli«^tory upon plaintiff to prore by a pre- 
pendorance of the crideneo some onw of the naterial aTermento In 

hie RffidfrTlt, Iki faith of 1,he virrity ef iihieh the "xtteoVimcnt 
writ vtiU IssuM. Hiic ii« fiiilA<a to do. 

J^itr th« foregoing rcaaona the Juagiaotit ef Ui« )i>cu» 
Rioippl court le r«««rii*d nnd the oauas im reR.(iruied '.c thnt ceurt 
sith direotlona to diaaolTc the bttnoIun<mt. 

I>«T*r find V«;i^irffly, »"J.» oonaur. 

352 . 96526 


AppellrtBt .\ ) 


221 14. 639 


In nn notion for the reot»v«ry of men«y due fres; de- 
fendant tc plaintiff for plKfflbinr wpiIc *m<J iM»^t«rt»,l furnished, 
th*r« WPS l«»u«(! »n erl^inwl, »n dliaa snd fi-ve f>l.«ri©» •onuiicna, 
nil of «^iioh WOK* returned net found by the Bfunicip©^ ceuyt 
bailiff. Theipwupen piRintlff rrocur©4 th* IssuHnoe ©r nn at- 
tao>*nent In »i(l of hi0 »uit «g«iBat th« property ef def«rd«nt 
qnd th9 First Itaticnal linnk of Chicai^e «n» •uofttoned as fHAniehse. 

Ilftintiff averred in bia affidnviv for nn attseh- 
■ent in nid that def«aidnnt rnna « resident of chioHKo; that he 
concent «m3 his self and stood in definnoe of an officer iS'C that 
preceaa oeuld net )>« 8«rTedi ut'on hiio. I^efendant ajrp eared 
sreoially* travereed thti av^sn^-mta of tne affidavit fer attach- 
■ <>nt, Hni on « hearini? the issues on the attachment were found 
a«-i»inflt defendant and in favor of plaintiff. >afend»ni prayed an 
appeal fro* the order entered on thla findinp, which, was denied. 

June 2fi, l<»2< , pn erder and juHrm»nt were entered, 
the material* f indinft por^-lon of self? order betnp that on metlon 
• f plaintiff dafendent wae rul t*^ tr evpe?»r inetanter* and on 
bein^ called owne net, \nxt therein »»de defetilt; and the court 
findinr ttiat defen«1apt ircm duly notified by publication of 
netioe, aeerrdin^ to law, of the pendency of the ouit and of 
the tiae he was required tc appear, ruled that for his non- 

ttppcRrnnee he »uff«r Judfaoimt by defwult. iJ«dgm«nt imc thereupoa 
Antered «|r»lB«t def«i<l»nt by default ftsr th« 9u« of ^135 ttnA «n 
•Jtecxitler. therpcn nwwrrted »ftcr tke hearing ef r^oofu, C7«l and 
AoexmmtMty, Hubaeqnmntly nni. on July 2, 192U, Jud«j~i»nt for 
1199, 10 wna (mtercd e^rslnst th« {rornishcio on its* snsuejr. ?x^e>» 
thfl ordor i!nt*>rlnir Juidiraiifnt ?*gRiiniiit fl©f«»od«ir(t for jJ1S3 this ap- 
peal lima pvmytrA^ perfect ♦'■d, wnd pr«««?ovit«d. 

There Is «s5'nl«> f>ri'^,fntm i!u«>tf(inin^ the aversaisnta of 
th« ottRchaent Rffid«Tit that dpfemdeini rma r residwnt of Chi- 
cagp ond coneeeled bin««lf «nd otcod in defiKAo« of an officer , 
A bPiliff who attempted to »«rve the writ teotifiwd that he oaw 
defendant at a window of his houoa 'vi^en hio preaenoe thera waa 
d«ni«Kl by tha j5«r»on who eaaw tc th« door* and that on another 
eeeaaion in a talk botwaan defendant and another bailiff over 
tb«» telt*pbona, in nnasrar to the bull iff 'a »i»teEs«int, "'^e avp 
bnvtntr mn a^ful job to pet servloe on ycu," defondani; anwsrered, 
"Sarrs »*» if you can,* 

Baf entrant did net appear generally in tha action, 
hi» apT'«ar»ne» b<*in^ epeeial nnd listit«d tc traveroin«( the 
grounde fc'T t>ie sttacVasent Rverr«d in the affidavit for euch 
writ. Ttif talflnfi; of rb ^ ,pftya<:»o , »p . JudgM«»nt ag^lnet hi» *m» 
errcnecua, »» tho court h»>d not <«o<it"i^<^ Jurisdiction rf tJie 
peraon of th» defendant in thft action . 

By aeo, 511, ehap. 37, i^'unieipnl Court Act, it ia 
provided that In saaaa of attaehment, etc., the practice and 
proeeodings in tha l^unieipal court shall b« the eane, or a* 
near aa stay be, to that which ia new preaoribed by l«w for 
ainilisr oaaaa in ether courts of record. 

in tha AttaeJasent Act, che^. i). , >•'. •»., aec. 36. 
it iB in «>ffe«t provided that where a defendant ia not aerved 
with prooeaa. the Judnnent ahnll b« In Xfli againat tha property 

•ttaohed and that « apsoial exaeutlon shall ieeue agftlnst sueh 
property and that no execution shall isauc against any ether 
property of the defendant, nor shall »ueh Judgment tn eny otI- 
denoe in any euhaequent suit of debt against such defendsnt. 

The Judgnent in the instant e^ee is iij personam 
with an award of an execution; and it was held in Clymere r. 
Willisas. 77 111. 618. that in an action aided by an attaeh- 
■ent« where there is no personal oenriee upon the defendnnt 
and ne appe»ranee» it is erroneous to tiward a general execution 
against the property of the defendant, and that to gire Juris- 
dietien to the court in an attHelment suit irtiere thfere is no 
personal serrioe or appearance, it «i3t appear that the writ 
was either Icried upon property of the defendant or serred 
upon garnishees haying; effects, cbeses in action or credits 
in their possession or power belonging to the defendant. 

The serrioe of the garni ahee process upon the 
First lational Bank and t»» dieeoTery of ftinds of defendant 
in Its hands. gaTO the court, in the absence of an appearance, 
jurisdiction to proceed to adjudicate the rights of the perties 
to the funds attached, but did not oAiifer Jurisdiction to ent<>r 
a JttdgMint and award a general execution against defendant. 
Haarwood ▼. Collins . 60 ibid 336. 

9»r the error of the trial court in entering a 
judgnent against defendant for the aaiount of the debt and award- 
ing execution thereon, the judgment of the Municipal court is 
roTersed and the e»use Is resmnded with directions to th«t cmirt 
to strike therefrtm that part of t^ie Ju'lfnsent swarding an execu- 
tion thereon against defAndant and limiting the operation of the 
Judgment to the property in the hands of the garnishee as shown 

by the Judffient against it en its answer as garaishoo. 

fioTsr and Modmroly. JJ., ooaonr. 

97 . 26263 

BSMOLI) STi£R8. A^inistrator 
of tte estate ol!^ H/lURIS .sTimR, 



a eerperution« \ y 



2^1IA. 639 


This is an appeal by defend-mt from e judgpnent of 
the ttuniclpal Court entered against it and in faTor of plain- 
tiff for the 0IW of $8CC. The action is baaed upon a contract 
for the sale and delivery of certain scrap iron and steel* 

The contract in question was dated April 13* 1917, 
and is in part aa folloira: 

"The 'Company* ngrees to sell to snid 'Buyer' 
any and all scrap iron or steel, such as they may be 
in a position to load on oars within the next thirty 
Ki^) days at their plant at 2500 Grand nyenue. Chicago, 
Illinois, for the sum of sixteen and fifty hundreths 
($16.50) per net ton nf 2C0C pounds, reilroad weights 
to gOTem* cars to be weighed loaded and empty. 

Ihe terms of sale are to be sight draft with bill 
of lading attached. Cars are to be consigned to the 
ord(>r of the Artesian Limestone Company, care H. Jtern, 
19.XA street and Ashland sTenue, Chicago, Illinois, 
routing C. If. & St. P. and C. B. & %, Railroad Com- 

crap is to be londed by the 'Company.* The 
*Company', however, is not tn be held responsible in 
any manner what»neTer in the event of t}ieir inability 
to obtain railroad equipment, fires, accidents, strikes, 
labor trouble or other CHUses beyond their control." 

For the plaintiff it was alleged that alth'vgh tfas 

time for delivery of the scrap iron and steel had long since 

elapsed, and that plaintiff had been ready and willing to re- 

oeive the material, the def ndant had refused to deliver it, nnd 

that as a consequence plaintiff had been deprived of certain 

gaims and profits; that defendant had on hand 150 tons of scrap 


iron aad •*«•! nblch it ^aa in « position to deliver in plaia* 
tiff within .V^ dAys after the BaJkiag of the coatrset; that ita 
failura to so deliver ttoe BAterial eenetltuted a breeeh of the 
eoBtraet aatf th»t nt the tl»e of sueh f'svilare the difference 
betveen the contrttct. price «n4 the ncirket price of aorap iron 
aad ateel vaa ^14 per ton net. 

In an affidaYit of merits the defendant denied ■aterial 
nvementa ^f the 8t«te»ent of clain end speoifiolly denied thut 
it h»d on hand ISC tons of scrap iron and steel as alleged in 
the stateaent of clain or that it vsa in a position tn deliver the 
aoae on cere tvithin 30 days a«> provided in the eentraet; that the 
difference between the market price :>nd the contract price of the 
■nterial was not fcs alleged in the etat^ment «f el^^^ia. In an 
amendment to the affidavit of merits d<»fend«>jat everred tht^t tho 
contract wee too vagae end indefinite to impoae an obligation on 
defendant to deliver the m&terit^l to plaintiff e d «laotthnt defendl* 
ant ^fHB prevented froia d«rlirerin|f the scrnp iron and steel by in- 
ability to obtnin railroad equij^sent nt^ by labor trouble and other 
cruees beyehd its control. It ia admitted that the plaintiff re* 
quested delivery of ths material and that none ess famished him. 
i^uch argument is had in the brief of c"un«el tnuohing «{tteatiaas of 
fact in issae on the trial, one of which was as -to idiether the 
defendiint w»s in fitet *in a position to load on enrn the material 
contracted for." There was a direct conflict in the evidence as 
to whether the d«fendnnt wss in f'^et in a position to deliver the 
material and as to whether the defendant was able to procure cars 
or labor waf i icient tp ensble it to deliver the scrap iron and stool 
within ths thirty days required by the contract, ffo do net deen 
It advisable to discuss theoe qaeutions ns in view of whst la 
hereinafter stated the judgment of the trial c^rt muat be re- 


Ih« CftBe w«8 tried by the cmrt wlth'>ut e Jury. >\» 

a principal grfniad for reTeraal the d«>fcndi^t urged thnX the 

O'^urt erred la awarding; aore than nnnlnal 6(mBg9e for tho reasen 

that the record enntaina no eTldeaoe of the BRrtet ralue of the 

■at^rial specified in the eontrAot. Two viuieeseis tesCified oa 

this c^OBtioD for the plnlatiff . B«b Stern, eae of iheae wit- 

neseet!, testified as follows: 

•Ihe Court: hen ymt any |37 what do you xesa 
by thfttt 

A. ATers^e &!! the wny thmugh. 

%• UlsoellfmeouB? 

A» Yes, iriacellaneous. ■ * * This partlcwlsr 

serRp wf;B hettftr than the ordinary bec-uae 
there were r«ll« in it. lh«re vt-s u&uble 
shafting, uaable pulleys «nd caet iron. * * 
Minety per cent of it wbs that nst'Prial." 

Agaia he aaid, referring to the aaiAunt of asterial at the plant: 

•There was 150 tons of scrap and machinery aAd asabl* 
■aterial there.* 

Morris Jtern for the plaintiff testified that: 

"There was wite n good deal of usable aaterial la 
the pile. The ♦!» - rails are usnblc, v© sell the« again. 
All the other ue^ble Bateri&l w»b the railroad rnlle, the 
shafting, the pulleys, the hangers, pipec and plates. There 
was a difference in the aarket price in the e last named 
eoBBiedities ks cnnpr-red with the areragc run of s^nrRV iron 
or steel, viooe of thft stuff is *SC a ton - '60. haftiag 
is worth 160 a ton. Palls «re worth '6r a ton, pipe S60 to 
170 a ton. Ihey wary in price r11 the wry up to ;50, $60 
•aA $7C, and sier&p iron itself is less. 

There were •!» rj-:il8 there, r- ilro,;d rails, shettlng, 
pulleys, pipe, plates nr sheets, the sase &8 plates. \11 
of these articles wes second-hand, usfeble aati^rial. 1 
should Judge ih^re waa abrut '5 per cent scrap there," 

Both of these wltacasas admitted that there wf^e a recognizable 

difference between what waa dencribed la the evidence «b scrap 

RBd usable naterial. Bob tern tesitified "there Is a dletinetiea 

between acrap and usable natprial.* Harris :itern said 'Usable 

aaterial we call aeeoad-hnnd Material.** The court held as a 

aatter of Ibw that the tera "acrap iron and steel" did not include 

such aaterial as rails* pulleys fend shaftings* The contract on 

its faue did not require defendant to deliver - aterial other than 

vhat Bpeeifie&lly specified therein, namely, scrap iron and 

at«sl, maA it ia apparent froB the ^ter^ilmony of plaintiff** 

witiMB* es / trtm 75 to 90 per cent *»f the IBC tons of material 

eoBeisted nf ahaftinsa* pulleya, rails and ether aeeond^haRd 

usable aiatt^rial. 

Staadlac en the testiaeay of pl»iBtiff*8 sitneeeea 
aleae* it ia clear that the testteeay given as te the marfeat 
Yftltte of eerap iron or steel is of sach Qhartctffr that it ia 
iapeasible te say frnn the record v^hnt the valae of this seray 
material ana within the thirty day period r«»f«>r7ed to in the 
contract. Beth plaintiff *» witnesaes aey that 4a fixing the 
■srket Titlne at ,137 per ton they included net only serap naterial 
but alao a large pcraentage of aua.terial «hieh the evidence ahowa 
vaa net aernp, bat uaable or aecond-'ha&d naterial* sad that part 
of thia seennd'hand or usable material wue worth as nueh as froa 
$50 %r, ^c per ton. fhe evidence of plaintiff's witnesses quoted 
abnve shows how inpossible it is to arrive at any eonelusion frflii 
the evidence as to vFhr:t loss, if any. the plaintiff sustained by 
the alleged brr'.-:ch of the conimet. It is '^ur opinion th»t the 
•videnee wholly fails to show the aarket priee of the scrap iron 
or steel eontr&eted for at the tine and place provided for in the 
contract for ita delivery to plaintiff. 

In the eaae Of v>taley et al » v. Lyan« 151 111* App« 

137, the enurt salA: 

•It follewa thnt there woe no data on whieh aetual 
dMMges, if any, culd be cnmputed, and nflBin?«l daamges 
only were recoverable." 

^e are unable to agree with the stKtement in the brief 

of c^nsel for api^lles that plaintiff 'a witneaaea testified to 

a definite nBTket priee for the materittl eontrocted lor. Ihey do 

give the Market value of scrap iron and steel* but the testinony 

of these witneases h» abstrHCted very definitely discloses a 


Bob otern iestified h6 follows: 

'X cannot tell you to the inch the cireumfereneo 
nf the bsec of the pile th»t had the shafting and the 
valleys - • I can tell y-«u pretty close 09 to feet. 
It was setitt^red ar^nind ab^^ot ten feet wide »ad ebnat 
7 to 8 or 10 feet square. Ixty-fiye to 7'^^ of it 
w»s uanble materiel. >ixty to 70^ of the ntaterlal that 
was in the last three piles in the yjd at office aide 
of the etreet w.-ie usable »atcriai.* 

The judgment of the Vunleipel Court will be rerersed 

•ad Judgment will be entered here in fsvor of the plaintiff for 

the BUB of 91.00 with costs here Htixi in the trial enurt in 

fsTor of defendant. 

RiSVKRS'?© AJSi'D JUDGM m Hi'i'J!, 

Holdaa, P. J., and Ve^rely, J., eonenr* 

lis - 2f88l 

as KXJGAfi L, MVRS 4 C<^., 

'■• I. 

VILLI A»< (i. IMASOO, jii|«etor 
C«ner«l of Railrottdls* % 

221I.A. 639 


Tbia ia j9n un<}«f«nd«d «pp««il froai a jud^mont of th« 
Itanlelpnl o«urt of (ilhioago ni^nlnst th« <)«f«ndAnt, for thff suk of 
^4e .92 . 

th« «»•• w«a tri*d -^ith s Jury, It i» allp*r««l in tha 
»«!a«nt of olaiM that an Jnmaf*ry 11, 191*<, plRlntiff e«ua«d to 
ba <i»llTored tc (flaf«»n<S«Bt at •tajrinair, Ulehigan* tw<mty-fouP sal- 
ranisad ataal barrela fill ad with sinaral aatar, of a total Tralua 
of 42'yS.'J'5, for rtilfwsient tc plaintiff at {%lea«to; that the ahif- 
■ ant vmu freaen «>han raoaivad at Chieaice» to tlae damni^e to r)»in- 
tlff in the asm ef ^46 .9a. in Ita affidavit ef mc^rits th« da- 
fan laot daniad any aag!ilK«nee oauaing tfea dajRa>-« to tha Bhl?j«ent. 
Slid he allagae) thai emy dawaga auatained tberaby sma oauaad 
aelely by an a«t of Oad, opnalatiBg of «»» wnpraoadantod bllaaard 
and »now atorsn, aooo!Bi>«ni«d by axtrenaaly lew tef-iparaturaa, which 
eeourrad aftar tha ahi|>n«Rt «aa reaaiTOd. 

Tha avidanoa intpoduead on tha trial o;iO»o that tha 

ahirs5»nt ma racalrad b / tha ^Hatol«an Oantral Railroad at r^a^inaw, 

lohiran, rn Januarv 11, 191P, and that It arylvad in Chio««a on 

FabTuapy 6, 191B, 

Complaint ia w»»<la by th« 4af nn 'ant upon tha rulinro 

of th» trial eaart with ra«npd to *.ha adwlaslon of t*8timc»y 

i«ndiBr t» prove that a eertnlri et.h«r 8hl|»«<mt» net involved In 
the proe««-.<iin^:ii. left ;j»«in*»», fcioitlicnn* en January Si, l^lt>, «nd 
arrived In Cbicejce on februery 6, 1916, <ye are inclined tc Kfrree 
with the contention tiet this evidenoe ^rais net »drr>iB»ible to ehew 
n«i;llf;ence on th« pert of rtefendant, feat we do not reel our decision 
©f reversal upon thla f?ro«nd, »» this «vi<Sefiee shew* bipyond ensy 
queetien that the del?»v in delivery of ttee ahipment w»e oeused by 
cenOitieaa which were i^olljr an]»reeedente4 »m» which In reason it 
»euld he unjuet to require the def««»5aTit to ^Tuerd «*t''t«»t in »uoh 
Manner »» tc protect th** ehipw^wt frem fref«Kinr« "lue evlrience 
is rraotleally «»ecntrs<Jioted thet <*n the *ay follesrln^^ the re- 
ceipt ©f tk* ai'ili'flsent nt 3«irJn«w, tflehleran, a severe enc* stcra aet 
in and that the t<ftB <?srfctur« dropped to about fifteen de}!ra«e b<»low 
sere, "She witeeaaea for the defen4».nt, eleven in nam1>er» «ere 
un.i«n Lmoua in teatifvlni tiiRt the period which elaraed between the 
receipt ©f the geoda and the arrival therecf in Chicago waa Pt- 
t^ded by net only unaeual but by practically theretofcre unknown 
weather e<»iditieaa for the aectien of th«< country throue^h ehioh the 
ahifJEent noved to Chloa|M»* A train dtevatoher Tor oefen-iant -Bid, 
nnn hie tf^ettaton:? 1« well mipvertea tjy th»i of »1) of thi« other 

witneeaee, that: 

•?'0t only wee IJ^v^ry eevrre »no^ .^tcrw, but the 
th»r«oe»eter dreried e^ lew that it. wae almoet ir-iioeoible to 
e\*mr the tracka with ear encw plewa r*n^^ fU-riiRea, ' • * (.« 
Jenunrv 12, lf»lH, ** hud " ' ne weetbtund paasenfrer tralna 

excert four |»Re«er>|r(»r ti*« 'na I'hlch were en th<» read -iurlnp the 
atom, Wind whioVi tl*4 m|», tHree et ^ it «» ^nd on« at *l!«mai!o«, 
• • • On th<» mf^rninr of the I8tb -sre started our local aacemwo- 
detien train from 'wlpmeKOo, w: ich 1 #>f t Hinre ot 9:o7 a. ;. It 
atolled in th«> ©now weat of ^*ieetfte1d «*n.l w« diin't iret the« 
out ef there until the reerninic of the 15th, two rtaye lat#r,«*** 

Another train dispatcher for defendant tcatifled aa 



•Th# worst atovat th«t 1 #T«r wxreri«no»d in ay rmilroiiA c«r««r 
l9*(rMi eu Jwiuprr 11, 1918. it atartwd in th# r»ft«»rni>(fi of 
Jwrniwrv llth and th* bltseard itself «cntirmnd lofcc th« niMft 
of J»nuarv i;<'th, fello««d by «*Ttr««:ply odd we-athcr en the 
18th. It WH8 It rffp-ulHr blixxmriS. ;iBow AV«rfi|7,«4 Brob»bly tt«m 
m foot to four fsot in th« eutn an4 othftj- pir-eeo. i"!!® off^t 
of tb<» ntom w»» tc c»uft« an «*ntlre bl oeksdo cf traffic fr&t. tno 
nljtht. of j«Du«ry nth until nbotst Ute ifith," 

r, c«Ko«fe, A»»i»t.n«t r^(W!«»r«l Jii«p«»rlnt«n<i«mt «if a)« feiehif?»n Cent- 

Till Kftllrcflnl, t««tifi«<ls 

*A» to th» »«Terit\' of th® »to-ns, 'I ■would aav it mts 
the weret otenn that I had eKrwfisnaod or stbes»rv«4 ttino« my 
Gonnffotien with the f.ichi(y:«m Ce»>tr»l, whioh oovftra About thl»*y- 
••▼«n y«4kr». lis r«par<1 to th<^ eeing««tion of o«ra, I ©jwi 8»y thwt 
•e *«re deln^ n very heavy bu»iTi««a durin*? that j eriod « in 
f»et ■»• war* cnrrvlng our p««k lowd ?)t th«t timfl. iitii th» 
w»«t*.»r oenditionB aa thay srero, »ll tpri3^in«la wero conj^eatad 
by rraaon of a»&«miaatt«nt iijoidentfti te itt^s^ma," 

C« tbw wheli? eviitanee in thR r#»dcr«l it la oltmx tbst 
th(> ?toTB whieii frr »esi9 daya bleek«d trftffie en tka railrcad xma 
in a I •(nisi sense an Aet of (iod. 

In tha oftae of l; eg«|;ife ▼, aou , th , gy; |f|| tfoifip C p . , 161 

If. Y. S., 117, 119, tha court aaid: 

•If thf wina in th«» prifoent oaea «»• frosao by 
Vf'uman of «n unrr«ead«nt»d fall in th<» t««p«rat«>r« wide;, tha 
earriar eculd not vrmsanpiXily b« «3rt!«»ot.ed to feraaaa,- it 1» 
<iult4» «Tlil«nt thwt the da-nptise coRurrad t>irowfv> «*n Act ef 
Oad, ftnd no d«li»y nn the p?irt cf t,he e«rri»r» pyen if ne^li- 
fforit, eristrtbuted te this dn>««pef, l^i* dPBtruetlon of trt« wina 
Iry fracailng thrnu<Ph th* Act cf ««d dlff^ra lofri«Rl?y in no 
reg-pfct. frow th* doatn»ction of yot^da thrcu^h a flood lay Aet 
ef God." 

in ^ftl ) ▼, tin loo Iwoififl! nftllyoiRd ^S... 177 HI . App. 

374, th» ccurt said: 

•Ab unuaually hwaivy or »e(yfir9 atom cf anow of wicb 
Ticlrnce ns to cb:)truot tha Bsoyin^ of tha o»triffr»a traina or 
oth»r vehiclaa, fiaia wituin tH« axception of t>>«» Act of <5od 
and the oorrier. If eiil^y ^^ "o contritoutory n«f;llK«BC«» «iH 
ba axenerAtad frcm liability for loaa or injury tharaby ao- 
. aaalonad," 

Tlia avidanea ai^ewa that a rafrigar«tor ear in c^^A 

ocnditien hatd baan ardarad and fumlahad plaintiff, Thia ear had 

ne haatar aarvlea and tha arldonoa teniia to abaw that aueh aarria* 

«as net in any eaaa fumlahad by tha Uiohiffan Cantral J«ilaay 

CoBryany, wsd furth«r that pluintiff h«4l »i»d« no re<5««»t fcr thl» 
serrlos. the evldenee Ib unecntradietod that, at this ti&n the 
stem s«t In, af t«r th« shi.!««nt ««• r«Feelvad, th« rail road vraa 
delag its peak load of bu»iR«aa; that b«aaudi« of the ittora Its 
tcrmlnnlB and «ldln«ca l>eeam« badly eonc;<»stad; ita freifrht 
yar<i« ware eraudad with ear* and when, tfiosa daye «ft«r tha atom 
anapandad and oars octtld ba mevad, pasftaTtger tvmiita and perlehnble 
product* ware elvan ?tT«f «»ranc«; that th« car in mxitt'. the ehlpiitent 
in o«*»tiCTi Tfa* pi toe'* was k«|>t in tha iaRlnaw y«ird« frr «cw« <iaya 
and »t th» eaeXipet practical epT'CftVinity was Bt»rted nn ita way 
te Chldaira; that whe-^ it r«»ehed Js^ekson, *iohl<r«n, on th* first 
freirht train «Jiieh 1 af t ;*(ffin«w after the atfl.ras, it ^ma enupht 
in th* e<»nir<*«tir<n nn^. oeuld not l»a Kevad until Janusr!? 51at{ that 
it waa thma B«nt tc Chlean© and ^ma eis»pell<?d to ::3«5Te tlim««rh a 
badly om^eatad diatriet, t^Mch r<«8ult«d in furthar d«*lsy. 

«a think the defendant should have ba^n peritiitted to 
introduea evidenoa ahieh waa rxaed eat by th« court as to the 
aettsal traffle een-iitlona on the railroad frcai l*ll«», t ichlf-an, 
to t:blra|?c, Ihit thin error i© n-'t important b»?cau8c, ^» 8t«ted, 
it ta ur apinien that the evidfi-noa ahcwa althout Quwoiten that 
defendant had done all that wae rnaaonahly poaaihle to forward 
the ahipsent to plnlntiff aithin a r«a»onebl«» time «sft»r it. aaa 
recelvad nt .'ajrlnatr, ?:iehir«n, and that the di>l»y In th« d<>livery 
thereof «t Chicai^a «a* catiB»!J bv nn Act cf Hod* 

The fooda were shipped in « r«*friernter oar In pooA 
eondition. Rnrt the freealnr thrreof waa c»uafl<\ bv the tim* eondi- 
tiena vhleh rendered It rr»o*io«^ly Impoealble te delirer th* 
afeipment at Oaleaga without the delay which aotwally oeeurrad. 

Aa held In l^pilrcad Ceatpany ▼. ReKve.t . " i^. ^. 
176, n eosf4M>n earriar aatsio ,>«s sll rlake exce-pt VMa« eaueed by 

nn Aet ef Qod nnd the> puMic «n«ny, tin'i th« siost fr«Qu«nt defotsM 
rand*, «h«r9 »n Aet of God is •«! up «» euoh, are in oa>«s Invniv* 
iag ■nei' «torm« «id flocd«, 

Thfl- 8hip««>rt In cunation was «n int©T»tatft •hipaicnt, 
and <l»f#ndftnt'» linliSlity ia mwvnm^ Iby 1i,M« rules laid down in 
th# 5'»4sw»l erupts. It *ny l5»» eif»«r«««4 in th» T>r»«fl>nt «m«« that 
the plaintiff si*d« out « yr.^i^jft. , f»^t , ff ^ omsa, but tfes svl'^wnoe In- 
trodueed en bftbalf ef th* d«f«i«iJ«nt m«t %hla e«»«» no cctBjpl «t«ffly 
that « juds>i««nt should hsvp !»**« nl»red by th«s trlnl court In hia 
f«T6r, t1tt« d**f ©nAftnt 's rrif;#ncs shews that ths fitilurs t(t» deliY«y 
th* shipment within thP ususl er reftsf-nubl e tiiMe was qausimI bjr tin 
Apt of Q«d« tlae Wrdsn, thw!, r««ts upen tits plaintiff tc show, 
if h« can* that netwifebstanding this eviuanes dsf (»ndK:it*s n«%li» 
genes oentribtttwd to e«>uit« %ii9 4L»^t>^m oc9plftin«d of. Tyansy-oyt^" 
tioyt Cswysi i y V. Downsy ^ ?» u, a, ia9» 15S, Has svidenos invroduesA 
en this question was insufficient to olinrge th« defsttdnnt with n«i;* 
lig«no«. as the undi«put«d avidenoa Introduead far th« dafendant 
shaws tbfii tha oar was stoTad as promptly ns the waathar oondltieaa 

In tha eaea «f C^ysm^^^, v, j, V, ??,, ^b ^, ^, }s, H^ py.. 
196 f, T, 442, it i($ 8al4 that ht^nry snow atensa wnpraead'st'itad or 
unusunl* anrf axtraorrtlRary frasbats or flooda* washouts, »«d the 
likir, nre ^«ta af r^ ntaat fraauantly intarpasad as a dafensa in 
suits siasilar to th* one at bar, Mffi tJiat the daoistons ara mwar* 
eas whieh held that an unusual, or anpraoader tvd snow stoni is an 
A«t of Cod which will r«»li«fTe a oor<»;on ORrrtsr of s oods frcan I la* 
bllltjr far dalay in delivary. 

Tbare can be no doubt en tho raeerd bofora us that 
tha f raasini; of the ahipmant waa oauaad by tha unusual waatbtf 
eenditiona, and iliat tha fra<'«ing sklKht not hr"»e takon plaea ba4 

th« *Tidene« indloates Uuit the fftilur* to <leliT«r vifchin th< 
usur>l tliue ««• cmi»«A by eondltlen* which w«re in no e«jci»« 
properly chnrgf^nble to d«f«m4ant. 

Thn Ju<^^«nt tf th« li^nlal|>Rl oeurt vili be 
r«T«>r«fl4 with n finillng «f fuet*. 

Keldoiu, * . J., *n(l ?':eJiurelv, j,, orneur. 

123 - 26200 

• e»rporstinn. 



ims A. AVDK^SOX aRd\c. A. 
WSlAfttOM, dAlBg buafifWBS as 



vusicxfAL cami 


2311.^. 640 


la an ACiinn for ddmaces 1>rmight l>y plaintiff against 
defendants for aa allegod breach of a eentraot entered into 
Cetebor 31, ISie. it vss charged thsit under the eentraot defend- 
ant* vere re<|ttired to sell and deliver to plaintiff *at once" a 
20 ton ear of wax not to exceed 45,000 pminds. 

The order for the shipment vas actually giren on 

HoTeisber 1, 1918, and a ear of wnx arrived at plaintiff's plant 

on Deeenber 2, 1916. On tinve«b«r 12, 1918, plaintiff notified 

defendants that ae the wax had not erriTod it ves coapelled to 

and did purehase wax in the open market and that plaintiff 

would hold defendants for the difference betwe«?n the cnntract 

and the siarket priee. In answer to this eoMraninicfttioa the de« 

fondants insisted that they had ordered prmpt shipsient of the 

c»r of wax and would insist upon its aereptaaeo upon its arrlTal 

in Chicago. the ear /contained 4C,ll& pounds of wax when re* 

ceired in Chieni^n ^n Deceober 2, 191B, mns accepted end paid for 

by plaintiff. Between Kovenber 12, 191B, and HoTORber 22, 1918, 

the plaintiff purchased 15,791 pounds of wax, of a sosievAiat 

different grade than that contrncted for, at an adTanoe of 20 

per pound oyer the contract price. Judgaent wbs entered in \/ 

foTor of the defendants and plaintiff brings the coee to this 




court by appeal* 

Th« jury whioh tried the ease was instructed te 
return a Tcrdiet ia faTor of plaintiff for $1.00 and ooata. 
It is inferable frem the reo<a-d that the trial judge vas of 
the opinion that the acceptanee of the goods and the paying 
therefor by plaintiff precluded it frflm setting up any l^as 
it night hare sustained by reason of delay in delirery. 

Section 41 of the Uniform oales Aot« Illinois 

ReTised Statutes 1917, makes it the duty of a buyer of goods 

to accept and pay therefor vhen delirered in accordance with 

the teras of a contract. Bectina 49 of the providee: 

"In the absence of express or implied agreement 
of the parties, acceptance of the goods by the buyer 
shall not diechnrge the seller fron: liability in 
dmages or ether legal remedy for breach of any 
promise or w&rranty in the contract to sell or the 

The record does net disclose that there was either am 
express or implied agreement by the parties to the suit that the 
acceptance by plaintiff of the shipment and the paying therefor 
was te be regarded ss a wairer on its part of its right to re- 
core r dassges for a breach of the contract which the trial judge 
found actually occurred. The evidence does disclosd such delay 
in the delivery of the goods 'b would wtrrsnt the submission to 
the jury of the question of damages occasioned thereby, if any« 
and this is so, even though it be admitted that tho defendants 
had a right to deliver the goods within a reasonable time after 
the making of the contract and net *at once* as insisted upon 
by the plaintiff. 

The decided cases cited in the briefs of counsel 
sustain the argument that a buyer who accepts and pays for 
goods may retain a right to collect damages for delay in 
delivery thereof if the circumstances show that it was not 
his intention to waive the right at the time the goods were 


•cecpted «ad paid fer. There is nothing in the record before uo 
tending to ahov th«t the plaintiff when it accepted the goods 
in question did so witii an intention to waire a right to reoorer 
damages for delay in dellTery. It insisted at all tiaes upon 
its right to reeerer d.-«ageB therefor, and nnide frfln the statute 
quoted above, wtiioh «• think reserres the right to plaintiff to 
tring his action, the deeided enses and text writers cited do not 
in the Bain bold for a principle, in view of the evidence in the 
record that eoild authorize the trial Judge to inatruot the Jury, 
ns he did, that the plaintiff could reoover only nominal dosages 
for the delay in delitrery of the shipment, as held in the case 
of Hastsey ei al « ▼• lulley et al .. 12 111* App. 463, the question 
of vaiTcr is usually one of intention, each ease depending upon 
its peculiar facts. 

Ihe question of plaintiff's daa&ges, if any, hy reason 
of the breech of the contract should have been submitted to the 
Jury under proper instructions. Indeed, it vhn not only the right 
but it bccejBC a duty of the plaintiff, in nitigation of the 
daau^ses, to use reasonable effort to purchase the «rx in the open 
■arkct «dien it bcc«ae evident th»t delivery was not to be made in 
accordance wiUi the terms of the contract. Corn Planters Co. v. 
Jenkins . #24795 111. Appellate Court (not yet reported). 

It is insisted on behalf of the defendant thfit th* 
evidence shows that the goods were to be shipped fr<n a point 
distant from the City of Chicago, and that, henoe, the true 
neasurs of dances wtns the difference between the contract price 
and the market price of the wax at the point of shipment. The 
evidenoe doee not disclose whether the goods were to be shipped 
at or from Cbiengo, or from some ether point. The cnntraet 
between the parties wes entered into in Chicago, which seems 
to be the residence of all of the parties to the suit. Freight 


«h»rges AB the ahipBcnt were to be allewad to Chieoge. m aeeuBie 

this Beans eillrmed to the plaintiff, tn a letter to plaintiff 

defendants ctsted: 

*S'e are issuing inetruetionB tn refinery to 
■ako BhifKent and trust good? vill gr frsrward rt 
one** and rer'Ch ynu in the shortest possible tine. 
AS sonn as the c»r m»nil»r atsd ehirplnf dste ? re 
known, «e vill adrise ynu by telephone.* 

■hile the eTidenee is snae»fhat Tague and uncertain we 
are aot prepared to hold« for the purpose of deteraining the 
proper measure of dairagea. that the naterial v^e to be shipped 
froiB an unknown point beyond the limits of the City of Chicago. 
7he defsndnAte a.^penr to be engaged in business in c;hioago and 
they asHumed a contract for the delirery of the wax to plaintiff, 
which did not proride for the shipment from any particular point, 
other than Chicago* 

She testison/ of the only witness who testified, Ir. 
Peterson, called on behalf of the plaintiff, is to the effect that 
because of the failure of the defendants to delirer the wax, he, 
or his company, was compelled to purchase it in the open market 
and that "the market price nf inieh wax wrs 13.11 eents.* He also 
testified thpt there wie very little, if any difference between the 
wax purchased during the month of ifr.veTnber and th«t contracted for 
with defendantti. This witness did affirm that ther« waa no differ- 
ence in the market price of wax in car load lots and less than oar 
load lots that he knew of. The evidence shows the «!xi8tenee of 
the contract. The court held on the evidence that there had been 
a brea^ thereof and it is our opinion that the evidence introduced 
touching the question ef damages and market price should hare been 
submitted to the Jury. 

The Judgment of the Municipal Court will be reversed 
rthd the CRUse remanded for a new trial. 

R'srmaicD amd rev aided, 
Heldoa, P. J., and MoSurely, J., concur. 

143 - 2«310 



Ail A.. .-Adii 'li- ;;iHCUIt 

) count 0? COOK coiiirtY. 
tbt kunleipRl Ceirt cf chioifpo. ; 

Appeiunt. 7 ; 221 I. Ao 64 

% / 
■ I 


?h» «l«f»nrt!M»t« •pp«el frrssp »nn order f?ntf>r«d in tb« 
Honloipnl court of ChlcwRr In » ^It brought by plaintiff for 
pn «n rjr«j wromrf'il 1 pvy cr «n RUtomeblle ealfl te be the propwty 
cf th^ rlPlntlff', 

Aft Mr tb« <M)t.ry of judgment notion was made by th« 

defendnnt. Anna L. ttcCoid, to ▼aofnte th« judgment «• to her. A 

d(R»urr«r filed to tbe deolarstion was withdrawn tmA th«reaft«r 

a Tl^B- of the general issue «aa filed on behalf of both de- 

fentlftnts by Qtto C, Kentner and a, J, o'lJonogjiue, "their 

attorneys," The record further shows that the trial Judjre, 

on tiareh 15,1919, entered the follcwring order: 

"This eausa being called for trial, cone the 
parties to this suit by their attorneys resrectively, 

T>jerp'.iT'6B on motion of Arfiur '•. JiCCcid, rsq., 
it la ©rderftd thai l^Naire be and the same is hereby given 
tc enter his nippeernnce as attorney for the defendant, 
Anna L. MoCold, »nd issues beinf joined herein, it is 
ordered ttist a Jurv crwe." 

In an aff idarit In swprcrt of the motion tc vacate 
the Judc^ent Anna I.. l^eCold etated that ahe had nerer lieen 
served with a •um^'^ens or notice of any kind of the pendency of 
the suit; that ahe had never saqpleyad Artiiur B, l£oCold to repre- 
sent her therein and had never at any tiae eepleyed any at- 
torney to appsMT for or tc represent her in the criuee. A 

'U - 

I- ' .■<»*r»-»e'I': 


partinl transcript cf the «videne« beard upon the trlml allows 
that Arthur y. VeCoid ikppo«red in th« trim ef the e»u8e. «h«n 
requested l»y the court to »5t«te trhom he opr«ared for h" nnswered 
"■yself imd* (indleatincr) , Kr. Kentner testified that he rep- 
resented Antpn J. Cerssek . Pelllff of the Kunlcipal court ftf 
C?hleB*T, In the onuee; that he knew Vr, I»'cCoid, but hsd nwver 
eeen or wet hie wife» Arsnti L. licCold; thsit he had never been 
employed tc rejrreeent her in the suit; U:iat he pirroonally did 
not Jcnow that he hPd entered the apptuininoe cf Tr», McCoid In 
the eauae; that he hed about X,2C0 lawaulta pandlng ngainat 
Kr* Cermak; that the eusucons in the present case hmd hecn turned 
oTer tc » frirl in hie office who had charge of watoliin^; the; eaeeat 
that he had nfilled a font letter to kr. ^C&ia at the heginolnf 
of the p«>ndency of the auit, that he did not hnvr native rity froa 
anybody, either Anna L. McCold or anybody repreaentinr her» by 
eoBTerention or otherwise. t« enter h»r aprearunce; that the 
erjefiranoe w»« entered hv inedvertenco bfffcre he talked with 
t-r. ;..cCeid, 

Cm motion to TReftte it -^mB obJeot«<l tiiet the affi- 
dftTit filed on b<°h«tlf cf the defen^.ant Anna L. McCold was unb«o 
lleTSble and in eiaterial points untrue; that Arthur '^. itioCeid, 
husband ef Anna L, MeOoid, upon the trial of the cnuae had ob- 
tain^d leave of court to appfsar for her and represent her as 
asscclatc counsel «ith ether attorneys in the cas.e* 

It is conceded thet the defendant Anna L. fee- 
Cold was net served with process in the suit, and the Jud^- 
nent agnlnet her must be vecnted unless t appears fro* the 
record that she tippeared therein eitlier by herself or by sc»a 
person nutherized by her to represent her. The evidence is un- 
contradicted that the attorn -ys who filed the appearance in the 
cause had no auti«rity to represent ^.rs. ».oCoid end the affidavit 

filed on motion to yacate satisfactorily shows that their appear- 
ance therein for defendants was, as to Mrs. McCoid, filed in- 
advertently. The record does show that Arthur B. McCoid had per- 
mission of court to file her appearance, but it does not disclose 
that he acted upon this authority. Ho appearance in fact was 
filed at any time on behalf of Mrs. McCoid by her husband, Arthur 
B. McCoid. She states, and so does he, in affidavits that he 
had no authority to represent her or to file any appearance in 
her behalf in the suit. The fact that the relation of husband 
and. wife existed between Mr* and Mrs. McCoid might give some 
ground for suspicion that he had authority to represent her or 
to employ attorneys to act for her. Bit whatever may be said or 
thought in this connection, the affidavits filed on her behalf 
definitely charged that he had no such authority* 

A partial transcript of the record discloses that 
counsel for plaintiff made an ineffectual effort to compel Mr. 
McCoid to inform the court as to his authority to appear in the 
case and as to whom he represented therein. The record does not 
show that Mr. McCoid in fact assumed to appear on behalf of 
Mrs. McCoid. 

The case of Franklin Savings BanJc v. Taylor , 131 111* 

376, appears to be in point. In that case the Supreme Court 


"Appellee was not made a party to the petition 
for mechanics lien, no one assumed to answer for her. 
ijhe denies that she ever authorized George Taylor, her 
husband, to appear for her or employ counsel to represent 
her in that proceeding - or, indeed, that she ever knew 
of the pendency of that proceeding until since the deed 
sought to be set aside was executed; and there is no 
evidence in the record tending to contradict her in this 
respect. There is no proof that George Taylor was the 
universsJL agent of appellee, with full power to act, 
and bind her estate in all instances in which it was the 
subject of litigation, and proof that he acted with her 
approval in a few instances, manifestly is no evidence 
that she would approve his acts in all instances." 

It cannot be presumed that because the relationship of . 

.- noii^ofii no boll 



hosband and wife existed bettreen Mr. and Mrs. McCoid that he had 
any general authority arising therefrom to represent her as her 
attorney or agent. She cannot be held to any liability for hia 
unauthorized acts touching her separate property, and that he was 
unauthorized to act for her is uncontradicted upon this record. 
ifrallace r. Monroe^ 22 111, App, 602. 

The order of the Circuit Court will be reversed and 
the cause will be remanded to that court with directions to 
take such further proceedings in the cause as will be in 
accordsmce with the Tlews herein expressed. 


Holdom, P, J*, and IfieSarely, J., concur* 



105 . S6534 

Appell«e, \ 


221^4 ^40 

Suit tm* 1)9i!?un \>y plsintlff in the fcunic iiwl ccurt 
of Chiea^o te r««oT«r the t»1u« of certain icocde i«hioh it wat 
alle(;<!id h»4 been etolen from hie Trorw In a hetel op«r?ttPd by de- 
fendant a. 

It mi» «hnria;i»d 1^^ th« atntement df claim that plain- 
tiff wa« « fsuest of the hotel; thet "on the «th <iay of April, 1920, 
upon leayintt the rowi he did in s.coor'tanee with the rules of eeid 
hotel depeeit the key to hie eai^ roMt;" that v^jtm hie return to 
the reein he disoovered that it had been entered an,d certain 
articles stolefi *to tne value to the plaintiff in tins «uk of 
ii^l75.C'G," The only point atade is tiiat the «ta,teiaent of elai« it 
insufficient to supjcrt the Judgment. 

On the trial* wiUjout « Jury, the court found the 
iceuee Rft»in«t the defendant and aseeaeed plaintiff's daAu^es 
•t the sun of $147. Jud|i»ent «a« entered for this aaieunt and 
defendant brinffs the oase here by appeal. It app*»r« froa the 
abstraet of record that the parties went to tr>.al ui»on the stnte- 
aent of elaia; that thereof t*»r th« defendsnta filed an affldaTit 
of BtTits. This affidavit of -nwits deni'»d that the relation of 
inn keeper and guest "weo eetablished.* Fc objxeotion -ma »ade 
on thffi trial to the sufficiwcy of the at«tiw«nt of olaia, in^ 
it is our Tiaw that the objoetions thTota present 'hI In this 
court for the first tiae eone toe late. In th4ft i»>*eTioe of a bill 
of exceptions or stateaent of fasts, we nust asKuni^e Utat the 


•Yidenee heara en th« trial wmm 8uffloi«ni to supvcrt the jud^iaHmt. 
fh« atatcra^nt of elula ohmrges that the hotel nets kf>pt by the de- 
fendnntR and that property ims tuken from plaintiff a room of 
the valu4» to bin of $178. C'O; tlieee alli^ i;hfs s»b«eno« of 
ebJ«»otien propsrly wade at cr b«for« ta«5 trial, arft auffici^nt 
te BustKin the indfvumt. 

It l0 inf ♦^raM ff fvon Xhf «n#tt»"icnB of th» »t»t©ment 
of el»im that th« precerty in iu«»sti6n vm» in tb«e poB»»ii«lan of 
the plPintiff, and precf of th® d«as«ff?» to him by risaaen cf the 
lose of the ^ord* vas, fp must as3u»e, iatrnduoed on tne trial. 
^«ther hi» intereet in the property m* qualified or abaoluta 
in the state or' the reoerd b-^fore u» is not linpdrtan t , Grose v. 
aaratoga ?uropemn Hotel ^^. Cg... 276 111 . App, 16t«ie4; ;iocXa 
£l al» '• 'OoXa . 194 ill, App, 356-6, 

Tba jud^ant of the Muaioipnl court 1» affirmed, 

Holde«, 1. J., »nd M^sura'iy, ... j.acur. 


174 • 26^44 

ILLI. 1. RGBBRtS, Adalaistrator 

of the 08tht« ftf SASfUHI. C. .:':B?.P 

\ Appel ia; 




\ >ftppelie«. 




The plaintiff, att (idKlnlstraior of the ttetate of 
S«M«1 C. soberts, deecfised, l;r<^ght suit in the Superior 
Cnurt of Conk Cnunty ft«»in&t th@ def encl«tnt« Ihoaets .A. Sheridan, 
a police officer of the City of Ciiicgo. 

The declAratlon vhioh eoneisted of two cnunte charged 
thut the defenduBt negligently tmd carelessly fired a reTolvcr 
then in his poauet^nion, ae result of which the 4eoe<^«M»d cane to 
hia death. The case was tried before a Jury which returned a 
Terdict in favor of defendant and judgment was entered thereon 
which plaintiff aeeka to reverse by appeal to this court. 

Evidence introduced nn the trial tends to prove that 
the deceased, Jaaiuel C. Roberto, bcconptmied by thref. friendn. 
on the evening of the 0th day of February, 1919, w&e walking 
along Madison street near ^ ehland avenue in the City of 
Chicago; that the defendant at the time was also pmceeding 
along Mndison street having in custody a young man naaed Lafferty; 
th«t at the time the shooting took place vany persons were walking 
along and upon Madison street sidewalks. Albert Cheffer, a wit* 
nesn for the plaintiff, tcHtified thet he saw the d<^fend&nt lead- 
ing a ynung fellow along the street; that he hoard a shot fired 
Juet after defendant's prisoner had utarted to run away fron his; 
that at this time deceuped yum about eight feet in front of the 

jsrij tr> J :if- 

9ml*~wtiU im tm. 


vitnesa Mid the defrndRnt vr^s iMhlnd hl»; that defendiint otHrted 
to ran after his priimnftr and thot ther*A/t«r the vltnese heard 
t«o ar three r>hots flr«d. the defendant CAlled rp a «ltnees for 
hiaself *&• held by the trittl jidpe tn be an ineoRpetent •vltnese 
in hie own l>ehalf . 

One ftefferty, n pwlloe ef fleer, testified that at Vtut 
tim* the sheta were fired he vas standing at a patrol box la the 
law-ediEtte Ticiniiy; that he «f}>s in ch^j^e of a prisoner at the 
tlae; thrt he herrd seven or el^t B>iOt?« fired "pretty rapidly, 
taking; ahout three filiates.'* this witness alee ieetificd on 
orooB cxaffiBAtlon thnt Lafferty, who evidently had hee& re-arreeted, 
iriien searehed nt the police stBtlon eosetitee nfter the shnntlnc; did 
not have any iroapone in his poasessinn. 

li are unnhle to eny thsvt the finding of the Jury la not 
supported by the evidence heard upon the trinl. Cnly two wltneaaee. 
Chaffer and Rafferty, testified ae to ^nt occurred Kt the tiae of 
the aborttin^; one of thf>«e said th'-<t three or four shota were fired. 
The other testified that arren or eight ah«tfi were fired, and thp re 
la evidenec tending to prove that . herldsin w-n nrsed with a revolver 
containing but alx chHorbera* She pvi'ienee docs diaclone thnt the 
deceeaed wee peaceably panBlng along a public atreet, but whether 
hia death wea in fact CKuaed by the ;>ct of the defendant or by aaa* 
other peraoB vaa a qaastloB of fact which we think w»«e fairly aub- 
■Itted to the Jury. The evl lenee doee not dineleae why i^afferty 
had be$>n pliseed under arreat in the firat instance, nor la it elesr 
froai the record that he, Lnfferty, did not fire th* ahot which e»ttaed 
the denth of deeeaaed. 

The evide ee of one sitneaa, if believed by the Jury, vo-jld 
warrant -^ finding th»it deceased fell iiimediatsly after the firat 
shot had been fired, but we sre unable to say fro» all the evidence 
In the record that the defend:>at was guilty of the negllgonMi charge^ 



tJifaiBst bin in the declar?!ti<in, or tht t h« In fact ted the 

aet which caused euoh deplorable cotiH«qaenfiee. 

It la our opinion that queati'-nfi of fnct pr«>ctentcd 

by the pleadiafs «ero properly eabsitted to the Jury, live curt 

did aet err In rvfualBg to give to the Jury the followias 


•^Though « ?c»ce officor «ay dlKOharge jf; weapon 
under the oircuEstaneea etetea, und his aet be JUBtifi«d, 
if, ho^erc'r* bhe ohooting rm-e done in e. public pImco, 
where the officer andcretood or ah'tul'i h«T« known that 
people rmrv in vhe habit of cosgregatlag or vere likely 
to pBes« the »ct ni{*:ht constitute such aegligenee aa to 
render the offictr civilly liable f«r any injury thft 
he Might afflict upon on innocent peraon.*" 

Thia in&traction undertook to tei:^ the Jui'y yfhtit aets or facta 

■ight eoi»titate anc^ negligc-nee aa would render the defendant 

liable In the action and for thia re.'.;»on it vae pmpcrly rcfuaed* 

ReTcraible error waa not committed on roliaj;^ on 
the adaiiaaibility of evidence* 

ihe Judgment of the Superior Cnurt will be sffixwed. 

HoldoB, .' . J., and Vo^rely, J., con^tr. 

181 - 26552 

7}A1;K C^' t:OJ?-/!-piCX AJ!1) SAVING j, 
A oerpor«tlon,\ 

V Apr«llee, 




A. C, HQLlfTht 



AiixAL mm Kusicn-Ai, ccukj 


221 l.A. 640 

V-o, JlJ^TTr- ->nn*:» t!^lVim%D Tla:^ OliiUOB Oi* ??il d0!JP.T. 

A Ju'.l^fnt for v^SS.oS «»« <i9itfvp«d in fRvor of 

the plRintiff in tho I^unieipRl court of ('hi cage on ■■■ prcpiissnry 

not* dAt«»d PeTsrunrjr 28, 1917, The note with jin i?n<Jcr««P5i«nt 

th«r«cn is as fo3 Icvrn; 

•$4(0.00 fliicRftn, S-ebruary 2B, 1917. 

Ob lareh 1, l&lr, sfter deite- — T---"-pr«ifii9e tc pav tc th« 
order rf— vrinifnai "^, reRns- — ?t«r Hun^lred «nd no/loo— — - 
7)oTl«r» «t 5201 ">1»rT!er Avenue. Int. «t 5' per annum. 
Valu" rrtcf i7«<S . 

No. 452 !:ue idaroh 1, 1916 A. C. Tel cite 

^dcrsed — ». S, Deans." 

■"."hp evidence stitj^s that Ueantt, the payee nafjed in 
the note, presented it for discount at plaintiff's bank itareh 
30, 1917. lliP note as oritcinally drawn contained no prcviaioB 
for the payment of interest, and at the tisi'? of its presentation 
for discount there apjeared thereon written in ink Uic frj lov/tng; 
•Int. at 5 ' per annuis." 

The case wr9 tried before tlse court witiiout a Jury 
ani ths court found da fnctra in the c^ae: 

■that the defendant was rr"«pnt at the *.'r.p> th»> rote -/as sr 
dls'ccunted and knew than the ^orda ♦lntf»r<»nt at f. i per 
Piii);ua' '»ftre ther iipm m^id. ncfn nr'^ t>.e""by r^t^^^'lo.-^ the act 
cf irtertirtK ni^U' '^crde urcn said note by makinfr no objection 
to said note belnr discrunted with B?^Id words thrrprr. 

Th« court finds epeciany ae facts in this o«s« 
that at the tliP» of execvition nni delivery of the note in 

Sx^eetion tn ':««n8 It did not contain thw words 'interest at 
s per anirum; * that aali •vorda •vortf inucrted in 3fiid note 
aftf- tlic execiti.n fti-.J i*-;'. ivory thereof witiiout the ooneent 
ef Teldte, but the court further finds that Just prior to and 

at th»» tlflif! ««ld not« w«i« dloonunted by pliiintifr bank, that 
the B«ld ■''oldt* finfi s>«in8 'vur* treaert In plaintiff hBtik »nd 
that ?oldt#» then knsw that aula not« contained the word* 
'lnt«r««t at 5;;^ p«»r annua' prior tc the tl-^^e plaintiff ao* 
e»pted said nct«> fcr diaerunt," 

A JudfOBffnt waa «mt«r«d en thwaa fin<51nKa in fayer 
of th« plaintiff » nnd th acle question before ua la whather tha 
triel eourt erred in concluding that tha facts »c found were auf- 
fioi«nt to wmrrant tba finding that defendant had ratified tha 
unautuoriaed act of alteration cf th'; not«i. 

Tha evidence introduced en b^btslf of plaintiff 
tenda to protre that Toldt«» the d'<fendant, «aa present with I^eana 
at the time the note waa diaoountad at the hank on .>8roh 30, 1917; 
and that it then contained a prcvielon written n ppn and Ink for 
the p«.vBent of intereat; that at the tirae the note was preaented 
the defendant stated that it waa ^iTen by him to I}eans aa part of ' 
the purchaae price cf n piece of rital property. 

The defendant denied that h'' was present at the tiraa 
the note waa discounted, althouprh two wltneaape contradict bim aa 
to this. On this point the trial court waa in a such better poaio 
tion to determine the queation of fmot imrolved than ar«^ we. It 
is asserted, however, thnt the testlmeBy does not tend to prova 
that Toldte knew that the note contained the worda "Int rarest at 
Si per annual'' at the time it ^a accepted by plaintiff. The trial 
Judpe found otherwise. ;Ve think the evidence warrntjta the cenolu- 
sion that plaintiff received the note in du*? oourae, for a valuable 
consideration and wlthctut any knowledga of any dafonsa that «i^ht 
be made to nn action theraen, «nd, as at»ted, it received the note 
and paid value therefcr in the preaence of the defendant who, ac- 
aerdinR f taatimony, thereafter promised tr pay it. The evidence 
doea show that the not« aa originally drawn contained a blank apaca 
after the werda nn<i flfturaa •iJ'SZOl Wamer Avenue," and that the 
provision for the payment of interest waa written into this space . 

It Is conceded thAt the note in queetion -^as the obligntlcn of the 
defendant. A note teller for plnintiff testified thmt the defend- 
ant had promised to take eare of the note. Xhe evidence does not 
•how that the plaintiff was in any degree guilty of negligence, 
and vAiaterer night otherwise be said as to th*-- conduct of defend- 
ant, we think on the whole record the trial i/udge was fvarranted in 
findinii; that he knew that the interest provision had been written 
intr the note ftt the time pf its presentation to plaintiff. One 
witness for plaintiff testified that defendant "represented hissself 
as beinp the glv»r of the note, Rnd the *mv it was given «ms dis- 
cussed in his presenee." 

In th<» case of }:efn«^r v, Itewsen . 63 til , AO^, the 
eourt said: 

■This ease, in ita main features, is much like the 
one of liefner v. Vandal ah . 6?, 111. 4B3, except that there is 
«aore in thn conduct of the defen^iwint, nnd the circuffistRncee 
in the present case t\o testified to, which partakes of the 
chnracter cf an estoppel Jja pais , then there was in the former 
one, and there is a conflict of testimony here which did not 
there e^sist. There was evidence in the present case wrdoh 
went to shew, and -«rould sustain the finding': of the court to 
that effect, that the defendant net only adopted and ratified 
the siicnnture of his nnaie upon tiie note, l>ut tliat, by his ad- 
aiisslcns nnd declaraticna that the note was 'all rifcht,' and 
that if plaintiff would 'hold atill • he would pay him, he 
knowingly and desi^enedly induced the plaintiff to omit taking 
any measures to collect the note of Goaian «•«." 

The Judpraent of the Jamie ipal court will be affirmed. 


Holdom, 1-, J,, and KeSurely, J,, concur. 


190 - 26363 




TOM iAiFAS, ilLhlAi 
and GU3T HULI/aiOS, 


221 I.A, 64l 


Ilttlntiff, bpinr thp pvmer ef premieee in th*> nity 
of Chicago known r« Ite , 1656 Went Twelfth street, on the 16th 
day of Jsmipry, 1919, esde » lease for the first floor thereof, 
which l«aae maa, with thp consent ef rlsintiff, aasiicned on the 
11th day ef July, 1919, by the lesae^^a to defendants. It was 
provided in the lease that *nc piano playing, singeing or other 
forts of ainuBement shall he kept and maintained" in the premises 
without the written perniission cf tne leaser; that the lessees 
were to insure certain plate glaaa on the preniaes «nd thnt the 
policies for such insurance were tc be delivered to the lessor. 

Evidence introduced upon the trial tends to prove 
that notwithstanding the provisions of the lease defendants 
permittcKl plane plnying on the preriises durinp the day and at 
times at niplit until as late as from twelve tc two o'clock, and 
thPt thev failed to ccroplv wlt)i the provisions cf the leftae «rith 
respect to procuring insumnce pclicics upon th<» plate ^1**** 
On '=^ cf the defendants, call eri aa n rritness for pl«intiff, tes- 
tified that dafen-lnnts had « piano in the prereiaes "last v(»ar 
and also during the months of April, i-'ay and tarch of this 
year;" that it was played until eleven o'clock at night . The 
plaintiff testified that he heard piano plnying during the months 
ef larch, April and Jiay; that "it was a great big electric piano; 
it playa very loud, just like a sledg^amffier." 

other evidenoe was introduced in eurport of j Iain- 
tiff 'e contention thwt the l«w»ae had be«n violated with respect to 
pisno plpying on the prewiees. The building in ^hich the leaaed 
premises is lecnted is n three-story bulldin#j consietin^- of a 
store en the first floor snd flnts en the second Pnn third floors. 

June 16, 192C, plaintiff serred a 'written notice uron 
defendnrtta cf rlsintiff 's election to teminnte the lease on the 
28th de -^ of June. 192C, becauae of failure on the p'^ft of defend- 
ants to ccmplywith its terms. On failure of defendants to dellTer 
possessirn of the precises as d(»ianded by the notice, an action 
for forcible detainer thereof was begun in the trial court. At 
thr close of plaintiff's evidence the court on motion cf defendant* 
directed the jury tc find a verdict in favor of defendants. Jud^r- 
ment "tks entered on the directed verdict and plaintiff brings the 
ease tc this court by appeal. 

It is our opinion that the trial court erred in 
instructing the Jurv to f in.-i for the defendants, ICtoe evidence in 
the record tends to sustain the position taken by plRintiff that 
defendants had violated the teriBS of thp lease, both as regards 
piano rlpving in the prer-ises pnd as tc the failure of defen-lants 
to insure the platr> ^esa. The build inp was used in a larpe part 
for residence purposes and the prrvioion in the lease vhich pro- 
hibited piano playing therein •'tas reasonably necessary to render 
the premises fit for such use. iart cl the testimony tends to 
show that the wife of one of the tenants was ill durinr the time 
that the piano was flayed on the pronises, sometimes as late as 
twelve o'clock at nifcht, and that the tenants had objected to 
the disturbance and annoyance thereby created. 

We do not think the evidence tends to show that the 
lessor intended by the receipt cf rent to waive his right to de- 
clare a forfeiture of the lease. Clause 21 of the lease was 

changed after th« assipniHent thRreof to defendania ac an to require 
the defendanta to derosit ^l.OCO aa 8ec«rltv for rert, »aid sujn to 
be held by the lesser until the expiration of thc» tera, narpeiy, 
until April 50, 1921. Thia aur, was deroaited witli the leaser 
under a clnuse fhich provided that at tiie ex'iratlon of the tern, 
if all the conditions and coTennnttis of the lease had b^en fully oom- 
plied with, then the ifum waa to be returned to the defendants, and 
that if any of the conditions and coyenanta of the lease had been 
broken, "tc, then the lessor shall >e permitted to "retain the sum 
of one thousand dollars until any differences between s.iid p«»rties 
shall have been adjusted by settlement or suit," 

It isj said by counsel for defendants thst if the lessor 
Is successful in the present action the one thousand Sollar deposit 
wfnil (1 be kept by hin.ns the question as to whether nprellei^'S h»d 
viol »> ted any of the covenants would then be res Judicf»ta in a suit 
to recover the ;)1 ,000, '9e dc net intend te pass upon the validity 
of this contention in this opinion, further than to say that it is 
our Ju<'-rBJent that the evidence introduced en the trial ^*as sufficient 
to warrant a subnissicn of the issues of fact tc t)ie jury, and that 
the court erred in directinf- a verdict ir defendants' f»»vcr. The 
evidence tends to show that the lessor did not receive cr accept 
rent for the premises after the service of notice of his election 
to terjrinpte the lense. nnd there is nothing in the record before 
us which tends to prove that he received payment of money for rent 
or for any purpose T^iich would bsr hi« from assertinR n ripht to 
teririnpte the lease for a violation of its terms by the assiffnee*. 
Carlson v. Koemer . 226 111., 16; The i;edinah Temple Co. v. Currey. 
162 111, 441. 

The Judgment of the Ijunicipal court will be reversed 
and the cause remanded to that court for « new trial . 

Holdom,l'.J., and rc3urely,J., concur. 


22ft . 3639S \^ 


BS& i>lAFAli3KY and, PHILIP QjUINfi. 

ntm r. sfAf?eiib aal vAum 



A JudKmeat wrb entered in a forcible detainer aetioa 
in the Municipal Cnurt ef Chleago ag/ inst the defendenti. Peter 
P. i^taffard aad Salter ^. ;itafford, and the defendants bring 
the ease hereby appeal for review. 

At the tiMe the action waa brought the defendanta 
were la peaacagioa of a store and baacaieBt presilaee located et 
#201^ r, Morth aTeaue, Chicago, under a lense dated JUly 9« 
1918. This lettse mna aaalKned on April 20, 192C to plaintiff a 
en a sale to thm of the preslsea by the original leeoor* 

The teetisony introdaoed for the d f eadaats tends to 
proTe that notwithstanding a proTieion of the leaae which re* 
<9tired the payaeat of the reat apon the first day of e.-eh aonth 
in edTance, the parties thereto, by a course of conduct and 
dealings had so aodified this prevision that the rent reserved 
beeeaie due on the 9th day of each anoth* 

7or the defendants it is urged that the Jadgaeat 
ahould be rerersed beotiuse the trial Judge et the close of all 
the evidence introduced on the trial instructed the jury to find 
far the plaintiffs. The trial cnurt did not err in giving this 
iastruetinn. Cheeks were introduced in evir^enee which shewed 
that defendants paid rent for the preaisee for the aonth of May 
1920, en May 5th of that year, and that the Jane 1920 reat was 



paid by eh«ek an th« 9th of Juns. ^sltiir >?, staff «rd» dafandaat, 
tasiified tkai tk« "r«at wsa raally due on tha 9th of the nonth, 
!>«««■•« we took poseeaainD on tha 9th of the aonth.* If It ha 
aaatmad that tha original Xaanor and plaintiffs, by a cnuraa af 
eendoet and daallac* vlth d«f<;nd!9Bta, had atodlfled the lease aa 
a» to require the payvent nf rent upon the 9th day of each sonth, 
yet the evldenee falls to ahav that the de'fendtanta had oeaiplled 
vith the proTlsiena of tha laaaa aa ao modified. 

Oaa af tha defendaata, Salter . tafford* testified: 
*I did not pay the rent en July 1st, but I tendered hla the rent 
on tha 20th of thia Ronth." Philip ^ixui far plaintiff testified 
that defendnnta had never offered tmy rent prior to July 20tli. 
vhieh «c8 tha day upon which tha plaintiff a aervad notioe of 
their intentlMi to declare a farfeiture of tha lease* 

Tha enaa la enitily distinguishable fron thd oaea af 
DenoTan ▼. Uurpby et al.. He. ^6544, Xlliaoie Appellate Cwirt, 
yirat iJiatriet, (net yet reported)* The (iueistinBa in th^it eaaa 
a«re not identical with those in the InBiuat eaaa* The r<>eard 
in the DonoTaa eaaa aheva that th^ rent w&s aluraya paid on the 
10th of eaeh aeiith and not on tha flrat aa re<naired by the 
leaaa; the leasee In that «nlt had tendered payaent ai the rent 
la aceordanea with a constunt pr^etlee of tha pertiaa on tha 10th 
af the atonth. >e, therefore, held in riev «f thoo« facta that 

tha leaser wnuld net be pemltted tn forfeit the leaee for a 


failure to pay the rrnt on a ante prior to the lOth/the leonth. 
Aa stated, the record here shews thHt no tender of the rent waa 
Made prior to the 20th dsy af July, and there la nothing in the 
awidenoe triiieh wnuld warrant a holding that the rent of tha preaiaaa 
in question did not bccosM due until that data, gpaea t. Hinchllffe. 

131 111. 466. 

Tha JudgRent of the Vunicipal Court will be afflraad. 

laldeM, P.J., and McSurely, J*, eonour. AF?IHKro, 

2*1 " 26414 

ANNA 1, uQinaou-mYi' 




Hn, JtJiJTICE DXVSn DKUVgjffl) THI 01f>I>iI0B 0:S' ms CCtlHf , 

This ia »n oppenl from h Jjudfewent ©f the Manloipal 
court in « forcible dfttainor iwlt brouirfjht by the jslalntiff, a 
lease* of eertaln rocme in a buUdini: known as Tie. 5:30)2 Cornell 
aTenue, agalBst defendant, who ceoupied tii& >ittm9 prcarjiaes under a 
prior written lease executed by the father of the plaintiff, Jneob 
9, Seerr, the ernier of the building. The Judf^iuent of tin^ court 
was entered apon a Tffrdict of the JIury befc^-w which th« case was 
triffd. "l-,*? sole tjufstlon of fnct upon ?»hich the validity f the 
judpr.fnt in QU«>8tir<ni«d io ss to whethwT the Icrase between Jacob 
1'. Doerr, the ovmffr e>f the building, un'l the defendant, f^, C, 
Vooda, had been altered in such mnnrier as tc make It aFP<«r that 
the leaae terminated upon the first day of Pay, l9?.o, and net 
upon the first day of Ji?ay, 1931, as contended for by the defendant. 

The defendant while on the witness stand examined a 
oopy of the lease through a magnifying glass and he testified that 
th<f endorsenent en the baek had been altered since the exeeution 
of the lease by chsn^^inK ths figures "1921" to read "1920." The 
alteration made it appear that the lease terminated on the SCth 

day of April, 1920. 

Two oopies ef the lease were introduced in evidence; 
that introduced by the defendant siiews on Hie baoJc thereof that 
the dat*» of expiration of the lease was April 3C , 1921. The dste 
of the tertci nation of the lease as it appears r>n the face of 

thlB instniBKsnt ie somewhat blurred, th« typewritten figures *2-0* 
»ppar«ntiy bwinn writtmi over the figure* "Q-l" In the leeee. 
However, the copy of the lenee Introduced by plaintiff -nd said 
to be the origln«X»howe vcrv cl early upon its face, as well as 
on the back, that the terminatico >iate of the lease as crlginslly 
drawn was f^ril 30, 1921, and that this date, in (» oowewhst olumay 
L annnffr. was ehanged so as to ainke it nppear that the term expired 
on Aiprll SO, 1980, The main dieruted qv)»8tlon of f«et upon the 
trial »mo as tc tbi« chRnjre, llwintiff's »g«>rtt teetificd tUet the 
lease was exAetited for a one y*ar term and not for two y^ars, as 
in slated itpen by defendant. 

The eridenoe as »h«traoted piTes no explanation as 
to why these ohsnR^e wpre mede, fxcept that ocunspl for the plain- 
tiff, -Thf'n the defendant had been handed a aaftnifyinsr iB;la«8 to ex- 
amine the lease for the purpose of tftstifyinff as tt^ the alteration, 
stHted: "It la not necessary, i ad-rdt that it has be«n ohan«i;ed." 
Both the rlAlntiff, who tilaim* to be a lessee of the premisss, and 
lier father, the o'«mer, were pl^oed on the ^ritness stand, but no 
•Tidenoe was offered to explain this adKiaeion of counsel or the 
•h«nr« in the lease, la this atnte of the reocrd, the unoontradieted 
testincny of the plaintiff mist be taken as true, nnrt this testinony 
shows that the lease. which was drawn by the plaintiff or her acent, 
was is!^terl»lly alt<«red. ()n this slutwinit we think the Terdiot and 
judfment should have been in farer of the defendant; and notwith- 
standing seats aotblifmity appearing uron the face of the copy of the 
lease introduced by th*- defendant, the admitted material altero- 
tions of th" alleged erlpinal l»»aso, oominp as it did from the 
poBBeseion of the plaintiff, *Br« of such chnrncter that we are 
ooBsp'sllod to rererse the JucU-miait with e finiUn« of fact, 

■^e ;Ju'lKment of the t'uniolpal court will be reTsreed 

and a Jui^eaient entered here in fpivnr of -~^.ip- defendant.. 
Holrtem.i.J., and RKVMiditD <> OV FACT AMD 

>o9nrely,J,, ecncur, * • '• 

241 - S6414 WlUDim 07 FACT. 

Wc find »« s f«et that th« l««ae under wkioh the 
4ef«ndRnt held posseanloB of th<« prce^ises In queetion w«a al* 
tered nftsr its eieeeutlca and dellTery nnd wijil « in the poaseaalon 
or oontTol ©f plaintiff, so that thw termination date thereof waa 
changed fTo» -April 30, 1»21 , to April 30, 1920, 


256 . 2643 



T* H. FLOOH Jc CO., 4 oorpo^tion, 
and L. J. PLrOD, 


) APPEAL ?nm 
) Mumcxi'AL crrrw 



TlM defendant appeals trim & Judgment entered egeinet 
It iM the Sanielpal Court of Chieege fer the sub nf $5,177 .oe. 
The jQdgsa«at is b&sed upnn a preset c^sftry n^.te deted Chio&ge« 
/4iguBt 14, 11)19, which note ie as fellowe: 

•aoY. 14-19 

#5000.00 Chicago, Aagvet 14, 1919 

Three ■onthe jifter d^te we prfl»iee tn pay to 
the order of ,\ P Callahan <& Co. Five 'ihnueand 
l«ll*r» ft our office ?14 . l?Rdi»oB St. Value 

ecedTed T. K. Flood it Co. Ko r«e 

11-14-15 By L. J. Flood, Sreaeerer." 

The note was endnreed on the baek *L. J. flood.'* 

She only point nade against the validity of the 

JttdgiBent ie thfit the record centalna bo evidence of 1. J. Flood's 

expressed er iasplled authority te e3M»cute ths aete. J$n evidt^nee 

«aa introduced en behalf of xhe defendant and no denial appears 

in the evidence of L. J. Flood's authority to act for the dft- 

feadant in execution of the note, nor did L, J, Flood, who is 

also a p&rty defendant in the action, deny in an affidavit of 

■•rlts, er otherwise, the execution of the note by his. 

Flaintlff'a evidence shows that the note was given 

te take up another note for the sosie asnunt. The original 

note having been given fer liberty bends. Re objection was 

■ada to the introduction of the note in evidence, end even if 


it be R83tuMd» as vrged, that L. J* flood, nsi tret^curer r>f the 
defendant eorporaiion had no implied au't.hnrity pe such to 
execute the note, a queatinn tihioh we do sol tiecide, the eTlden«e 
In the record da unoontrHdicted that &t the ti»e the nntf mis 
executed by hiai hs wae nni only tresoorer, bat also jprenideat of 
the defendant corpor-tion. The note wa cxeouted hy the defeadaat 
corporation by iie trefteurer and president. The nuthorttiee are 
nuscrnue aiod alao onaaimaas that "a eorpomtlon aete throu|ch ita 
president, end through his ezeeiatoB ita oontrscts and Rgre^raents, 
and sn act pTtaining to the buainesd of the corpora. tinn, not 
eletirly foreign to the general po««:r of tbe j^reeideat, done 
thr'iugh him, vill, in ty*e absence of praef to the contrary, be 
preeuned to h&TS been abtherixed to be ^one by the corporate body** 
Traders jfutual Life ln»«_££A ▼• Johnsna^ , acc 111. 564. 

thm plaiatiff urges th%t the appeal in the ieatr^t eaa* 
»as taken solely fox- the porpoMS of dele.y, aau t]Q.j»t ple.5Atiff is 
•Biitled to stauitery d^nages therefor. e are inclined to agree 
with this e<mt«nti.on ai»i plaintiff vili th(»i!-(»rnre be swarded the 
mam of j^2b0 n.» statutory dmBo^ee for the brlngias ^^ ^^* s?peal 
to this eourt for euoh purpouu. 

fhe Jud0Bent of the Municipal C^urt vill be 9ff irsod 
with statatery d«sM<as in favor of the plaiatiff in the sua of 

■oldOB, B, J., and Hc^irely, J., c<wcur» 

266 - 26442 



221 1»A, 641 

. ji53TiCK smim nm.ivmm3 tijf ofihion oy ?ip cou^<^. 

This isi ftn undefended sppufil from n juof-'m<>rit of 
the yunlftlp*'! oourt of (lilcage entered In f»ycr of th^s d*»f«n<i- 
itnt . 

ttpoK » tmnserlpt of u. Juf5m»nt for $300 »»nt.«r«d; before » 
JusiloA ef thip limce In n stilt wh<»re(ln th« wjspollfmt hern ima 
plulntlff and spp©!! «» w«« !i«f (tndant. It Is Mit?».i*»r> tlx'it. the 
Judf-e w>u» tried the eaee in the l',\inioipf»l. court held aa « matter 
of lew thet the Jud^flmt ehoiRt In the tmnsoript, b^lnir • defmutt 
JttdKKeot, wna invalid «d<1 Toid, beoeuse on the fnee of tiis eura- 
mone issued by the /uetioe cf t.he >eaoe th«! clai» of the vlnin* 
tiff ««• etetcd to be net to exoeed $200, The Kunloipel ocurt 
found the iesuee in fnTor of the defendant. 

It is evident thet the trlAl Ju'^fce wae of the 
opinion that the jud«pBCTit of the Justice of th« >e«oe wae -veld 
for the r«nsoa that the trenaoript shewed that th/^ aumflicna is- 
•ued bv the Juatlee c' the ieaoe on Ita face deej^nried of de- 
fendant only the aua of $200, dection Ifi of c)!«»p. 79 of 111. 
Reriaed ist-tutea flxea the Juriadlotlcn e^ a Justice of the 
peace at $500 and aeotion 20 of ohwp. 79 reoitea, "The Juatiea 
ahall enderae on the beoV of every Bumrr,ona, the buhj de«i«nded of 
the plaintiff, with eesta due thereon.* Th*^ endoraeoent on 
the bpck of the ausu^ona issued bv the Justice of the ieaoe ahowed 

that the plolntiff nude « olais ngsinst defendnnt not to exceed 

the sum of *3^'r . Th«» tr«in<>«rlpt shows that th*- def«ndont and 
hia counsel apposred before the Justice of thft leisioe en four 
»epii.r«te ccewBinne '»nd lit def«ndant*9 reijupet th»? ep.uB« vrjie ocr- 
tinued. An orSer oont mulna th«« ceuse '*8e ffnt«»r«d on their 
• everftl ^poeeTftnoee, Ci» October Sfith In th«? absence of defend- 
ant th«» enee wee oalled for tri«»l Pin<\ nfter h«srlnp eyidenoe 
judrment s»a entered In fever of th«» pleintiff, Tt Is cur 
opinion thttt the tmnserlpt did net show t,hnt the judfTwent en- 
tered bv the Juetice of the leaoe wee Invelld or that he *«■ 
wltVtout JuriedlotioQ to try the cause and to enter a juct^sient 

"^e demand of the plaintiff, ne it apieare cti tiie 
baak of th» u\t.mort9, in aoccrdance ^it<t the requlrosients of the 
statute, ma for « sum of money not to «xoe«id ilifJKKJ. The judg- 
nent cannot be said* teehnleaDv, to be a default judir^ent. The 
defendant apr«wred »«v«ral times before the Juatloe of the ieaes 
and r»?ou*«ted oonttnunnoes of th« cauae, *ifhich wfire grant«^d. 

In BpVpwekl ▼ . r>erenffowe^.l , 124 HI, Apv, 4^J>» it vaa 
•aid thnt a Justice o^ th^ pwec" is uneuthorlsed to render a 
Judgment for a Inrper evia then that endorsed en the sufuf-one, «.nd 
it was h«»ld In thnt ease that the endorsewent on the eummons 
had the ssams effect and ©ffloe in a Justice court as has the a^ 
danwun in a deeleration in w of^rurt of rftcrd. 'aoh limits ths 
Judnsent to th«» aaount elained and interest thereon. 

Hotvithstanding thp evident wrrcr en tn*^ f-*o« of the 
svMHBOne, the Judgnent cf the fcunlolpal court ehoulct h»ve been In 
fayor of plaintiff for the sus of «356, wileh includes plaintiffs 
eoets anrt 1 i»f;al interast on th<f a«ount found iiw* him. 

The JudK««»nt of the iiunioipal c-^rt will therefore 
be reversed and a Judwawnt will be f^nterad here in favor of the 

plaintiff for the Bum pf $358 »86, "Aloh ineludwn th? sum ©f ^300 
plu« J17.SG, yl»lntiff'9 oeatH In t,h« .Irjaticp court, snd ij^lt.SO 
int*re»t to Dec«tb«r 36, 1919, an^ the 1 f??T«l rnt.Rr of irit«rp8t on 
th« BUB of i»55 fro» SRiia ^^eoerber 26, 1919, to tho dat* cf tn« 
judgment <nit«red In this oeurt, 

BHV.^aEB Aim Jl?"»cmEKT Hi^S. 

HeldoBt, I. J., and Mo^rely. J,, concur. 

25 . 26129 


\ i 

soRTumsTmrn hliotrxc oo)tiA%, ) 

K eorperatlon* 

^p ell ant. 

) AiillAi/FHUt KUKIC13PA; COUIit 


feR, jniartcs Meiiumxt uklivbhsb ?ki oj-ikiok oi? my. ccnint. 

In this suit plAiTitlff SM^ught to rsfcovsT cot<mii'.«i«lon» 
on ««l«a of aaehiner? »»(!« hy his on ao^ouat of tl«fenannt. Upon 
trlRl h<^ hfld • Tordlot «nrt judpgnont »»« »nt«r«'l ft«nin»t d«f (jn'jjxat 
for fl4.6f)e.s5. 

For thr«« ot four ynnrtt thwr* wrb « oontrftot of »wj- 
plo.vi9»nt bstwe«n the parttoe and for a psriod prior to Jj»m*«ry I. 
191'', plaintiff r#ool'v«d a(<«i«i8tsion8 of icr, IC »od IC per oont. 
On thnt dato plaintiff had a eonv«r»ntion with 3« H» .^nrtin, 
pruBldent of th» def«nd»nt eompanjr* with reference to continuinK 
tbo entployinent upon th« sane toraa. iiftiat was said nt. this tin* 
is in dispute; kartln did net <ifiah to pny the eld r«t« of eoai« 
■ission but efforsd 25 por o»nt Intitoad. X lain tiff says tliat 
aftor eensldera>)l« discussion J^artin nade th« propoHition that 
ths d«fitmdant would glT* plnintiff 10, V: and 10 par csnt on 
totarv conTart«rs when usad for motion pietura work and 29 par 
osnt en retnry oonrartars whsn used for otjtjer purpcsas, on ths 
net retail prica, and that plsintiff agr«*d to this, Jartin 
testifl«d that rlnlntlff ims dissatisfiad with this «»nrt that It 
was not acoaptsd, ilolntiff acotinu«nl to nell ^o«de nn ihsT^ato- 
fors until J»av 1, 191P, ^'Han th*? contract of «roployn*nt traa 
teminnted. This suit is frr oonmisslons on thaaa salas at 
ths rates eboYs nention<^ by plaintiff. 

It l9 h«r« ttr)ct«d by d«f*nf^»nt thnt ■ih<^^ one vritn««» 
directly cpntr»idlet« i»ne*h«T an nn Issue of f '-^.ct . It onnnet b« 
said thut, th«r«r is a pr^ron'^wrtince of erriAtmo« tcr the- plstntiff. 
This ie tru* ftis a ftenwrml nj1», but in this, «» In sjoet other 
e»«ra. th«r« is other t-mtiracny «nd nlac clroustatr^no** wblch rony 
properly l«aiJ the Jury to scc«pt tiio Tersion of one vltneBO rather 
th«D that ef the oUier« knrtlri teatlfiec) that pl^^lntiff brtnii^bt 
up "the three 10 ♦• en the rao-ving picture buainesa ti-nd we «nYe in 
to i-lp. en tliAt," Although *1 object«d firat on gi^yln?? wore thftn 
25 ptr cent," le^rtin olnlee that nc «i^re«iBent tme m»de as to 
eoapenaetion, but the Jjury ceald fairly beliitnre there «aa some 
egrewsent frem th« foot that plnlntiff prcce-^dfid tc ordere 
ns h«> h'»<S done th«r«t«fore, rrtiieh were fil/ked by defendant. I)e» 
fendftflt te«tifie<5 tiiet in th* spring of 1.918 hp informed plaintiff 
their buain«»o relationa woul rJ t«n'iin»te ^'uly 1st, rrhich is inoon- 
•iitent with tha clnin there ■»»«« no n<;Tre«?ffif*nt ccnoernins; the buei- 
nesa. The jtiry had t)iff opporti-nity te n<jn the r«8p»ottve witne»»«l 
on thf» ;»tnnd sn'l to obaifrvc Uieir aamiwr e^ t^Btifyini?, Conaider- 
inK all theB«> eiroituratAneet) ani others >«hich are auKr.eeted, we 
cannot aay that the jury could not properly aooept pl»jntifl"s 
were ion of the contract. 

There is no merit in th^ contention thttt the Itens 
Baking up the account were not ouffieiently proven, in point of 
fact th^ir eorreotneea was not in isHue, ne the affisavit of de- 
fence did not deny cr queetlon the aeouraoy of th« items of or- 
ders aa set forth in plaintiffs Bti»t«fi«snt ef elaim. Jhirtheraiore, 
the witness, iertln, testified that he dirt not question the araount 
of the bllla except as to certain Itwns; these were adicitted by 
the plnlntiff and their total, n9B.fi4, wai ri»ritted frow the 
Terdiet, The aoc^ntnt was properly eatablished. 

7her« w»» nc reverstbl* error in per'.ltt.ln>7, the »tf»t«- 
Bient of clala with the account to fco to thm .lury. Siaterftr may "b* 
th« prniotio* In the Cireuit or iiui.>^*'i<> "^ courts. It dona not eft«is) 
to be Iflrproper in the MunlBipal court wh«n tlie correctnesc of the 
9tAt«r!<!^nt is ftdiaitted. Under such cireuis stances, ■^•rt^ dc not see 
how in»pflctio» by th« Jury cQuld h»ve hsrc ort the deferidttnt. 

Under the i<»»u»?» in the en»e no rfv^roiblo? «rror was 
oooaitted in the Instruction* friven or rpfuasd, 

Ko anfflffi^nt r<*B?f^n prrep.rint' for th* r«?Y*re«l nf the 
JudfTnent, it is Rfflrned, 

B«ldcM, ] , J,, find new«r, /,, nenmir. 

78 - 2ea4x 

•91LLLM 3. BAKHi. 

VAmaOAARS and JAKlb } 

0? CKICAOt'., 

2211. A. ^42 

yp., juancB iioi3UJ«i!i.y biliverto tkx gfiniobt of tiii^ couk?. 

Jlfclntlff brrti^ht suit upcn fun injuncticn bond 
8l£^n«d by i^lne k, Jeasmi and iiBry Wm«;8giiiirA «*• rrincipal », wnd 
J«BiP« Jret«r»on ae surety, \/pen tri»]. by the court Jud^otent vaa 
«nt9r«d agninwt ilAintiff , frem which he «|;p«ftla. 

Xb«r« 1b no diaput* en the fnets. Xn y»bruHTy, 
1913, rlftintiff siAde « written leciBei to d«f«»d«ntB, Jensen and 
VsngSRanrd* of preniaea in Chien«;o for a period of five years. 
Tkcy u»»»rt th*> pr«Rla«a for m. rooTlng pieture thefttre fmo Inter 
aeld it te *»lter Trather and El»ar J, irather, who tcck pooa- 
eaelon and cperated thn theatre fer a tim«», but aub8«<qu«»ntly 
abandoned it and broufrht anit in the fetinioipal court at^ninet 
Jenaen and Vannagaard to recover the money they had paid, Baker 
breurht two suite In the Kunlolpal oourt for rent afTRlBSt Jensen 
and VanpsRoard and had jui^flwcnte for S17C in each oaee, !^eoutlone 
were idsued end i^lren te the b»»iliff fer cell ret I on. In February , 
1915, while the exeeuttons werfl still in the hand* of the bailiff 
and the suit of the irathere wae atill pending, Je«aen and Van(B«- 
(•ard filed th*'ir bill la the ;iirerlor court seekini; te enjoin B«ker 
from col lectin!? eaid Judg»enta and aleo frew instituting any suit 
against them under the lease, asd also an injunction restraining 
the Irathera frow prosecuting their suit in the l&unicipal court. 

Injunction* ««r« aecordlnfrly is«««A without netien. Jenafto and 
VKng^«ar4 giirlnf^ m bond with Js»«« r«t«rscn, dafimdunt h«r«, r« 
surety. In the ponal aun of :;^1«0C0« 

Bnker fi'l'ii m crose bill to rocover th# bnlAnoo of 
th« r<^t du« hin unt'.er th<* lenBC. UJ^on final hearing a Aooroo «aa 
oatftriMl dlwclBslng tho Injunction bill »a to Baker and ordering 
that any injunction restrainini; Baker from proaeeutlnfc suite fer 
rent due unuer the l'«B* up to the time of the filin<. of the bill 
of eostplaint sheul<l be diseclved. the deere« k.I»c found that 
Jensen and VaagBgaard were inde'bteo to hia in the auvi of 
$2n'i,fP., for rent duo under the leRse, in addition tc the JudK* 
sente previeualy recovered* and Judfonent was entered in VAs fayor 
fcr that amount. It waa alec* held that the etjuitlfis In the in* 
Junction suit were with Jennen nnd Van«;sgaard as to the Iratnera. 
und th<? Injunction as to them was net disaol-?ed. 

At the tl»e Baker recovered his two Jud./flj#>nt« )^in« 
M, Jensen, one ff the defendants, p«»n*d real estate in Ooek County 
worth nt that time $8,000, subject to «r> incumbrisnoe cf tSr>,COO; en 
A^rll 1, 191«, whilp the injunction wss sitill In fcroe, she executed 
a trust deed eonTeying the premises to seeure her note for i^SOO, and 
in October. 1016, while the injunction was still in force, she Joined 
with her husband in oonTeying this property tc her daug^iter, who, 
prior tc thfl dissolution of the injunction as to Maker, oonveyed 
the property to one Jases ttoCcnniek, subject to he two inouai- 
brances referred to. Baker's executions upon hi* Jud^Sjento in 
the l.'uniofpal eourt, after demand, were returned "no pnrpwXj 
found and no part satisfied," and ur«n the entry of the decree in 


the Superior crurt execution was issued against J«»n8en and Vangs» 
gaard fnr the collection of ^912.73, found to be due Baker, aad 
this ewecution also, fsftor deraand, was returned unsatisfied. 
Jwisen and Vangsganrd filed sehedules with the bailiff of th« 

Uttnlclpiil ccurt. olaiain« th*y ta«d no j>«r«en»l property t^bj^ot f 
«XBCution. KothiMft on Mid J^dgjoents ham be»n p»iitf. 

?be injunction bond wmu cendition«»d that mid J«n8«n 
•ad 7mngagnmT& should •wnll and tru« j»ay or enuve t© b« p»id to 
bo poid to the said ^*llllwB J. Baiter «nd -.inltw i«fct.h«r «nd siaor a 
lr»th«r« their h«lr«« «x«9Utor«, AdininistreLtors or n«sif;ns. all suofa 
costs «nd dsifiA^es as sh«lL be tiwarded to nny one or ^ere ef said 
defsndanta Jointly or arrffrally at^stinst said oomplainanta in eaaa 
th« said Injunotion shall b« dlssolYad.* 

The suit before us was brought by Baker en tho bond 
and bw his stntesn«Mit of claln he says that he is entitled to re- 
coTar not only tha a»e«nt ©f th^ two Judgments ^hioh the Injunotiaa 
prerontad hl« fr-m ocllaotinf;; by 1 PTvinjt upon the r«»al estate of 
tha defendant Jensen bafnr*> It. wna eold, but alec suob additional 
•UBB for r«mt as fell ^ue frc» tijBP tet tleae under the lease, for 
which ho mlftht have brought suit «tnd levied exeoutlone but for the 
Injunction, Ha also alleged the decree of the Superior court die- 
solTing the injunction as to him^ but maJrln^ It pertnanent as ta tha 
JFrathera . 

Defendant leterson, thf »arety» al (tie defended. Ap- 
parently the trial court was ef the opinion that piaijaiff cculd 
not salntaln a several suit upon the bcnd» and Jud^^fiient was rendered 
aicainet hioi. 

Counsel for plaintiff says that the decisive «|uestloB 
involved in this record has never been bcfor-c thf^ courts in this 
statff. This Is probebly tru*?, but the aupreme court h»e spoken ia 
two eases which plve ut felrly definite icuidanee to a oonoluslon 
as to lAiBt the l»»w cf this stnte ie In thla respect. The first 
of these Is Ovingtcn ■». aaith . 78 III. 260, where the general ml* 
««• stated that ^ere tha Intereat of obi l«e«Hl In a brnd is Joint 
they suet be Joined as plaintiffs in an action en the bond. The 

other c»8c Is ^.f . r«tlcm>l i-ote } ., Co. v. Flynw. 238 III , 65«, in 
which th» court held th«t wher«» » bond wau and<? to twu cr aor« 
p««r9rnB Jointly, Xii« 1 «g«l iritereat of Suoi: obli«©«« ie Jelnt 
iwtrwithstsndlng the defcnsanoe el&uao which provides for th« pny- 
««nt of menoy to one or acre of the eTJlig««»» Jfolntly or •everftlly, 
and thBt if an of th« ohlig«e« rts llTin^ h% thP ti»e suit Is 
brovip-ht en the hcnd they rust J<^in m the action. 

It le Insisted th«fc the fpcts in the instant onse 
differ saterlally frtao th» fRota rr«9<»nt«»d in these onaes; that the 
preo^it r«eprd present a thr quest ion of nne cf three obllis^eet In am 
in(5«ninitv >)ond purswlnjf an «otloa therftcn alone and alle^lnf;; and 
proTin^ that th(? other oM irees 1jbv«» not Taeen dawnlflod and that 
he alone has the hpneflolnry int<»r<»«t In the bond, sfiiile this 
praeiae reoerd was not sqiiarely presented in IUhe Uotel Co. oaaa. 
surra . yet In that opinion approval is irivan to conaideratlona 
<«hioh, appll«»d to the pres«at question* lead to the oonclusion 
that plaintiff oannet sBointaln tills action alone. In the i'«tal 
Co. case the distinetlon is noted between the legal interest of a 
party in the bond iw6 the benefit tc b« derived frc?, or under it; 
many cases are oitad suprortlnj? thl«. *7ho f«et that the defeas- 
ance in th* bond provides for sjeparate payments to the obligees 
dofis no+. Chan;;* the 1 efral interest in the ebTlf:ntion.» ApFlylng 
this to the Instant case it is olear that by the terws of the 
bond the l»«al interests of the obligees were Joint, although it 
»ay be that Bftk«»r alone had any beneficial intereat from it. "*# 
fxirVirv understand the aupreme court tc be of the opinion that 
irheth#»r the I epal inter-ittB cf the obligeea are joint or sev- 
eral Bjust appear fro» the face of the bend alone in si suit thereonj 
and if it there appears without ambiguity to tsrive the obllgaea 
joint legal interest, neither allegatiea nor proof aa to tha 

Ijrnrf tol»»l Int^reit can ohnnge the chnraetor ©f thw 3 tfcal interest, 
■rhf" oourt quotes with ftppreval frow j-hilllpB et_ rQ, v. ^n£e£ Itfg. 
cg,., sp in . SOS: 

"•Uhere a bond, upon Its f»Qe, detjotos the parties to 
It, th« >Rctioa »tt8t b«r l>ptwi?«n the pmrtiea tc It, no mettcar 
«ii«t ft«v be th« t4src3B of th« cJ^if <«»i8nnoe,* 

Jtnd ftftala frtw i yprni y. T»fl«c p_. 1 Blnek. S'J9s 

"Th«» true riile, at etfted bv T^nron .i«rke, l» th«t 
'a c©7*rant mmy be> ccn«tru«d tr be joint of stfVJTftl, eccordinff 
tc th» Int»r«!«>t» of thw pnrtlas nv.pctnrinr, upon the fac« of th« 
obllp-^ticn, If^ th_^ ^ orgt art; C!!>- <^«ilt? of ouc t'. £ ecn at ruc ti on ; 
but It will not bp con»truofi t© be severnl by^renacn of "soTTftpal 
intrrf:8t8, if It be ex] rcBKlJr joint.' In t.hie c»«e the covenant 
is joint nnd will adwlt of no conetruction. ili*? ccnditlon an- 
nexed e»rinot affect the plain worde of tlie oblii^ticn," 

m vol. 15, Aciorican and VtiK^ieh /ton. Cstsas, lPrt5>, It 

1« stoted tj:uit : 

"According tc. the wt"if,ut of putftority an <Hotipn 'I'or the 
breach ef the condition of b bond ia not lanlntairmble in the nnme 
of one oblifiee, although it ia averred that the plaintiff nlonc 
haa 9ust»ined dnEsni^e." 

This is diupported by aese citations, i^ltliough it ap« 
pears thnt in Tennessee a different rale prevnile. 

Iiefendant here laaies twa ©ther point*, naaely, (1) 
the injunction w»» not dlseclred, end (2) th« statute prcridea the 
eeesure of danaKa* when an In^fiunction i» disaolyed, vie do net 
thinJc there is »erit in these point*. (1) A partial dieeolution 
ef an InjuncticB eenstltutes a brepeh perwittinf a suit tc recover 
dBm»«f:es for the wronfjful teeulni? of the injunction, 'j falk: er v. 
Pritchnrd et s^ ., 135 111 ., 103; Braokebueh v. J^raett et_ si., 1S8 
111. l«7. (a) ueo. e, chnpter 69, referred tc, must be construed 
tc Bean ttiat in a suit brought to wjjoin thfi ooll'tctlon of a judgwent, 
the sureties en the bond Kay be required tc pay the aaieunt of the 
judgment. Interests ond ooats «yad Mso d»ia«tses as asseaoed by the 
eevrt. not sxeeeding ten per cent of the fsoe of the Judf^oent. 

Holding as we do, tlist plaintiff cannot maintain his 

action slone, the ju'lgment of the trial court wna rirht and it Is 
affinred. AFFIBJ ):D, 

Heldoa.x.J., i»nd Herer.J., concur. 

149 - 26317 

ItAY BlilXI aa^KICXHAhis OuArdiiin, ) 

Pl^ntlff in irror. ) 

KJUU3 men, L01*Y coKiAinr, / ] 

a Coxreratien, \ / } 

■ Paftfr.dibix irj ^rro^f ) 


221 I;a. 64 2 

J»R. Jt>aT10B JMinn<95'Y BMl.lVmiKD ?1J» On^lOS 01? fHB COUT!T< 

Frank Ninberg, th«n about nine years of np**, Triiiia 
in ir'curtc^nth street, on «ast and w««t street in Chioa^c* tma 
stmc.r by a J^ord runabout baXontrlni? to »nd operated by the ds- 
fendant. By his gimrdlan suit was brought to reeover daieagoa, 
and upon trial the Jury returned a verdict frr plaintiff but 
assessed tha damni;r»« nt one doliar. 

Plaintiff here asaerts that the injuries reoelved 
were of BP serious »» obaraeter that the a»p jnt of one dollar 
avarded for rjam«;rea is groasly Inadetfuate and honoe there mist 
be a rerersal. It may be eeneeded tliat tVJLs anount is not a 
prop^er eonpensatlen for the in,1urles, «nd »ere this the only 
roint in the ease pi win tiff would be entit,l«d to n new trial. 
KlXit^ey Y, l^arrlah . 144 111 ♦ Apr , 37'' . If ution the record It 
appears that ulaintl'f is not cnt i tl rrt tc reooTor pt all, we 
will not sff>t aside a fa-rorable verdiot beenu^e the award is in- 
adeouate. o*;^.5lley 7. Chipa.^ Ujty Ky . Cff . . 33 HI. KpV' 354; 
h9y^%% V. £itjt fiX chica<tp . 35 ill, App. 670; PjjiJUt r. C|ilp?|^.e 
Kjra. Co., 806 ill. Apr. 298; KleizBein r, C. k h, J, hy. Co .. 209 
ill. App, 348; 39 Cyo. 847, ^ile there i ::: some conflict in 
the testimony of the ooeurrenea witnesses, the aoora probable and 
eonsietnnt story of the aociHent ia told by the ^Itnessas for the 


dAfandant. ESubttantinlly thwlr t«stlneny Is thdt. the nutemelill* 
wmt going w»at on fourtcffith atr««t in the wvstbcnind our tmokt 
at « »r«#Kl of about ton milos an hour; that a nunjb*»T of 8»all 
boy* «tr» playinc in tho ntroAt nnd aa the nutoi&obila appronoSitad 
tham it alovad down and tha drlYcr blow hlo horn, nnd all th« 
boya, including KranJc Ktnbarg* ran to tha north curb; that irtiaa 
ha ra«ehad tha north ourb Kinberg auddanly turned and ran totmrda 
th« aouth aida of tha atraet lflwedii;t«Iy in tha path of the auto* 
aobila, whieh struck his and lAieadiately etoppad. 7hie »tory la 
auprorted by tha crnnter weifTht of tha testimony, nnd under auob 
ciro'inatnnoaa thara waa • failure to prnra the ne«rliK«noe charged 
•MKRinat th«» defendant. The drlyer a* was to harp been rreoe<»ding 
carefully end *rith eautiea, nnd the aooi<lent was ocoaeloned by tha 
injured boy (ccin« auddenly frf^n « pl«>cB of asfety into thp plnoa 
af danger. 

Under euc'^i elrojwsatnnoee there tma no liability of 
the defendant, but for tha reaanns aboTC atnted tha Jud^ent will 
be affirmed. 

Afff JIBUn* 

Boldoa* ] , J., and DcTer, J,, eoneur. 

336 • 26411 

<4pi'9llk«, ) 
vs. \ ) 

G. i-. Ji-;AA:-a. \ ) / 

Appellnn^. ) / 

^ 2211. /\. 642 


Ip an RctitJR on t? r cm-.r- for 8l»•n'^l•T r»n.! for as- 
sault »nd batt«ry plflirtiff hn-l n Tprdlct rf .«» .Iiiry wnd « jadg- 
aoni for 550C, I>«f«n<1«nt arv^^dP. ^<?f endmnt eondunts a bakwry, 
of irhleh rlnlntlf' ie » c««r, ?in^. 1» .'ulv, 1917, whfln pl»ln- 
tiff Tr»« nukinr 80»« puro]:m8ea of (ipfeninmt. t,h*<r« srose nemo 
ctupstion in dcf9nd«r)t*« »lnd na ta hhe amo^mt of ehan^e h« hud 
riven pi^int-if f . siub»©<iU«ntly this^y hsd p. r:cjnver»!!'t;t©n alscut thii?, 
in which d«f«ndant it "aai<s to ha-re ii?od eortaln «)And«rcue irord* 
tcwnrds plaintiff bnci tc hftVP criryi 't«4 nn »8«w.ult ^vnd b»'ttery 
upon li*»r. 

ilaintiff 'a declarfttion ponsisted of aoTen crunts, 
th* -^irst of izhich mo dtss.ipaed, Th** BRcenf? ecunt chnTK*><l that 
dftfendant had enirf to plftlntlff, '"'ovi iftol« flv« dol^arsj fron »«. 
You R»».R)»j intc <ay j»«? •snri get chBn(r«> frr t»(n i'el?Rr» «nd I gATC 
you five dollRra too nueh, Rn-1 you Vncwini^' that wRl^ncl nut ultii »y 
ftye doliftrs. If you *OM»t pny m« thin l>y six e 'clonk t>-de «T«n» 
Ing I'll ir.«T«» you Iri jail .'' Thft t^lrd oc^irit oh««T*d ^hat defenrt- 
ftnt 8* id, "You K«t out of »y 8ter«, You -»slk*<< cut with thirtuon 
dollars of my stonoy. Tfou ^tp a thi^f ," Thp fourth count chNrK^a 
that defondant said. "You t?l« flT? dollar? cf my mon«y and onlaas 
yq» pay m* by oix e*elook thie oTanlng I will ju* •'«>'-< i" J»il ." 
Th» fifth count oh»rg«d tlxat dofendjant eald, •You awindlod no 
cut of flT* dellara. Kcu ar« a tiilef . it you <icn*t pay bo bwok 

by six o'olcoK Z will hn»e ycu yut In Jnll," "^ic ?<iTcth an* aerenth 
oounte c'imrp.«i aasiiiilt »n<i bRtteiT» n»K»ely, that 4ef«ndR:at puahed, 
fullnd, shO'»«d ttnd draf;^«d ]plaint,ll'f o«t of the otCT»j. 

H»intifr testified th»t fiof endant , in the prnjience of 
othera, used wcrda towards fcer vhich s.T4» feCBawKieit like thoae above 
quoted. ThlB ia eatogorieally donled by dofeniiant, IXisintiff 
took "Tith har on thia occotsion » frien<i» Uxa, Xbielwfinn, There ia 
aosie foree in tha auggeatleB that she araa tftken nlong by plaintiff 
to hear what wma aftid sr J to awpifort plftiittiff •» voraion, Mra, 
ThT<»lB»i>inn 1VA8 an^wrently »n iieue'at vritnaaa, ead we «r<» inclined to 
{Tire mora cr«d«nott to her atnt«»H;fnt of the »«tt.f»r then to tiiBt of 
the T»»*'tie» dirwotly int<>raated. Teetifying on behalf of plain- 
tiff, ahe saya tim^ in th^ «eovar»fttioB batween th«c< ah** did not 
haar defendant call plaintiff a thi«?f or a awindler; that th«»y were 
arming about the amount cf nhani?© d«f«nd»nt had riven plaintiff at 
the tlire of the purehnae aVicve riJiRted; thst ^st, defendant aaid 
was, "If you don't ipay me flTo dollnra befor*: oiit o'olcok teni^rht, 
I will have you put In Jail," at the saine tine putting hia hand on 
plaintiff's shoulder and puehinfr her toward* the open door, 

l>ef enciant, by preper nsotiona, aaked thf^ ccurt to in- 
■truct the jurv to find hi® not guilty «8 to the slrnder counts, 
but these moticna were denied. «« nre of the opinion t>mt the 
ROtiona should hATe been allowed and the inatruetiona i^ilven, for 
thi? rt?a8en thai the evidence did net support theao counts. The 
countn cherged defendant with threatening to put plaintiff io 
jail unleae the money waa paid baek by six e'olook. coupled with 
the aaaertion that plnlntiff had atolen the ooney or had swindled 
defendant out of it and that she waa a thief. The utterance of 
these latter words failed of proof, end we nr« referred tc no au- 
tlTority for hclding that the mere threat to put a person in Jail 
unless A alaiaed indebtedness waa paid by a certain tiaie ««• 

JVirth««, the rul p ia tha ■ if th<» %!rerd 'tJ'iaf be 
BrfiJ'wn of tiie plaintiff in r<9lntiow to b psnt net, which vMna ktiovn 
to the hearers and which pmat fiot wfts net l»re<»ny ftor indiot*1ilo &• 
n orln*, th« uto of th« -rord ia not actionauje. Ay era v, G.ri.-:^er . 
16 111. SB; fepUilTray. 7. jprin«et , t. 68 111, App. 275; Jpl,utt v. 
I6g£r£, XC7 III. App. 479; l;errill v. ^arajjsll, 113 ill. Aj.p . 447 » 
Applying thi« rule it ie r<f»cltly seen that whnfeoivej* s/orUa wore U9«d 
by defendftnt in th« dispute, thny did not cliarf.'it a oriaie, Ilio eoa> 
troTArty wna only as to th« amount of ciMng« amtinsi te plaintiff in 
» iBB>»ll purchase. There is considerable aTgumpnt ris to th« sicrlts 
of tho* (Jlarute, but this ie iromfttsrial in this o»Be. 

There ie aone teat Inseny which roiRht properl v bo a\ih» 
flitted t-^ the Jury tending to aupt-ort the ocunt» c)mrginfT aeaault 
and bett<»ry, as plaintiff end! 're, Thielsnann teetifi«*d, tnib » tan tl ally, 
that defendant pushed plaihtiff throu^rh the doorway. 

S'or the errr^re abPfe inlloated there oust br « now 
trial, and If the sase eiridenoe should afcaln be adduced, inetruetioas 
eheuld, upon motion, be given to find the defendant not jKuilty ae to 
the sl?wider counta in the declRr&tion, 9or the peneons tsbove friven 
the judgment la reversed end the eause is rwianded. 

RiiViihaXlD AUD }■:/!: A?r.iKD. 

Kcldoffi, I'. «'., and Devar, J*, concur. 

891 - 864^9 

iiASKixs cimrxsa ^, 


•(; ) i ov onoK cou»?v. 

Apr«ll»ntsL ) / 

\/ 221 lA. 642 


January 26, 1919» plaintiff, while driTing h«r outo- 
mobllc Mist on J^OT^y-fourth 8tr««t in Chieagc, vm» Atruek by an 
Mttoncbila ^oin^r south en C^ttago OroTs »T«nu«, injuring h«r nnd 
i»mfi:lnt( h«r iiuto»obil«, dhe brouglit t«o wuitn f'-r r«cev«ry. 
trhieh w«ra oonsolietnteed on th«> trial, and had a verdict for 
92487. BB, froM ^leh d«f»ndant afspanle. 

Ro questions e«no«rnlnr nwiBtl i«»^^noe am r»»ia«d here. 

Tha only i>clnt arfn^tAd 1« that dwfeni^ant iid not rwn th« auto«o- 

bil» InfJtetlnjE: the injuri*-*, bwt th»t It vmn cmad by tha 

Stain-Suma Catnp and Vlald ^qulinetant CcKmpany, of vr^loh h* t«ae 

yr^aidant, nnA that th« ehnuffwur drivlni? th« car at the ti»e of 

the accident «ea eisspleyed by thi« ocmpRny. It waa shown that tfaa 

af fending aut^wobile vaa a Cadillac llaouBinp dri7«n by "Edward 

B«Taridga, a i^auffeur; that it had the initiala *C. F). a." on 

the aide; tha^Deoestber, 1918, defendant ismde « ocntrnot with 

the proprietor of a garage on Forty-aeventh atroet In Chicago 

for the keep of hie oar, which waa a cadillao, Br>rlln body, 

f our»d >or liffiouBine; that the defendant h»td with hi» a chauffeur 

^«i he intrcduoed tc the proprietor of the gamge aa Mward 

Beve»idge, aavin^, "Thia ia my chauffeur, hia na«e ia Kd 

Bereridge; he has oharj^e of the oar and he will be in with it;*" 

that defendant gaye hia addreta and a*fre<»d tc pay thirty dPllara 

a aenth for the care and keep of the oar; that defendant paid 

these bills for eoBO sionths ther«rft«(r with hie cheeks. The 

garftR* kenpinr b1 sc testified Uwt BcT«ridg« (Ifot« tha oar froaa 
I>«o««b«r to JL^^aroh, InolualTe, And thnt he «»» th« only ehAuffeur 
th« defendnnt, ;>t6ln, bud. «*nd Beverdl times hn saw B«>verldg« 
driving the defendant in the cat. The only ocntradiotory evi^ 
dence is the stetesient of defendant that the oar belonged to 
the oonpnny cf which he vr»8 preeldent, altyiough he used it at 
tlaes at did also his wife. 

the question ef ownership e«B j» question of feet 
for the Jury. Antriy ▼. S££!li5I!» ^66 111, A^r, SCo; l-a^^g y. 
grlnk'n ChlcnRO 01 tv '"xpresa Co.. 19=! ill. Apr. 389; Bpaop ?. 
gcsten Store . 195 111. Apr., 13;^. 

The testineny above referred to was auffielent for 
the Jury WTcpePly tc oonolude that the ownership ana control of 
the car at the line ef the accident «as in the def (indent. Cases 
in vhieh similar eireumstn.noes hrave been held sufficient to es* 
tablisb ownership «re j . ^. 6i .ot. i.. Hy. C!p . y. Knutson . 69 111. 
103; aohweipfurt^f t. wa2S£. SI ^L ^pj • 319; hJESiJL ▼. l£ilXi«HE. 
241 la. Utate. 426{ Lags on v, Wej^l i> l<'8Lt; f^p, & Co., 113 . . iuppl e« 
Beat« 647; Barry on Automobiles, page 683. 

'7h« record dlacloses no ccnvlnolng reason zo disagree 
witlr. the werdiet of the Jury end the Judf^ent la affinned. 


Uoldoc, 1. J., and Derer, .'.* concur. 

9S7 • 26B11 

kABY K. kKYXRS Ml«l,J. K. 


tl'>Ai. FK<^ COUKTY COUWf 

^ 221I=A.643 

un, JUSTICE KoauKi£i,y bkiiyubsi) rim q^ihsigth op thw cmntr, 

D«f«rd«nt» by this «pp*»Al »««k th«? r#T«rsal of a 
JuAjTi'wit against thesa of #160 «»nt«f«d upon n v<?rdiet r«n«5«r«d in 
an aotlon for dnmii^es for a bronoh of contract. 

The deelsrMtlon All<»4i;ed that defendants l^aaed to 
plaintiff a hcuoa at 1420 £«nple aTonue* i^anaton, Illinois* for a 
tons boginning dept«ab«r lt'>» 1919» »nd canriing k'MV 1, ISiJO, «nd 
plaintiff introduoad OTidmioa seeking to ehew tuet this oontraet 
of 1 oaoing was broached by defimdanto in th^t tuey leaoBd the 
preaiaea to other pnrtiea mio ^^rere put in poasession. The olais 
of danafcea waa for Tarioua expenaea incident tc Uie neeea <itv of 
finding' another place to live. 

t>ef»«lant8 aay thpro wae no eontr«ct of 1 (?asing be- 
t«e<w the«, but only propooala for leaein;; upon which 
their minds novwr met, Xnareotion of tht- record ahewa thia to 
be the faat, neintiff'a c<n»n»e) BU(?F«»t that the bill exeep- 

liens fails to preaent to us accurately the teatinony of the Jury 
had before it, «• snist presune tc the contrary an' mu«*. ncnfine 
otirselres in studving the t<?ati3iony exoluaiyely tc what app^a'* 
in th*» bin of exeeptiena. This rul >•• la well eatabliahed. 

Defendant* were real eatatp ni;ent ■ for the owner of 
142C Maple STenue and pleintiff interriewed thoa with reference to 
renting the house, tlie eaaential testimony of plaintiff is that 
he had a talk with Mrs, lisyers and afterwards with Ur, keyers; 

thikt plaintiff teld l^«yer» h« munted m short lense nnd I •y«r» 
Bfiid this aottld ^« mrrnngsd if plaintiff bcu|;;ht cf him; th»t 
afterwards In /u^at.rlRlntlff any, Hr, l*<?yeP8 augireoted that h« 
takP th» heusa at ftiO tintll Jsnuary 1, but plnintiff tol(i hira ha 
wcttld take It at $IS.if hi» ^ifouM y>Mt It in r«»p»if, urttll ^ay I; 
that thereupon Kayara made out writtan laaat^a which plnlntiff tock 
home and upon axaminf»tie« fount) that thay ware tsnda tc th^* following 
Saptamber* llalntlff thereupon made out two other leaaaa for a 
•hart period aad left than at l^r, ^eyera* house ^ith a ehaeir for 
965. plaintiff then leaving for littsburg* This eheok wi^a ssada ta 
the order of J, J£, feeyera and was paid through the Chicago Clearing 
H uoa. but Sieyers returned to plaintiff the short leases* together 
with Keyara' check for $65, niiith a letter atating in aubatalioa that 
this was net satlafaotory and that the; moniey and leasee were re- 
turned. The letter al 80 contained another offer of leasini; and 
8B(tP'>«tion» as to hausaa whieh defendants had for sale. 

Ta are of the opinion this ayidence of the plaintiff 
failfd tc prore nny anraaw<%nt b(!»twe«»n the parties as *.<■ a leaaa. 
It In ff»et shows a clear 'iifferance ^T Ppinlen as to the terra af 
the proposed lease. 

Beth def«Mi'ianta testified as to ^onreraatlcns with 
plaintiff. They eay that plaintiff waa nayer told h« oould have a 
lease for laaa than a year. lire. Jdoyera says she told hiat that the 
house must ba leased for one year or lonisrar. Keyers aaye *»ien plain- 
tiff left the short lease with hi s ciieek, plaintiff tcl d hln that if 
he, i/eyers, was not satisfied with th«t to return it fwd the matter 
would be dropped. Therm are other itens of eridenoe whloh impel us 
to eoncluda that the aindB of the parties di.i not meet in aicreement 
and that there waa no eontraot of leasing nade by than. Upon the 
record before ua the yardict waa net Jvetifled, and the judfwent 

thereon will be reversed with a finding of fnot. 

Heldeai,2-,j.,and B«yer,J*,eeasar. 

837 - 26811 PlMlilKG OF ^ACT. 

V« find mm m f»et io thin eKe« that ther« vt^t no 
oontr«ot between thm plaintiff and defcndante »nd no le»8« of the 
premise* as dencribed in plaintiff's declaration. 


■n ^ 

') J : 


162 - 25fi|S3 

dARUfl I. B^^HfLST, 



Appellee &• lessor brnu^ht two auitr a^nlnet i»p;«llaat 
ne le88««* nne for rent du« for the months of Ns./ «nd J«tnc« 1916, 
•nd the ether for r«at d»« for the t«« following wonth?, &ad nb* 
tained Jadg»«Bt ia each cnae ¥y eoBfoirsion. the ju rigKenta were 
opened ap for defeiase under the genernl ieeae aad the t«o eulto 
eoaeolidated . The evidenee ^tfff^red by defendant ^<>» rejected, 
end the Jury were InstrHcted to find for pl«iiatiff in the em 
af $TSO« for whieh Jad|peent vaa entered. "Hxc «|ueetion preaenied 
ia «^ether there »^s error ia rejecting aaid offer. 

l>efeadant offered tn prove in aubetenee thf^t haTlng 
loat hia copy of the lei^ae* he vent to the oftiee of ihe real 
eatate firs thnt eolleotwd the r«nt and had poseeafiion of plain- 
tiff *a copy of the le»8«, and asked a repreeentntiTO of the firs 
^at he w-^e required to do to esneel the leaae; that thereupon 
aaid repreaenthtiTO brnught tht leaaa freai the Tnult, and reading 
it aaid defendant vnuld have to giTO written notiee of hia inten- 
tion to caaeel the leaee on Vaj 1, 191f:, prior to February 1, 
191^, nnd shortly afterward added 'alao would hawe to p<»y a benaa 
ef ^Sr," but did net say idien; th-^t defendant a&id he wuld 
iauMdiately give such notice , nnd th t he wvld pay the bnmia; 
that thia w;i8 all th^t was B»id; th<^!t relying en aoid otatenenta 



defendant, on Decejr.ber 13, 1915, wrote td said firm th^t he 

wished to cancel and tezninate the lease on April 30, 1916; 

that on i)eceBher 15 said fizv acknowledged the letter expressing 

regret to lose defendant as a tenant; that on March 6, 1916, 

defendant sent the fins another letter, enclosing his check to 

coyer rent to March 30, 1916 and the bnnus nf f.50; that on 

March 8, 1916, the fim returned said check in a letter saying 

they were so instructed to do hy the owner heeause by the terms 

of the lease the bonus Kusst he paid at the tine of giving notice 

to cancel; that shortly prior to ^arch 15th defendant tendered 

a Biesber of said fira .:50 to pay the bonue, wbich he declined 

to reeeire under instructions fron plaintiff. 

The lease was in writing and ran to April 30, 1917. 

the rent was paid up to May 1, 1916, when appellant (the lessee) 

▼seated the prCTilses. Ihe real question »t issue is whether 

appellant could teraiaate the lease without pa^nnent of said bonus 

OB or before February 1, 1916, i^ich calls for construction of 

the following proyision in the lease: 

"It iu understood and agreed between the parties 
hereto that the party of the second prrt is to hare the 
privilege of cancelling this lease May first. 191^), by 
giring the pirty of the first part or his agents written 
notice of his intentions to do so on or before February 
first, l^lFi, and nt thst tirae paying saii first party 
a bonus of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), in connideratien 
of said cancellotion, and to hare the saae privilege of 
cancellation on Vay first, 1916, by giving said first 
party or his agents written notice of his intentions so 
to do on or before Jebruary first, 1916, and at t hat tias 
Paying said first party a bonus of Vifty nollais (^0.00 J .• 

Appellant clains that the clause "at that tine* in the 

last sentence refers to May 1, 1916, and not to February 1, 1916, 

and cites froB diction riee to the effect thr.t the word "that* 

refers to things first nentioned, which undoubtedly is correct 

usage irtien the word is used in contrad istinetion to the word 

"this" in referring to different things before expressed. (iJee 



definitions of these vords given in Is.* dictionf>ri«s by the 
different anttoors, B^uvl^rr, 'Blaok and Anderson.) Bit scch rule 
is not s decisire teat where the word "that** is ueed »lea« fmA 
nnt in oentradietinctien to the word "this." ^e think it ^\sin 
tro^ ihe context of the provision in the leasee above ou^^te'S thv.t 
the two conditions of the right to teminate the lesine on the 
f 3.ri>t of Unjt nanely, giving « notice PJBd p^iyiBcr the 'bonv.s, Tfere 
to t« oonplied with before the previous Febronry, end notice viet? 
of ftc avAil without payment of the brmus. The object of «!j tft n 
tijiely netiee «aa prebnbXy to gire the l^ailArd 9i»P'«rt!anit7 ts 
•ecaret Mneiher teni!uat, in onss -fefsndiarKt res relefxsel. ^t 
defea<lH«t would not be rel«nsed until he paid the b«m!«« and it 
is not a renaenable cwjatruetion of the les^e thfxt t^e Skeusior 
would require a notice of three BQnthB *«<? w&it '^uring th^-.t 
entire periad without knowing whether the le»»e wowld be -ctttslly 
terasiastet^ If he did net receive his bAnas he could still ejiforce 
the tenaa of the lease Rgr.inst defcndimt notwithntHn'^infr thn notiee« 
and def <rndiiAt sif^ht iaeist thnt net havine paid the bonns and been 
released he hrrs elected to ret«in poBseBston, €■ tMn!r» t):crefere, 
that defendant t»7 not peylr.e Uie bnttas btfftre febraisry 1, 191?t 
failed to r.omply with r sonditian xi9.69i.i.&ty to tere'ir>^.t(^ the l<&a«. 

Appellant nrjre? thist if tha leese had raeswlrs* t>uii p.%y- 
■ent of the bovis prior to 'Any 1» l^lf^, thst r-! :^ire»«fl5it #^^3 ivaived 
by the failure of s^id fira r»s '.ppgllaa * ia agent lo -^otriBint v^Mllant 
with au^h reonireaent, sjid appelisat aras entitled to conclude froM 
its possession of aaid leace thnt the fiv« waa authorisftd to f»tr- 
niah the infersirtion appellnnt snyght with respect to it^; tervs. 
Appellant contend**, therefore*, that the proof of ered would have 
presented questions of estoppel and ^ssiver for autaBiasleu to ti* 


There was nothinfr in the offer that tended to show a 


general agency af said flm. The anly Ruthority cAnf erred on 
the fim by the lease vns to receiTC rent, nerrlce of a written 
notice of eeneellntion. and surrender of the keys. But the 
lease conferred no other special pever and no generol ttfieney* 
Ihe specific power* of ajgenoy referred to did net preauaiptiTely 
earry with thosi the power to cancel the lea&e. ( Robinson t. 
Henaghan . 92 111. App., 620; eanlan t. H'^erth. 151 Id. 563.) 

«• think the court pr'^perly rejected the offered 
«Tidene« hb haring no tendenr^y to prore the exercise of tha 
right to cancel the leARe, end no wairer of its provisions hy 
plaintiff or estoppel against his in enforcing its proTieiiena. 
Accordingly the Judgsient will be af finned. 

Gridley and Mattliett* SJ,, o<mettr« 



179 - 2595i\ 



\ . / } aHCb'XT ccwn. 


fc»J C6T0B iilOm OF CHZSaGO, / ) COOK COUSIT. 

Hb eorper<;ti«n, \ y* 





&21I.A-. 64 3 

AppcllftBi brnueht nn Rciion ef trespasB for f <«lee 
iaprisonnent '*Bd Asssalt. Ihere was an instraoted Terdiot 
and JudiSTseni for enata in fsTor of appellee. '><nse one bad 
abandoned & child is appellee* e department store « and oae 
Kiss Jones, appointed »a a apeelal police officer of the 
City of Chicago to servo at appellee's store among other 
places, while in said store in discharge of her official 
duties, sceoated plaintiff and nslced her if she was present 
when the abandensent took plaoe, and tn go «ith her to the 
■anager of the store, who, meeting them on one of the floors, 
requested them to came to his office in the Inilding, where 
he interrogated appellant se to her name, femily, sddrees 
and identity. There was nothing in the evidence tending to 
•haw thi^t she did net voluntarily comply vith these requests, 
or thet she vas under any restraint, or thnt any force waa 
exercised to d^^tain her. On the contrery, her own evidenoe 
tended to show that she made no objection to sudi requests 
but voluntarily complied therewith and freely answered the 
questions asked. There being no evidence tending to show 
ffilse imprisonment or assault we think the verdict for 


app«llee wna properly InBtruetcd. The sere faot* If it was faet, 
as testified to by plaintiff, that the officer tapped or took hold 
of her arm when the request for aji InterTiew wna Bade was not 
sufficient of itself* unsupported! by any other evidence of force 
or intentina to use it, to constitute p^n assault or unlawful re- 

However t ewen if th« evidence showed a tendency to 
prove an ass&nlt or frtlse isprisonaent by s&id officer yri the 
evidence is undisputed ih»t said officer wns not in the employ 
of defendant, and, therefore, not being its servant or agent the 
doctrine of respondeat superior ia not applicable to this e«s«« 
There was no evidence tending to show said officer was in any 
way subject to the orders or control of np ellee's manager or 
api^ellee or that said Banagrr or appellee oi^erteok in any way 
to exercise any such control over said officer on the oceasiea 
in question. The ssthoritles are so uniforai on this subject that 
it so&s» unnecessary to cite thesi. 'e think, therefore, the court 
was Justified in the abseaoe of eny tf>adeney in the evidence to 
support the declamtiott to direct a verdlet for plaintiff. 
Aoeordiagly the Judement will be af finned. 

Oridley and Matchett, JJ., concur. 










TO«S Oy CICSRO, \ f -s -r /t 

a ■asieipal eftrpttkf^iioB*/ ^ O 1 1 Pa 


Thie is ft ottit brought to ree«T«r dAsngcts for personai 
injuries r«c«lv«(t by appellee vhile riiing -.6 a ^est is an 
«ato-tntck on nne af appellsnt's streets* The evtieaee tends %n 
stew that the track ran into a depreseiea al<»ng a ear rail in 
ike street ceasing it ta tarn etrnr nad fi^ll en plaintiff. The 
action ie predicated on the failure of npnellaat to keep said 
•treet in a proper state ef repair. The appeal is frosB a Judg- 
■est entered in farer of plaintiff for t4«50O. 

The first point is that th« notice serred npon 
appellant w>^.8 insuft ieient in th t it f nils te atate the time 
of the accident oorreRtly« the plaee definitely, end the nane 
of the attending phyaieian. Ihe notice designated the time as 
"ab'vt e o*eloek p. ■•* of the date of the Hccident, the plACO 
as "48th .TOMM aenr iost 17 th . treat »" and the name of the 
attending physician as 'Or. T. : • Hoed," giving his address. 
The tiaie as s«om to ar.s as late aa "along abo«t hoivoen threo 
and four o'clock in the afternoon,' hat the witness being 
nnable te give the apeeifie hoar. 

^hile est 17th street we net cut thrnugh 48th 
aTonno the curbing showed where they wnild intereeet, and the 
OTidenoo tended te shew thr t the aecident took pl&ce ne^xr thnt 
point. It also tended te ehow thct the firat phyaieian attending 


plnlntlff ftfWr th« ftecldaat »»• a Or. Neod aAd hla fmlimuam, 
aad th»t the then ottoriMy f«r def «ad«iit • «he also eenctactedi 
th« d«f«ns« • r«da with apt)«llee froa tha office of Br. Hond, 
tdi«r« app«ll«e reoeivcd first ftid» to ths hospital uteere he was 
taken and later eared for by oUier phyeieiaas. It further 
appeared th?;t appellant's engineer snd two of its police of fleers 
were et Uie scene of the accident within an hr^r «if its happeninc* 
sad that the engineer teak sieasareamits of the hole into «hi^ 
the eri'lt'nee t^nds to show the truok ran. There wks no attosyt 
to ^o« that appellant «bs nisled or prejndieed ^ say ais- 
representation or iadcfiai tenets in the notice. On the eontrnry, 
knewledce of the tiae sad place, and of the first atteadias 
physleisa cose to its »eents »etiag ia the preaises within the 
▼ery h^mr of the aocideat and the facts were iaveetifated, ia 
pert ' t* OToa hefore said notiee wne served, ^e think 
there is no Jast grouad for eoaplaiat as to the aaffieieaoy of 
the aotiee ander saeh eire«»staac«a. It s^ pears th- 1 dr. Hood 
did not testify aad th<it doetors who later attended r«ppeliee ia 
the hospital did. Bat that has no feaariag, ia oar iadiBaeat, 
apon t^e saffideaey of the no ioe. Ho cnaplalnt is aade that 
appellsat did aot ka«w or eoald aot asieertain «!iio these physioiaas 
were sad «4iat they kaea '^f the ease, ^^s well as all the ether 
eireunataaaes otteadiaig the aecident. 

the adaisaioa of photc^raphs parportiag to be those 
of the pl»ce nt the seoideat is eeaiplalaed of. The elaia ie that 
the evideaee did aot show who took thea, aor the eoapeteaoy of 
ths photegrspher, aor the place shore or tlac whea they were tafeea, 
aor that they were takaa aader eoaditioaa like those existiag at 
the tiae of the Koeidoat. There was erideaoa that the photogrspha 
vere oorreet pieiares of the pl&ee of the aeeideat at or about the 
tiMi it happened. Oaa of appellaat*s polio«aMi« laekiag at tha 


photographc aaid, *th»t Ib the ray it looked there. They were 
eerreot plcuiree «f the atreet »t that point*" Two ether 
witneseea testified to sttbstaBti&lly the state thing. Thia wee 
auffieieat ta warrant the a<teia8ien of the photograjiia. 

Appellsni elaine that the evidence show* that the 
aecident w^» the reimlt of the negligent nn^ f nat drirlnfc of 
the truck and not ncceeearlly the condition of the street, and 
therefore ita negligence* If any. sua not the prexjauite c oaa* 
af the accident. The OTidenee waa ao conflicting on thia 
point ea to n»]Be the question one particularly for a Jury* and 
«• cannot aey Uiett the Terdict vea aguinst the preponie ranee 
of the evidence. 

It ia alao urged that beeanae the proof sheas plain- 
tiff waa "riding" and not *drivinfr," ae allege-i in the 
declaration, on the street in i^estion, there «6S a T»rieao« 
hetwaea the proof a end the deel^rotion. ^e do not find that 
Uiia point wss raiaed nt the trial, and hence is net open t« 
censider&tion here even if audi a Yariaaee wmald he deeaad 

Certain given instruetieaa are coaplained of as 
error without designating ia what particulars. e havea 
hawever, exavined them and do net tfcink they constitute 
revereible error. indiag no reTeralble error we affina the 


Qridley and Katchett. JJ., concur* 

211 • 2^983 


SHUT Ktmeztlf^ mtmi6tim»m 
called ^riei KeB»a, 

\ A9p«lltte« 



•t al., \ / 


} COOK cnoif T, 



221 I. A, 6 ' 

KR. ensBiQim justice sAmas 


Thlo ftpp«al is tvtm a JudgmeBt of $1250,00 for 
pvraeaRl injuries rco«iTed by appellee (the plaintiff } trem 
a oolliaioB with am of appellantn' street eara. 

AVpellaats emttend that the Tsrdict is egainet 
tha olear prependeranae af Ute evidence in that it sho«a that 
tha ear was propelled at moderate apeed while approaching 94th 
•treat, Chicsgo, where tiM aecidest took place, with the exer- 
•ice of ordin&ry oare by the Botoman to awoid danger, aaA 
that laintiff w«8 lOiilty of oontribuvtury negligenee. Ca 
both points the evidence, as is not uBusual in uuch c,-».*es, 
vas conflicting, there was evidence fr^* «hloh a Jury Mit^t 
have decided the ease either way. But the evidence is so 
ansatisf ftctory on what w« dees the aain point in controversy 
that while we fael the Jttd«neat should not stsad we slae 
think that the plaintiff was wrongfully prevented fr^ puttiag 
la full evidence oa that point and henee the eaitae should be 
reaanded far a new trial. 

The accident happened on Hovecber 10, X9X!>, at 
about 7 p. m, in an open country where 94th street, a dirt 
'•fid running east and west, crosaes the westerly or south 
bound track on which appellants* oar was running, i Isintlff 
•as going vest, and the ear struck the rear end of hie wagon. 


Uir«»iB« it im its aid* sad plaintiff «iid the hor«« to tlit 
groitBd. The cTidea** ladicu^tes thnt c/^eh T«talel« vnu •• 
liC)tt«d as to be Tioible to oii« driTia^ ilto ot^r «■ etnAk 
ayproa^od the oroB8ia«(; thot ploiatiff omXA li»v« »««» tp 
tlM Borth wbcre t^e •lur turnod frmt 93>rd 8tr««t to ^o to 
$4th otr«<t - « diatsnoo of obnut 7f^ feet • nad VRnt Xim 
MitonMUi should hsvo bssn able to o«e tho ll^ht on tb« «sc«a 
for o diotftAOO of »t loiist tvtm 2^0 to S5Q fceij thAt plsln* 
tiff did not Actually soo tho tmr until too hnd ttbmi rosoliod 
Ito trsok« iriMn ho thought it vito shoat hslf o bloek awsjr* 
but whon it w*ie probobXy loso, for h« then httrriad hio horo* 
into ft trot but wee unsbXe to eXear the tr«t«k snd (KTold tho 
oollioioa. '%iIo evidoBoo os to tho A<^sd of tho osr* irtiioli 
roaged f roM s to 30 blIXos »b h ur «• ths ear si^prsssliod ths 
tMifOli* Uioa«h probsbly o^oll within these oxtrowso. hadi » be«f* 
iB« r>n tho prineipol <^OBti<« of irtaothor the aotonun hed his 
car under proper control ot tho tins ftnd pl»oo, ao ttn<wootioB* 
ably vas hio duty* yet so «o Tio« tho «Yld«nee tho rosl rttteotion 
for the jnry to deteraiae mf^n, »e f^r ua the ohctrgo of neglig^noe 
ess eonoernod, ohotbsr tho atotormsa should not hsTO s»«a ths 
9T, niuktoTor ito speed, in tiae to hftv« :»>v«rted sn tiQcideat 
si that pi "CO «ad theroffMro b«l'or« the tiwi idton he iKctasUy 
pat on the brakes • 

On* of plaintiff* «itnossst< hdd testified tn ths 
fast that ^Ma otondiag in tho front vostibalo of tho oar 
Mar the aotormaa he owe ths wagon sad the aot«ra«a wbs lorklnc 
tlassiMro sad poniittia« tho 'or to RHlntMia a high rate of 
<^ed up to tkw tias shon «ith«^t arail ho pat 9* tho brakeo. 
Iht tho toetiwmy of this vitaeoo «ao very ttaoatiofROtory aad 
ftadorod still aoro on by ths ruliafs of tho eourt. In one 



rimw of hie «Tid«no«, which the Jury a&y h&Te taken* th« neter* 
MA veuld hare seen the berse sni w&gon nuBT or t the crossing 
in asple tlaw to hsTe ATOided the collision hsd he not Ijeea leok> 
ing in s different dircetiem. Bat on eros» exeainntion he was 
led to Stay that &t that tiae the ear w&b 250 feet tram the eross- 
ing ajsd the vsgon 400 feet east thereof • an ieprohahle et«t«t of 
f&ots frflv eT«ry view of the etaee. this vitnesi.^ evinced great 
eenfusioa* if not obtuseness* in the course of hie exassinr.tien, 
«• is illuetrated by the fact th»t the effort to obtain from 
hla his understanding of the direction the car woa goinj; when it 
turned from 95rd street to 94th street took three P^ea of the 
stenographer's transcript, lie made Tarious contntdictory state- 
vents as to directions, indicating either th^tt he di;} not knov 
thea, or th&t he was so confused or obtuse th»t he did net under* 
stand the ideations, «hieh »er«? not always sufficiently clear* 
and vere eo freely interspersed with mmerous teehnio&l objections 
and cfltanents of enansel th«it it is not surprising that so»e eon- 
fusion resulted, ^hmtit however, plaintiff's counsel, who had not 
previously exanined the vritness on the point nf the distanee of 
the wagon froai the cros^iing when he first observed its light, 
undertook on redirect exjciiination to question the witness with 
respect thereto - it being apparent that he could not sMar. what 
he had said • he was precluded by the court frox doing so. Plain- 
tiff's counsel persisted, over defendants' obJ(>ati»ns« upon his 
right to pursue such exioairu^tion, but to no avail* Had the ei^rt 
pensitted such excBtination seme of the incou^ruitieo of hie 
tcBtimony Might have di&appeared. The teetiaeny of this witness 
was issportent, if not oecesuary, to plaintiff's cukc. But wbile 
its incongruitiee are such that we do n'»t think the Jury wjb 
fully warranted in accepting the interpretation put upon his 
teetiaiony in appellee's nvcMwat, and t)uit therefore the ^ud^MBt 

y.-.-c^ nrt^f^'n Sob- 9in0i& vsU «*»« •r«cf blfpt^^ turn 

■■•■a S«l«& ^e*^'^ ■.'i-tUf-f; *!-siJ- 

■a'sjfc Irtcce ao-sl feitf: 
■;> OS. 5>-*- a^ i^i^ilf ^o ■ ,1-- 

r>««{; JOS ti. ^tnai'SMU^ 


csnnot stand, yet we alee think that 'by rese'^n of th« oonrt*s 
improper rulioga upon defendants' objections* this witness ?>&« 
provented froa fully «lueidaling the te&tifeony he h^^^d ^iven oa 
cross cxjGinin«;tion« and therefore it wnuld be unjust tn appelie* 
in this »t&te of the reoord ie> enter & jucignent here finding 
tho faets adYerseXy to him. 

Accordingly «• think the Judgment sh<^ld he reTereed 
and the octuse remanded for a nee trial* -md that vill he the 
order of this court. 

Sridley and Mate^ett, JJ.« eoncur. 

u.vf■^^ «iri^ to Ts;- 

214 - 


• e«rpor«tiany 



If /A HOiaiICK, 




: Appfellimt. 



221I.A. 644 

This record contslna no bill of estceptiena. Hence 
aaeigBBi«at» ef rrror relating to eTidenee aa<i ether aiatiere not 
preeerved hgr a bill of crxoeptiMis* iaclttdia^ BOiioBEs for a 
new trial said in arrest ef Jad^neat ( People ▼• Cowen . ^3 111* 
308; CeaTJeaienere . eto » ▼. Carrolj .. 395 id. 482) eaaaet be 
eonei'iered by ne; oAd, too, aa the triel was vlth^ut » Jury 
the ■etion for e nev trial, if preeerredlii «aald present n» 
^cetiea for review. ( Cltaiex Tim: Co . v. Aaericftp tm. Co .. 
234 Id. 179.) 

Snt the point raieed by appellant whether the etete* 
■•at of olalB is aoffioieat to support the Juigaeat, cbb be 
reTieved *ith<nit a bill ef exeeptione ( igpyd t. .^nduataf . 203 
111. 621; Orand Pacific Hotel Co. v. linkertoa . 217 14. 61, t«) 
uader the f«e iigoaeat of error thet the jadpieat is contrary 
to lev. 

The first stat«ai«nt vss strickea oa aetifm, appareatly 
beesaec it did aot Bt«te e eoasid9rAtiea for the «£reeeent saeA 
oa. In Its Mieaded etsteaent of rlaiv plaintiff attempted to 
state • eeasideratioa bat maaifestly felled , 

Ihe etateseat of elciia. ee eBeaded. is predicated on 
th« elaia ef aa alleged ooatract of eaplejnaeat whereby defsndeat 


WH8 14 p«reh«8« for plaintiff end the standard Voter Cer Coaipany 

oertf^in fix.tMrrtB t-X *vii KVtciien siale, bikJ ihr t he purch»eed m% 

eucb ssle '-61 f«et of partition fixtare« nt ^l,Oh a foot; that 

he thereafter delivered to plaintiff SO feet thereof, and to the 

Standard Votor Car Con^any also 00 feet, for which they "nlloved* 

him ^C, an4 that he refused to deliver to ttaeB any cere of said 

fixtur c; thfit the market v&lae of i^he atmie was £^412; that the 

Gt/wdfiTd Motor Car CflRpjMsy Jxsa ea^lgnsd to pluintifi ftll its 

righte and intereeta in the transaction, and plaintiff aeke that 

after allowing defendant aaid ^60, and I379.0& adrancod by hS« 

in pajment of the fixtures, plaintiff be allowed a Jud^pient for 

11972.95. A Jud^aeat for $1M6.94 was given* 

In the amended Btatement of claix the alleged con- 

siderntion is stated as follows: 

"That said esplojfment w»8 in coneid^ration of 
the foregoing Hrr»nge»ente concerning said engine, 
&nd dlBO in oenuidrrftinn of the plaintiff i&nd said 
.^taadsrti isotor Car Coaipaay agroKing with defendent 
to repay to hia prsBptly, whatever nonoys he ah^^ld 
advanee for the purohaBe of the pmperty whioh he 
sight purah9i;e st said auetion sale; and plaintiff 
also expected to pay the def&ndant sosie fair cob- 
pensation for his aerwioos." 

The "foregoing arrangements concerning s&id engine* 
thus referred to, aa previously stated in the pleadinca, were 
that prior tn s«id euetion a^le "defendant h vd purchased of 
plaintiff an engine located in a plane of husinese oecupiod hy 
plaintiff &s lessoo. aad the plaintiff at defendant** rec««est 
kad allowed oald engine to reiMin where it was in said plaee 
■tors^e frje." There is nothing in suoh "foretroing arrangoaenU" 
ttut constituted considerKtioa for the transACtion in (^estioa. 
9k»j aere a aero gratuitous bailment, preounably - frOM the 
■tateaent • a p^rt of another conpleted! transaction. 

The second part of the &llege<l consideration is that 
defendant was to be repaid "presiptly* whatever aoneys he shnuld 


advaaee In tbt purchae? af tkm property; In oth^r sords, paid 
b»ek bia em noDcy. But the 8t«t«Beat of claias does not nlla^t 
that Mtth Koney has baen rapaid or evas tendered* On the eoa^ 
trary. It expreaaee plaintiff's ▼>lllingn<>8s merely to allev leos 
than defendtait had paid for ensch part of the s«ode «» he seemed 
willing te let plaintiff end lie aaeoeiate here. Neither of these 
allegetione Rtnie^ n eonsi'^eretion wnvvinr, te the defendant or 
•ny benefit conferred upon him* K^9n if he e«re?«i te purchase 
the property for pliintiff we see nothing, in the eheenee of eny 
eoDBldorstl'v te support an a^reenent eo to de, to prerent de- 
fendfiBt, having used hie own Koney, to elaiaa title to the goods. 
If they were hie there %as no cenTerwion of then, nnd, therefore, 
no hasia for the eetiMi* 

fith respenet to the alleged eonsideration that plain- 
tiff "expected te pay the defend'«nt eORe fair oaRpene»tien for 
hie aerriees.* it is enough te any that is Quite different fron 
a premise or aicreesient te pay hist for his eer¥loes% 

As the st&tMMnt of elaisi, in the attesipt to set forth 
a eOBSiderati«« for the alleged contrHct. indle«itei2 thst there 
whB no eensidcrntion therefor, eonstruing it wist atrietly 
sgainet the pleader, it dees not set forth a legal esuee of 
action and, therefore, the Judgvent aust be reTersed. 

Grldley end liateheti* JJ., eaoeur. 

226 - 25998 


Appellee « 



Appell«i|t./ i^ ^ i ioK® ^ 


This action is predicated en the charge that defendaat 
so negligently operated an electric ear in which plaintiff 
(appellee) was a ps^ssenger that it "gave a sudden and violent 
jerk" causing her to be thrnwn to the floor of the oar and 

That plaintiff fell in the car was not questioned. 
The Tital question of fact for the Jury to detexnine was 
liiether, if her fall was caused by a Jerk of the car at all* 
the Jerk was unusual. On this point we think the werdict is 
manifestly against the preponderance of the eTidence, and will 
briefly state our reasons* 

It is undisputed that the train consisted of two 
ears, a siotorear and a trailer or "sneker" behind it; that the 
■eteman was in the front restibule of the former and the 
conductor at his station between the two cars, standing with 
•ne foot OB the open platfom of the smoker, and the other 
in the passage leading to the motorcar, where he operated the 
gates to let passengers on and off, and that those in the 
motor-ear hud to leaTe at its rear end and could not get off 
from its front end. Plaintiff's only witness to the occurrence, 
beside herself, said he was not in the first car aor in the 


aaoker, but admitted that no one could get off at the froat end 
of the first ear. She testified that she was in the first ear 
sad fell do«n "near the frent door vdiere you haTe to get off,* 
sad that the conductor also wbs standing nt the front door ■> 
sn inpost-ihle place for hin to perfom his duty ft the gates. 
In Tiev of the great preponderaace of evidence establishing the 
fact that plaintiff vas in the first car and prepariag to get 
off the sasie at its oaly exit* namely, in the rear, the Tersion 
giren hy plaintiff sad her witness w&s asnifestly incorrect, 
.^ile her recollections may hare been confused by reason of the 
accident it is difficult to account for his STidence, if he was 
actually there . The f net that he agreed with plaintiff ia a 
manif > stly erroaeous Tereioa impairs the probatire Talue of his 
testimony, especially as it appears that hia nenie was not taken 
as a witness, th;>t he knew no one in the ear nt the time, th»t 
he neyer saw plaintiff until within three months of the trial • 
fifteen months aaf ter the occurrence •> and then met her through 
the solicitation of her hashand who claimed to hare learned of 
his presence ia the ear at that late day Knit in a way unsatis- 
factorily explained. His tentimony, on which plaintiff was wholly 
dependent for corroboration^ cannot be deemed rery reliable under 
such circumstances, especially when contradicted by that of three 
ether disinterested witnesses and the testimony of the conducStr 
and motorman, all of vAiose Tersione conform to the physical facts 
of the case • 

The three passengers thus testifying gsre their names 
•ad addresses at the time aad sosm of them wrlttea statements of 
the facts shortly afterwards. Two of them stood in the reaH end 
of the first car aear irtiere plaintiff fell, and one stood en the 
•pen front platform of the smoker. Saeh saw her fall, gave a 
siailar descriptiea of the manner of it, aad were positire that 

there vas no Jerking nf the ear or unusual aOTenent of the train. 
Sren plaintiff** witness en croae exanination said that he obserTed 
nothing unuaual ahnut the aiotinn of the ear until he heard her 
"heller" at the tiiae of her falling, which, of course, v"3 after 
the time of the alleged Jerk. 

la describing her fall the three passengers testifying 
for defendant said in turn t>f<t *her kneea gare way and she fell 
backwards putting her hand down to get supnort;" that '^she seemed 
to drop down;" that "plaintiff kind of stooped down and then went 
to the side to the floor;** that "she stooped as she fell," sitting 
down on her knees uid going over to her left side. It appeared 
that plaintiff had an exopthalmic goiter, one of the symptoms of 
which is a tendency to weakness of the knees and of the muscles 
which become flaccid. These witnesses* description of her falling 
seems to hare been consistent with such symptons. 

The motorman also testified that the equiiwent of tho 
Car was such that in applying and shutting off the electric power 
no Jerking would occur. But wr find n- thing in the eridence to 
indicate any unusual Jerk or mOTement of the oar, neglect or want 
of care in its operation. If the mOTement he<d been unusual it is 
strange all the ether numerous passengers standing in the ear 
preparatory to getting off should not hare fallen or so staggered 
as to make it noticeable to more than one passenger in the car* 

Authorities upon actionable negligence from the Jerking 
of an electric ear are to the effect that it being an incident to 
the method of transportation, the Jerking or lurching or stopping 
of the Car must be unusual to Justify the inference ot negligence 
or carelessness in its operation, and thst it is not enough to 
proTe a mere "Jerk" and an injury therefrom, or to characterize 
it as "violent" or "sudden" or by a similar term; but that there 
■ust be proof of siitch attcndaat circumstances as support and 

decisions of this court, ( C, & A« ■<» R. Co. t, Means, 48 111, 
App., 396; Ch, Un« Tr. Co. ▼, Ugokstein , 136 Id., 389) and aro 
obserTed generally in ether Jurisdictions. Bollinger ▼• Inter* 
urbsn St. Hy, Co ., 98 M.Y,S.,641; So. Hy, co » ▼, Morwood, 186 
Aln., 49; gwing t. <riehlta Hd. & Light Co ., 91 Kan. 388; 
Dawson T. Md. Klec. Rys. Co. , 119 Md. 373; oo. Coy. & Cjn , 
at. Ry. Co. , T. Trowbridge , 163 1^. 79; Work ▼, Bos. £1. Hy. 
Co., a07 Mass., 447; Ottlnger t. Detroit United Ry .. 166 Hieh. 
106; Babbitt t. United Kys. Co. of St. Ltmis. 169 Mo. App., 
424; Connor t. Wash. Ry. A e:. Co ,, 43 App. D. C, 329. 

'/e shall not attenpt to review the authoritlos* 
It is enough to refer to then for support of the doctrine, the 
gist of which is that the proof nust be such as to indicate 
that the jerk, lurching, or swaying of the ear was unusual. 
Such is not the proof in this chbco The Judgment will be 
rerersed with a finding of fact. 


Crridley and Matchett, JZ., concur* 


?.?6 - 25998 


We find that appellee* The Jfetropolitan est Side 
Blevated r.ail«ay C<aipany« did not earelessly or negligently 
run* Kanagea operate, conduct or control the car in question 
and that appellee's injuries were not caused by any unuAtal 
jerk or moveaent of said car. 


192 • 25964 

\ Appellee a 


irualeipul oorpnriitl^n. 




I 221 

T A 



IMa la an aetian in aesmipeit cofanienced in the 
Saperlor Court •f Caok County on NeTember 15, 191d, by /vbrosa 
?• Heda far the recovery nf snl.^iry claimed ta be due hia aa 
fire Barehal of the Invn of Ciesro, in Conk Cnunty, Illinois, 
fraa Hay 1, 1918 to August 20, 1918. ilaintiff'e deelr-rAtinn 
eeneieted of the eo?<i?non eounta, to which vaa attached a copy 
of a resolution, clained to have been adopted on September 5, 
1916, by the board of trustees of s.-id lown of Cicero, "thfit 
the president and town elerk he and they are hereby directed 
ia isstte wurrante on the town treasury frafe the aevernl fttnds, 
and that the treasurer be and he ia hereby directed to pay the 
SMie far the following amnunte, as SHlaries due the following 
peraons: * • « a. k. Hede, froa Vay 1 to /oagust 20, 1918, 
$583.33, • • .* The defendant filed a plea of the general 
issue, aceoHpanied by an affidaTit pf defense, made by its town 
elerk, setiinfc up in substance as defenses (a) th^t between 
the dates above mentioned plaintiff if»a not employed in any 
office or position by said 'lown of Cicero, (b) that between 
said dates plaintiff did not render any aervicee to or for 
said Town, (c) that prior to Uay 1, 1918, plaintiff was re- 
■OTsd froB the office of fire auirahal by the president of 
the board of trustees of said Town, (d) th^t dvring the period 


for whleh plaintiff seeks to reeoTer aalary the duties af the 
effiee of fire Bi&rshal were perfumed by one Qeorge Bsrthels 
to mhom the salary appropriated for aaid office or pesition 
was paid, and (e) that plaintiff never *&« an officer de jnr^ 
of said Te«n. By agre«>B<?nt the eeuae vas tried before the 
court with-Hit a Jury, resulting in a finding of the issues in 
faTor of plaintiff and assessing hie damages fit the sub of 
$559.70, upon which finding Jud^sent for aaid sua was entered 
on October 21* 1919 against defendant and thia appeal followed, 
lo qaestioB ia raised as to the amount of the finding aad 

JPlaintiff *8 eTidenee eemelsted of his own testimony 
and th&t of several other witnesses and certain docuaentary 
OYldence. At the eleee of plaintiff's ease the attorney for 
defendant aeved for a finding in ita favor, but the aetien was 
Aenied. lio eTidenoe was offered oo behalf of defendant. 

It appears froa plaintiff's evic'^enec in aibstanee thist 
at a reipilar aeeting of the bot^d of trustees of the Town of 
Cicero, held en April 2b, 1911, plaintiff, by unsniaoua vote ef 
the truatees present, was appointed fire aarahal fer the Be«B« 
the appeiBtaeat to take effect on Say 1, 1911; th^^t he entered 
upon his dutiee and continued to act as and perfora thf duties 
ef the poaiiioB until Vay 1, 1919; that during all of this 
period he received hia re^ilsr salary frea the town, excepting 
frfla v.tky 1, 1918 to ;\nguet .:0, 1918; that his salary for the 
aeath of April 1918 waa ^180; that he did not receive any pay 
fer 19 days in /tuguet 1918, but received i:^- days pay for that 
aoBth on the basis of 1175 a aonth; that on April 9, 1917, a 
oede ef ordinanees whs duly a teptcd; that by seetioa 841 ef said 
cede it is provide (i that the fire departaent ef 8»ld tewa shall 
consist of a fire aarahal and sueh nunb^r ef asaiataats, englaeera, 

• 9- 

plpeaen, trucloBen, uid other firmen as the tewn board sa7 fr«a 
time to tiae direct; thai by eeetlon 842 of said code it is 
proTided th .t "all nembers of the fire department shnll be 
appointed by the beard of tmsteee* ♦ • "• that at s sesting 
of the board of trusteos of said Town held on April 22, 1918, 
the then preeident of s'aid Itnm presented » noffijuanication to 
•aid board to the effeot th;^t he had disch'^irged certain niwed 
persons, including plaintiff ns fire aarshal, froir: their re- 
spectiTe officer nr caBploynente, and had declared said offices 
Taeant; thut thia action of the pre,iiident » e not aoquiaeeed 
ia by a Majority of the aetren aoBbjjrs of the board of traatees; 
th^t fol loving th« neetinfr three of the- members called on plain- 
tiff ond told hia the president had attcfipted to dier.hargs him 
froH hia position as fire narshAl, th^.t the board hod not t^r^ei 
to his dischArgo, and thut he ehould crmtioue in hie position 
sad perform his duties; that on the folloviag dey a fourth member 
•f said board called upon plaintiff and told hia thst • aajerity 
of the board did not balicre tJtat the president had Authority to 
rmoTe hin froa his position and advised hin to etay on the Job 
and eaetinae to perfora hie duties; th« t en or about U».y 1, 1913, 
plaintiff receiTOd a letter purporting to be ai^ed by the then 
president of the town board ac follows: "By virtue of the paver 
sad Ruthority vested in ae ns president of the Tovn of Cieera, 
you are hereby reaovcd frwi the office of fire varehal of the 
town of Cioero, — this reaoval to tuke offert at once"; that 
f el laving the receipt ef said letter plaintiff, acting upon tho 
inetmctinae given hia by the f mjr sewbers of the board s «fare- 
said, continued to uc\ aa fire aaralkal and to perfora the duties 
of the position during SHid period sading August ?.r, i918, on 
which dpte he rf.ceived another latter from the then president of 
•aid lava to the effect that said preaideat had appointed hia 


fire msrahnl. - the wppointeient to b«o(«M effeotive at once; 
that durlBK »ald period f ro« Kay 1. WIS to August ac, 191,3, 
y» performed the usuiti duvies of fire aarohal, «tten<S«d flroa, 
directed the noYmMats of flrenen, latmed Instmctloas to his 
•asietaota and ordered 9upi)llee, etc.; that on :ieptert»<>r h, 1918, 
at & regular Meeting of the hoard of trasteea of aald Town, eaid 
trueteea by a Tote of four ta three duly adopted the reeolutlou 
flrat ahoTo «entinaed. vherehy the preatdent of the hoard aa« 
the town clerk were directed to lasue wftrrauta oo the tavn 
tressury fraai the aeveral funds aad the treasurer *aa direoted 
to pay certala aalarlea to Tarloua persona. Including the anlary 
af plaintiff for a Id porlnd from feay 1, 191S to ugust 3<", 1918, 
\nt thrt such warrant waa ne'rer issued regarding plaintiff *a 
aalary for aaid period and th«t ha iMYer reeeired asid aalnry. 

Varlona points are here Biada end argued hy e<^unael 
for the defcadaat aa grmtada for a reveraal ef the Jud«ment. e 
hare considered thCK aa well a» the aereral eendaans crises cited. 
Ho useful purpose will be aerred by a diaeuaalon of the points, 
or af the eaaas vhleh «e deea Inepplieable to the facts disclosed 
in the present roeord. Juf lee it to say that in our opinion 
the finding and Judgsient of the trial ourt were right, i Iain- 
tiff coBKenced to (^c% hb fire m«rshnl for the lown in l;ay, 1911, 
baving been duly appnlnto't to that position by the board of 
trustees, and eontlaueci to perfona the duties of his of floe sad 
reeelre salary for his senrlces for a period of aerea years, up 
ta Hay 1, 19ia . Ab'vt thla tlB>e the president of the Toa« 
atteapted to reaove froa his position, agnlnat the wishes of a 
■sjorlty of the board of trustees, by iriileh body he hud been 
•PPOluLed. The indirlduals cnnporilng said aajorlty of the beard 
directed hla to stay In hla poaltlon and he did ao during the 
Psrlod In Tueatlon. froa May 1, 191t^ to Auguat 2r, 1910, con- 
tinuing to perform hia datiaa aa fire aarahal. It does not 



•ppaar tli»t aay etlutr person during said period received any 
•alary its fire mrsluil. On ^Suguat 2r, 1918, it appears that for 
soaie reKSoa net diaclosed, tlM president of the Tpvn (the •«■» 
iBdiTiduA^l «ha ae president h»d attempted to rtmore his fron his 
poeibion} was willing that plniatiff thereafter act ae fire 
aarshal, and plaintiff continued so to net aatil ISay 1, 1919, 
reeeiTiag his ea-lnry trnm Aagust 20, 1918 to Key i, 1919. But 
plaintiff did not recelTe his salary for the period hetneen i/ay 
1, 1918 aad mgAn% 20, 1918, and on eptesber 5, 1918, the heard 
of trustees at a regular meeting passed the resolution abore 
nentionsd proTiding for the psynent of plaintiff's salary for 
said period, but said salary vas not thereafter paid to hist and 
he brought this action. =e think that under the pcettliar foots 
shown htt was entitled to recover in this fom of action. 
Ttw judgxent of the >Hiperior Court is sffinsed. 

Barnes, P. J., and Matehett, J,, eononr. 

205 - 2S977 

sues horvitAbba fOJimtf 

KOHVItZ, tr»dl|lg «a 
Horritz Brothers, 


ft corporation. 


oy cHiCAao. 

21 I.A. 644 


flalRtiffs med defendsat in eoatri^t in the Municipal 
Cmirt of Chiofigo ia r«ea?«r dimases for defendant's r«fa8»l to 
aeeept upoa arriTal ia <• cnr «»t liev Orleaaa, Lfluletana, 34,i^C0 
peaade of red onioas sold to it nt #S per eat. VJ«fend»at pr^iptly 
notified plaiatiffs of the non«ae ceptanee of the onions, an4 
plaintiffs thereafter sold them at l»ew Orleana and ah^rgcd de- 
fendiiat with the dif feranee iMtaeea the eontraet price and the sua 
realised st the sale. It «a» stipulated on the trial that this 
diff«reaee amounted to #697.79. Defeadant's defense, -<e stated 
la its eff IdaTit of aerits, ««t9 that it «hs n"t indebted to plain* 
tiffs in any ooaii thfit it agreed to purchase nf plaintiffs a oar 
of faaey red onions; and thot the onions shipped in the ear "were 
not fancy red enieas, but were onioas in bad eoaditioa* a larfs 
proportion of the aame being heaTily sprouted, while ethers wars 
•oft, autthy or leaking following injury due to freezing.* It 
was also stipulated nn the trial that the cent met between the 
parties was aade on kereh 7, 1919. by telegrue* between a broker 
ia Mew Orleans, acting for defendant, aad plaintiffs, whereby do* 
feadaat ordered, ar:d plaintiffs agreed to ship to defeadaat at 
lew Orieana, a ear of faaoy red onions at $5 per ewt., f,e.b. 
Ksox, Indinna: that oa Mnreh 8, 1919, plaintiffs shipped 24C 
•Be hundred peoad sacks of onions in one cnr frea ?aox, Indiana, 


to d«f9ati«»t at lf«w Crlsens; thnt the ear arrived la Ms* Orleuis 
»B M«reh 15, 1919; ih»i the onions were on the saae day ine|ic«t«d 
by defendnnt nnd refused by it and ploiniiffe aetifl^d; >uad th^t 
the nniOBB ««r« thereafter sold by plnintiffs* broker, V. a, ^ti9b« 
in the opem varket in Ei«« Orleans, e^s sfton »i> pf^nsiblc sn^ for tha 
best pries obtaliuible * lh« cause w^<8 tried before the onttrt 
without a Jury, resvltinf; ia » f India ; nf ib« issues sgniaet the 
plalniiffe sad the entry ef a Jud^aeat Rg»iaet the plaiotiffs for 
costs , tdiieh Judgaent it is aought by this eLppecil to r«>T«!rse. 

The Bftia ceatsntion of enuaael fer plaintiffs is that 
the finding aad judf^eat am a£ain«t the munifeet weight ^f the 
STidenRC. Ihree vitn«s:ie& for plaintiffs testified. Ihey were 
the tvo eeubsra of pliiintiffs* Chicago fir!>3 (whleh «ni4 ewbbagea 
sad onions in l^^rge (|ttantitie» all over the liait«4 ^tHtes and 
Cnaada and had a stor^ige plant at Knox, ladiana) who were »t said 
piaat aad iaspeoted the onions about the tisw they were shipped, 
and tm« ftennicntt, an employe of plaintiffs in charge of said 
plant. Their testiaieBy v^s to the effect th&t the oaioas ««re 
rua OTer a screen aad inspeetr;d before being resacked sad i^ipped, 
sad all bftd eaee picked oat, ^nd that the onions >? finnlly loaded 
m the cf<T aad shipped were "fancy* onionr., in first class c«m- 
dition, free fro?r^ front, and ':aTing no sprouts. It nppeBre thwt 
a •faaey* onion is the hlghett market icrade. sissoa Korritz further 
testified thttt "a fancy onion is: one of good color, good size aad 
free froa sprouts nnd frost; if aa oni'^n bee been frozen rc soon 
as it thawa out it will show it nnd will not he a fancy onion. * 
Two «itnes:Min testified ia open court en behalf of defendant, Tis.: 
l^nMui H. ..egsri, an officer of defondant, and C. J. &as«n, a bnyer 
for a Chieago fira and who for asTeral years had been engaged in 
laspeetinf- perishable caaDsoditieD including onions, iortions of 
the dcpositionB, taken in Kew Orleans, of two other witnesses for 


defezKtant »«re veud in evidence, vis: ^, . tleh, plaintiffs* 
8«w ^rleaae broicer vho fiiutUy tteere sold Uie oqIodb in th« «pmi 
K«rk«t, and >. B. Liat«r, an ioKp^cte'r of fruit and produo* for 
the Q. . Sovenneai. ^ttg&ri teistlfisd* in subatantts* th&t 1m 
inapeeted •«■• of the onioae in differexit parts of the ear 
ixsedi&tely upon tkeir r,rrival in E«« CrloiUBSi tiirt he eat slits 
in the tide of tea or t«elv« shgIcs sad exsvined Uio oniMis tlMrela 
contained; th«t ho "fnaad 8»cks runniag frOH 5 to 15 per oeat 
sproatc'd, 8 to XC p«r cent i;oft» leaky* aBSliy oaiono, ^iod nnother 
10 or 16 per cent Just aboat getting to the @oft stags"; that na 
Uis folloaias d&y* after the eoatoats flf &ho<it 30 hogs of the 240 
hags shipped, taken fros different parte of the c@r, hud hooa 
inaped npon a rlatfom, he Bi«de a eeoad inspeetioa; th&t this 
•eoead iaspectioa ahtmed the entire c^r to oontain oaione "froB 
6 to 10 per eeat soft, leaky and mmhyt and fr«B S to 5 per ecat 
sprouted ■■.a aUith »b> & or 6 inohes*" and th«^t aoa« of the >-»aiotts 
were frozam. uniformly through all tha iwieks; that, eocai^ering 
the adaitted siiaiiHia tesperature enomintered dttria«.: the transit 
in a r«frigerat«r liur of 26 degrees ahove xero, and th« a^sziaRie 
teaperature eae<H:sterod &t 68 degrees, he was of tl^ opinion that 
said oaioBS vore not f rosea during transit; that the onions in 
said ear sere not fancy omiona w <<rn they arrived ia Xe« Crieaas; 
aad tht ia his opinion tltey ooisld not have hesa sueh when shipped 
froB Knox, Indiana, on Cn^rch 8. 1919. ^tich. plaintiffs* broker, 
testified in substance th t he exaained the onions on th« platfota 
•f a reilroba shed on Ktireh 19, 191Q; that they showed decay, aad 
wore heavily sprouted aad generally daai<xged; and that ia his 
Sfinioa they could not have h«en fancy onions when shipped trrm 
Kasz, Indiana. The teetiatony of Lister, the govsraaeat iaspector 
and lAio iaapected the onions on l reh 18th, vna to the seas effect. 
Vl think that the finding aad Judgasnt were aaply eastaiaed by 

iWiO 'li 


the eTidenec* 

It iB «180 eoatendea that the trial ontart erred in 
adBitiing tevtianny as to the condition of the onione upen 
their arriTiel in >:«» nrleiinc. Vh'v Jsrguaient i« in Bubetmnee 
that, infcsaueh £b the c ntract caile-i f«r delivery in a ci»r 
f. o* b. Knox, Indinaa, Um onione b^coae the property of defendant 
D&en they vere there delivered to the carrier, th^t they were ehovn 
by plaintiffa* vitneni^ee to he then "fancy* onions, and that, 
therefore, it was iMnaieriaX what their condition wae when they 
arrived at Hew Orlesne. e dn not think thtst the eeurt erred in 
sdBittiBg this testiaony. The deliT^ry ef the oaiona to the 
carrier &t Knox Indiana, paetied title to the defendant only in 
eoee they eerc of the grade defend-int had agreed to purchase. 
Under the cireomstaneea sho^m defendant had no opportunity to 
inepeet tte onion^^ until after their nrriTal »t He-n ^rle&ns. It 
vss not obliged to oecept other then "fanoy* oniona and «e think 
that the eoaditioa of the onione npotv arri-ral rX Sew <"rleaaa was 
a material fKCt. ( ohiolds v. Reibe , 9 Hi. App. 598, 6f"2; yorbea 
▼ • fauainaky . 1<» ,IX1. App. 17, 21; Imbrif . ▼. tetherbee A Co. . 7^ 
lieh. 1C5. 104.) 

nd we do not think that under the facts and circunetancei 
disclosed any prejudlcirO. error waa cnsasitted by the trial etirt in 
peraitting sane of dcfen-Jent's witnee^iee to answer certain hypo> 
thetieal questions cosiplained of by eounse) • ( ^— e a v. Johns on « 
12 111* App. 286, 2B9,) 

The Judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed. 


Bamea, It, J,, and Matehett, J., concur. 


208 - 29t80 \ 



) APJrBAi. fnm 



221 l.A. 645 

tvo sttparat* actions <^f the fourtJi eleias vera ocnrnttsMd 
la the Kualoipal Cnurt «f Chieeice ^ plaintiff to reeerer ef de» 
fendeat certain iaetallMente of rent claiaed to be due nad unpaid 
under a vrittea lease executed by the parties en Kareh 4* 1916* 
wherein plaintiff leafled to defeadaat a dwelling hnase, knnwn an 
136S Hyde Perk boaleTard. Chic go, for the tens of fear years* 
frea May 1, 1916 to April 50, 1920, at a rental of $75 per aenth. 
Oefendaat took posaeaeion twt ^ring oepteabsr, 1918, abandoned 
the premises, the period for which plaintiff sixight to reco-ver 
rent was ssTen aonths, riz., froa Cctnber 1, 1918 to April 30, 
1919, daring ^ieh tiae the prcadses rea»ined Taeant. Plain- 
tiff prooarec} another tenant on Kay 1, 191^. By agre«»ent Vm 
tvo actions were consolidated and were tried before the court 
«ith<«t a Jury resulting in o finding of the iseaes acaiast de- 
fendant and aesessing plaintiff's daaagee at the sua of $939. 
Judgment wps entered en the finding against defendant in said 
sua and this appeal followed. 

Concurrently with the execution of the leaee plain- 
tiff agreed in writing to aake eertain enumerated repairs on 
the preaisee, aoet of which he node prior to the d<.te defendant 
took poasession. Aaong other repaira he agraed (1) to see that 
the pluabing systea was in good order, (2) to install a toilet 
in the baaaaent, and (5) to build a walk across the grass fr<ai 


Um 8ld«iRilk to the street. tb« lease eontaiaed tfae prorisien: 
"PermissioB giTen to ereet « pertA^le garas* in the r«nr yard 
aad extending partly 1b to open epaee 1»ohind the yard;" and ftlao 
the further proYiaion that the lessee 'hea reeeived tho proBlsea 
in good ordmr sod repair* except es hereon otherwise apeeified 
« • ; and th^t he will keep said preniaes in gOf>d repair • • at 
Ma o«& expense." 

Aa a defense to the present action defeadaat set forth 
in his ssnended affidarit of aierita in suhstanee that, because of 
the f ailare of plaintiff to properly make the repeira shore aen* 
tioaed ea Moa. 1 aad 2» the previses hee«e unsaaitary and untsn« 
aatahle and defendant whs ceaqpelled to» and did, Taeate the pr«ii> 
aes la &>epte8ib«r« 1913, and thnt he «i^s not iadehted to plaintiff 
ia aay sua. 

From the hegianlnf; of the tons of the lesse Uaj 1, 1916 « 
defeadaat paid time aoathly installBents of rent reserred until the 
opriag of 1917, «AMia he refused to pay further rent* olaiaing: that 
plaintiff h»d aot fully perf onsed his agreenent to sake repairs and 
that he had heea refUaed penRiasion to erect the gorags hy othora 
olaiaiag ri^ta ia the open epaee behind the rear yard. I'laiatiff 
thereupon brought an aetioe (aot Uie present »etioa) in the liaaie* 
ipal Cfturt to reeover the rent dae «id defeadaat set up his defeas* 
thereto aa above aentioned. 

%hila this foraer aetimi ims pending the partiea, by 

their respective attoraeys, entered into a aettleaeat agreeaoat 

ia vriting, dnted Jaao 28, 1917, ne followa: 

"(Choreas JOha . Cornell as lesser aad Carl a. 
Biaghaa, lessee, entered iato a lease dated hareh 4th, 
1916, for the proiiaes kaovn ue 1365 i^yde Fark Boulerard, 
aad snid leaao oontaiaed • clmise as follows: *f«missioa 
given to ereet a portable garage in the rear yard and ex- 
tending partly into open space behio') y^rd.' 

" hereaa the lessee elalaa th&t he has been refased 
pensissioa to build a g-irage by others haviag rights ia 



tlM amid npmn «p«c« referred to. <h*rca» tlM l«sa«r 
cIaJLkc tnat he i» Is nt^wi.js li,^bl« fi l«ce«e wnder 
tlw said eluace. ;her«ia8 leuaee claiins thai th«r« 
K.r* esrtaift repairs aM«h l«.» rhnuld mip-ke, aowe 
of « itii l«Bi<or a^reea mad ether he denies th^t is 
liable- fer. 

"Ki?« tiher*ifftrr,. It ir. agreed hetveen tmld lessor 
an4 lassee th&i said lessor shrill and does hereby alio* 
to eaid l«n(t«r the mm rt fine hnKdred fifty-seven and 
40.100 ($197.40) dollrrsa vMeh sua ia accepted by 
Iest3«t« in ftoll of all danages and expenses suataiafjd 
or te be sustaiasd by lesase during t>ie entire tens of 
ssi^ loeo ^r recson of any refasia «r f eilure tft nbtain 
the right to erect the portable garace as conieaplated 
by the p«nsi8eio» ■^ontein«>r^ in 9ai^ lease, '^leq In fall 
sottl — oat of a ll„elaiiBs to da te fo r the ropaira to "be 
mud'j. %y XesKt)? . "The io?sor,~h«>i»T9r, aja^rees tr tint 
vails and ceiling nf the bedroom injured by lefc.k in 
-**^^J thi» s^t 1.1' went to J;«j'!.Vide.!ilL.-laR*€??.,.S^-?.1'J^*"J^ 
by lo s sioo en scc-n^n t of leak t"n rnnt" ^ The other "teriM 
oz"" L'liid lentie tft romain In ?•? 11 force and the atonihly 
rental for balaaoo of tens to b« paid nn la said xesBO 
;»P5joified. Th« sulv in v^nicip"! '~o'»rt, Cornell v. 
Blaghaai, to be dimisaed with'Hit cost; each party to 
pay his avtn coiits.** 

Os Jal> 11* l^l"?! defea^aai vrots plaintiff n letter, 
enelasiag a. caoi ; Tqt 0i far r»Bt for the jr«ntfc of Jnly, 1917» 
«jsd rsyiag that h« **« glad that a. cc«pr«pl«»e hwS beer, effected 
by the attaj>aeys and thi-t it ^k% In a-cc^T^pnoe vlth his deairo. 

Afior Jane <9, 1017» defendant reaeincd in ponseanioa 
(^ the preniscs, mmi cmtiaacd regvlerly to pay the vonthly 
rent of $7fi ttnttl and ln«]&ading -c'ptaei>er, 1916, mhsn to Taerstod 
the prelQlac<t^• feovcd to aacther reel-firnce "nd refused to pay 
further ~et>t>, bco/JU<s«!« .?.& he testif if I, he had hnd "so auch 
trouble with the h5>use, T»ith the l^alcy roof aad the lenl^ walls, 
the se?tt3ge buckiet; cp, wjd the generally delaaidated eoaditlim.* 

Plaintiff toetified ia aabetunee thnt he eade all tho 
repairs that h« ha'i a.iroed to auilce ia his written attrceacnt of 
Mareh 4, 1916, with one exception, Tiz. the walk Korese tho 
grasB froM the eidcwalk te the street; that ho w»s uaablo to 
baild that walk beotwso ho cnuld not get a perait froa the i^mth 
i^ark Caamissioaers, aad thitt there was a walk eoaacetiag the 

aid«««lk with the street, though noX exactly oppoalte the steps, 
vhleh said CoBoiigsieBers thought was suffleient; nnd that after 
said settlement agreement wus executed he tinted the walls and 
•eiling of the bedroom injured by the leak in the roof* 

Defendant testified thnt after .Plaintiff had installed 
the toilet in the basement* whenevtt:' there was a heavy rain the 
•ennc* would back up through the toilet and flood the basmsat 
floor and produced a steaeh; and that he Bade sereral cmplaints 
to plaintiff ooneerning this backing up of sewage before the 
settleaent agreement of June 2B, 1017 was nade. Plaintiff testi- 
fied in sttbstanoe that tht^ toilet in the baseaent had been properly 
installed; that after receiving defendant's eonplHints he tried 
to reaedy the oeeasional condition by installing back prefssure 
TalTes; that these corrected the difficulty to a grent extent but 
not entirely, owing to the fact that the main sewer in &lst street 
was inade(}ttate for the entire sewage of the neighborhood; sad that 
oeeaaionally after a heary rain there would be a slight overflow 
in the bnsenent but not enough to esttse an unsanitary eondition. 

Under the facts and eirii^Kstances disclosed we are of 
the opinion that the finding of the court that defendant was liable 
under the lease for the rent reserved during the seven nonths that 
the preaiises rasained waeant after their abandoaaent by defendant 
was correct. Bo point is aa-'e th t after sneh abaadoaaeat plala* 
tiff did net use dne diligeneo to ra«reBt tho prsaiscs* After do- 
foadaat origiaally took ^ossasoioa under the lease disputes aroso 
betweea the parties as to their respeetiwe rights thereuader aad 
uader plaintiff *8 writton agreeaent to aake repairs exeouted coa* 
currently with tho lease, and a suit was eommeneod. fending that 
■uit a eoaproaise was effected by plaintiff allowing defeadaat a 
certain sua of aoney, whi^ « c neeepted by the defendant in fall 
•ettleacnt of the dasages claiaed by hia and with the express 
VBdersiaadiag that the lease ^ould contiaao ia foroo aad that 


d«f«ndant was to pay thereafter the monthly rental daring tka 
halaaee of the tern. Orer a year after the eonpranise eettloaent 
defendfuit abandoned Uie preHiaes, and, as a defense to plaintiff** 
subsequent suit to reeoTer rent due under the lease* dofeadaat 
oete up prftctlcally the asae natters, which were the subject of 
the former enntroTeray and which then hr.d been finally settled. 
This under the lew he cannot do. ( pjj^ ebold oafe ^ Lock Co. t. 
BameP t !S3 111. App., 144; /^.g p a ▼. Grown Coal & To w C o., 198 
111., 446; Dry enferth ▼. Pal>ier fneu anti o Tir e Co., 2400 111., 

Aeeerdlni;;ly, the ^iud^ent of the Uunieipal Court 
is ^firmed. 


Bamee« ?. J., amd Mate2iett, J., c<ncar. 

290 - ^082 

8. s. BJtmnk / ) 

\ Appellant, / ) API'S AL FROM 



i6]iici?AL cmm 


221 T,A, 645 


On S«o«snlier 13, 1917, pls^intiff, » r«al «8tait« brolnr, 

««HMa««4 «t firvt eluas notioa in conirRet in %bm Kuoioipal Court 

at Chi««c* acaiaiit 4«f cndunt, . ths ownar of an «partm«nt iMiildiag 

•n Coraalia «▼•»«« ChLe«|[fi. to r«eoT9r daxtagcs «« «lei»«d in th« 

■as of #1715, bnacd upon a proposition in «rititt|;, dated Hovan- 

b«r 1, 19X7, and aignod hy d«f«nd»Rt ttuA Hy iMr husband, C* r. 

Sateilts, and olaa ai^ad nn l4oT«$rbar fi, 1017, by ^liaabath J* 

31iaffer, th« o«n«r of anoth«r dpRrtaniTnt building on th« »outh* 

aaat oomar af Varrill avanua and 70t)i straat, Chio»co, aa 


*Hove»bor 1, 1917. 

S, S« Barry, 

Chioa^n, 111, 

for and in eonaideration af 11 and attoer gaud and 
▼alnnbla oonaid^ration, reeeipt aaknowladffcd, I h«rraby 
Civa jou axelnaiTa option to parehaaa aijr building >^X 
?00«02 Caraalia km,, Chiesco, aubjoet to lot aortgaga 
•i |t,00fi . »i^, and will t«li» in pevment Xh9 Wilding 
a* ff. Car. learrill /.▼«., A 70th ct., C.Mios^^o, subjaot 
ta lot aortgaga of ^iZ9. t^oo^^ei and to a 3d Mortgage of 
•€,»00.6^. I trill alao give tba atn of $5000 in 
addition upon the passing of the deeda. Both buildinga 
ta have taxaa, intaraat an nortgagea, inau ranee end 
rente pro*rated to date of delivery of deada. ».ll 
•fecial troiae ax aaaaaMaanta leried for 1. prr>Te»anta 
aoBpleted fsre ta b»e paid in full by the* reepeotlve 
a«nera. .h uld you aueceed in fl Kiing a jnirchaaer ne 
oatlined abora, I will pay yon »a oonBleoiona 3463. 
Thia option to ba good and in foraa up to and ineluding 
lareaber 7, 1917. 

(^ifPRod) C. V. StCHtrLTX. 

Wtt. C. f. 3CHD1.T2. 



Hot. 5, 1917 - 12 Boon 
The above proposition Is 
hereby accepted by me* 


i^lalntiff alleged in hie statement of elain in aub- 
stanoe that, after dt^fendant had signed and delivered to hin said 
prepnaition in Aritlng* he procured onid ilisabeth J, ::;haffer to 
accept the asme in writing at the manner and nt the tine ?e there- 
on appeara« and also eauaed said Elizabeth J. chaffer to execute 
a eritten cnntrtiot of exchange betiveen herself and defendant "to 
■ore effectually carry "ut said written proposition and accept- 
ance;* that it vas agreed between said Klixabeth J. ahaffer and 
plaintiff that, nut «f the :^:5000 to be paid by def<!)ndGnt as men- 
tioned in said proposition in writing, she should pay plaintiff 
for hia serTlces in prcnoting the exchange of properties the sum 
of 4^1250; that thereafter plaintiff presented to d<?f<=ndant «wld 
contract of exchange, »nd requested def«?nd&nt to sign the sajse* 
but th^t defendant refused so to da and refused to m&k» said ex* 
change of properties; th'it thereupon plaintiff requested defendant 
to pay hia the sua of $465 mentioned in said propoaition in writing 
as a contniBsion and also to pay hiai said sub of $12^0; and that 
defendant has not paid said sur;s or any part thereof and refuses 
ao to do. 

Defendant alleged in her affidavit of aerits in subetanee 
thAt she and her husband were induced to sign said proposition in 
sTiting upon plaintiff *s representations (a) that the builriing on 
the corner of Merrill avenue and 70th street wns just south of the 
Snoth ^here Country Club sad abnut one block fron the lake, (b) 
that said proposition in riting should net be used by plaintiff 
except to iadaoe said Elizabeth J. Shaffer to look at defendant's 
tttilding, and that if she aanifested a willingness to consider an 
•xchange of properties defendant ehmild tber be given an opportunity 

'Wtr^^jf .3k«i^i>«fJ" ft i>i it i "'^' 

-i tries 4iiii 

■f; .'sr-itT'^vq-nT'j to '^m 

'f«ti iiiaheift 

n4 ^'■; 

ii-ISS »Xl(i ti- 

to ioHpeot th* 'building; on i3\« Rf»mer ^f Korrlll ATeaac nnd 7(7th 
utrcst b«for« vnteriiig into nay eontrnct for on oxobaaco, mn4 
until euob InopeeilAR hy <l«f«ndiiat w^o vtsftdo enld propoaltlAH la 
writlag ohiHtld not bo In nny way bin<iing ttpon d«f«n^iiat, uni (e) 
that plti^lDtiff would «ot eololy as ag«ai for dL«f««4aiit and i»«e 
to r«eelTO no oogRariioculoao or othor ooniDonsotlon froai tniA SllKabetli 
jr. iihaffor; thai thoao roprcsenti&tlOBs voro material o»««, «oro 
rolled upon hf ';«f -a<9aBt« mtre fi)ls«« vero keomi Yy plttlntlff at 
tho tino in bo foleo. Mad a«re mode for tho jmrpoeo of ABCtsivin^ 
and defroadine d(.>fondant! Uiett oolA building -«»s net looAtod Just 
»outh of »»id olnb eb'nii e block frcm tho lake* bat woo la foot 
loeotod rbnut four blooko wast of o&id ol«b; th«tt, in ylolo^ttoa 
of hl» f^oney »n& tho trti»t ropoaed in him* plaintiff pronarod oalA 
propoaitlon in writing to bo aoooptod by e^l4l l?li?«b«tb Jf, ^ihaffer; 
tkat plaiatlff aoted as sfont for her and was to r^eolvo a. largo 
eoBMiiaslon fran her if an «;xeluvngo of 6«ilA prnpartioa wa» offooto^s 
that dof ottdaai aovor oatorod iato aay ooatr««et of aay klad with 
aald iillx&beth 3, i^haffor; «k<1 by roaooii of tho for«geiag Itlaln* 
tiff is not oatitled to rooovor eaything fro» 'isfeadsat. 

Tho eeaaao vmo triad before a jury resulting in a ror- 
ilot finding the ismaea agnlnot tho pl«iintlff, nn imioh -rordlei 
tho ooart on J'anaary in, 192D, entarod Jndgnent agoiaat tho 
plaiatiff ead thia appeal followed. 

It Appearo froKi the evidRnoo that, on tho aaaw day th$*t 

tho propoaitioa in vrltia^ aacd upon was oigaod by defendaat aaA 

her hasbaaA, plaiatiff procured th^ folloviag ln«truat«nt to bo 

slgaod by sold KlixAheth J. Uhaffor and 'lellTered to hlMj 

■Chicago. »OTomb#^r 1, 1917. 

Mr. • , Berry 
Chioogo, 111. 

j'or M in QonoidarRtion f»f *1 and nthrr good nad 
▼alvablo eono idem t ion, receipt aeknowlodged, 1 hereby 

glT« ywx exclttsir* «T»tiftn to purchase «y build lag 
at the i><suth*«<t6t comer of Merrill ato. and 70tli 
•^t., snd iinld property subject to a firat Mortgage 
of $32,500, »t 6%t and tn a seeoad nortsage of 
:i6,!S00 ot 6/?, ftnd sb payment f^^r thla property will 
accept the buildiag ft 7'^?. Cornelia -'t., Chicago, 
Bubject to a firet mortga^p of ftfl,000, and in 
addition, |d,000 enali, ehieh sun is to be paid nn 
passing of the deeda. 

It is understood th«t tnjces. Interest on 
nortgagee, inaMrnnce nn*? rents sre to be pro-rated 
to the day of deliTery of the deeds, /ill special 
t;,xe» or anses^sientB, levied fnr irBproveisentft nfs!»nleted, 
are to be paid in full by the respeetive owners. 

iJh'>»Jld y^ secure a purflhr-.ser for Hjy i?»bove 
aentioneci property, I will pey ynu the sua of «1,250. 
Ihe agro'-sient to >>• goM up to and including Xoveabor 
8, 1917. 


It farther m^ppe^m frtm the erldenee that there^ifter 
plaintiff drafted a aontrr-ct for the exchange of prnpertiee 
upon a T)rinted forcj, copwonly Snown .-i<* the Chics^^o Real Tatftte 
Board form, bearing dete NoTember 3, 1917, in n^lch a^ld 
Sllxabeth J. -vh&ffer is named as first party and defendant ao 
second party; that in said draft the terms on wHleh s«id proposed 
ezehange was to be asde &re substtuntially the e^me ni» contained 
In the proposition in writing sued upon; that s;*.ld draft eont«ined 
a elsMso to the effeet thnt eo«s^;ieRions should be paid to 3. S. 
Berry by the reepeetive parties as theretofore a(;re(>d; and that 
plaintiff thereafter oaaoed said r>lis{?.beth J. Shaffer to sign 
said dr^ft of contract. 

It further appears fr^^m the testlnony of defendant aad 
her husband, C. t, Schnltz, in subetanec that the latter was acting 
«s the agent of defendant in conducting negotiations for the 
pnstiible 6»!le or exchange of defendant's property on Cornelia 
street, ChiOHgo; that on Thursday, Moveraber 1, 1917, plaintiff 
sailed on C. ^, ochaltz ft.t the latter* a hnme and a lnn« conTer* 
satlon was had during the latter part of which defendant was 
preseat and Jolaed thereia; that at this ti^^e neither d4>feadant 
Bsr her husband had ewer seen the apertaent building owned by 



Hrs. Sh«ff«r; thr.t darinic the Interrisv plaintiff wMde the 

repreu*ni«iioRS mt^sinntinlly as outlined in defendant's 

affidaTit of aerits; ih&v, relying on said representations* 

"both deffcrnuant end her hoisband gtgn«'l the proposition in -rritiag 

sued upon; that it wne fijrr&nged that on i^unday laomlng, Novens- 

her 4, 1917, c. , i;ehttlts wMiid inspect the building ovmed by 

Mrs* Shftffer; and that hstvecc Upvtmher let and fiOTCmber Ard 

Mrs* Shaffer called twice snA inepecte '■ the Cornelia street 

building owMHd by defendunt. It further appears fron the 

testiaony of c'» %. :;chultB th^t «m i.>ttRday siorning* i<ovc&b«r 

4th* he inspected the building owned by Kre. Shaffer and the 

surrounding neighborhood; that he f ricnd the l^uildii^g lociitted 

four blocks ;^st of the 3nuth bore Cr,antry Olul' and th&t por* 

tiens of it v^r« in a d lapidated condilicn; and th&t on the 

BSBM aftemniB with defendant's consent he tolephen-i-d plaintiff 

that defendHUt wnuld not further consider m&kUn-. the proposed 

exehangs of properties, ^'laintiff in rebuttal denied that at 

the intvirrisw on Uovesber Xl-%, or at any other tine, he aads 

the representations to defendant* or to her laisband, as testi* 

fi«4 to by thea. It further appears that on aorenbcr 6, 191?« 

plsintiff wrots a letter to defendant as fellows: 

"This is to notify you that ynur written off^r dated 
SOTesiber 1, 1C)17, addressed to se, has been scnepted 
in its entirety by Krs. Elizabeth jhaffer, and that 
she h>& aignrd and accepted ynur preposition* 

H<-r i'ttorney deuiros the abstrict of yriur 
property at 700-C2 Cornelia Ato. Chicoffo, and hits 
tendered ne the abstract of Mrs. Jhsffsr's property 
which I will do lire r to you at any pla^e you ohoo&e* 

I aa notifying y<iu today as ynur offer is only 
good up to and including iJovenber 7, 1917. * 

After a careful examination of the abstract of tlio 
record wo are of th9 opinion that the werdiet of the jury nni 
tho iud^nont ar9 aaply sustained by the eridenoo* 

It is contended that tho trial court erred in allow- 
ing C* ... ^chttlts* the husband of defendant, to testify that ho 



«»s acting as d«f on^aai'a a^ent in aon'^etlng negotiations fmr 

the pnssilils eale or exahnngfi of defendant's Cornelia etrset 

property. In ii'hiliipB t . Poulter^ 111 111. App., 330, 3i2, It 

is said: 

"^hile ageney cannot W proTed by the mere 
deelarntion of the o^eni* thAt f^ot (io«>s not 
render hia inceaipetent to testify to facts aad 
clreunstAnces teniint: to 8h«w sn^ sg*noy.* 

(Ssa, elss. Bichsy v. Frsd Ijillor Brafldng. £o., 180 III. App,, 
645, 647.) Id the present opae not only c, . Setaiilts: testi- 
fied %f> f RCte tand eirenmstacoca ten^lnr to show the aireney, 
l>«t the iJef«-r.dfBt testified thpt she h»?d ^ntherized hlrc tf> act 
ft her a^ent in cimtfnrtinir tb« nefoiiiatione. ce do not think 
there is any ararlt ie the contention* 

It is further contended thnt eertain stateKents eon> 
trined tn the oral ohrrge of t,he c'njrt to the ^wry were errensons 
ond prejudicial to the defendant, ^e have examined t)» entire 
fihnrge and nre of the opinion ih;>t the jury were fairly and 
prooerly inetrected and thet no errors prejudicial to the 4«- 
fcBdaat are contdnef^ therein. 

The judgeent of the Munieipal Court is affinsed, 


Bamesi P. J., and fietehett, J., concur • 


99 - 26265 

psoFLS Of tta stAS:s oy 


Defeodafit in ':rro: 

VUUAK CHIL^Off, / ) 


eo<« comii'Y. 

221 1.A. 645 


On ifay 1^, 1920, the viefendaata Herbert «ftchiagtttB 
and ?illi«R Ctailtmi. wera indicted en tkc eh^trge of felonioualy and 
terglarimisly entering the atora of Hjman Uegel on April 13« 
1930, and atealing ead taldag avay certain eigara and eigarattaa 
then in aaid atora and belonging to aaid Segal, with feloniaua 
and burgl&riotia intent, eto« Oa the day of the trial, the 
atato*a attarney waived the felony eharge and both defendants 
pleaded not guilty to the ehrrge of petit laroeny and waived 
their right of trial by Jury. After hearing eTldenee Voth on 
behalf of the People oind «i b^slf of the defendanta, the trial 
OQurt found tha defendaata guilty, found ttia raltoe of the 
property atolan tn be $14* adjudged eacAi defendant guilty of 
petit laroeny and aenteneed each to confinenent in the Hnuae 
of Correction for a period of aix aontha and to pay n fine of 
MO dollar. ¥hia writ of error la aued mat to reverae tho 

Fraetieally the aolo eontention here made by cntnael 
for defendaata la that the oTidenee ia insuffieient to ana tain 
the finding and Judj^aent. 

On behalf of the People Hynan ^iegal teatif ied ia 
aubatanee that he raa a aalAon on the earner of Mat and Stato 
atreeta, Oiioago; Uiat upon arriving at Uie aaloen m tha 


mnrnia^ of April 13, 1920, h« found th-it bis pl.-ce had teen 
terglftrixe4 daring ths previous night; th^ t he found that th« 
eide door wa« broken; thrt certain cigars and cigarettes of 
the value of $14 and bolonfiing to hia h«d b«en taten a*ay; 
tut that ho diJ not know who had carried away his said property, 
R«b«rt Chansy testified in substanoe thnt he was engaged in ths 
resteuraat business* located nt 5C5S ^tats street; th t he knew 
both defendants well as they were nccustssMd to cose into the 
restaurant nearly every night; that on the evening of April 12« 
1920, "these two boys* (indicating the aefendbnts) esme into 
his reetsmraat about 9 p. s., then left, smA returned ebout 
1:30 a. a. on the Homing of i-.pril 13, 192C, and then left 
again; th t shortly after thti defendants left the resteurst t 
the second tiae a nan infemed him {ch»ney} that soaeene wss 
trying: ts break into ths aalo<m, which is So. 5060 ^tate street 
and is on the comer of 51st strset; that he (Chansy) thsn 
iMwdiately went out of ths back door of the restaurant into 
tbs alley and walked s<«ttth to Slst street; ih&t when he get to 
£>lst street he saw the defendant, C3kilton, about 29 fset away, 
"leaning Ag&inet the door «ad shoving up ageint^t the door, 
placing his shoulders like this (indie^^ting en upward and for* 
ward Boveaeat sgainst the doer);* th&t hi » Ieo c&v the de- 
fendant, "^a^ington, who "was standing at the corner of Mst 
and ^tata streets, looking up and down;* th«t he watched ths 
defendants shout ts* ■inutes and then returned to the restaurant 
beeaaise he had an order to fill; th^t he did not ^c back to 
Slat street ts see if dsfondants hnd broken into the anions., but 
that he was infemed the following Koming by Kr. ^egal that 
ths saloon had been broken into. HsMie Blaekwsll testified in 
substancw Uint she was an mployss at said restsurant and mmm 
working there at ths ni^^t in question; that when Chaney went 


«at ioto thtt elloy she followed hia; th^t slie saw ttoe defondant* 
(%llt«nt *lenaiiie up sifalast iha door, and X srv him pu&h tiM 
door with hio alkoalder;** that thm otter defendant, a8hin«teii« 
irss etafldlng oat oa the aideimlk; aad th^t she 'vent back into 
the restsuraat i^en Chanejr did* 

Both defendimts denied Uiat they vere either in tlM 
reetmtrfwt or at Segal* a saloon thi^t ai^t. and both danied, 
idWD arrestod, that they Ttnm-n anythinK abnut ths nf^tter. 
Vashlagtoa testified th»t he whm at his aiother'n hosie the entire 
night and did not see ChiltMi at any tiao during the night. In 
tiiis he was corroborated by his mother, Vrs* Anna Washingtm, 
residing at ^25 atato atsoet, t^o testified th^t her son eeino 
to her roneta about nine o*cloek and joined in a staam of cards 
until V. laic hour; i«heB "I aiade him spend the Bifjtit «ith so, 
bectiusc I didn't vaat hia to get into anything." ^orbington 
further teitified, vith'^t objection being interposed, that ho 
had been arrested for laresay abnut a year proTifms, ahd had 
Wen in the Uonee nf Correotiea* Chilton testified th^t abont 
ei^t o'clock on the owning of April l<'th he took hie nother 
erer to the hOBO of a Mr. Clint, tAere they remained until 
about 10:30 p. B« receiving instmctions regarding sn election 
the next day; thnt he then returned hoate vith his mothf^r vhero 
ho remained until fivo ». n. on the aeraing of April 13th; nad 
th<*t hin BOih«r h.-^ had preTioue trouble with the viinesr^, Chaaoy, 
in th&t ohe had ehnlleaged his Tote »t a prerioup el^ctioo e^nd 
ho hsd threatened to strike her. In all th<^se prrtioolara 
QULltoa*s tesiiaony was eorreborated by that of his aother, bat 
Cbaaoy, in rebuttal, tostifiod ih>>t ho had never any trouble vith 
VashingtMi or Chilton, or the l.>tter*s aother. 

tho trial court did net beliere the alibi defeaso 
■ads by the defendants aad ao stated daring the trial. Xa 


▼iev of tbe posit iTe tesLlBony of the witnosses* Chaiuiy and 
HaBio Blackcrt 11, w» »r« unible to aay thstt tbm cnurt'a finding 
was vroog. He saw all the witnesses, heard then testify, 6h^ 
•erred their aanner and demeanor while on the stand, and was 
the better enabled to test their eredibility. 

But it is here argued by cmansel for dr^fendants that 
the feoplc failed to prore that the defendnnts brolce into 
oegal's saloon and thft they took and carried away the cigars 
and eigarettee and that, therefore, the eh&rge of larceny was 
not sufficiently prered. The evidenee shewed that the saloon 
had been broken into and the eigars and eigaretteo taken during 
the night. It is true that no witness teiitified that he saw 
the defendants* or either of thea. eetually enter the salnm, 
or that he saw the defendeoits, or either of theat, in the act 
of taking the property stolen. Two witnesses, howerer, testified 
that t)»y saw one of the defendants in the &et of attenptinp to 
break into the saloon, irtiile the e^er wbs on guard et the corner 
or en tho sidewalk. The hour was 1:30 o* clock in the morning, 
uftd later in the morning, after it had beeeaie dayliglit and Segal 
had Krrired t his place of business, he found that the side donr 
had been broken late and his property taken away. e i.hink that 
the eiroumstances show that these aots had been done by the do* 
fendaats and with a felonious intent. -%ile it is true that it is 
essential on the charge of Inreeny to prore that the aeeased wrong- 
fully took and carried away the property of another, ( etts t. 
People . 2r>A 111. 233); it is^ also true that this fact may be prored 
by ei reus Stan tial evidenee. ( Carroll ▼. People . 136 111. 456. 462.) 
In jgeople ▼, Ooodwtn . 263 111. 99, 102, it is said: 

"CirctuBBtaatial eyldeno« ma.j be resorted to 

for the i»rpccc of proving the conms delict i in 
the ease way and to the saae extent that it nay 
be for the purpose of connecting the aocased with 
the eaieiB:ie8ion of the offense. * It is seldon 
thut either of these can be proved by direct 
tei3tinony, and therefore the fact say lawfully be 
established by circuvstantisl eridence, provided 
it be eatitf actory.* 3 Greenleaf on BT.,«16th ed. 
•ee. 30; Carroll v. People, 136 111. 466)." 

In flur opinion the guilt of tho defcndents of the erise of 
larceny w&s eetablished beyond a re;n. finable doubt. 

The Judgaent of the CriKinal Court of Cook Cnunty 
ie affirmed* 

Barnes, t, J., and Vatehett, J,, concur. 

«. / 

^^juA ,|^.'^'vv^- u - 1 f 4^ ' 















Appellajttt •KB4B convicted in the trial coiirt of a vio- 
lation of Sec. 2012 of the Municipal Code and sentenced to pay 
a fine of $200 and also the costs of $6.50. In default of the 
payment of said fine and costs appellant was committed to the 
house of correction, there to remain imprisoned at hard labor 
until said fine and costs were paid, etc., from which judgment 
and sentence he prayed for, obtained and perfected an appeal 
to this court to the March term, 1921, thereof. 

Appellant, however, failed to bring the record to this 
court within the time provided by statute. Appellee has caused 
the case to be docketed and has filed a short record and now 
moves that in accord with Sec. 100, Chap. 110 E. S. , that the 
judgment of the Municipal court be affirmed. Sec. 100 supra 
provides that this court may, in the condition of the record 
in this case, on motion either affirm the judgment or dismiss 
the appeal. 

For the reasons set forth in City of Chicago v. Ifathan 
Salmitsky . 210 111. App. 169, the motion of appellee to affirm 
the judgment of the Municipal court is allowed and the judgment 
is affirmed. 






■-*^ le Si.;; 

, .-.JoaoTOO lo eairot 
"i:..-^ '.i^xl Blaa Xlvfcv. 

xldttw ittsot 

I'?'?:/! 'm 



Appellee tf J 

T8 4 



i AppeMant 


221 I.A 



Appellant was oonvlcted in the trial court of a vio- 
lation of Seo. 2012 of the Municipal Code and sentenced to pay 
a fine of $200 and also the ooste of 1-6. 50. In default of the 
payment of said fine and costs appellant was committed to the 
house of correction, ther« to remain imprisoned at hard labor 
until said fine and costs were paid, etc., from ^ioh judgment 
aaid sentence he prayed for, obtained and perfected an appeal 
to this court to the March term, 1921, thereof. 

Appollant, however, failed to bring the record to this 
eovrt within the time provided by statute. Appellee has csiused 
the case to be docketed and has filed a short record and now 
moves that in accord with Sec. 100, Chap. 110 R. S., that the 
judgment of the Municipal court be affirmed. Sec. 100 supra 
provides that this court may, in the condition of the record 
in this case, on motion either affirm the judgment or dismiss 
the appeal. 

For the reasons set forth in City of ChioaRO v. flathan 
SalmitslCT . 210 111. App. 159, the motion of appellee to affirm 
the judgment of the Municipal court is allowed and the judgment 
is affirmed. 










\ Appellee, 


I AppelJ?Mit. 


221 1.A. 646 


Appellant was convicted in the trial court of a vio- 
lation of Sec. 2012 of the Municipal Code and sentenced to pay 
a fine of f200 and also the costs of f6.50. In default of the 
payment of said fine and costs appellant was cojamitted to the 
house of correction, there to remain imprisoned at hard labor 
antll said fine and costs were paid, etc., frora which judgment 
and sentence he prayed for, obtained and perfected an appeal 
to this court to the March term, 1921, thereof. 

Appellant, however, failed to bring the record to this 
eoort within the time provided by statute. Appellee hae caused 
the case to be docketed and has filed a short reeord and now 
Bores that in accord with See. 100, Chap. 110 H. S., that the 
judgment of the Municipal court be affirmed. See. 100 supra 
provides that this court may, in the condition of the record 
in this case, on motion either affirm the Judgment or diEaniss 
the a]^eal. 

For the reasons set forth in City of Chioti^o v. flathan 
Salmitsky . 210 HI. App. 159, the motion of appellee to affirm 
the judgment of the Municipal court is allowed and the judgment 
is affirmed. 


Ne» ft/,' 


■ f^fiil: SI'S© ■*« JftC"-^ 
'■ri3 -s^K: &ij88 rtJft 
~.t ttsio- 






\ Appellee, V 



Ai. oA^y. X / ) ZZlZ 1 -da 

Apbella^. ) •'^*'' ^ ^ O 



Appellant v/as conrloted in the trial court of a vio- 
lation of Sec. 2012 of the Municipal Code and sentenced to pay 
a fine of #200 and also the costs of |6.50. Sja default of the 
payment of said fine and costs appellant vv-as committed to the 
house of correction, there to remain imprisoned at hard labor 
until said fine end costs were paid, etc., from which judgjnent 
and sentence he prayed for, obtained and perfected an appeal 
to this court to the March term, 1921, thereof. 

Appellant, however, failed to bring t?ie record to uhis 
court within the time provided by statute. Appellee has caused 
the case to be docketed and has filed a short record and now 
moves that In accord with Sec. 100, Chap> 110 R. 3., thiit the 
Judgment of the Municipal court be affirmed. Sec 100 aupra 
provides that this court may, in the condition of the record 
in this case, on motion either affirm the judgment or dismiss 
the appeal. 

For the reaeons set forth in City of Chicago v. Eathan 
SalmitBky . 210 111. App. 159, the notion of appellee to affirm 
the judgment of the Municipal court is allowed and the judgment 
is affirmed. 



• ■.; ic- aoti&l 
:i- ;--J.l btsa to -Jai 
■A'v *-;-,ieo Sea sxsil &1«b lid-ac; 
jX'oo airfj ' - 


26997. I 



vs. % 



// I 


V*.»»-" >»w;' 

221 I.A, 646 

Appellant was convicted in the trial court of a vio- 
let! on of Seo. £012 of the Manicipal Code and aentenoed to pay 
a fine of |200 and also the costs of #6.50. In default of the 
payment of said fine and costs appellant was committed to the 
house of correction, there to remain imprisoned at hard labor 
until said fine and costs irere paid, etc., from which judgment 
and sentence he prayed for, obtained and perfected an appeal 
to this court to the March term, 1921, thereof. 

Appellant, hov?ever, failed to bring the record to this 
court within the time provided by statute. Appellee has caused 
the case to be docketed and has filed a short record and now 
moves that in accord with Sec. 100, Chap. 110 R. S., that the 
Judgment of the Municipal court be affirmed. Sec. 100 supra 
provides that this court may, in the condition of the record 
in this case, on motion either affirm the Judgment or dismiss 
the appeal. 

For the reasons set forth in City of Chicago v. Nathan 
SalmitsJcy . £10 111. App. 159, the motion of appellee to affirm 
the Judgment of the Municipal court is allowed and the judgment 
is affirmed. 




s^ - 


to fwxi - ■ 

, ._..,.. 0, . . r ... , .XXI 61:^ , 









— ?--i 


Appellant was convicted in the trial court of a vio- 
lation of Sec. 2012 of the Monicipal Code and sentenced to pay 
a fine of |200 and also the costs of $6.50. In default of the 
payuient of aaid fine and costs appellant v/&s committed to the 
house of correction, there to remain Imprisoned at hard labor 
vntil said fine and costs were paid, etc., from ni^ich judgment 
and sentence he prayed for, obtained and perfected an appeal 
to this court to the iiarch term, 1921, thereof. 

Appellant, howeT»r, failed to bring the record to this 
court within the time provided by statute. Appellee haa caaeed 
the case to be docketed and has filed a short recor4 and noir 
Boves that in accord with See. 100, Chap. 110 R. 3., that the 
Judgment of the Municipal court be affirmed. 3ec. 100 supra 
provides that this court may. In the condition of the record 
in thlE case, on motion either affirm the Judgment or dismiss 
the appeal. 

For the reasont- set forth in City of Chicago v. Hathan 
aalmitslcy . 210 111. App. 159, the motion of appellee to affirm 
the Judgment of the Municipal court Is allowed end the Judgment 
Is affirmed. 




4i£»j^ars WJt -Dap .S'-^fgrrj' 'scjaijirt; 

fit; . roJJiBisr , .^mvci^ 

0.l?3^ • ' f-f* 32 *^JI>DO TiSfliOl.'- 

199 - 26572 

jcnKJE p. 

£ABK, « Cerpora«^en, / ) 

AJ1V.AJ. FnoM ci?»cvir court 


^21I.A. 646 


This la an appeal by defendant frc» « jadfonant 
against It of #9500 *nter«d upon the Tordict of s jury, Tha 
Mttion la for fraud and daealt. 

A» nc (question arlaea upon tbe pleadinRa It is un- 
naoaaaar^T^ to aat ihas oat. 

Jlalntiff a»«r« in hi a declsratioB «nd tpstifiaa that 
on the iPomlns: of C^tcbwr 2<^ , 1912, between the houra of 9:30 
a»<J IC 'cleek, he celled en the telephone the J5%ookBian*a ?ru8t 
& iiaTlnfa Bank; that he aeked for the eeahinr of the banV, «feo 
rearonded* whereupon* plaintiff teatlfied, he asked the eaahier 
if the cheek of t^liifts T. Kirbjr for $ia«Q(}G «ni8 c^eod; that 
plaintiff knev that iiood wta ekahier of tl^se bank; that be waa 
aequalnted with hi*, bad «et his ea««, «aa not pereosally ao* 
Attainted with hla but had frequently talked »itli hin en the 
telephone and had dealt with hi» ae the casLi^r of the bank; 
that he recof^ised hi a voice at the other end of the wire 
when he telephoned; that, he tcld ir. ^ed, the eaahier, that 
Dr. Kirby had juat peked ht« to oeah a $10,0(0 check for his, 
and he aeked Br. Hbcd if the cheek ^^a (rood, to wtilch he replied 
•Yea, that i« nil right;* that plaintiff eaid it waa a large 
aseiuit and he wanted tc be sure that it waa nil riffht, that the 
funda were there, and leed aaid, "S"©!!, Just wsit a jr.lnute; " 
that he cane back in a lit*le whil " and aeiid, "Yea, ttiat is all 

right.* I said, '"aie funds »r« there, ore theyv* and he ansversd 
•Yes,* K» sftid ♦The cheek is all ripht, th** cheok is good,* and 
that wBB nil, Rnl 1 suld, 'ThRnk you' or sr^etiiinf; cf that kind 
nn^ hung up;* thnt in foith ef this conversaitioa.plRintiff clains, 
be did oaah Kl»tey»8 ch^olc for |IC,0€>0 nnd put t>.»» chi?ck in course 
ef colleeticn through the C>iic«t{;o r-aTlngs B«nV «nd "rust GCKipany, 
but the che«k i»8 returned without helng pnld. 

In eentr»dlctlen to this? evidence of plnintifr. 
*»ef1, thp cashier, t«»atifi«»d by <?eposltlen thmt. he -sms »t triat 
ti»e conn«»c*.ed '6?ith the Johnston City Co«l Co. at Johnston "ity, 
Illinois, nnd h«d feeen since Aui^tst, 191fi> that before that tie* 
he was -aith the iiarris Trust & .LtftTings B«nk of Chicago, and be* 
fere that «ms cashier ef the -itcckr^en 'e ?rust k i^yin^s Bank; 
that he beoaae such cashier on Febru&ry 15, 19C6, imd continued 
as such cashier until Hee^^hex 51, 191di, perf ermine the usual and 
custoaary duties of a cashier. He denied any acquaintance with 
plaintiff and also denied that he h^d any ccnyeraatloB over the 
telephone on or about October 29, 1912, wit}: Triaka or anyone 
else ocnn^'cted with hisi. He further testififd that Triska did 
not call hi??i on the telephone on or about tiotober 29, 1912, snd 
ask his if a cheek for $10,000 slimed by Kixby «as rood; that he 
did not at any tise hnwe any conTcrsation with Trlaka or anyone 
connected with the :»l»Tio»Aserlcan iteyinira Baift in reimrd to a 
tic, 000 eheo of Klrty drawri on the 3too)<»en's Trust and aarlngs 
Baift; that he kne» the Klrby l^Tings Kank and that It was a cus- 
toser cf the defendant bank la 1912; that plaintiff did not, nor 
did any ether porsen, in the raonth of October, 191i], ask him in 
regard to whether a $10,000 check signed by tlirby was f^oed; that 
he did not en that date haTe any conversation with plaintiff or 
•ay pfrscn connected with his bank regardinp the ccnrtitlcn of 
the acccuat ef th« Klrby 3eylngs £ank in the defendant bank. 


tin*" onl V oth*?r wltne** whr teetiTifd. reprirdinp the 
t««l«T'honp ccfflx!«nlcwticB ef plaintiff »?ith the <lef en'^fint hfSRk wta 
tb* ellshl<^r cf th» 31»»-le-AB!<»rlc»n Bn-srlnfits Bnnk, T*ic tf^a* tf i<!»6 to 
hATiac culled fox* the c«Mhl*'r of th« a«f*»r)^ii«t Vsnlr c« Oetcb«r 
?9, l";!.*, en the tel tTlscTp; 'hrt - 1 «in ♦.hr ofcthif'T er.r:i?* +.<■ the 
'rhcne rlftlntlff lifted up «n extensicr. 'phntip sird Pfolre tc apr.'t>- 
one, '■'hi* '»itn«8a he*rd no cc»3vrrsjntion .-rd tn»Ae nc ptt«»pt to 
t*»atifv tc any conversation at that or nny othnr tinp between 
plaiQtiff and th« eaaViifir cf the def eTidant hanJc . 

At th« ti»e of th« iBcidenta abcve ?-eeit«d Triaka, 
th« plaintiff, waa conducting a private bank un&er th<? name of 
JJl»vie-AK«^rte«n javlnga BanJc, and aiiiissE T, Klrby i*a8 1 ikevisa 
operating a prlvat*? 'bardc undar th** Base of Kirby ^Tinge Bank. 

?he original Klrl»y eh?ck waa lost. «ti<S by a^refflnrat 
cf thp rsrtifa a cepv ima intrcfUjcad and recfiiv*d in e>Ti4enoe« 
Tha ehaek Is aa fcllowa: 

Rt.21 <5fttt*>, A8hlan*i ftra., 

f^^leap-^. f^t. S9tK, 1912. 

Jay to the crdar cf Vilp'rie-/'5«'r?c&rs ilavirra B»nlr 
#10,C<0,C^ ^«w ?b we»nd « CO/l ro 1viTs»r« 
7r> i5tec}r»#n'« "^ruat 5 I'^-flrpr VnnV, 
Chioaf^o, lUlinei?. 

Danlnl J, Kirby, 


iMdoraad on t!<i« rh«c>- la thf» fcllewin??:: 

"*ay to t>ie order cf Chicago lavtnga liank pind 
'fruat Ocmppny. 

All rricr rTidoraanenta f?u«rantc»«d 

31avie-Aa)«rlcan iiaTlnf^ti iwrik 

»'a««8 A. Calak, 

Caahi ar • 
" et. 29, 1912 

:*5v »o tfc<» order of any Bank, B«nk»»r or Truat Co. 
All prior «ndor8«^.ents icuarante^d 

Chioage Jst hkb i^nk * "ruat Oo , 

OhloafTc, Ilia," 

There «re no further »«nclorBem#nta en thr e)t«ek« 


Hfclntiff t.estifipd that after reoelvin,*? th ■ check he 

• •nt it to the liaiicnpo i«Tinp» liardt & Trust Compjiny for d«»re«lt 

and cell i!>otion« iie fsr rb cab be pathfired frow the tret, imcny, it 

woulcil fipp«»r that th^ oheok was eent to the Chicnpo jcTlnpa Bank 

& ?ru9t Coopnnv, (?nd by thet hnrik ner.t thrcuph thr cinlle to the 

defendwrt b«nlc. -3ul>B«oxientl y T>l»intiff rroTed the olnlBi ©n the 

eheclr in baPkruptcy aip^sinst Kirby and rccrive^n diyidend thereon 

the 8U85 of i67C, 

^fltev-r thp rlpvts cf tJleintiff aiRv hf» »in:ier tv.e 
proefe, the fcundation wpon ^hich tv.eee rlrhts must finvl isuprert - 
«n<! without such surT-ort the aetien mnnt fniT - ig Ksinteiniop: by 
e preTondersnce cf proof the coBTersetlrn which j>l»*intiff sweare 
h« hRd ■^Ith the csehier cf <lef endftnt en the Bicminfr ef cetcber S9, 
1912. The mieat. lom ie, ^mna wny euch renTerssition proven by the 
evidence. Fleintlff hes ao euppert tc his testimony cf aueh 
ecnTersntien, nor 1» there »ny ciroit»«tsnce Irs the cnse lending 
verity to it, Th^ fnct thet the eeehier of -plsintiff swore that 
he called defendant en th** 'rhone thit wcmlnjr end eelred fcr its 
•aehier 1'? witht^^t prebetire fo^^e in vi*^ of the f«»et thet h*» 
did not hfsr pnv coi3Ter»«»tieii bet'reen f.hft r*»rtiee er "^lat t«« eaiA 
by either ©f thw, ncr did he h«?ar Tplaintiff talV on that ecoaeiea 
thrcuf.h the teleihene. In contr-'dictieB cf rlatntiff*« clctin 
thet hp bed «uch p. ocnreraetion ^ith Wood, the tttttHifur cf .Iffertd- 
ent bank, ifeod definitely and enteporieally denize the alleged 
telephone crniversstioa in tctc . Therefore it ie clear t*i«t 
plaintiff has failed to maintain bv a f^reicnderance of proof, 
which the law requires an an el«Kentary propcaitien, the clnia 
thet defendant made the repreeentation that Kirby'e acecunt with 
defendant benk on the nominp of October 29, 191Ji, wa» good for 
hi» cheek of flO,0CO. In this crn<Utien of the record we find 
plaintiff '8 nffirwetire 8t»<t«r^<'nt mrt by d<»fenrtant'» roeitive de- 
nial. Cne in « ainnture effaeta the f^her, end there is in eonee* 

qu<»ice BO rm-on-ieriince of precf tt* euBt«ln pluintlff 's contention 
in this r^fgard. i^nekinK cucli QU«ntuRi ef prccf, th*re. e»n b«» nc 

As \hi» ccttrt anld in ^'^k,^ f £i. uj.. v. Abbott iii' f^ , 

C£., \2 ill . App. 476: 

"Cn tbe dlaputwl piint %h^r*- iw*!r«f twt. vitriet»«e»» or-e for 
«««■! of th«» pwrt.ieB. Their tir»ti!KOBy -*?»!» diYPTA^'^«t, *»♦» c« 
th*-. theory that c«c-' of thr«ae t*c itnoaoes w«i8 fouT'lly credi- 
ble, the coapnny lid not sustain th«t part cf Its ifff^r^am by a 
rrerondernBoe of ihe procf •" 

to :jcn<'':scn '• f ., Ot . 3 « Hy. Cp ,. -Sg j] ^ , i<i;^5^ the 

Supresie court hclil th^t th«* ecnstS tu+.ion do -» not rr^sike the jury 

the finul judges ef th« ^elpht of ryidonce, Bp r f ^ ■?. C , "* . !.»;} . 

n^. Ci^., 1«2 ibid MBi Cit'-r ££_ ^rrlrtp Vnl 1 >*y t. Goel Cc ., 175 

Ibid 497, in the i)cnAl8rn case th«> court alee eatd: 

"If a T»#»r'1lct is snlfeetly RjrRlnet tht-* ■nt^ifm'. of the 
eyldonce, it 18 net neceasary that It iOiCiilci fu'"th«r m-T^^T 
that it i8 not ttte reflf-lt of t.hf? impartial and honest j«d|;- 
ment of the jury, »or tSiHt i' resulted frra preju'llce, pas- 
sion, or BOiBe iiaproper rrti-ve or condition. Xe prmit a 
Terdict, ^^iiich is cl <p»rly and ;^»nlf«^8tly nipainst ti*« (retrht 
of the eri ience, tr. st»n4, upon t'nr sj«pi>osltion tlxhr. th«» jury 
vetm i^ipertlRl find honeat, 'fciuld b<» «b unjwet end tnjurlpua 
to tii«» defeated psrty as tnouRh it pi'^^ce-'ded frcn. psissicn, 
prejunine. or ;c.T,e lr!r,]r>rc-p«r set.iT©,* 

Thli* court &aid in I. U. H, R. Cc- . •». tJur.r iiinyhfitji^ . 

1 w2 Al 1 . App , 2S« : 

"The were f«ct Dsat a jary 't\mv« passed uroo the t^ueeticBa 
of feet cc^nnot abaclre this ccuri frcRi thp <^utv of dct^^rr-inini! 
whAth<»r or not the verdict is justified by the evi^iencc, That 
dwty is by the fttatiita pished upon tiiis court." 

"Phis rule was relterptt^a in i^ ghe r4 ▼. Tilley . 1M 
ibid 1. 

In :».Tengor . ^ ▼. G . k i. C. Hv. Co .. 197 ibid 372, it 
•as held that when the AppellRte ouurt upon roTiew determines 
that the eridence faas to gusi.Hln th<? verdict It mey rf^TPrss 
the judrroent ^tth « firsiiing cf fact. 

In Trafelet v> C. C. hy . Co .. 202 Ibid 131, ws held 
M»*t this court was not restrained, as ia the trial court, fro» 

deter!»»nln|r ♦.h" vrrsbntiVif* <'crcR of thn nvidene**, »nd nipiy rPT«»T8« 
a .fwdFWOTit with B f jndiniE? of fn/!t "hsn ir ita cplnlon 'Ji** -vi- 
d*nee fail? tc avirft*)in t}>« ,'udr'<*nt, 

ThTcfcre, f s th« foundntirn tirrn vy^ioh Ujp saff^r- 
atructurc rf ♦.hla oose is 'kviild** hn« ie s m««ftBure crumliled »w«y 
for the Isck of » Tr«VO«ni«rsnc« of proef to atjst&iri it, repArdl »•• 
of all ©th«?r ou<^8ticn» in the- cuss Tleintiff a aotion fi».llB, 
the Judffwent of tlie Circuit eourt la rwrersed T.lth « flndlnR ef 

nnriKaED ^xth fzkdibg of vac?. 

ISS - ECS??. FiiilJlHG C? VACf, 

T\'.p crvrt finds ss «n vtltLi^fts fact tn&t d^f^nrt-ynt 
is r.:>t fuilty of the false ir<>pre8«nt&ticBB or untrue ai»t Amenta 
daarf^d a^ninst It in plaintiff** df«lero.t,irsn or rrr ccuni- thmn 
ef . 

901 - 



221 1.A. 647 


DSLivRRKD rnr. cubiob op rm Gvmrr. 

This i3 Rn ncticn In forci"bl«» detBinpr In w: ieh 
plaintiff hnd j«dp»ent ftgftinat d<»f«wj(iRrt fcr posseeBirn, from 
which Judr«*»n.t defpTviaBt pres^faitpn this Rpi;:p»l. 

the e«ia« «*• tried before the court without the 
interrentic*} of n Jury. 

Thft t«»rsa of the d»55l3e v&u five v^ara, terminating 

y>y efflux of time en April S'-. 1924. The pra^iaes leased w*re 

Buabered 244^, 2442,/2446 n -i 2448 ^eot ¥«enty«seeond street, 

Chicago, and were to be occupied for !5i«nuf aoturinr purpcaee, 

Hbe l^ase was executed for plaintiff by one Charlea 
H. Gedey na her agent, who rIdc collected thp rent paid under the 
lease. IhiB 1 ense was negotietsd by Gadev as agent, -he judg- 
ment was grounded upon the allefred riclatien of thpt clause of 
the lease which proTldes that defendant, tbp lessee, "will net 
allow saii pretsises to b«» uaed frr sny purpose thai will inereas* 
the rat<» of insurance therecn, nor for any purpose ether than 
tl»t hereinbefore spiHslf l«»d, nor tc be occuri»*» io wk.el p or in 
part, by any other person, and will not subl «^t the sa-te, nor any 
part th'^rerf, nor asalf-n ^hls lease, -without in each ease the 
written ccnaent of the party of th*» first p'lrt first had, and will 
not perrlt any transfer, by opemtion of Inw.**** 

It appear 9 that one of the viftl^tirns of the fore- 
pcinr clnuae ia predicated upon defendant's subletting *he one 

stcry portion of the premises known •• 2448 VMi T««nty»Beooad 
street tr the Horth Side >^sh an ' i>ocr Ccapany witliout securing 
t/is written e-TJsent of the 1 «»«8cr. ilais subter;»nt took pcosfssion 
cf 24<8 "Jeat Twenty- a •oend atreet before defenijRnt moved into the 
other rcrtion of the dei^ieed preeilses* ^« ?$orth oide oash and 
Door Ceapsnv occupied, es such aubtensmt, fcr s period of about 
nine months* '^«» subletting to nn1 rrssessloo bv tine >'orth ^Ide 
£>ash and liocr Coapnny. it Iv clsiimfd bv deff^ndant, ^ere known 
both to Gadey, the pip-fjrt, r-nd rlBintiff, h*? 1 ^earr. Rent for all 
the dessined prefniaes wias pail to and r*>c^i7«»d bv the a^fent -iurlng 
the pi'ric'^ of tfce aubl ettinr and reoupancy of the Korth :>i -e <ia»h 
and iJoer CoaopAny, 

It nvy:t>»rs that te qilnimice the insurance presriutas a 
certain parapet «rae built on a certain part of the de-^ised rremises 
and that by agreement between the parties defendant paid cr.»»h«lf 
of the cost of the erection of auc)i parapet, beiBfC ^dZ, for whioh 
plaintiff received e check, r^r^^ that plsintiff ta!i»»d with defend- 
ant reirardinc the inarease in insurar.ce rates, <<;ttributini? such 
iaerease tr the of thf ISorth iiide ^ah and Deer Company, 
and in adiitien to payinir hnlf of the vxpumae of erectinfr the 
parapet defendant by «pree«ent raid an addlticnal aujo of $51.16 
m month to cover increaaed inaursnee prflstltma, ccoasirned bv the 
ooeuparsoy of the Horth Side Saah and Beer Company of that portion 
of the det'^laed pressiaes above described. 

It also appears that flft*»r the l^crth iJide .5a8h and 
Deer Company vacated the precsises, that portion oocupisd by thsm 
rsmained nnoccupisd and unrest M for about a mcnth, an.5 that en 
January 16, 1920, defendant sublet the premises formerly occupied 
by the Borth iilde 3asb an » Uoor Coca^pany to the i*»fcrd tianufaotur- 
ing Company for a period of two yeara. ^bla was liVe^rlse acccm- 
plished without the written ccnuent of r'5"lntlff, this subletting. 


it i3 Claimed, tmo Also Vne«n to r^»intlff mnd her nij^ent. 

It is cl Rimed by defendant that plsintiff visited the 
promises in the early pert of \9^^ * «t wbich time ahe id Msid to 
h«T* talked 'srith defendant's president about th«» ceoupancy of tha 
>Baford i^nufacturiBf Goasp^ny, *hi? president tpiiing plaintiff 
tiiat thay had procured a cleaner termnt. 

The Aaiaford i*anxif»cturln.p Ccaipsyay had a ei^ t>?c by 
three feet, with bla<dc letters five :<nche« hi|r^, tneked to th« 
door fraae «mtr«nce en the rutslde of the buil flirty, with the 
vorde ineorlb»»d therein, "Anaford i^nufaoturiag Oojapany, ag- 
Tertiainij <^ecial ties*" thia tpnwnt subeequ'^My ehen^ed its 
corpor«te nws? to Mcraft Kanufacttjrlni; Compsnv eni th*^ eiga 
sas char)^^ tc ecmpert there^tlth. 

It ia elaieed that plaintiff In 3vme, I9?.r<, made the 
dlseoverv that ciefen4ant was recelTrln^^ rental frcs the Adaraft 
*anttfao*rir-iog Cojuparsy wj-lch K»ide t>i«» iubletting profitable. It 
is adsittpd that plaintiff received a ch«?cV fer the rer.t of the 
entire deriaed pre&ises for the eonth ef June aeountin^ to 
I3C-1 .16 and that auch cheok was deposited in the baak ace cunt 
of plaintiff in the uaual -way. on July ii » 192u» plaintiff had 
defendant served with a notice terrinatingr the term for the 
tien of the covenant afsinst subletting and comjsendlor, that it 
qfttit the pi'<*a)i8eB« 

It in *^e opinion of th« o«urt that reoeiving a 
eh<?ck frr the June rent can In nr -mse be regarded as a 
waiver of 'he scvenant against sublettini;« beeause *-he cheek was 
received after the discovery that def«»ndlait had offended ajgeinst 
ths subletting covenant, 

"JJs are further of the oflnien that plelntlff did 
M»t waive the oovenant against subletting stnd that the »ers 
fast of aeeeptance cf the rent subsequent to nn ' »ith kno^iedgs 

cf etjob wiM ettlnff did not constitute ei ^nirmr cf t,bc trescb cf 
that covenant, ins^ of the *xrre8» jirrviaiontj of the lease is 
that «cceT--tane« cf th? T«nt nccruing after a breach shall net 
operate as a waiver cf th<* rlifrht te forfeit the lf?ft»o. uorecver, 
while Gadey, th<? ajrwrl, had ftuf^if-ltr tc siek« tke lease an' col- 
lect tlR^ rent tharaunder, thwra la n© eriflenee that h<» had ?»ny 
exprees or implied authority to ■waiyi* thp oonc«. itlon of the leiute 
against ouulettiHg the pr^eiees or aT?v part thettecf, sc that the 
knowledge cf the BjTsnt, if any h© h?»d, cannot be iarputed to 
plaintiff; and there l» BO proof that he was p g<»neral ri^^nt 
havinii; aboolute charge aod contrci of the prep <?rty. The prinoi- 
ple is laid down in 31 Cyc. 1387, t>)&t "presumptively am, ar'ctJt 
is tKployrd to wairp ctmtracte, net to rescind or saedify thera, to 
acquire Intpreate, not tc i^ive th«si! up, »nd no pc^er to cancel 
or y»vv an a^rreesient is to be inferred fr^st a general yc-^er to 
jaa)c«» it; nor h-'s the ag«f»t any implied power tc waive or« 
up any riehte or interests fcr his rrincipal, nor tc increase 
his oblSiraticns mtid liabilities for t.hsr wvrm benefit cf third 
perscna, tinless tlse principal knew cr sprreved ef such jso^ifica- 
tiene bv tl^** Ri?.»nt.* '-^fatl'tft^ v. , 135 !?. V. 97; Holliday 
V. 'rd^-n^cj. 90 m , Apr . 130; mi , ^if;»r v. Hoi 1 inga^e rtti . 99 
Fed. t-ep. 216, 

the fact that thsre «ere twc breach<<;s cf the co^e- 
nnnt in thf? 1 (^nae «f?«inst subiettiof; before plaintiff prare no- 
tice tc tersBinf.te the l«wee fcr a yiolatien of xhat oorsnant, is 
in no Bfnee a wHlver ef th» covenart by plaintiff, 

We are of the opir.lea that there is no errtr in the 
record Justifying a rcrersal, »nd the jud.s.erit cf th*? Municipal 
ccurl Is th^-refore af finked. 

~e-7rr a#}d ii«3Br»iv, JJ,, concur. 

3<4 •, a6558 



TBI? S: ACCABJ^ISS, « ^rTToratlon, 


221 l.A. 647 


Xn iin ftetion upon « benefit e«rtlflo«te in th« di«- 
f«n<i«nt order th«r« whb a TcnSict for 4®250 antl 8 judjjaient ttoer*- 
©n In fuTor of pl«intlff, «nd defendant «pp»»«l», 

JTftnct C. 0*Bri«n on August 14* 16$$« mn&o an mppliea* 
tien t»T i8«n1)«rshlp In th« d«f«»di»nt or^er, r«pjre»i*ntlB)s thweln 
thai he ws» hem tn Qhie«iffe 6i&y 9, 18'^S, »ni th«t ©n his l»«t 
birthday he w»» ferty-feur y«i»r» of RjE^e. Mftust S0» 1899, d«- 
f»nrt»nt l»8u«d to 0»flri«n » benefit curtif iceite which *»• ther«- 
sftnr turr!^d#r«A i«iT»d n niwr e<»r*;lfiGsti» iiisu'vd to hl» Au*;u»t. 11, 
1004. »iiy 4# t91<l, C •Brian wocl» mm affidavit th»t hit hfn«fit 
©•rt.iflff»t# imt iff*u«4 h»d hi»«wi lf»»t «T»<i th« o#rtlflc»»t# In suit 
«•• l»Bu«>d to his Vmy 12, 391''. i*iich i« pnyabl # te T»l«l«*iff. hit 
di»iMrht«r. Xh« benefit certificate eentttine the fellowlnff preylelenJ 

*I»imed in T-lRce cf lost certiflonte **** ?»^i8 certl- 
fl*"* t>i»t *•♦ Jft»^» U'l'rien hes been r<Pf:«l«r'iy »d«lttfd to m«»« 
bffrehip in the t»oc»be»»« *** This certificate Is ieeued be- 
cause cf nn applioetien for BouberBhip and medleel exuRlnntiea 
fumiahed by the aCBbpr in writing, »ipn«d by hia> and warranted 
te b»» nbeolutely trtt«» in every psrticivlar ne written, which «p- 
plio«(tien, mrdieel exeioinnticn, l»«a of the eaaoclntlcn In force 
et wftturity of oontrect nn^. thia eer*:i^i<^«tr constitute th* con- 
tra«t between the nember and th<» nsBociinttcn. 

"nukt at hi» death twr thoueund doHars will be paid 
e« « bm#fit to L^arKAret Huwrd b^Bring f«^«HS2^-i*l.L^ th^t** 
denrhtor upon nctuel proof of doath •** provided alwaye that 
hie application for mwebwrehip and »e<Jlcal ««Twr)lnf'tlon are ab- 
lelutely true aa *rrltt«i •**'." 

Under th* charter of defpn-^nt order, to be rti^ible 
fer »«»b*rBhlp pereoo» era at b* b-tir«»«»w th#. »rf^« rf plr,hte«i and 

VSM h. 

flftv-or? v«Rr8. "lue mtmhitr, J«m#8 O'Brien, di«d Aujcust :a, 1917. 
Jrocfs ©f df'ath »#»• duly furnished. The maturini fnots ef th« 
o«»« were stlpujuted. lla* whel i» c«i»<» rpstm upcn th* gu««tlen of 
the age of Janes o*Brien* 

iMfendant contend* th«t 0*»rier> vma rcore tham fifty- 
one ye»rs old Hi the ti»e he Joined the dcfendwnt order* und hence 
im» ln«»lfftlble «8 a wewber under ItR ohnrtey *»nrf hy-lnvs* On the 
other hnnd Plaintiff** contention is that 0*B]rien*B «{;« was eorreetd 
ly stated* 

O'Brien wns bom In Chicage T'^lor to thp gr'^et firs 
of 1P71. iiuch Tital etetletles. if «nv, that erieted rrter to 
that ealanity were deetrf'ved In It, ec th» *. there le no r«h.lie 
record of the hlrt>i of J«^bh»8 f •Brlsn. ?he firj««her»hl|> oerti**ioBt« 
In eult is that cf ^ate ^ay 12, 191^. There wrs nr yroof thwt the 
rrlrlnel efrllpptlpn '"f Jaaes C»Brien of Aufruat 'J4» 189P, -waB the 
application for the poUey of i!«y 13, 191*5, In auit, nnd mxoh np- 
yliotlon for the orli^iinal certificate was not "bv tho terffis of the 
eerti'lcate in ouit nade a part thereof by any recltstion or rre- 
ylaicn In ouch certificate, «n<5 th^re ie no i»rosi«i?'pti/^n In l?iw that 
Sttch original aprlicatlon ie a part vf t!;i<e l«t»>r pel toy, Helacn y . 
Aaeur . 009 . « 73 HI , App, 153. 

'*ien the new certificate was issued G*Bri«n released 
defendn»it frow all liabilities under the original. Thl» losvss 
the rlffhte ef the parties to be jreasured by the terms of the car- 
tlf Irate In suit. FU rth Two ra , the atf\tfwent of the Insured as to 
hia mpm was a rspre»ent»'tif>n nrnl not a warranty, anwfiea y. Cont. 
Ag£, jns. Co., 256 111, 444, reyerelner the decision ef this court In 
*>»e sa«e ease in 12« 111. Apr. 32, where thla court err ^eruely held 
euch an answer to be a warranty and net » rf»rre8entatlon. 

Jaaes O'Brien was a nesiber of defendant for about *>iiErh* 
teen y«airs at th*» tt«e of hia death, durinr which ti«e he paid all 

• •seesmsnta »»«« »r«ln»t him. it apjsfiwra that shortly l9#>f©r« ht» 
d«»th o T?Trr0"nt«tlv« ©f dwfwdftnt. en© ?it8ger«ld» told th« 
InmrAiS, ( ♦Brien* th«t hl« pel icy -mn vcid l)«cRu«f! of fillupwd nle- 
vfrfrrmtcntntl^n ns tc hl» »f?e, und t*jid«r»a tc 0*Hrlen « return of 
••■•»»»;i»rtt puid dfffen-lnnt on his Bjesbwrehip cwtif lout*, Inforelng 
hia th«t d«f«md«nt would iieo«i»t k0 i»or« ftii«*i»«BiMit» frcm hlra on bis 
e«rttfleiit#. At th»t tl»i# "^Itajrwrisld «i»i«! thwt Vh*m O'Brioa Joined 
th# order h* ■»*• flftv-twp v>«t»rw f'ifi, t^ut. 0*Brl«n r<»rllisM!^ that he 
«m» tmly fcrtjr-fcmr y«»«r« p1<» «nt th« tlwft h« .lein'^d tlip or^li^r «nd 
thut h*» ^n'7« hl« rlirht «g« ««(» l*«fo»<wl tc ««c»rt th» ohinflls r.rpf» 
f»rffd for «f»8i««8a;«»nt* theretefor** paid. I'lnlntiff t*«Mfl«d to 
thr«« fncts, «nf! further t«»»tifi«»d that th« ofirjY«»r««»tl«>n w»s hmd 
In tv.n Tr«B*«e« of *»y d»ught«r and sty sister, J^r«, Gibtocns,* 

It lis ocintcnded ttmt the cenv«r«i«tion with yit«ger»l.d 
was eftlf-sffrving nn<1 th^r*foT« InmdralsalM «. ^o thinJf ihl« ovid«noe 
«»• ndflaallBl^ ft« F*rt of thP r«« g«at«i«. Fit»|<:«r«ld «ma tha atgent 
of dffen^l'ant mnd oell«>ct»d assi«asK<>nt9 frcw u^SrlRO, and In rtiMt ho 
did and aald on that eeonaloo ha w»a actinp na th* aij^efit cf dt'fend- 
ant. The sjatter of O'Brien '• ago iwa th* r-snaon piven hy thla 
apont for hla mttmspt to eanoal e'Briwn'a wmhorahlp eertt f Icatf. 
Thr cott»*t'« ruling th»ft It i»a8 aflwlaailJle waa without i^rrcr. 

A d«upht*»r cf { *Brl«»n taotlflHi for da'pn-lant that la « 
eonToraotlcn "Ith ttpr fathar ah** aald to hl^, *Vev ar<? a pratty 
tlrad lerVinor tblnir, ol-l ]:«d,* and ha aald, "Yra," <^nd »h«f aaid, 
•Vail, yem sr* not vary younf^ ncv, you pr<» pattlni? pretty old," 
and ha aald, "Yaa," ha waa fcattinir pratty eld. •^iff th<»n aald, 
■Bow old «ra you ocwV* and ha atartad to laufrb anfl than ah* 
TOluntaarad to tall hiw how old ha waa nn^ aha fcot a 'h^ok and 
•howad It to hlas and ha sold, •'iaa, that le my »f:« all riKht. but 
I don»t aoe ^y you are kaaplni? tViat hook. That la the only record 
of my OKO and It could pauaa trroihla. tha record of r;v a^a w»» 

l?um«4l duriRitr fth» fir*.* 

It tma net ■pvtfvim irho irrnte th« n»n«e »nd «)»t«« in 

tbp Yer\, ncr ^nm th»y nfvc wrl<:trtT. The feeck la In a 411»pidatt«4 

ecr<<)itioB pnd •^•wb tr h«T# b^own «8e<1 for th« jHjrronw rf k»«»Tl»g wc- 

•(mnts of itroo«rle«, T#g«t!»bl •• , #te. Tb©r« le nethlnn t© •hew that 

thi» n»s>«« end «|r«»« were record* cf the birth cf eny cf the {^ertlea 

nemed, but they ft|^pel^r upon a p«p« beeide effvonteen Itijws of 

Brtiolea uauelly ecld In a grceerv etore, wttn three Iteae of 

o*sh* *• b(RV«» no dcubt th»t the Juty regerded the writlnir in 

this be«* «• of no prcbatlve velu** In the 1 tipht of th«» r'^rr*»e«t»- 

tJTOB of t»Brien end the teat teiORy of hie aieter, 5r», «ry Qlb- 

bot»«, who at th* tia»e ef the trial teetifted thm*- she wae sixty- 

9«rrf*r. vwsra eld, nn?! t.h«,t h«r brother wa» thrift vp'ura vmr.^,0t than 

•he nnd thot he wee forty-four v«»«r» rid «t the *".!»<* he ,toiD«d 

defendant order. JSie further teatifietf that, "Wy f ether end 

•ether ''Id not fiYer, tn asy Srnowledfre, write," '^n>^ tl^it 3h*> never 

•a-w thf book above referred tr exoeft in e«H»rt the ?!»»v «he tee- 


Thti aletera of plaintiff ^o teatiflM for defendant 

Bheve:^ ^«ase anlirtte efrainet jrlaintiff, ^'hloh nay have 1 •d the Jury 

te .llecredt*. their evlderee, and thev alao showed Uetlnot hoa» 

tility to their father durinp the letter yeare cf >.ia life. 

Froai n ocnsideretion of all the toatiKony the Jury 

were ^luBtlflu^ in ooncludlnp, ea they did bv their verdict, that 

Jaeiea C*Brica mede no falao repreaentetion te defendant ea to hi* 

age at t.h» tiaie the certificate In eult was procured from «ind ia- 

eu«d by It to hiH. 

^a Jvdffaent of the Ciroult court b#tnir without error 
la affirmed. 



ev#»r nnt^ Jo lufely, J^.» concur. 

398 - 26S72 

JO.i'.l}l I'.WOtm, 

^ion p«. 




221 1-^- 647 

HKLiymm tuk cx'Ikiok uv thi?: couki . 

in ftn » for mjilicicus ircsfcuiipn plsintiff h»(i m 
rfTAifif for #6C0, Slid apoo a r«-^lttlto* of ^^>t, n jud^^aent tto«r«OB 
©f t4 . T)ef *T:c>\nt, olRisnin^ that tn th?» rp^ecrd tiierft i» rav^rsl- 

It m^ppe-nrn frais the fi-?idlenoe ifiafc defpndent &^ini«ln«4 
• t 1*53 Nort^ ClAp'< »tr«*t a tnxicab anra^^e, »nf1 ttwut for »lx Bor>th« 
Vrior te 3aT>tewljej? i, 191P, rlnintlff vma In the tsaploy of d[«fftnd- 
f»nt, T-nrt «f ♦.>-.« +LTI* driTtn;? n c«r and part O!' the tlra» werklns »• 
nirh^ 'rT«.»n,i«n on tV-, Hocr; that. SunJay, 3«ptft«b«r ], 1918, 
ymn thp f^yptt "r»bo1 ir!«»l •»« 3un<1*!.y; '* thnt. on theiG Jundfty« no c»r» 
«rerf> tp ■»)•> ffTCT^t'^t^ frr« Ssturday nl«fct unin flTP r'cJcok ' ond«y 
iPcmlnfT, f»rcftrt In ci»i«f»i» of '>rf«rg'*ney{ tl,«t en iiunday, September 
l»t, d#fi»nd»»nt l*ft plaintiff in chaTiR« of the Rsw-pe at about 
tix o'elcok in th« =»7«*ninR, at w^iloh time jail the ci»ra were In th« 
t«r9K«. ilaintiff cl9in« thut defendunt tcld hicj he ni»ed not Bt»y 
•reun<1, Mit te ke«|? aii py<» on the plMj©; defondnnt deniee thlg, but 
elAlna that he told plaintiff to leoJr the Kev««« f^n^ I'* BObftdy in, 
that no cara were pclnft out and no gaa could be sold, ilnlntlff 
awoT.» th«t he Immediately loft the es^Tr.^9 find did nrt return until 
rne e'olock th*« next uprninr. theufrh betwe»»n elpht e'cToek at ni#;ht 
and pn<» c'cleek in the morninp he passed the r«ra5.'e T>«t did net 

iiefendant Tisited hia garage on Joonday mcrning an^ 
noticed that a cwrtain lalga car was muddy and th»t. thf tlr«B wai 
in bat] condition, although the ear had bnen vntshed the prerioua 
niflht and the tires were then in p-ccd condition* Befftndant vaa in- 
for?ri«»d hv » ermpetiter thiit the car w^nt cut cf defendant'* garage 
at Bbeut ol «»T«»n o'olocV iiunday night. Defendnnt t(»8t If i#»d that 
»»ft«»r statlnfT the principal fRcta tr a lBwv*>r h* waa adTi^ed by 
the 1aw>r to ^.ak«> out a wtrr^nt for th«» «m»Bt of rlnintlff. 
Ther«»aftf»r on th«» 6th of iicptraiter, l?*!?, defendant swore to 
a coffirl flint ageinst pl'^i^^i^f. rh«rginr hia '^ith being eitiilty 
of Tlolatlng eeetien 1 f> cf the Jeter Vehicle l^wa ef thla State, 
•nd th«t. hp ran nn wutemobne in the absence cf th? e»mer without 
the o^Tier** crnnent. Plaintiff waa arrested, held in „<sn, and 
thereafter tried en sel-i chBrge befci^e a Judge of the kunioipal 
court, irne found net ^ruilty and discharged, en'i the prcsecutien 
ended because the court thought there ?fss no prebabl e cnuae to 
b^liere plaintiff guilty of the chnrpes tcade againnt hiiK. 

It is «rfnjied for reversal ♦-hat tlipre is no crmpe- 
tent evidence in the record that any order 'fmn i^tered dls- 
charplng rlsintlff in the offense ehwrp-ed arainst him by de- 
fendant; error In rulings en evidence; thist the verdict is 
ageinet the weight cf the evidence; that the advice of ee ^asel, 
shown by the evidence, «»» p eo»rpl«>te -defense tn plRirtlff's 
claim; and th«t t.h^ court erre** Ir. Tffnninr *:c> inatmct a verdict 

In f»»vor of defendant, 

the court record in the erlwlnal case/offered in 

•videnee, and this showed that on Cetcber 1, 191«, on a trial 

by the court plnintiff "as found net j-uilty and was .iiarhnrc-ed. 

■Qiis «•• 8ufflci'°nt evidence of the terrinwtlcn ef the prcseeu- 

tlon. It was not necessary to offer a certified copy of the 

record, as the trial Judge had a ri^ht to ta) e Judicial notiea 


of the record pf the liunicipstl nourt. 

It ia arrued tliet t,h«»re is s' order r,be»lnp th«t 
pl»intlff -HBO difKihftr|Er«4 or t^i* trlRl . ?iJ«» ntntfim^nt cf cImIm 
i»v«*rred tVint. plaintiff wie dischwir^ pnd thf jtob emit ion 
eni#d, p.mJ In Rn affidavit of n»<»rit« d«f«n«S»rt dl<^ net deny 
eith*»r st»t*w*^nt. tind«r the practtc© in thw l''uniel}>al court 
Batt<>r8 ©11 oped tn the 8tat«j:«»nt of clala «»n.i not rlenled by the 
iiff ii^'BTlt of w«rit« stnnd n^rfltt»ci . I&ar^ v, GhicaiTO ^^ily . ^ ,<M»ft« 

194 111 . App. sas. 

Miether d«fen«i»nt tssde « fviTl diaclcatsre tc ceunsel 
of th<» f«ct8 vipoD which 3uc;i ceunael'o sdrlce ^s«9 predicated, 
advisinic the prcB«*cuticn, '»» cnp of f«kct fcr the jury. Lycng 
T. lantpr . 2S5 ill. 336. 

There ia no eTl!!*nc«» in the racerd that plaintiff 
tooV or u0«d th<» c«r of defendant rb he was chRrp:ed irith doing 
ir thf crifiinsl ryosceutlon, nor dc«>g it «ppr»«r th«t d«f«ndent 

• tstfrl to his cotin»«l wh*»n he aouitrht his ndric© th»»t hf hfid uny 
•Tld!eno<» thRt plaintiff took him enr out of the garaj^e in -yicln- 
tien of th« fltntut»? 8UT>t^ ,.. nor did defendunt prove any such fact 
upon the trial . 

»• thinlr, «n thp ffvidenoe crnsiderod* th«t tho jury 
Qifht reasonably find thmt thf» prosecution of rlelntiff 'by d«f«»d*mt 
w«8 without probnbl «► eRU8e» unri th«»t there was nc eTldence in the 
record thwt def<*nd«int nnde e full dlaelesure of «n the fncte to 
hla cGunael on Trhich such cofunael advised that probnbl p cnuae for 

• criminul prosecution agnlnst plaintiff existed, nnd thftt there- 
fore the advice of octinBel wna not a dpfenae* 

At the time defendant aoved for »n instructfMl verdict 
the record presented sufficient f^cts upcn -'hlch the Jury would 
be nerrentpd in retuming a verdict for plaintiff. 

There is no error in th*" rulim^a uprn pvi'^pnce, «e the 

questions to whloh obj-^ctlcna ^cre iiVtstftined ««r« brruKht out on 
acwers to oth#r cu^etione by otunsel. 

'#e thinlc the jury were Justified in finding that dft- 
fendftnt was netuated by brIIc© in CMiaing th«? arreat of rlaintiff. 
Thip «rr»»»r9 frrra b conversattrn between thea! «t the tlm«p defend- 
«nt ■'^iBcharffed T>^»lotiff from his sfrrle*, defendant vsylBff. him 
twenty-five dcllnra, r>laintiff claiEiinir it shrnld be fifty dol- 
Isrp, le hf y\n6 v^.tfl n ^^^T09it ef twentv-fiv«» rlcl !s»r8 to defend- 
ant. Uefend«nt sal'l t.o rlaintlff, *You ^r*- not rrinr to |?et ♦^^hat,* 
anH plaintiff replie<i, "If you feel that isay about It I will have 
te tske it up vith the union,* and defendant then said, "Cc en, 
talre it «jp with the union; 1 'lin fjo and ^et a warrant for yott 
and railroad you." 

yinding no rerersible error in thp record, the Judg- 
ment of the Municipal court ia affirmed. 


©•▼er and lie Surely, JJ., concur. 

410 - 26m 

cm 0? cair.iea* 

) krWAh mm u.w>tCB'k% 


A,,.iw./', 2211. A. 647 

\ ^ 

m'Lvnmtf the -xisioi or tw. coast. 

of Alilae;, 09ant«n.Aa<;i3ae ^A aftnijiitlAg in imklua Inproper 
nole^a, •lo., t«ndl&g to n l>reftah of 1^ p«»e» in violation 
of a ci«y orAlB«u!i9« r«emr4ins Mtiordtrly oonSttOt. 

?ft(t «>Tld»no« faile to C£>t»blla}i the ohargo. ?h« faots 
ftm %h».t Aofemdnnt In « fiftt whloh h«> o«n«4 hft& a teaant a»in»A 
Kroneap, whloh flmt Kramer agrwod to iri»o*t;« by th« 16th of K*y, 
19£0i that )?r»saor «n« 'Jig* Kr<w«y, his wtJto, aid vaoate tha 
flsi th« day pirofioos asd dollrerod the koy to Aof«adAat; that 
the hotteohold goodft vore |>«iok9d rot^dy to b« ohippod and Mra* 
STMsar elftim«d the right to leaTo the i;oadft in the flitt la 
Tirtue of aa M£;r»«»eat ahe ol»in«A to hare with the Inooming 
t^Qsnt. k» the sew tooAat desired po«M««ioa of the flat, 
defendaat had the ftoods of mrtm^r mored to a enrehooee aad 
8(^▼e %• Mi«. KreaMr the warehouae reoeipt for them. There «a« 
no loud talkl&s or dlsterbanoe attende&t apoa this traaaaotion. 
there were praaeat, at trm tlete the famitaare waa nored, two 

- £ - 

poli«MMia, but ao ftzrestB vt9 m«*« fiaA not natll aftevwurAs 
wMi tlw wAiTMit la this ««•• swora ovt* 

?fc«r« 1b nothiag la thl» ?«eer4t Jastlj^lag the ooa- 
Tletloa &nd flno lAf>OiJi«(S} tfmvt^ttt th« jodgswat of tb* 
MualolpAl etrart le reT«r««&* 

432 - 26606 




KliIGt-;T3 ABC LA5%r::i 0? /ECUiaTY. ) 

AjJ&Hlan/. ) 

221IJV, 648 


Ihle is ?>r. sctifTJ upor t^ benefit cffrtlficatr In the 
defenflant ord«T tt^xsn the life of i^tt ^^5rt?iu«'h, in ;?blch plain- 
tiff i3 th** benef Ici'^ry in the suej of $£,CC(;. 

Upon s trinl 'before oc5urt and jury there wna « 
T*rdict nnd ju'lfTftPTJt far $2X81.75, snd defendant 'bringB the 
r^ccrd tc this court for rpylew nr.rt hsVs a revereal upon the 
following irrcunde, vis: That th« trial rourt err«»d in its 
r»i1 in^e uTon th»» ^Tlflence nni it» Infltrueticna tc thP jury nisd 
in net instructing « yerdiet for defenJant. 

Th* decisive qupstien in this caae In, did the in- 
sured ohtsin hlw ■n«!nb«r9hliit c#rtlfl«?«te In the defendnnt order 
by f».le#lv r'^T^resentinp' in hl« Rif^rllftRtlen th«t hp ^m.n n eipfrr 
dealer, wht^n h<» 'vnn in f»ct a a!*lpcn Vfer**'* ^'"ieh if tra« dle- 
cunllfled hl-g fpr ■Bemherehip. 

lo hla npfliention fcr ntttberskip, the insured «fter 
etetlnff hie niwee and residence, answered qupstien 6 - "^aat ia 
your hMBlneaa er eecnpntlpnV - by "t;ig««r dealer-" *»<! to the 
Question. "ixiTe yc« any ether buaineaa. «aployB;ont cr occupntlen, 
eith?jr refT«l»<rlv or PccaalcnRllylf* he answered "Ke," bnder clause 
7 in hi» arrlioatlon he made the following etetesrent: "I aa net 
ecfrn^^d 1b any of the ooeupations aentioned in ^eotiona li-6 and 

1C7 of thp Intra e*" fht- frdcr ytinted on ih«> r#'T<pr«« sldft hereof, 
rxoert «8 •tt»te<t in •newer to question «, sni 1 ^>fr«f that I frill 
not -hil " » i7:«>ab«r ef this order, h»r<»j*ftsr ^n^age in s^sy of thes« 
ocoT»pMtiona, sxo«pt «t ciie anas ti3!«» recognizing the full foiYse of 
t,h« ord««r'3 laws »xtinrui8hing Ita li!«bility upon thp ecsntinpency 
of nnv iB'Wbpr engaging in ttny prohibited pocuyratlon or increosing 
the rfitr of aasesBMentu on Recount of nngiAglnp, in e. htKsardeus oe- 

i h<»r«by »i»k« Rppllwstion for liwref ici?^rv nertifieat* 
frow th« Katlonnl Ccuneil of th«? Knlrhts ir.d I-sdiefi of Security, 
Rnd i hereby ^#c1»r«^ thst th«» fcreircing' snswcra sn:? Bt«tflB'.<»nt8 
«nd t.hp ?»ns^«>TS ^o th*» qus^aticns prep?)t»nd«d t,o <t»»^ by th** Tr.Mlcal 
eswirrr, nr« w^rrrjtnt^? tp b" tru* «nd f'ln , ^rsr! 1 horpby no- 
SrnowT «*d^<» «n<1 njrree that th»» said "^newe-rs Rn-< st«tt«*5«r^te with thla 
njip^irption jsh«l 1 forsr the baels of &y ai?r««y»«»nt '^ith the order 
and crnetltut<» m vnirrft^'ty. 1 hereby sttke «y esedlrRl eitaiKilnatlon a 
part cf this sprlication and a^ree that thip pppT i*?RtioE an<2 fsfdieal 
exsA.inntlcn shAll be considered n part ef tp.^ br?n<*f iciary eertifl- 

1 further dec! are and «r,ree that I kno^i nn^ understand 
thp contents hereof, xmd thnt the answers an * stateraenta aa written 
h«»rrir. flre aa priTcn by me tc the nedical ewuniner." 

iflfCtion 1^7 on the reverae of the applicftticti abOTa 
ref<?fr#»d tr, r<»«ids: 

-7h« followlaft fire th*' prohibited elaae of rlslrs, »nd 
BO eubrrdlrjite cojjir^cll nYt»^1 rfQ»»lTre lnt« or rftalr in Its bone- 
ftciary oesiberohip persons e?!rr"«ed in nny cf th<» fcncwiB/; ooott- 
patfens: *** persmp enr*'*'*"^ r>lth*r »»9 ^ri'^jfscturf^r rf, or whcle- 
»«1«; APKlfT in, splrltuouB, rolt, or ylnoua llquera, or as saloon 
ewn*r, fslscn Veeper. rr Vwrtr^'er, enjrs-rfrt ^^- ^•^■'*' ''*^'^ ^^ spirltu- 
OU9, *»1t cr Tir.cus t Iflucrs as a '^freraisie.* 

there ere ether aectlena proTldioie in aabstenee that 

false atnte^enta ciade 8>iall inye1i<late the Bewberahip and the 

'benef i<*ij».ry certificate i((su«»d thereunder « 

There csn be nc -icubt that thp 8ti«tn»rif!nt. es tc the> 
Insured's 'buairs'BS "ssis fRlae, snn t.hat ii33t#««<3 cf *;eliii!r & ct$;aT 
'•ftl*r h« ="m9 «» 3'iTo«n 'kenr:?'r, b»c3us»» it l^ F^tlpei^.tfd ty ccufi> 
«»! fHwt ^'urtsufh -sm^ th« ^•'^^•t end ke-y-er rf & <?!^1or:n s»t the 
tlrsp ef ♦•.'".-' ftT>T"? ic>'<tir-^ ani th^reaftar until t.h«? *i»>f of hta 

•uppert of the proef cf df^sth, s^^^rinip th«t *.h<?- Inatired, the 
dere«sft«S »fwl»er, -nr^ net nt th9 ti^-" cf saytne afr'} lc»tioB for 
»«?a5bprahip or st any tta* ther««f t4»r ^d^ipHI in tti© 'busln^sa cr 
eccuTJstlen of a whcl eeal e or retell dc^aler in Itqwers, and at no 
tiiBf? r'«.rfcrts&d sny «f tiie duties of feuefe tmsirsese, th«t hie iRist 
busine&s -,ma Umt cf Eect irsp^ctor for thf? 'oRglo -i^stfrioaa i:e»e- 
pisny, »»R'^ ftjst 1* WS8 Ui«? ssffie wlien ho ^f^ioed the order; that the 
eceuT'?'tlc-n« fe* bnd fcl'owei fcr the last t«»n yefrs ^sre ''iRbcrei',* 
•f>€«cV:it»g»* *»e«t iflstpecter* pmi "eirar SefOer." •*■« vi«js» ct tb« 
fercitrirf: stjjjuletiejs it Ib patent th«t fhR &tm%fm<mta in p}eifi» 
tiff p r.ffl-^aTit w*»r« u«truR. 

It s^rasss that one "t. laabeils Hurson PT«»rin«(t the 
inniTed fcr tb« eori#»ty. A ira. Juli« A. Brady sol Icitffd th« d«- 
erasrd te grrk* thp sprlirntlfn and to bpcc«« e »«sjbflr ©f th# so- 
ciety. Jlftlntlff ir ker t**&ti«!io»v d^Berlb*-^ tb« fist c^r-r the 
«»1©er ""hfrrp thp r'4irt?»B*^bi« TlTt'd. '^■r^ ststftd thpt tb«« nuwbrr ■*»• 
errr th* trr.r«rw cf tb«» »«ler« --^ccr; t'n^v^ Tj«»r«» t^c f?rnr» in 
frort, crs*- l"niMnr irtti •^Jhe »»lccr rnri rn** ;^cSnr into the hall 
1 'flrJInr tf; th** npetsirs fl*t; that thflare "waa « hIft ef th« Sc- 
Avoy 3i'«fvlnr C^-pany fnd th» nnae "i:att S^rt«wrb" e>T«r th« »«]Ckoa 
drnr; that t^lle brf>, Ursiiy -fa^? in th« flnt the ipcMred Ciun« ap and 
h«d luacbeon wltl; then; th«t f* couple cf 4fiy« Inter In th<? <^v«fn!ng 
Srs. ;ir?»dy enB« beok with -«r. iiurdcsn* stsylnK there aboat two 
Hcure, v»nd thnt 3ihe cnll«d h«r hutthend up l«to th* flat; that tike 
they^upcn told »4rs. Braay sind 73r, mra«a thAt her hvsbatid oculd 
a«t ^o to the lodite ie be initiated as th«re «r<?uld be bc one te 

tnYf o*r«» ef th^' snlrcn. tiut thft r.nid th(»r vcwld inltiat* hlK 
th.»Vfi; thPt Bhfl '3Bd hsr yrtJsnnnd were luDth f'Tanined nnfl ''.ictii 
lT»lt!«!t«5 into +h<» -Ipf ««ndnn*; crdm* in t>u- fl?st thst nirht; thRt 
sh«t hrnrd thp Q\i-"'Stlori&- «»!■ ec on:'. t);r>1; h<?r huBbnnd uaid that he 
W95 » 9i»lccn }rp<»r«?r; th»* Dr, IHirsen R8k<'<J hiei If b«^ scld any- 
♦hlrr >!'^aide8 liquor, ftnd hp esid h' acid oi^arft Rnd tobscoOf 
and th»t iira. Brridy swifl* "We win put hia 5©??ri na r. cI^-rt cl«»filer;' 
thftt -luring the exsKiwRticri and inltintion ber ^ueljand were no 
Tftst 'snd hrd er» » ■jrhitp Bjren; timt the sicney fer aas!?9gs;^rit» 
^?;8 3«»nt to Harry AH«y, tb<* flnsncier of the local Icdpe; thst 
th« certtflc«t» su«d upon *??«« r#>cciv«?d by »Hil • 

A m^rynr't of »l»intlff <Tas prtssfsnt and cGrrcborat'^d 
tb*. eijVp*.nnn»» o^ ^^«» frri»p<^lriF testlrsmv tT vlsintiff. lie 8«/cre 
th«* 3^^" h'»?»rfl Krs . Brrdv «?ri<1 '?r. Murser s^ey t}t«t ♦>ibv weald init 
l^rt^urb r<e«»n f.8 ». et«?«'^ df^nipr, tbp*-, it, -muld net Icol wfli to 
pot ^5>^ f'o'vr' pp I "p*-lerr V'^frfr*" 

^cfbtyr •»!tTj?'ee tf»j5-iri«fl tbftt b« told Mre. Srady 
to ftpt Kurt*»ufTb*» Rrrlicfttirn. tt,?-.* h© et»ve ^'ra, Brady l!urtfe»igl:'» 
mA^Ti*«m nn<' tf^T?* >;<"r it -^9 f SRlcrn «n'^ that »t tbftt t.iaic he did 
not Vnow thut eislem lr»»?T«'rB w«r<» not «d5>lttpd Intc the tiT^tsr^ 
und 4ld net knew tbla until »ft«r t^rtaugh'e <le»th. Ke then 
locked Intr thw bylnw» and discov«red fer triP first tisi« ths.t 
s»loon )r«<>per« w<tre net eligible* 

lh« eontrset betw*>«n the Insured and thf defendert 
society le p»br«ced '»ithln the fi-pplioation, the benoflciery cer- 
tlfleete lanup^d on »tieh sfrl Iction, end thf ecnstll«i-^ien «nd by- 
lewp rf the def «^ 'i»iit eecl^ty, end they er*» tc b«« cenetrued tc- 
iret'her ee tv.«» eentreet of the rertlee thereto. Thia is t.hf> Ibw 
■• w^n »«»ttl ««d In this >tete bv mnroroue eathc^i tl»»e. r«riyh1; •y » 
Boticnel Counci^ J£« i lt» SL ^'^ ^^^ ^^ • ***^"^5 Cregj^ y. oU££e£i£ 
odge K.fe L. £f H., 254 ibid 60; Levp -r. It. •?. A .. 259 Ibid 102; 

Hgrvlc k 7. K.^\ A ,» ISe III. A^F- S7C. 

iietii€r the snawcrt* v-ere repr«?eatftt jrtJS cr warr^-^tle*, 
th«'v ^t<uld, if fftlBf iv. ft-ct. vitiate the ctntrssct. i^S^X '• ^iSSSk 

Vhr' orcupfttlen of !Kurt»a|fh iwb8 mp;ti»ri«"> tc the risk of 
inmirtrr h<. «• Tif-, «nd bis st-R«j«flnt that he irf»8 « clpi^r d»»«l«»r whon 
-- - :■■ In ffK!'. " fir'lorn y»f^«iT >>»!«)?■ fftlae, th«»r« cs'^ ^*» nr T*»e'^v*isr • 

Aocor^^-tng t.r fho t*«3tiB)rnv cf plRintiff t.h«»r« fmit rol- 
1»i<iif»n >n»t-*«»pn 'Jr. laalx^llft Burecm^ the sn^^ifHSl 'srswl^^r, tunA Jwll* 
Br^Mly, -("hr TrPCTir*»d f\^ njfpTirmticn, tr int^^^icntttlr ^fCf'irm the 
def«rsrtar>t seci^ty c tb<» insptpri?! mi*9tl<sTj *■■'• the ^C!CVt^■"t irri of 
feurtyuph, hv fulei^lv TeT-rftanritinc th«t, h*^ •*-« s <{l>-«»r '*fp1«»r -^iwj 
h«» lewB in fRct, tP thf»lr kfio'w'! ed?«, enrwrsw? 1?? th** rsIcpb hu«in«8»» 
which dlscualif i6d hia under th« constltutlcn nrd hv- "(?«■»•■? o<^ «^e- 
fsrulnnt Bccl»^ty from ««»her»hlT» therein. IScne cf thf? T*»rtJ.*B to 
«uch nn lll^fwjl set enn. In » cmsrt of JosJtlc**, ohts^n nny M- 
Tantaf^ff hT sueV. fnlse r*»rr#»B*»ntetlc«3, 

if It w*»r«» ec«e«rt<»d that l«rs, Bradv i^a t'np Rfnt ef 
th*» '1ff<^i«nt 9rri*ty In rreeur^nff kurtaugh*B apr-l ic»Bl.lcn, th« 
oellti9iea h«t»»<»i»n th« »i>i?l leant i»nd maeh we^it tr frrmtr* m 

! »«ci'bf>rshi|} e«»rtiflc«ite by fals* 9t*«t«*i»ii(»nt« woul^ npt hinri the d«« 
f«nd»nt. l^GrecTY v. Ji«ticn»1 , V"^9 P» ^^^ III. ^>$»F . 62. 

■ThMr*! i9 «€>thl«r in th« *Tii«*no* te hrtnr hoae t« 

I 4«f«B««tit >r«ewl*dpe ©f th«> fatno !itBt«B«nt in t>.«» aprl lection as 
to th#» cccurntion ef rurt»ui?h f^lth^r at th** timm thf eertlflcata 
of •Mib4*riihiT> waa lesuftd. or at any titj«» th«r«(faft«r ^prec-^iiBi? 
i«iirta«f;h • • d*ath. ifurtiiaraora, d«fen<1«»nt cannot b« h«l4 to hay* 

j tMllyai its rl«^ht to forfeit the B«»«b«rohip h«!s«»*? of tha fact 

*' M»t caeh falac otatimant «as ecllualTcly aada and procurad \>v an 
•lt»rt of d*»fandftnt. »ei'or« a waiver can he faatMUNl upon fi#f«»d- 
»nt It ia inetiwhont a|>oa plaintiff tc proTa hv » prapcndaranea ef 

'j tta •vid««nee thnt th* iiftcnt bad mrrrmnm attthorltv from th«> dafand- 

BBt tc iFsVe th« imiver, cr that defendant Bubaequf'ntl v hsd knovil-. 
•dee of the ft*ct« snd rntififA t.h* sc^lon o** fb** rrrnt In mul-ing 
the w»iver. ^<' vrniver pnr? Trr inffrrr'S frr-T th" r'^^'^naiv^ action 
cf the insured ard thi? «!s:r'.r!t cf Se'^rntlfrt In sipv-syvjr r!»">3e st*<;.»?-- 
pfnts ir TPpBTv'. tr « y.f^tcrlfl^r, S'fAe ff»T- ^h<" rvirr-cisp cf 
ftvtldinr thr* exrr«»8!« fvoTiKicRS It; t*M ccrp* Itiiripri eind bv-1 P'wb 
of cefGR<i»Rt enrlfity. t>rcv< n t. Qreat P«f g.. 16*? Jici*. 12?,. 

Tiier«' Is no eridencp that irs, . Bredy, whc- eclicited 
^rtnuf^a to jein tho 80cl«ty, 'sas eetini' as the agent vt the de- 
fendant cr tr.Rt chr hid any ccntrsct, uRdey?!tftndinr er sgre-eanent 
of R^encv with defendftnt* £* the ceotf»ry it wss ehewn thnt she 
was •cwrvinp fer the -^letplct m^mRfe* of fiefendftnt, whcse duties 
And power* Tcere not diBClofied* 

CCiOversiHtlAVK; 'bf'tvrpen rl pin* iff er-.r* tV^e InisaTpd with 
ir?. vr«tsy vere Irisd'^lBelhle for tw/- rff.^rnfii FlTst, ene «a0 not 
prcTer tc hr tb«=' »«reT>t of flef erjtiwnt; oeernd, «he f^« dead. ;»ftC« 
tica 5S21 » Cher* &» ♦^^ ^ ^» ^-- ^'^a*» 

llfeintiff -WRS prrritt»(^ tft tertlf^r nn tc eenfers*- 
tions ^pt-^een hcreelf . >iep bupVwrd, the infnife^, *^n6 lir» . Jorftdy 
»Bd r-r. Jiurser. This tectiiceny ima tr»f?di?'i«:i9n3le under the statute 
>tt f ] f) end under the nillhp in 3b'»hlgted^ v. Id^yl. Li^'iutin& Oe..» 
??1 J1 1 . J M . 

M the errcre ccaanitted hy th^" conrt es abeT* pointed 
cut fprs? cr,'"* of 1 Rw nnd not cf fpct, t»»» pre net rernfltted to re- 
Terse with a flTK^lng of faot; but for these ►•rrcTR the judgwent 
ef the lA.i»siclp?'"« "^cnirt la revf?r5ed ftrj'l th<! en-ose renande-!! for a 
new tilnT in «copH "ith the 1 f?/?«l rrinni'iles «boTe laid down. 

re-?er -n-^ ^'eiiirelY, J J., eencwr. 

441 - 26619 

^ Appelle« 

; JACOB Ifc^VT, 



21 I.A, 64 8 


Dm^vrmm) tks cpiMZOii of ^hs ccoet. 

This is »n appeal fron & J^d^seiit entered upon the 
Terdlot of a Jury in an action of forcibla detainer for the 
first fl»t« 81C Sa.8twood avemie. Chicisigo. occupied by de- 
fendant under a lease fron plaintiff, of i^lch judipsent de* 
fendaat seeks a reversal on this appe&l. 

tht lease expired by its tenss on April 3'^, 1920. 

It contained the f olloieriztg oltxase on a typewritten rider* 


**If said lessee does not give said lessor 
sritten notice, 60 days prior to the expiration 
of this lease of his intention to vacate said 
premises at the expirution of the teres hereby 
grunted, the failure to give such notice shall 
operate as a renewal of the tenf^ncy for the 
further period of one year at the option of the 

It will be observed that the sixty day notice was 
te be given by the lessee and not by the lesser. However, 
plaintiff put his own construction on this clause in the 
lease by giving sixty days notice to terminate the lease on 
the day of its expiration, "iihts nntiee w s given February 
13, 1920, more than sixty days prior to April 30th* 

I«efenciant objects that neither the notice nor 
the coeplaint nor the verdict and Judgsent is for the prenises 
occupied by him under his lease from plaintiff, because in 

the le»8e the fist is descrlb«!>d a» b^^in^ th« "first flat, em 
Si»9t«»ed BT«»nae, Chionf:©,* while the ccmplRint and the Yeriiet 
snd JudiTJpnt arc for the "first fist, 81C ^*8twood avftnue.* 

It Rr'T>p^rs «'itheut ccntrftdiftien that the fist in 
the 1 ei9s*> ^rp« en#» €>f twenty-one flPts in r 'building ntiBtsered 
SC'8-81C ^p-gt'svort »"»er!«f», Rnf5 ihrt t>'«»re «?»8 ^ commcn 
tr el] th?? flRts iR the bwil<Urp ?^ich 'me Irs the criter t^T the 
tuildinr, the flj^tg Ifin^ en r^^c pir!p o^ auch emtrsmee. l!n<3er 
♦ hear clrcurootpneee it is cwr epitiion tlrmt the notice, thp c<m- 
'Isint, th?» verdict nnd the jlvi<lit?»':«nt sre euff ioiert.l v definite 
tc lecate the flnt ccoufifd by <lef«»nd»nt in plaintiff '8 huiJ-i- 
inp en "^Rfltwccd nvenuc; therefcre mich chjffotien la without nsf^rit, 

Furtiieraere, defendsint ndi^its tly»t the less® «a» t© 
terminate on the day cf ita eacj^iratlen hy its tersjB, b^it seta up « 
new iMtretBent sad« Terhally, ns he elftis>9» ■with plraintiff when he 
■et his upon the street, hy ^ich the tews of hie IcRse ^as tc be 
extended six month*, this nllefred ngreasent pleintiff denies. 
ihfttever sny be ssid reprerding an attempt %c extend by psrol » 
lesse under 8«»«1, »a in the onp in csontroTerey, Buch defense if 
evsilftble we.« nn sffinsatiTe ©ne and muet be prfsren b'^ m preponder- 
ance of the evidence. This ouentur ef prepf rn tt is r Int defend- 
ant failed tc furnish. 

There \9 nc 35»>rlt In thr '':eff»n?.e. Hsirtiff In in- 
sist ln« upon poaaeaaiOB after the terwinotlen ef thp terrt' cf the 
laaae ima within his 1 ei^al righta. 

There ia nc error in thia record -warrantins: a reversal 
of the Judeieent of the liunicipal court, anl it is therefore affirroed. 

Sever and XeUurely, J>7., concur. 

4S5 - Z6629 


CerT)er»tioii« f<Jt »>»• of )/ 

\ Appellant, / 

▼•. \ / ) 

\ / ) Of CHICA6C. 

«. 1 lOWAfT 4 S0»3, \ / / , 

^ 221I.A. 648 


On a trial b«for« the court iher« was a flntilag and 
4ttdcP«Bt for one cent and plslntlff appeals. 

fidnos the filing cf plaintiff *s briefs the bill of 
•xearticBS has been stricken frf» the fll^^a on sotirn of defendant. 

There is ne assipjment of error which can be ooneidered 
OB this reTiew withent a bill of exceptions. Be error is apparent 
upon the etetutary r«^oer4% In thie conditien of the record we 
hnT(» Bc altematiTe bat to affiis the Jad^jBent of the feunieifMkl 
ccnrt, which la acfterdlBRly dene. 


Derer and KoiiUrely, JJ., cencur. 


203 - 26376 



SYBIL TUCKKS, AdEiinistratrW 
ef t>ie Satate nf Harry a. / 
Tucker, Deoaaaed, 





2 2l|.1li648 


Sincb the filing of cha opinion in abo^e cause aur 
attention haa been directed by nsotion to the f»et thai the cause 
haTing been tried by the court without e jury, thif? c"urt i» e«pow- 
ered under iieciion liC, chapter ll'\ PrRctice ect, to enter e final 
Jud^ent here in favor of plaintiff. Therefore, the judrrwent here- 
tofore entei^ed on June 1?>, 19?.i, is hereby vecated pni set f^eide and 
Judgment ie entered in favt-ir a^^_,gj,]|;.iff for the butp of ^PB90,Zf 
with eoBta here and in the trial court in favor of plaintiff, and 
the opinion hereinbefore filed is modified acordint'ly. 

211 - 26384 


\ ^pellee, 








This is an appeal from a judgment of the iiunicipal 
court entftred in favcr of the plaintiff an'^ apainst the defend- 

In the Municipal court the plaintiff sought to re- 
cover a ;1ud(?Tnent on two insurance policies in the defendant com- 
pany for the sum of §2000 each. These policies were known at 
the trial as #4 and #1370 respectively. At the conclusion of 
all the evidence the court, on mcticn of the defendant, excluded 
all evidence relstinfr tr pel icv #4 and directed a verdict en 
Tolicy ^-1370 in fsvcr cf the plaintiff. Only the action of the 
court in 'Entering a judpment on the letter prlicv ig questioned 
here. The evidence shows that the application for the insurance 
provided by prlicy #1370 contained a stipulation as fellows: 

"«*♦ If at sny time hereafter I shall engage in the military 
or nsval service in timp o-^ "^r, without the written consent 
cf the coinpfinv, the policy hereby applied for shall thereupon 
heccine null and void." 

It was stipulated on the trial that the insured 

at the time the policies were issued was a ccnnnissicned officer 

in the National Guard of Illinris; that about the 12th of Aupust, 

1917, he arrived with a detail cf his regiment at Camp Logan, 

near Houston, Texas, and therewfter on August 23, 1917, end while 

in the perfcTiBance of his dutv as such commissioned officer, he 

met his death while attempting to quell a riot. 

It is ccnceded that all of the pr«»niiini8 due on the 
said policy hnd heen paid to the extent thnt the policy was con- 
tinued in force until October 1, 1917. The by-laws of the de- 
fencinnt ccmpany provide that its pclicies shall beocme null and 
void if P raeraber engage in military or naval service in time of 
war. At the time the insured met his death this countrv was at 
war T-/it.h the Imperial German Government, llaintiff s position 
en the trial and here is that the defendant waived the prevision 
of the by-laws «ind the application above quoted. 

It is also insisted fcr the plaintiff that the clause 
against mil itRry service mis air! is void as nrainst public policy; 
that It does net aprlv wh^Te the entrv into the military service 
was involuntary; that the insured's death was caused by hazard 
ccreron tc bpth military ptt^ civil life and did not occur by reason 
cf his militarv service. 

It appears from the evidence that the death of in- 
sured was c«used whil «!^ he was actively engaged in military service 
for the United States Government. The clause in question was in- 
serted in the pclicv bv the insurer for Its benefit, and should 
therefore be construed more strictly against it. 

The case of Keller v. Fidelity >Jatual Life Ins . Co ., 

169 Wis. 274, is in some respects like the present case. In that 

case the Supreme court said: 

"We think it is clear that th** language was used for 
the piirre«»e of liraiting the liability tr the return of the 
prerrlu!f« in cases "Jh -Te death resulted direct! v cv indirectly 
from rwe cause r^culinr tc the military service »^nd one net 
comrren to military service nnd civil isn i if e. ., The deceased 
came to his death bv reflsrn of an accident while riding a motor 
cycle under circim)9t"nce8 •<vhich were net in any way peculiar 
tc the military service." 

The stipulation sho-srs that the insured met his death 

while he was attempting to suppress a riot engaged in >ietween 

mutinous colored trof^pa and white civilians. While deceased's 

action v/aa, we aasuire, in acme way connected with his military 
service, it cnnnot be said that it wss a nccessp.ry result thereof. 
He appears to have met his death ?(hil e in the performance of police 
dutv in Quelling a civic riot. It is not asserted that the death 
of dece?»9«»d was hreufrht ahout by n cpuae necessarilv the result 
of his beinf^ drafted into the federal aiilitary service, nor was 
it caused Viv the wer then pendinr between the United States Gov- 
erutent and the finperial Oenaan GoTernniCTit. Ihe incidents which 
led to thf. death of the insured, that is, the riot between mutin- 
ous troops find civil inns, were in no sense, so far as the stipu- 
lation shows, inseparably connected with the fact that this rmtion 
was at war with Genntmy. 

The case of Redd v. American Central Life Ins . Co ., 
200 Ko . >pp. 552, is essentially sirnilPr to the present case* 
The only substantial difference being that in that caa<» the applica- 
tion for the policv contained n clause which provided that nctive 
service in the airmy or navy without the written consent of the com- 
pany would Invalidate the pelicv in part, ^e insured died while 
in service at Camp Punston, Kansas. In deciding the case the 
court said: 

"The kind of active service that we nre deal inir with 
is, Pccor-^inp to *he rrliev, service 'in timp of vfsr.' Is one 
who hss entered a niilit«rv traininf? carip anri is there in the 
course of training in th»» rpp'^iral dersrtnient of the army, 
thousands of Bsiles from the scene of hostilities, to be re- 
garded as in active service in ti-e army in time of war*? ^e 
think not. 3uch a person is certainly not 'before an enemy 
in time of -«t' or engaged in 'operations carried en in his 
presence, ' nor is he in 'the perfcraiance of duty against an 
en emy . ' 

■The policy provides that in order that defenr!ant may 
not be liable for the full volue of the rolicy, death must be 
from service in war. This Fi*cvisicn taken in connection with 
that in the application shows that the application pnd policy 
mean th-et the service mfnticned was to be in rrerations by 
which -lar is carried on before the enemy; that is, the service 
one renders when enpoped cr assisting in actual host illties." 

Clearly it cannot be held in the present case thiat de- 
ceased came to his death while engaged in a war service, construing 

the Rxause in question more strictly against the insurer. Phoenix 
Insurance Co . v. Grove . 215 111. 299. 

It does not seem reasonahle to hold that the clause 
was intended to protect the defendant company frcin loss due to 
hazards ordinarily disconnected with war service. Ihe stipula- 
tion shows that the officers and directors of the defendant company 
had full knowledge of deceased's connection with the National Guard 
of Illinois. The clause in question does not provide for rendering 
a policy null and void merely because an insured may becftiie engaged 
in military service, hut it expressly provides that such result is 
not to be "brought about unless the insured becomes so engapjed in 
time of war. 

It is our opinion that in a case \a^ere it is shown 
that the insured with full knowledge on the part of the defendant 
was at the tiice the policy was issued and for a considerable time 
thereafter engaged in military service, the clause should be held 
to mean that the death, before action on the policy cm Id be de- 
feated, should be shown to have been brought about in some manner 
as a result of an exist inc war. An act of Congress api^roved 
June 3, 1916, known as the National Defense Act, provides for 
placing the national Guard troops under federal, as well as state 
control. Under this act the insured took oath in JJovember, 1916, 
to "wsll and faithfully ciisoharge the duties of the office in the 
National Gua'-d of the United States amd o^ the Statef of Illinois." 

¥r« Saunders, a witness for plaintiff, was at this 
time a director and secretary of the defendant c<wpany, and his 
testimony discloses that he knew the defendant for twenty years or 
more; that both he, the witness, and Fr. Pierce, who during 1916 
and 1917 was a director and treasurer of the defendant company, 
were well aware of deceased's connection with the military ser- 
vice; and this same witness. l!r. Saunders, testified as to facts 

;ox Joannoc 

from which it would not \>e unreasonable to conclude that this 
knowledge aras known to the witness and to Kr^ Pierce after in- 
sured had "been drafted ihto the service of the federal government in 
July, 1917. 

On the whole record we think the judgment ought to "be 
affirmed' The decided cases are not quite clear as tn what acta 
or knowledge constitute a waiver of a provision which requires 
consent in writing before an insured may ■become connected with 
military service in time of war. Phoenix Insurance Company v. 
Grove . 21S 111. 299. We prefer, however, to rest our decisioii 
upon our belief that the clause under consideration was drafted 
by the defendant company for its own benefit and that when ap- 
plied to the facts of the present case in view of the admitted 
knowledge on the part of defendant's officers, it should be held 
that it was intended thereby to protect defendant frrsn loss in 
the event of insured's death arising out of circumstanceB con- 
nected with the carrying on of war; that deceased's death is 
not shown by the stipulation or otherwise to have been caused 
by any act or fact necessarily connected with the world war, 
and that it is not shown by the record that his death vas not 
fhe result of accidental causes existing independent of hie 
eaiployment in the service of the United States. Hialone v. State 
Life Ins . Co.. 202 Mo, App. 499. 

The judgment of tlie Municipal court will be affii."nied. 

HoidoB, P. J., a:.d UcSurely, J., concur. 

soixi. ai»«;' ot^sI 

>D 9oa«iUBnI xlrraoil- 


;i:^3s:t Si 


281 - 26456 \ 

TIMOTHY 1). EllRLgl^i 


« Ccrr oration, I 


221 1.A. 649 

KP.. ^J3?ICS I>3?V-R BISL-IVimHI) tES OJ^IKIOS t)W ?H}? COUI?f . 

n«eUa7 B. Hurley, plaintiff, proenred » judnu'^nt in 

tfc« Mj.aBicijii»7 court ef Chicago Agmiast th» d«fenl(»ftt oorreTwtloa 

for 8onrie«« 
©tj !> elntai fesr nttrm^** fe^|/all^p^d tc te»T«i 'hmmi rendered by 

tlBj under thm terns ef s oentraet. Hie defendcint l»jr ttet« appeal 

seeVs tf r<»ver«« the ^uifl^TOwnt. 

In an s&eti4e4 at«t«»«nt ef elftis 11 is nTi pp¥>ri. thmt 
tb« ri«intiff hsid r Tiered a at«t«s«nt of neeesunt en July 51, 1919, 
tc the d«f«n<J»r!t; that <3fffer4<mt hft4 paid #S0 en account tiiereof, 
leaTing a liftlane« aue y'5»l*5tlff ef |300. fBj® cAse wr» tried before 
a iurv, whioh rendered a vprdiet in fisTor of the plaintiff "ct the 
•tiBj of ^Csj. Judi^Bost «nui entered on the verdict. 

tte erid^ioe ahe^^a that the ylaintlff by earpreae 
agr^oiaat vith the defendant aigreed to render senrices in tma 
•uite in e«eh of «hl<& defendant «iis a party* *^e of tfaaaa auite 
wma pendini? in the Circuit e<nirt of Ceok ocunty, the ether in the 
Itep^rlcr court of Cook County; both suits were dliSBisaed hy agree- 
ment ef the p»rt£ee th-^eto In tMsy, 1919. 

Uaere la no dieiptite that plaintiff perferaied acne 
•errice fer defenr^ant in the aulta before their dlsssisaal. Jfuly 
8, 1919, plaintiff aubsslttf^ to defendant a stateaeeot for 1 e«^l 
eerrieea rendered ?^iioh ahewed « halance d«e hlje of §350, and he 
raadared a evhsequeat ainilar ststeaent to it on July 31, 1919. 
Thereafter on Au^nat 28, 191«, end after b<«h» correapendence be- 

tw«»en th« pftrtiae, in which the defendant sought to •xou8« the 
del«v In a«>'ing yaynent of thf aaonnt shewn to !>*> <^ue> by th# 
■t«tnBAnt9, th«» def«»nd«nt m«il««d » chp«^ tc the ripintiff for 
$50,00 sad «l3o s 1 <»tt«r oontaininir the fenewi««? atstes^entJ 
"Inclosed find c>!i»c'' fcr $50. c, J'er« irould b« smnt you but «• 
sre «i rrt of fnnda." JepleHjber 16, 1915, plftintiff rffnd«x>e4 » 
BtutBEsw'ot to defendwnt, fl"ffli9g it en^dit fer th« jmy»«nt ef 
150,0;, «nd ghe-Tinfr » "baliiine© d«« his? ©f $3 00, Seae carr«a- 
pendflnoe tcek place b(^tw«en the parties b9tw«<»i th^ date of 
the renderini; of thin atat«a<«it and the brlntcrias of the suit on 
Koveffiber 25, 1919, but nothing ia she^w thtjreby exeept that 
failure to nake payaent tc plaintiff ys» due te the fact th^t de> 
fendant was short of funds. 

Tha asended affidavit filed en behalf of the defend- 
ant sets up that there -rma nr. Pff^reement te pav plaintiff th»? sun 
of 1300 fcr carrying on one cf the suits referred to "tc a ccn- 
clUBlon,'* «ad it was ehRr«yed in the affldsTit that •plaintiff did 
net earrv the said cause to a conolysicn, but only attended one 
hearing befere the easter in ohancerv te idiea said cause had been 
referred, on the I2th dav ef issv, 1919, and has net since talcen 
nnv eteps In r«»rr»rd to said eause, «ni was th«refere, en 'oyesber 
25, 1919, diseharffed by the defSTidant ms its attemey," 

iSie evidence shows that the defendant was cespl ninsnt 
in the twc mits which were filed te enjoin certain persons fras 
encreaehing upon charter ripf^its rf defendant, llaintiff wns en- 
gaged tc aid other counsel in the eases, isolu ssuits were r'.>f erred 
to Masters in chsancery of the respective courts "here hearings 
were had. which were attended by plaintiff en behalf ef defendant. 
Viile the hearings before tl^e Masters were pending the defendant, 
by a resolution, agreed to a diaslssnl ef the suits. 

?he eridence ahc^ that a stateasent of aeeomt hAd 


be*n rendered defer.dent by plaintiff and that it h»d net only f»il» 
ed to 83ske any object Icn thT»to, but bsd In finot r«ld 1*^' thereon, 
aeecapAnied by a stat«gj«nt ^,hat defendant ■was unahl e to pay a larger 
WBount bf»cau8e cf Iftc'- of funds* Ko evidence was Intrediiced ©r ten- 
dered OB b^elf of defendant -which tended to prove that the plain- 
tiff h<?d been goilty of nny fraud or ffll«repr«»ent»tlon», either In 
the enklBK cf the oentrect er in the rendering: of the ststi^rient of 

A defendant «f111 be perpsltted tc a'^^cv, notwlthetendlng 
a prmiee m»de by hi© to pnv m belnnec due en e<»«'*iiBt 8ti!»ted, that 
«t t>ie tiaip the Tremiae ^bps mwde he h^^'d net dlsccrered or had bees 
informed of errrr» in th«» r!tR*e»'mt rf aeccunt. Oclinftll y, 
Sc t^ernitsftm ,!;,. P.2 111. 439. Bat, as ^e view the reecrd i» thle 
case, there ims ne tender of evidence tending to sho-s" thrat sst the 
tiflie the defendant received the several stater. ents of mcccijnt, and 
had Biftde a pavment thereon* it ^as unaware of any fact or eircun- 
stance ^lich could have been offered ae a defense in th*» suit* 
It ia true, as urged, that In cases like the present, brtween 
Bttrmey snd client, '^he Ifcw will insist that the attorney deal 
fairly '^ith his client and the courts 'rill readily adslt any 
proper evidence ^rhioh tends to she? thst the client has been t»» 
posed upon; hence the ruling in 'tebingnfi v. i£L£ISLS.» Kweral ru»* 
ber 26C31 in this court, opinion filed Oeteber 11, 1920. (not yet 
reported), «nd in Gruby v. ^itft . 13 ill. App. 43, that in * suit 
between «n attrmey ,na ell^t the client »m be permitted to 
•how, (nren where he has aprreed to pay an exorbitant bill, that 
the prealse to do so ma given «» the result of error or Mis- 
take, or that the attorney has in sene manner overreached him. 
Ihe deeiaioBs in these cases are based upon the principle that 
ev*.n where an action is brought upon an account etated, an at- 
tcrney will not be p^raltted to unfairly use any power er in- 

flupnce hieh he nay «e<;uir« Tsy rewaon of the ornfldentl«l rela<> 
tlonahip between him nnfl >!iB client, 

iS* will ef cRurs* ccnce«l©, «« ur^ffd, thst the !»»- 
f«»ndant wns '"^titled tr V\rt« siny rrcper evl;^.<»nc« In its pcsflesa" 
Ion introduced for th«» ecnsides^t Ion of the Jurv, The diffieulty 
however Be»p»« te be thjst neither in the nffidavit of loerita nor 
in ti'.e offfT of j>rocf was anytMug tendered «rh5eh «rould »uthcri«(S 
the jurv tr render a reraict st^alnet the flalntiff . »o eTi.ienoe 
waa offered th«t the plaintiff had felled to perform serricea for 
the defervlnnt in aooordanoe with the contraot. ' It is gathered 
frat the brief filed on behalf ef th*» defendant th«t eosrlaint 
la made that the plaintiff did not properly and efficiently p«*r- 
fer» the aeryloea reouired of h!ra. A» atnted isbe?** plaintiff 
wee «iployed tn render rrof«B8i©nal aerricea in the two auite, nod 
Bo feet i» indicated in the brief which t<»nde te sho^ that tha 
Plelntiff did not render atll the aeryieea reouired o" him under 
th*> centreet up te the tlee when the defend»nt, by resolution, had 
affrrpd to dinniaa both of the pending suita* 15ie record doea dia- 
oloee thet one of the suite in fruestion was disraiesed by the ooiart 
on its cwn siotlon, and that an execution for ccate incurred there- 
in waa inoued, «ind that thie exeeutioR waa aubeeguently qunshed 
by the court* It is asserted that this execution waa wronpfully 
iasued and that the plaintiff did n«t attend court en the day that 
the order qunshinfr the execution waa entered* <* thia point plaia« 
tiff testified that he attended court on two ser»«»te cecasicna la 
eenn<*otlon with this notion end that the asaoclntfi counsel irtiMB ka 
waa enployed to assist in the case had net kept hia inforwed as to 
Khan the aetien was to b« set for hearing. It should be borne 
ia Bind that the plaintiff was ereeielly ea^loyed te aasiat 
ether oouaeel in the case* If the defendant was of the criniea 

that the plaintiff had rendered a sttitwent of aoceunt nnd that its 
prcTBlse ««de thereafter to p«y the eeiRe wae msde insidTertently find 
ae the r«»8ult of nny fr«ud, mletake. or error on the part of plsin- 
tiff , aTifl that he h»d teken un<iue BdTantRfi-e of his rpl«ticnehip to 
defeni«nt. It aheuld hwve stood ready to point oot scsie fiict or 
act 8«9oeT»tlble of proof that woiaUd hitre «rr»r!tt©d the oourt In 
finding?: In ita favor, "njia we think it fnilrd to -lo. 

The iudf3B«it 0f the l^niclpal court win he aff irwel. 

cldrffi I. J*, nnd Ko8urely, J., concur. 

298 - 26472 







MJfG. CO., A eerpoi^tloni/ ) idt m ^ 


Plaintiff br'Hight suit in tJ» superior Ceurt «t 
C«ok Cmmty and nbtftined & judgaient therein fcr t*e au8 of 
|lf692.40. i^ef eodsat appeals. 

Iha suit w«B lirought on r written etmtraet tuider 
iriiieh the plaintiff was employed f:i « stated sal;^;^ ani in 
Additi^ thereto \% en the grosa sales of the defendant 
eeapeny in excess of §50,000 per year, to be paid in stoek 
ef the Cflttpany. The eontreot, ehieh was dated Jnly SO, 1914, 
was to eentioae for a ^riod of tiro years and was to he re- 
newed for a like period en failure of either party to giire 
notice of an intention to terminate it. the eridenee shows 
thi>t plaintiff was esployod hy defendant under the contract 
for three years and seven aonths. £o clais is mde ^a to the 
laat, or fourth, year of the oentr&et. It is urged that the 
defendant has refnsed, though often requested, to deliTer 
•took, HZ agreed by it under the contract. The exeese sales 
•f the corepany above 150,0^^0 ^r <%ach year of the three years 
Asriag vhleh plaintiff was eaploysd under tiie oontri<ct, anount 
\m a total of $169,240.70, one per eent of this m^unt is 
91, 692.40, and the Jury a8Bea;.>ed plaintiff's danages at this 
latter sua; thereby, in effect, finding that the atoek nf the 
ooMfsiiy wije worUi $100 per share. 

The evidenee discloses witii ut naoh fnteation that 
during thre<!^ years the plaintiff had perfomed all tbrnt was 

5if!f?v , ••'" t•:■■■ 



rtt^ired of him under tH« terms of the centr&ct, and there is 
eridenes in the record vhieh warrants the tsfmclusicn th&t elthnugn 
often requested to do so* and Although the sales of the defeiid«at 
had hoen for considerable buks above *S0,000 each year, no real 
effort WH8 erer R&dc to render a istatement of ^cofnint to tJM 
plaiatiff or to turn over to his stock of the company vViidft the 
evidenee shoirs he was entitled to under the terns of the eoatr^ot* 

On the question of the value of the stoek the evidence 
is not by any aeans, «» asserted, all one vsy. 1i,h9 plaintiff 
testified that Jtr. Gentry, president of defendant coaspany, trtien 
appealed to by plaintiff for a statement of account, replied that 
the stoek vc^s vorth more th«ai par and th»t he, <^entry, woild buy 
the $toek back or pay the eoneciasiOB in o&«h* 

Thf^re is aa^le evidence in the re cord to show that 
plaintiff hftd performed valuable servieea for the defendant and 
that it desired to rotain hia in its enploy. 

The testimony that the stoek wc^s worthless la not 
nncontrodicted in the evidence, a& &H»erted. Aside frois state* 
ments ef Gentry to plnlntiff, there ia evidenee tending to show 
thet the defend<ait ha/i sulasitted financial stetenents to a bank 
froRi which it was not unreasonable to ecAclade th&i th« stock was 
aotually worth flOO a share. The trial judge did not err in 
adsitting these statenents In evidentw; they tended to prove 
that the defendant cnmpnny vas operating at a profit and th&t 
its assota were much great<!r than ita liabilities. 

There is no aerit in the contention that this plain* 
tiff «r.s not entitled to recovpr for the services rendered by 
hi» during the third yesr of the contract. The evidence shows 
thRt after plcintiff hnfl fnlthfully perfonsed services required 
•f him under the oontrret for a period of three years and seven 
■entha he wm unable to obtain frosi the defend^at aay atateaent 

;? ifJ-Tor c > :^a«>J'S 4 



• 3» 

of lie gr«i8B sales* Uad«r tlH» cireusstnnoea ehovn liy the «vldenee, 
plaintiff v&s not required to eamplete the sec^d two year tern of 
the contPf.ct. The Jury wnts Justified in the Iselief thet the de- 
fendant h.-.d bre ched the ccntr-ict, and if it did ee, plaintiff was 
not required to ceiitinue to perfone hie promises under the c<m* 
tract. It is urged that the eoatrset, being entire, that plraln^ 
tiff, before he e«a reeovsr thereunder, Huet ahov a full and sub- 
stantial performinee by hin. Und eubtedly tkis Is the general 
rule. Aaerican Publ.i6hing H>mae_.T « ilaon , 53 111. n^pp*« 413; but 
this rule does net apply to a c&»e «here the evidence ehotns that 
the other party to the eenteaet ha« cniKRltted a lurefich thereof, and 
where, as in the present case, it f irly appears that no genuine 
att«Bpt WB.B siA'^e to pay for serriees rendered under the contract . 

In the case of Kpoier t. C lifford . 165 111,, 544, it 
fffiB held that upon non-payssent "f an installBeat &e under a con- 
struction contract, a pj^trty required to perforv services there- 
under sight aband<« the eoBtr»ct. The claim sutde in the present 
case is for services actually rendered. Yalt v* y inaaBan , 138 
111. Api>., 76. 

^ther (fueatiens are raised by the brief of onunoel s« 
to ehieh «e think no reversible error n&s e(aa»itted during the 
trial of the c^vuse. On the evidenee in the record tht jury vks 
fully authorized to find, ae it did, for the plaintiff. 

The Judipseat of the buparior Cnurt is affiraed. 

HoldOB, f • J«, and Kcburely, J., eoncttr« 

va«ssJ6iV9 SflJ •^•'i'Sii-r •; f .i|i* ^»a as*.: fis 

ji ,?-^ ,,i/i 


311 - 2648k 



JOSSPH vasA, \ 



1MZAE.1TH PUJ«as4 / f Q O 1 "iT it A 4- Q 


Defvadaat appeals fr«n a judgseat far |250 
rendered egaiast l»r la the Cireuii Court of Cook CrMinty. 

the pleintlff charged in hie deelaratiea that 
the defendnni had aasaulted hiat and cflaositted a battery 
upon hi» hy throving to and upon hia a kettle and pet of 
dirty water and suda; th«t the assault va« willful and 
without any juatif ieatiea. The ease was tried before a 
jury whioh returned a Terdiot upon which the judoaeat 
was catered* 

The reason urged for reversal requires ia the 
aaia a weighing of the evidenee introduced upon the trial. 
Ho appearance has been filed here on behalf of the plaia* 
tiff. Se have ezeaiaed the record, hnvcTer, and it is 
flur opinion that the issues were properly submitted to 
the Jury aad that there is sufficieat evidence to author* 
iM the Terdict returned by it* 

The oTidenoe introduced for the plaintiff, if 
true, discloses that he ». s peaoeebly pasr^iai; out fr<ai 
preadLses owaed by defendant when she committed the alleged 
as ault upon hia. This eTidenee tends to proTO that at 
the tine the asasult was e«aBiittcd the plaintiff was aet 
irespassiag upon the property ef defendant* 


»3- tthr-. <Ji 


¥he defendant in tcstlfyinj^ denied that 9h« had 
eoanitted any asuault. upon plaintiff althorugh she seeks by 
her testloiony to give the impreseien th?it ehe hajd Abjeeted 
to the presence of the plaintiff en the premlsee, est*, that 
•he had eaatiened hia to eaaee his Tie its to one of her 
tcaants • 

it will eer-ve no purpose to dlsotse tiM» evidenee 
as shown "by the abetraet of record* It is euffieient to say 
th< t it is tor opinion that the record contains eTidenee in 
support of plaintiff * 8 contention that the assault upon him 
ess unprovoked and without Jttstif ie»tion« 

In Tiew of tl3» evidence, me are unable tn b':^^ that 
the coart erred in giving an instruction i*ich told the j«ry 
that exemplary df^ages mi^t be jsiwarded th» defeadent if the 
Jury believed from th« evidence that a treopsss was eonmiitted 
by defeaduit* as charged In the deolarHtion, in a wnnton* 
willful and inwilting manner. 

Ihe claim maie on behalf of title defendant to the 

•ffeet that the assMilt «nde upon plaintiff wos the eonsequenee 

•f a eontimt ous/ on the part of the plaintiff does not find 

stroi^ support in the evidence* 

The Judgment of the Circuit Court will be 


HoldcM, p* J., and Ke^rely, J*, concur o 


«]■ ©Of.' 



340 - 26514 


/. ii,Ci£U) ^.'-B and i?.-YM a. 

01>jO^, copartners ,N operatlnt; # ) 

\ Appellaati^ ) 

) Oy C?!iOAOO. 

^" 2 ^11. A. 649 

Plaintiffs brought euit in tbe &'UBieipal Court of 
Cbioa^ to recover the sun of $329.20, which inelud«e« ,-iS 
i»lleced, |>25*on, thr YaJLue of a sample onse« and certain laoney 
eaid to hare been famished to def<'nd»Bt for expenses of em 
atttOMObile trip to Lincoln* Nebraska. 

The defendant alleged that be »as induced to enter 
the employ of plaintiffa aa a aalesaaa by reasoa of frtrndulent 
repre&cntetlona ae to th(» oharRcter and extent of plaintiffs' 
business, i^fendsnt further chsrged bjr vay of set-off that 
he «as entitled to a judgacnt against the plaintiffs for an 
alleged breach of the contract of eatplejrnient. 

It is conceded that the plaintiffs esiployed defendant 
upon a sflaBBission basis Hnd th^^t in the course of his verk he 
did go to Lineola* Vebraska. 'ihe case «us tried by a Jury 
whieh returned a verdict in favor of the defendant for the 
sua of 181.35. Judgment was entered thereon* whieh the 
plaintiffs imck to ri^Terse by appeal to this cvurt* 

iieveral reasons »re urged why this c^rt sh'iald 
reverse the Judgneat. hat in the main they sre o«>ntered about 
a principal proposition th&t the verdict of the Jury is against 
the weight of th& evii nee. It may be conceded, ae urged* 
Uiat the burden of proof wna upon the <i.-f«ndaat to establish 
kis set«eff by a prepimderanee of the evidence, gllis v. 


r^A-:_ , 3*., 


a iU v:. 

■i /a *-^' 

"0 "C 

T !•■ ■>s^©lif«« 


^nvH> ti 

it'St!!9 aUBvi 

V.,.. vn fv*^- .v--^ n? :«':98 •'I'iJ 


CethTftn . 117 111.. 4SB. 

Til* eTldenoe introduced <m the trial •hows tht^t under 
the ooBtr&ct defendnnt mie %o perfora serrie«8 for th« plaintiffs 
for a period tf three ^ronths. ti« far as the plaintiffs' st^itemeni 
of olain is eoncRraed only three items of the ac count between the 
parties are questicmed, th t of th« diurge for expenses to Lincoln, 
llel»r«« ^5*00 charge for the saenple case and an alleged osfisslon 
on the part of defendant to give plaintiffs eredit for S^ eonir.isftions, 
The teetkeeny on the question of the soaiple case is« to say ths 
least, disputed in the e?ideno«« Touching the natter of the auto 
trip to Lincoln, Kehraska, defendant testified that the oecupants 
of the ear were eaeh to he eharged, under an ai?reesi0nt« the eum of 
.^12.00 for the trip and ttint this am'^nt had be^n paid therefor* 
Plaintiffs insist that defendant wu.s prnperly indebted for one 
quarter of the entire eost of the trip* 

The defendant testified th»t he was employed by <Xohn A* 
S^ilueter. one of the plaintiffs, who Introduced his to e Kr« Konre, 
plaintiffs* Iowa state manf«ger« ^Att Infonsed hlH that he , tfoore, 
was earning $bQC to %60Q a month. That later Mr. Sehlueter promised 
defendant that hs would furnish him with mesas of tranispertation; 
that he, coilueter, wnuld furnish defendant with an automobile vhieh 
defendfuat cnuld later pttrehase frmi the firm en in8t»llmente. The 
defendant further testified that the plaintiffs had failed to fur* 
Bish the aut<SBobilc <is agreed; thnt he wrh thereby unable to procure 
business for plaintiffs and he insists th^t through delay md in 
the expenditure of considcrahle sums of money for transportation 
and other expenaes he was entitled to thfr &et-off claimed by him. 

It will serrs no purpofte to discuss in detail the eTidenee 
as shown by the record. In our opinion there was sufficient erideBOS 
to warrant ths Terdict of the Jury and ths Judgment of the trial 
court in favor of defendant. The parties contradict each other 


ii*J .» -i « ''■ t 


#«,«-'- ' ' ■*** ^«q. nil* 


diJi^jL »f:^^' , -♦ ,ts#' 


on also St eTery fact in Isuue in th» case, and there 1win« «rid«Re* 
in support of the position tokon by the defeadant the verdict of 
the Jury cennot te i»et aaide. yrench ▼. Fren^, ai5 111., 47C; 
fat^l^n V. Croeslond , 145 111. App., n89. 

the JttdgRient of the Kunioiyal Cnurt is affinued. 

Boldoa, *". J., and £e:^rely, J., eonear. 

■iStti-^i^-i-'^^ t^-' 

S7Z - 26547 

CctelASY, « Corporal ien. 

221 1.A. 649 


'Ae def««dant iirr**i • fr^ir » ju'l3TJif?nt rendered isifrciinst 
It in fwvop pf th# rlftiBtlff fi?r th« »v« «f ^0S,19. me oftStt «>»• 
tried "b^fer** the crurt ■wittteut s jury. 

^il« asueb eTi<S«ne» In th** fcr."! cf 4<??»c»8iticn8 «n<1 
©r«l t«»etlmeBy »»• int-reduced upen the lrl»l , th* rpcord, »is #« 
r«»d it, di8clefi«» 'but one prineipsl pcint ef eentrwdictien or 
centrov^rsy 'b^tw^en the p»rti«s. 1^ i» «fmced«»d t>i«,t th« plain- 
tiff was «»ploy«d by tbe defendant to sell sierch«indi8« %anafnctured 
bv def^ndmit in the territory west of Dstroit, li^lehl^sn, whieh in- 
eluded ths -^tate of Xlllnois an^ thi* City of Uhicai^o, nad that 
T>l«intiff as to Tf-eaife cnsj^tasIoBS of 6 pfT ofmi. en thr spI e 
prie« of s<n s)#rehandis« srld by defendant withlTs this territory, 
nalntiff •• (Wpleynant anrtar this ccntraot ym» from July I. 1914, 
»ntil Febrwary 1, 191Q. 

It was admit tad en the trial that jroods sianafaetHrell 
l»y th*> def«>r<(!ante w«»re ehiiPT>«^d to Asdarsmj A Brcthers, Chiea«o, ill,^ 
»n^ that if rlalntiff ima f»ntltl*»rt to oeaaBissiens en this' salf, then 
tba amount du»* him vould be ^U£.19« tfee amount of the ,i\Md(m*mt» 

tke defendant infiieted, however, that th r* ooatraot 
eztstlnc between it s<nd plaintiff was so scdified bv afreeteeiit 
betw««ti the parties as that plaititiff had agreed that he Mts not 
SBtitled to eonaissicns on the aol p to Aaderoon & l«o there, flie 
Vlaintiff testified that in A|»ril , 1918, isr. Brothers of /Wdersoa & 
Baathera tafarved hisi that Mdereon & Brothers antioipated buying 

nem «U!irt(>rfi, sbout '>«pt«»b«»r 1, 1918, but, in tJmt thmy ha4 »• 
buyisr, "i^r. l»yne, the barer of 'cg«r«, i«©t i Gc ., hes eansents* 
te bur our In it is! cr^tiT »n4. Is pluolng his or<l»r tht» week." *^y 
3» ISIJ', ^»*« Jlnvens, pr<«'eldent of def^nd^nt, «m« r'l«intiff to 
the ©ffrtest *■.>)»* fh* fr«<*4e, for -rfeich « co«»l»»l<»n ftr ti?«« 9*il*» i,« 
c1niri«»d, were not sicl d ^o teSwrsfm * Brcthere ef f'alcftge, l-^ut to 
'teirer*, )F«*t & C<?B5p»nv ef >*ew 'fcrk , In Vnis 1 tetter the dirf#»nd«nt 

•the Btcrciwndiue i» Vcuirht by Hotter*, yeet i;o.» 
billeii te thfm, paid f r. r 'bv tli'^n. "n:i J*»1 i-^erf*!! *.n rh«>- in 
I«* YerV, Boj^era, ieet Go's Btyfe ntj^bers «r«» used, wnd all 
of .-Oji;erfl l*«9t i*^*3 lietBi'ls. it i9. In ■**'H€t, * ;ic^er» i e«t 
(^, propo«it.teii, and in TiffiW of ti.e»<* ccnattirns, i will 
h««dl p tco *50':^.iwt fraM hsre." 

IB reply tc this letter th« plaintiff wrete- r r, 
SlriT«a8 I?! ^ij^a♦*^ne« feb«'. 1« vl«w ef irti»t l^r. ^ev<B«s had written, 
he, T'lslntlff, iscttld »«ke ro el»i» ffr ee«£'.ia9l«:<fia on th# «%le t» 
Mder»on & Broih«ra» 

It «p|!«trs frcm tK<? f^eerd that th« »'»relwtndl««( ««g 
Bot In fj!?et 8hlt;r«NS to Sogers, -?«ot ^ Ctsspssqr «t Kew York, but 
«&• 8hipT<»d ilroetly te ^d^roon & Brothoro at Chicago. ?be plaia- 
tiff ncv «rpe8 tVist. he wsn Itidvr-isd by wlsrj^preserf.wt Jons eo«t»i,n#d 
1p the letter te »B«ont to fcreir© ht? ▼•<<*>-♦ te <jom«I«9ir!B8 on this 

''fo hBV« •xo«i«ie^ tv.e rtldence lntr<'<1«c«d en tho trial 
••it aprfwrs In tfce abetraet ef reccrd, «rn1 »e ure ef the cplniaa 
the* the fin^in^ and Jw<if»e?»t of the trtml Jwago flnda awrp^rt 

A I*. BruBdage, tre«(8urer of Kogara. ieet A Coa^aajr, 
teat If led that or<S«ra aera placed wtt^. th<5 daf er.d«*r,<. by >»r. ynya* 
for Ragera, Teet A Ceaipeny, "to be shirred and billed to Afjderaoa 
ft Brotbera. »nA duj»lie«te bill a to f^pftra, loot h Cosftany. the 
aaaeunt bein^ guar«T5te«d by Rojtf'ra, faet * Cevpany. " 

ar. nattobaaa, traaoarer ef ttoa dafenda»t aoHpany, 

testified th»t pavcDent for Uir goods «hipr<?<5 tc /'Jiiieracn & 
brothers «»« cunrsnteed by ''^o^ers, : ect Cc&.pE»ny, 

Pn th# ^rtidfuee t.h*? court «fw« juatifx^a in fiecHBi^ 
•■ It did, thm ih*? snl^ wRB »i<<5e to Am^evoon ^ BroUier* and ti»t 
'^cjffj-n, leet & CeepeiBy ««« a puarsTfttr cf tfe« neccaiit. tJi© ataite* 
r-:cpjt ir th«> l»tt#» ef i*. a«T«ne te t^i« pls.iBtiff is that th« 
(Kcrd* rv'Tr bllfffd snd sMisTtea to negev, r«et # Cesspaiiy. Th» 
eTl<?««rJC« »h«ws thst thi« st«t*«PBt ■sras untree. '?^^ ^.o-:?!!* ■s?©r« in 
f«ct •hi^p*d te /toder«pn * Urothera, an^ th**p» Is «»Ti4enc«» In th« 
Teeerd whleh t«!«!!» to prcte tTiat irhile '^ogetrv, i'-eut *; Compsnv 
»«re fin«nel»ny b«oVi»s ^ifivafm *: Brs-th**?*, Uj« »al <? r^ th« 
ss«Tch« dl«e w»a in fa«t nfi^e te th« t«tter» 

ffiere Ic net nueh leerit in the «ont««tl»B that tli« 

pls^lniiff will net be |!f«rrltt«d te rescind thft »|{r««»«mt, which 

it Is uri!:<»d «»• intended »» « rs^dif leatien cf th« orirlnal o^n- 

tr»et« '"«• 3RiflitTo»er»jr h«r« l» festweofi peraenB wtie nusiAin a 

fi4uei«9ry r«l»tioB toward e««h ethwr, «s»ii! it 1» R»«^»n th»t th« 

■»dlf i(^»tien ©f th<» ecntr««t wae br^uirtit ab^at by p *? ierfrrce ««»*•« 

%ien e^ th<» ^eftmdant eoaipAny* '^^ l»w wil ^ not Tci*»i.t « W3ec»«» 

d9«r to rf"*i* by alseondaet to^fwr** sr Innocsnt T'^fty. ** <^e »©* 

■iMin tc 3»w th«t fer, 0l«ven« intentlenally »lBr#pr«B«nt»«il th« 

fsets »t th# tiJ8« th« plBlntlff arrff«Hl tb«t tb* iaad«r»on & 

.SrctlK^rs 8>?lj»i««t wa« te bff «Tel0'S«^ in c«»»|nitlRjjt ecuaffiissions citt« 

his. Thf un^i»7ut«d f««t h«»r«, h^'-fe^^'r, !» that th*» i?l«i«tlff 

«• ni«li»4 by th» el«r*rr#i9«««t»ti©a inte R«r««4»ir t© a i«ro4ifieft* 

tien of tY,» ccntretet, 

■the Tulfli th»t an imiocent atiar**} r<»9»Rt«ticB ef fmet 
dops R©* ''wrrl^ grciird fer p--?rit-»lo|t s ecBtrROt ^ca ret f^^T'^J 
l*fr« th*?r« ie r eT<?cisl fiducisry er cpnf icipnt**! rsUticn 
bftti«i«« the vsrtipfe, as b>>twe«» princif-al «n i nr^^nt, etc. 

Corpus Juris, vol. 15, |>. 3M, arc. 278; ^i«.^l ,g »:l#yi»t(jf Cc . T. ^'al|. 

aa 111. 131. 

Thm iuAfmvnt ef the trJAl ecurt is afftissed. 
■oldas.l.J., and ^e:ilir«ly,J., ceBevir. *»»«>»«»» 

S89 - :E!656S 

THOMAS V, i'.Ati'lY, 
6 Corporstien, 

K. I. KAr;ni3 and J. a\ iu:vcvxi, 
Cepartnera licilnr Buslniisa Und 
the linse of Earria sad v^dger 

Ail Ai- FHCl?. Ki/>iICIlAi 




acticn in ^'icb the rleintiff deel»-r«»d in trevpr frr ^.hs vrlttP 
©f nr. ftutr«eblle which it all etrps waa wTon^ully d«»tf(InfMj by d*- 

^id<»T»c© ifjtrodtioed cr» t>:;e ii»c1c3«»8 thnt 
TboBiis •>' . !i«lpln, n nclleit'^r *-.r.d. tr««8ar*r for T^istntlff, l*>ft 
• £uicV car with the di»f endanta f-9 p?*rt pR-n^nt frr e ' ero«T car; 
that tb«» day fellowinp th^ making of the apreeioent te tr^ds the 
caTB Hwlpin <i«»rt;f«nded cf >1efpniant8 a return cf th« 3uick car on 
th« ground that his cosipany, the plaintiff, had refua«d to ratify 
th« agre«Ba«nt. IfSie defendants r«fus«<l t© return th^ Buick car 
and plaintiff thereupon be^^an an action in the Kunicipel ccurt . 
Tha ease waa '•rled without « jury. "he ccurt fcund in ffTcr of 
plaintiff and Ita dassn^ea -^ri^re aaaassed at th«^ euir of -^9-. • . 
The dafendanta brin^t thp case by t^x^vrn.) tc this court, 

the abatrao* of r*»ccrd ehc*a thrnt rlnlntiff clftised 

the rirht to thi? pesaaaaicn of the ifclolr autrrocblle dwccrtbed in 

the vfrlt pn<l »l»c "dapBgea occasioned! by the »rilful heldlnp and 

detairlnp; of aald sutc»er ile h'r the d^fsnienta nrrninBt the rleln- 

tiff." In Ita affldarit of laerlta th<» d«»f»»ndanta denied that 

plaintiff vaa entitled te the peaaeealcn cf the autrmoblle, er 

that deferdanta were "unlr^wfuny withhrldinp the aasie to the 

daaa^e to plaintiff as aat out in plaintiff 'a otstw^nt ef 

It Is irsi!5t*<? cr» h^hftlf rf th*» d*f endnnta that th« 
court erred in e(!ftittln^ •yi'lmnrc ■"•a tc Vri« "r«?ur ef th« car; 
that the action ^rourht was a firetoclaae nctieo snd that the 
def«r<<lants vera required, bnfore damages ceuld 1»9 aasffssed 
af^ffinat thesj, te fila counts in trover ^n that it apt pars fren 
th#> record that the aut-nobile was net recovered en the .?rit of 
rapTerin. "«e nre unabl «» tc dfttpnine frra thtt abstract of rec- 
ord whether counts in trorer had been filed in the trial court. 
in the brief filed on behalf of thft plsintiff ir ia ohxsned that 
th<> court ferrriitted the filing ef "three additic-nel ccunta sfter 
TPrdiet." in the rleadlngs* inaef'^r pb shown bv the abntrect, 
the plaintiff did 3ee>: a recn^ery of daae<?«>8 for the allefred 
wron-ful withholding ef its mit.'Kobile. ?he abstract rf rc'cord 
does net diacloae that nny att««-^t vm9 made to strike the state- 
nent cf cleiw frnm the f 11 j'a, fm attewpt vmn made in the stiste- 
•ent ef cl^isi tc charire the defendants with liabllitT frr an 
unlawful retention ef the But«k oar, and thia oharpa w»8 pet 
by a denial en the rart ef the defendantu tlmt plaintiff had 
tltl* tc the autcKcblle or tbat defendanta were ttBlRwfully 
wlthJtjeldinr it. it dcea appear that plaintiff xxi Its ;itftt#»r:«Tjt 
of claiai sought to charge the defendant » with wroB«?fully with- 
holding plaintiff's aut'iBObila, a-d howerer Inferrvniiy this 
elain was alle^pred therein, the record dcee net diiselose that 
defe'idai^ta sede any obj^'ctien thereto, but on the contrary It 
■et the «»n«»fntion of da<»«j?:e« by e direct and positive denial, 
tinder these elrcJEiStaneea and with the record in this »t8t,p, tba 
defe^darita will not be per«iltted to ^fuestion the sufficiency ef 
thf ntat«it«nt of claim* 

In the ease of Hew Celurt'^up Burpy , CotBrBny ▼. -npire 
^''^tl ^^r^f^rM i Vfta Corran •-. \9n 111 , App, 421, a point ^a 
■«de that In pn wctlon frr daipsirea for wrcn^ftilly withholdlBg 
autenebilea a reeoTery could net be had where a 1 eel oration had 

not be«»n filed In tVi« suit, wnd it ts«s helU thaf, the eiuiiicip*! 

court hud :o\?er to aoopt rul«H preBcribi»ic the aaB5« pmetice in 

firat-clnaa *>8 in fouyth-clsBB casf^s. -i* deciding tiie c«b« th« 

ct^rt »i«i?!: 

".'ta f ul <»s BTP not Ijefore us but, indulf inj? tli* 
pri'inirrtipn -'f T«frul*«rlty of t^roc^iilure emt thut tfe» court 
«ij<v r>p»»rve ItB r*aleo, *r»» shculi feueiiBte until ♦.h«' eo.ntrary 
is »hei« thut th«v suthcrl««d prrsfyc: tiers of t,h<» «uit wtth- 
tut p df*c1 f^r»tlen. This is net in ccnflict w th GilKieB v, 
Chicag^ y-Y a . Co . . 26f! Ill . SC5, ?fhich rx^Tfstilv »Lftt«»o th«t 
the dpcJoicn hfd nf nprlicstien te entsfs sri??inr yriiier e«o» 
ttfrB Af pf "Pi'^ net.* 

?he «b«traet la defective In that th'' rol #»a cf the 
S^nlcipftl rrurt tPttchlnir thp «?«PBtloR under crnel-^.erRticn are 
not co»ti»in<>d th#relB . If It b« tru**, as cpntendwd, th»t the 
present ftetlcn !» cne of th" flr®t olsies; th»t ti dfKJiarst ion in 
trevtnr «•.« «et filed in the c«u»e, in irir1)*tiOB of the rul ft© of 
th# trial court, th«B all of these fwcts sh'^ld hRTft been (Sis- 
closed bv the shstraot of rftcord; otherwise the point m^dn that 
the Action wne n suit In re^l<?vi» only and th»t duanfes in trcrer 
ec«l t' net be prcved cnr^not be deei<^ed by this co«rt. 

There ia ssrl e erl^^enee Ir the r<»crrfl tc snatMin the 
fln41nR«» of the trinl Judf^i^, »nd he •»• fnlTy wsrrftnted frcjp the 
eTi^«mc"" f.n coneludinjp thst th * ell »p»d tmde entered trte by 
Uwlpin frr the >^<trct^T cpt ^t>s yp=(?e without srv «afh©rlty of 
pleintlff, "nd, further, tbfit the elrc-wstenee* uttenf^lne- th« 
•veeuticB cf the eifrreejeent vere not »b retr.«»««nted by defer"i»ntB. 

fh^re is « direct eontrftdiction in the eyiience so 
to the teres cf tho «MBree»jent» wliieh the trial Sxt^r.e «»• in » 
■BCh better poeltien to determine th«n »»r* ^«. H»ver»ible error'^- 
•■• not criafiitted on rul Inpc on ihe »*vidence efff'red en the tri*! • 
Ob the whole oTldence, we think the Judpwent of the trie! court was 
correct . 

The Judesient nf the l^niclpal court vill be affirmed. 

HoldoB, T, J,, and J:o3urely, ^•., concur. 

404 • 26578 

iMisiacss as Xllinoic 
JPft«B«rs ooeiety, 



221 1.A. 650 


The pl«istiff brftughfc a repleTin action against de* 
feadant, Pcail Korshakt doing business ».fi Illinois irr^wners 
^•clety, to rseoTcr a diamond which without her authority *n» 
taken fron her j^Bsession by her eon and pawned with the de* 
feadaAt. fhe defendant on sertrioe of the writ refused te &lf9 
up the dimoad contained therein and the action ves changed to 
Mie in troTer. 

An exfloiiBatiea of the eTidenoe heard upon the trial 
as it appears in the jaibstract of record, f^a also in the record, 
discloses that the defendant, Korehalc. received froB plaintiff *s 
sea a diasioad and that part of the sun paid therefore was de* 
posited by the seller in a bank. $'36i of this sum was reeorered 
by the plaintiff frost the bank, and she, in oomp«ny with her 
kasbsad and police officers, went to defendant's place of 
businean and tendered this aaiount to hiat and deaianded of his 
the ring and diamend. He refused to accept the money or to 
retara the property. 

Cn tl\e trial a Judgsent for |I20C wi^^s awarded plain- 
tiff aad the defendant appeals. 

le think this JudgKoat is well sastaiaed by the 
proof ia the oee. ^oae difficulty wf>e iacurred »t the trial 
iB proTiag the Talae of the property which the defeadant adnits 


■ *t<r«rfi.tF 

..-5 fa«!?Jfis'5fc*fc 9*4* .-V. ,- 
,. ... ^ V ... J ,. ,« .. hflfifflSftl* :T.j 
, It BITOT. 



he reeeired. On service of Bttb]K>eBa duces feecwa the def «Bdaiit 
1^re4ttced la court « loose diMumd, tut there is eviidenc«i! which 
tends to show that this dlsasosd wos aet the oae takoa frm the 
plaiatiff • ^Bader the elrcuBtstanees it vouXd have heea iaiposeible 
for the plaintiff to prove the daat^ces sustaiaed hy YtfT thr^^ogh 
the loos of the di»ioad« had she been retjaired to produce it in 
eourt for ozHBinatioa and valuation by her expert witneoeee* 

the record kept by th« defendant of the trannaetioa 
with plaiatiff's ann ehovn thj>t he purchased for thfi sun of #600 
a diamond of 3*l/ti cnrats eeigtit. The testixioay tends to shev 
that tte diaaead taken frtm plaintiff as a white dieaoad of this 
•ise, idiile the one produced in court by the defendant «''»« of 
•■aller sise and apparently of poorer quality. It was not error 
to shev by conpRrison the differenoe in value between the diamond 
received by hia and the one he produced in e-^rt* 

Ihe evidence shews that the defendant received the 
diauMid and tht't its value wbs not over »esiiaa ted by the jjury. 
If it is true, as oertain te^tinony tends to show, thnt he did 
not produce in court the diamond < etaally received by ia, then 
he shnuld not be pemittfid in profit by the teehaie&l diffi<Riltj 
caused by his own action* 

So error was eonaaitted by f»xcladin« te»tiaoay which 
tended to prove that the defendant was one aeabi^r of ® p ertnc^r* 
ship. He filed his appearance in the eaase as the defendant doing 
business as Illiaois Pawaers •^oei^^ty* Se took issue upon the 
•tateaents aade in the stateaent of claia. He plea wi>s filed 
setting' up a partnership or that there had been a niejeinder or 
aon*Jolader of parties defendant* la this state of the record 
the trial cnirt rightly ruled that evidence with relation to tho 
partnership w .e iaaaterial, and so also with ref ereaee to tha 
9itet Bade that the oourt erred to admit tiag evidence of a 

^^.^^j, ...«««#«<rrfei© *»<& »»iv 

^,t i^ti *«* t^»*Mi-^**' 


'dli I'B;-'- • 

-ii^jfij fflp'*'^ '''»»•** ,i50OJ«»*fe '^■■ 


:io.^4 Hi- 

v*t <«i«aiill a^ ■'■■ ■ '• 


proprtsitlma of settleaeat* 

the •7idene« heerd on th« trial is not well slsatraoted* 
but by jreferenee ti tne r<°cord and abstract it ie cle.j* that 
certain ot«Lteisent8 made by Korohsk and plaintiff wer« ns^^^e la 
connection vith a tca4«r Made by the plaintiff nf |365, iibich 
she bad reoovarad out of the $(SCO paid by defcadnnt to har aoa. 

The JudgKcnt ot the ^aielpal Cr»urt vill b« 

Holdooi* P. J., and Mcslarely, J«, conear* 


so? - 2C4ai 

IflXIM BRilCH^S, AfeinlstratriT 
of the Kstate cf <^!Si?AV7i: A. 


I / ) AlUfAl. ?! 

GTC-r-Q-^ v., "^AYl.CR, Zr%, / }. 


* J .1 .'• v/ o^ IJ 
-«F.B. J\Ja?lCE mSimKLY DflLIVKRSB ?H1 OJ'XKIOB 0? -If" C'^l-«1', 

Gu6t.R<7« A, l?reoh«r brotajirVft suit to r»»ccv<?r '^s'^'^frea to 
his a'jtorjol:!! s catiaed "bv n colliilaa h^t-seon it and def*»r?4ant 's 
ftutr"Hebll«i fill »j?<»d tc hn-vi* been caused bv th« Fn»fr)i?ftiit driving 
of <5«»fer5'l»nt. oub8PQu«ntly Cuatav*! A. HreetxeT died #in<J his !«d- 
Binistratrix «»a« eubetituted ins plaintiff. Upon trial by « jury 
defendant was fciiod grnii ty snd plaintiff '» <iiMts»g:e« naseese^ at 
|35^ . FinsM the Judf9s«Qt enterad en thia verdict deferiiant baa 
appeal «d • 

?he aoeidant happened at IJitS:. &. a, aepteiiiber 8, 1916. 
Tb«? sen of plnintiff, Jack BrecLer, -with thr«»o f.*.ht>r veunp pw^pl «, 
wia -IrWin^ rlairtiff *» ear north en ;jfc«'TldRn ."oed in vriicage, 
t>ef<»niant, '^'ovier, «aa 'iririnp bla aatnssebllsf sattth on ::3i^ri<iaB 
Road flt'n threa ct.her pf'raona in th« car* ^« jwry w««ld hsYC no 
dlfflcMlty la cmclurtlnff tb« ?r«-' «5nder».Rce ef the «»Ti-Ienee sViowed 
tfc.«»t f^n t>n>» nipbt In mj^^sticB ?J*yicr sn^l his p^rtv h»td been ^isitin^ 
▼arirwa r<»»©rta e?» tbe ^erth slda nnd that '''sirlor had bean drinking 
»hiaVy nnA berr »i?'' that at tbft tl»e tbey 1 f^'t cn»? cf theaa plftca* 
at Pbout ir::lft n. r. h« was intcxioated. in® ef t-ha woawn riding 
with hlra testified that she prcteated a^eindt taylor driving the 
ear because he aprearod tc b«> intoxicated* but he inBif^ted open 
driTinit. iireohcr'a ear a<ia procepding north an the fsat er rijfht 
hand eida ef 3i<ridaa ^»d at a 8pft<>d of abcmt f>i«:ht»«n oiilaa an 

boor, while ?Rv!or'8 car RPT'TeBcbed It polnit oeuth. Tsyler'B car 
was veavin^ or zl^^xa^ln^ frop> onf ni^lo cf the TCRd tp thp other, 
end travfil inf' at r TT»t<» cf ^•*»<»d eBt3»st*ia at frrra f r rt'.' tc fifty 
s>.i1*9 f»n heur. 'JhsTi ■'rech»»r »»»» "^nylor'a cur fst*pr? ne^ Snr In this 
msfsr^r 1;*> slowed wr his« car nri'l mOYe/l cle»«» tc the east eurb. 
ai<?n ?3i«yicr'« car «»• ahmit a fclocV »way It turned towarda the 
«»ast sH* ef th" Btr««t and h«>«d#dl d^lrectly ioi»«pd« Hrecher'a 
cftl*. erntlnainr its >^.iFh ayieed. -■^e i'ayler's car wsa bparirsK 'Icwi 
uppn rree'^«T's ear, thi» latter, in «n att<f»(fript to avfid b«iag 
•truck, tum<Hl Ma car te tJie aest, end ^ust ss hf» reachc*d about 
the csnt-T cf the street Baylor's ear alsc turn*'d tr the neet, 
• triVinp thp rlpikt side cf Breeher's car tipar the frrot doer, 
esuslnr th* eelllsiOB and dassaitae in queaticn. Teatitsoay cf the 
evp '?itn«»»ae» #?8tanl Ished th« ch«rff© that t>u? necident was e»u@ed 
bv the» r«»e'*le8i» and nei^tisar^Jt ^rivivm of feis nutragobilu by cie- 
f andant . 

Dafer.viant intrrtHscad the t^stlJRony of a |»rcfe9«cr 
of physios 'ishr, in nns^ar ''o hvT'pthatical r««'9tt^B«, <-»"?*» hie 
orinien ^9 t'T- th*» rce"Tr«ne©» 'b^'aed lni"srr»1y uT'en the ficaltlcn of 
both <irtr» nft**!* tVe neeidant. I;i» trtjtjfrcnv ie nst ^ ►r v.*- a 
dairmatratipn tliat tha accident ceuld net ha-re hftpps^ed ae des- 
eribed by the ey*? witneseea because this would haye bee» contrary 
te th0 ictve ©f rbyeies* Kyen if c<«p«tant, the w»iftfet ef hie 
teBtlntiny -was ftt-r the ^ury to deter^^ine, a«-i we caniiCt say It 
•hotild. hoTe accepted the theory of the ex):;ert ratkt^r than the 
*tate:-ent« of those w!iO saw the occurrenoe. 

liafetidant here secraa tc cuf^etlon the a%rQnt of das- 
aire*. h»t in <»hat partlcuiare is net ppint*>d out. there is a 
a«ieir<^tlon t.hptt ao»«» cf the ite^e ef refalra may have been for in- 
jurs** tf the atitf»oobile before er after the aoclrlent. it sviffi- 
cliintlv Rpp**«re that before the aeel tent Brecher'e ear was in 

pco6 cenditlen «n«!5 thmt th© ijKmnii09 «l\ich were r«y«lrita wer« 
cRuat^d fey the itccii(«nt. 

It is said nliSit tt WAS lis^'r^-perly mrtde t«5 npp«!«r 
th«t 4«>f en «ant carried aoeidciit insurance, and thfet t'i.e Ins r- 
oRc« coap&jijr voul<i }>»y the leas* 2J;i« wltna»e teBtlfyiag s.9 t© 
this ffnB oall ifd nn Isehi^If cf dtifend&ni, titid th© feet ti;at de- 
fencsaut i««8 cov«r«d "by insurrmce vsa* terouttJit tmt wpen bio di- 
rect <»3r*.'ain»tie». 'sefendant huifin^ adduced thi© cBTHiot new 
cetnTplsiB or it. 

ae 8«^ nc miffici«nt reaecn to rpirerae the jvidsvaieot, 
•nd tt 1h Bfflrs'ftd, 

Fcid-c, , . ., p.rt^} "Of^vfi-r, .'^.. concur. 

317 - 26491 

Corporatlen, % 



lLII!-.Oia iifeEI.TIBO % HSyilUKG 
Ctsa AST, ft Gorper»%eB« 

\y 221 1. A. 65 

kB, JUiiTICE MeSOBiaT HELIVmSl} TiiJ. Ci ilUUH 0? tJiE CC«hf, 

Flalntiff broapht milt, to rwco-ver dwRnp-cs fpr sn «1- 

%«y »?»^ d^fif'R^imt tp owll « e«?rt}»ln UKront of Bltf«t«> of »edl», 
Riifl pl»P for ^h» r««4um nf « $2SoO deposit. IMsfend»r,t filed an 
•ff JdSTlt cf dofemnn! 't*^*? !^1*r «» rtsfm e*" s«#t»rff, wll^^irinp thst 
plaintiff had br*»ch*»d the centwiet sua thst S«f«*P<?«nit h««d thereby 
«U9tplB«»d (iie'!!»pr''a irt fxcce* rf t.h* naimint ©f the deposit. 

Up©B trial by jury a ▼»r<!iot ffw^mhlm te 4«f«nd»nt 
waa returned »nd ita dsBJ^j'es asaeancd at |i^7.H9, which is the 
•xecaa ef d«f8Sf?ea crer the anse^nt ef tha $250G depeoit. ilaintlff 
appeala fren the Jud^^Ttt (Entered en the T^rdiet* 

"*• are of th« orinion th« rwault ilces nn^stantial 
Juatiee between the parti«8 snd thet the Jtidnspnt ebeuld not be 
roveraed ttr.i eaa errcra ©ocvirrlnif wpen the trial ahpuld I'p so 
•erloBs ns tp cowpffl thla. The first -writing bstween the partlea 
tcuAhla;' *M*f acrf'flwent for sal*' and purehaae wt»e <^ated Jftnuftjry 
22, 19ie, rrovidlnr fpr the sale br defendant ir> vlpintlff of sere 
twB hundred md aeyentv tmna cf nitrate ef soda, ^naterial to 
run 95^.* $26C0 w«a te be dercaited bv the buver tc bind the 
ecntract. "^s** crux of the eentrcTerav Is th*« qiwality of the 
»etfTi»i to^ndered by def«7-dant, plaintiff elaljRinir that it con- 
tained ls9p«ritlf»e eentrarv tc a#cre«sent and defendant denying this. 

Ob the 4mv »ft«p the above asrreeiaent rlalntiff preT>»re* 

• Bie-izcranivm form of eontrect willed It retj««»at«d defendant to 

8igB fcr thft pxirj><'»e of h«^v inip th<» ««rr««"^«?it en one ef T>l«lT»t.iff *• 

re^ulsr fcrr.8. *hi8 w^>cmn6\xm ««»T»t»l»i«»fl th«»8e •words: *^nr«intee4 

96"^ aodiiBB nltr«t«», froe frrw fcr«.i||fB iw^pxtritims, rftra. (iirt, 

8weet>infr8» ftc* IlRintiff also presented et Jp^ttpr on th» sate- 

Jeet eentftining this cIaus*: 

"*e further understood that si«t»ri»l in qu««ticn is repulftr 
Sltrste cf i.iCi6&9 free fron dirt, 8««(>pings* and other iis- 
parlties foreign to this KSterlal •" 

it mis (>8tateliBhed by evidence t>i»t ^>#»fcr« def«»n.iant 

8i^«! this sB«a9or»nStiK it wrfit* nn6 irnTip plaintiff's r«ire8«fit«» 

tiTe ft Iptter rfff#?rrinK te this requ«»8t fer d«f «>nd»i>t*» eigneturs 

to thi» K«Borftn<hiffl» Tiii? atsted that it sjust he nnderatoed their 

aoc«Tt«n<»« pf thl» aj<»?'?oyand?aa "in ne wise »! t«»rs the contract of 

y*?t»»rday. As 4»xrllalne^ tc J^-r, i^lshnlcJc It is p1 acj ^md«*r8te©d 

t)»t this nitrate esf se-Sa Is i\«t ah8Clut«»ly eTfl«n. hut that ve 

will aaVe it »i» TT<»«r el "f^*^ a» f'sslhle. Ifeo realise wp cftf!r>ot 

frvaraRt(>e material that is purchnaed fTf^ tjse CksT't. v?ith this 

undfratRnf^laiE ^e hif-y^ siimed wr the m^mo which h** h«^» handed wb.* 

1iJ« «yldence she-wa that the nltrata of sflda rms In the 

araeeal at Seek i8la.»yd, Ulincis, In hulk; that ahortly aftar 

slirrin/B- the aheT<» y^av ers a r«pr«apnt«tiTa ef plsirttlff and one 

frr» dafendast watit th<?r6 and plaintiff 'a rarresentBttve noticed 

strings in the nitrate ^iieh esata froK the burlap h£|gs in irhleh it 

was orifiiinnlly shipped* Jlaictiff eeosplaisfd ef this and it «*»© 

th*'r««jpon Tfnrhallv fsgr^ed, svftar an P3cp«»r leant, that the nitrate 

ahPttl4 he rua throu^rh a aieT« to aercan out aueh atrlnga, and it 

aaa so treat<»d. Ti5« followin^;^ srnth hills of l«)diR|| *«r« pre- 

3ent»d to plnintlff fer pavsant on three oaro of the nitrate, but 

plain tiff ref«s*d to pay these el thoujch the contrac* rrc3Tlde4 for 

oash p!ni?!Brnt -hi*n such ^^oevmt^tu were T>r«9«pted, ilalntlff did n«t 

coBflain of the ouslltT of the Bfit<*rlal >:ut flieply aaid he et^ald 

not use it. aubBequeulljr dwfemisnt di8po«ed of thp 5-.Rtfrl«l for 
the highest prioct obt4iln«).bl e. 

Sh« jurv vm» instructed that it. ^sms for the ccurt t« 
Aftf^rmlnp th«» contraet betw««»T: th« parties* nr.d thni tht> oourt wss 
ef th« opinion th«» eontrsct of Jimuary 22nd was the cril v- crntmet* 
Thsrf wna n'' f>rror in this, it iri Tr^i i ««»ttl ©d thnt letters writ- 
ten and delivered «t tyj© nmse tiwe with » eontrsct, ccneeminK th« 
ssae a«b,1pet Better »«▼ be eonsldsred together in strivini? at the 
intentien ef the ear ties, Goal . ^ v. Vngnp 1 jy tee tw 1 Co . . 1 1;« Hi. 
Jlf»r. iii.^> ^it^> V. gttelaoi p. 2C1 HI, Apr. 47<; Bnaeleen T. a«!t<gr 
iJSo., 182 in. /Ipp. «11; V^-yer ?. Ill . Ufe tea . Co., 11 111. 
App. 26S . I^e duestlons n« tc mmt wrltinps ehcMl^l b** eennldsred 
nrta which wrltlnirs constitute the writtsn contract fully exprssslu^B 
tbe afrreeiBent between the |>Artles, is 'or tht> court to rlet<*rsiine. 
Yelluri^p ■i.Cgoy , TranesBi^se^pp Co. ▼, the Crane .Ck >.«» £C* ill, &18; 
Csttys ▼. itorsh. 145 HI. Apjs. 291. 

The presentation ef the letter of January 25fd by 
defendant to plaintiff is rfenied bv th«» TrjTffO0fnt»ti-rt> ef fT'lsin- 
tlff, hut that It ws 'written prd rreserted as ahore ststed is 
clearly established by the pre})© ad era nee of the eritlewce. 2t ia 
said this iBYolved ajB Issue of fact isrhieh shotild have b£>«a sub- 
■ittM to the Jury. Hiile this »»y be true, it f?oee not fells* 
that the netioB cf thf otmrt necessitates a reversal • "^^ ''P* 
pellets oourt has power to p«8s upon the fects, whlc'' are as 
•bsys stated, "ilsis beln$r proven, Nn-* the eonolusicn of the trial 
eourt as tr »flwit constituted the contract beini; rlpht, it «oa1d 
seoB unreasonable for us to reveres because » jury, rc to one ite« 
ef feoty might have reached an luprcrer ccnelHslcn, 

'tlae record dees not sho^ that the material proposed 
to be delivered by defendant contained less tl'.«n 96 nitrate soda. 
^•rs sas evidence of soae isfmrltles, sucr «s ravslines froa bur- 


Ifip^ Init IM» rridencA »8 *c th«» qnsntit.v of thts. 

HaiBtiff filed »n affidavit of awffna* t.c d*f*md- 
ant'» clftta ef r««fnj?>?-«»nt, 'but. did not. d«ny tVmt th*» w«t*Tlnl 
tpnrtcre<« c«nt.».tned 95'? nltrsite cf aeim; nn<f this muat >»*» t»Ven 
»8 «tcttivpl wit t0 nn ffdsisnicn th«t th© n«it«ri8l «bs ef thi> o»jif*lity 
elf>iRed by d«fen<l«int. '?ltn«B8«« teetlfio-fi t>»t th« Rater iftl fw« 
te 1)0 vienA f«r tmrtiMzing |Jwrre»««. ««5t! if, as w» must itssias* frem 
the rj'cprd, the Ketftrinl vm.» 95^ nitrate ef soda, it wcuia be mer- 
ehvntabl (> for this imrposft ©ren If t-,;^© ««r« present Bssall <juantl- 
tl*» ef fcrelpn insttAr. 

^hen plaintiff firet refasisd tc cor.piv 'sjth the tarsia 
of th» contract rwletlnt? tc psvaent, it did not. v.^ge ite refussal 
or«r th#» rrrtjnd of ths fiaalltv of thic ffi«teri»l« A party hf^Tlng 
bwsed his rofu^l *.o eesply with his eirrec8»«mt orfn cn*^ frrcund 
c?»rviet hf ■p*»rr^itt*'1 t© fiftf>Trnt)TiB «eBd his held. ? hc r^ry >' arly 
aagay Co. v. Fierrp vjep ?arl , g Cp.. 175 ni. Apr. I'S. 

Haint4ff hrtvinj? imprcpwrlv br#»eh«»d tint oc-ntrfitel hy 
refusinr tp Rec«»r* th*» ipfit»^lRl pcrcVosf^d, ^*»f»nd«wt h»d the 
rlifbt tc re-a*!! the tmr^n to the beat ndv»nt«(?«i &«!l ohairjte plain- 
tiff «rit»t th» dlff<»r*r<0o l)(?t»<»ftr> th« eentr»et prie* ft«d the 
■aeunt rpolized nv«n th* »«7«>. H e^ ri^ v. -fjbau^, 159 111. 627; 
Slenia T. ?ebilg 2BUt. j^ "rr-dinv C£,, 11£ III . App, 2£I . ^e ra- 
tal * 8«rw8 to hATe baas fftlr and rcisde in gced faith aci we ta 
realise the highf^st prloa. thiu is vbnt the law rf3«iuirea. 
Babbling* a ijcpp C£. r. The i-ceic tstiteh Fence Co ., I5c li 1 , 6f«o. 

r>Bfen'S»r5t vea net bcund to rr-eell at the jlBca ef 
delivery T-revlded by the ccntract, but sjfcy re-eeii itt any ©thcr 
flaa* '^«re the beat «v«'lnble price jp.ay be pbtained. tliitp 
^Inut Ccal Co , T. Coal C p .. 254 111 . S«8. 

Thf-re is ar error lo t}:*» aneunt ef the rerdlct. The 
eentraet r-rtc* «»• 5^ aanta a ^ound.'leaa 1 i." "^la 1^ «•• 

not censia«r<»d In BrrlTinfr at ih* vpr<llct, Itader th» evidence th« 
^(s^r^s te «5sff«> riant «>iotil<l hs'v^ been ?:>2547 ,£"*9 , AJlowiisg for 
the j^260£; depeslt, the? ccrrect PBotsnt of the vdrdiot should h«v« 
been t47.69, « reduction frcs the judf^cait ©f -$18C. If def6?idaBt 
ehEll within ten iaya hereafter file a ri^ittitui' ef ylfet » ?h« 
ju6)t?ssent,thujj reduced, will be svf firmed; etherwSae it win he 
Rpcssssry t.c- reverse and rwB»nd. If remittitur i» file^, coat 
tc h? taxpd afjreinst eppe fieri t . 

Eeldeffi« i, J,, »nd Oevisr, .U» ctsaeur. 

370 - 26544 



T8. \ j 


I,.;AX ; AKDraoVfTZ. d-^inr / 
business aa »>i .':andelevl1 
* Soft. 


Ai'p^Aj. ypflK KtmiciiAi. Goimr 


221 1.A. 650 


il a in tiff fcrr«pht suit ns the f»nriora*»e rf « pirrmls- 
9orr note ♦executed by •?• SftndelcTitz k Son for $S,814.68, dated 
June 9, 1919, payable ninety days after dete witii Interest at 
six prr cent per annun. IJpon trial, as directed by the court, 
the Jurv r»+iim*w1 »» yer^^lct for rlwinti^'**, saseaninr >'i9 dam«ip;e» 
at §3,951.98, ftnd Juri/cment for thl<^ «»!BPunt ymn •entered, from 
i^.lch defendants wnr***! • 

"Shere is virtunlly nr ^i9T«t« ns t.r t\\n fnotp. In 
connectlrn vith tY.^ rurehnse ef fjrtrfe recd« defendants erecuted 
nnd dellTered the nrte tn e>je«!tten tr one J. ;>»n<iroTit» . June 1§, 
t>?ree iavo ?»ft*^ its exeeuticn, plelntiff received the ncte from 
J, iJendroTlti In povcient of » loan ©f |;«i,247 and on account of a 
prericus ind«»'r;tef!re8 8 fcr « Vftrper Rsnount . Defendsnt lux iandele*- 
▼Its testified that he hnd « cenTersatlon with plaintiff about the 
not* about two or three days sftrr the note vum given; that he told 
plaintiff he had irlTon J. ;iandrovitz the note for soaie werehendis* 
and that ha smst "sea Jake about the rjerchnndise snd see whether 
he can deliver it." 

As this *a« all the Meter!*! evidence in the ease there 
was no euention of fnet to be eobs-itted to the jury '■•nd the ^^r-' 
ensptory inBtrontien of the court vita proper. 

Ilaintiff, by shorlnjr that he w«8 th" liolder of tha 

note, Biiid« n yrlaf^ f a.c 1 f cue* that h« mm the holder in rius course . 
3ee . ;)9, regotiable Inatrufcenta «et. Hie testiscnv slsf shoYS he 
receired it for » ▼f»lu»'bl& cc3nsif'«>natlon «nd th'ss established that 
he »»• • V'Clder in -^u** e-urse as deacri'b'''^ in "ec . 55 cf the ?ce- 
irctiftble TnstpuBents Act. 

Plaintiff did not tflk? fhf* nct« -^ith nnti-e cf any 
InfiTtoity in the inatruaent or defect in the title, pven if the 
cmTftrsntion referred tc tock piece hefcre the plsintiff aaq^aired 
the netp, which is dcubtfol . I'ot only b«8 nothins? ssld ^hieh 
would constitute notice cf Infirsr.ity cr defect, but pin ^ntiff 
viis wfflrjsatiirely tcld that the note rma firen for »! ecn:-?i'iera- 
tlon, nnpiolv, the purchfise cf aserchandise. A subsequent failure 
of ccnniriemtioB would be no defense tc the note in t <? hsrsda cf 

It should Pi 00 b*" noted that defenisnts did not pl«A4 
failure of consideration, but pleaded want cf ccnai deration. Their 
eviience rrr-Te-i consideration snd eridenoe of allefred failure ef 
eons idernt ion Trrul^' not b" «»d"Jn»l>)le. '^dhfer^-g , v. vjjan, 19 111. 
46; Ocdinf v. ; cArtr^ir Co ., 181 111. Ajr. 375. 

It is difficult tn see sny t'round for coestioning the 
Judr»*^t , nnd it will be sffir«^ed. 

riaintiff contends that this wnpeal has been taken 
BPTelv frr delay an; asks fcr fnfli??tlen of the stPtutorv r«n«»ity 
ir such c^ses. '<?* see no reason •^hy the d*'fendRntB shftuld not hara 
retit«?1 Tcith the judf^«r»t aa'fiinst thex In t^e lii\iniciiMil court, m 
are inclined tr) held vlth plaintiff upon hini aotion, nnd the order 
cf thl" crrurt ^11 t therefrra b« affirmed 'flth stRtutcry dawapes of 
»n Additional ten per cent. 

Eoldc^n, ' . J., end IJ«'»«»r, J,, concur. 

579 - 26555 

>kkc« \ 

U»I?>rD I^LlJjfBIH* AK.') H -AT ISO 
Appall *«,. 

221I.A. 651 


mS a Jl 1. 9 f 1 • x> >L> jL 

rf;. JUtiTJCie te«;£JUKSixy BKL1¥?^J535 tilK Cf-IKieii' Cl? JKt CWflT. 

I'lslntlff breu^ht suit nll-^ini^. timt dufendftot ««» 1b- 
d«bt«<l for luber nnd »at»rl«l furnished hy plunlritiff for t.h«> in- 
•tallsticn of R heaitini^ aystMi in 4efend«nt'» pr««s untJ olnUaiiA 
a belanoe due of |ieS6«5<S. INifendeni fn4»d an nff !d»vit of defense, 
vhleh the trUil court ocn8*ui*u««i to he »n »affito8icn cf ftr ind«bt«di- 
tt«»> to th« ftmeunt of $1.322 .9&» mn& judim»nt %«s Mtntf^re^S for %hi» 
nnd thi» !wlt ord«r«<5 te fiTee«»A «• tr th» perti*?!! cf the dewand in 
disputv. yrom this Juditamnt snd order d«fffwdRnt h«8 »pf«>«l*d» 

Th* st»t«<M«nt of olRim waa sufflcierjt tr inferw defend- 
ant rf tb<» natur« ef plnlntlff *» olnlB* It !?ti»t*N!t tHi»t tn<> cl^iiiB 
««• for B b«lflno<^ rtu« uB^l»»r m ^rrttte^n T>r«JT<*»»»1 t© fuinjies tccl» 
Mid Imbor at « «p«oifi*»-4 rntw. ?hp «(t«t«n«mt »n «»«'«»!5 th« nua»b«r 
cf hours of labor fvimlshed «!in:1 j«l ar tfe« anmnt ©f roorobanUa*, with 
th* eredits ©Ti th* aeo-^ttnt. "^e o«8(Micitad by dafendartt en tha 
naoaatitv of pTcadlnp ertsplata p«rfrr«*inoa cf « contract »b a ocn- 
dltion prcoadant ar« not applicable tc th« preawit ease. This is 
Slaply an ft(ere<wsent for labor and material to be pnil Tor at a 
••rtain rata* it Is net the onse cf an an tire contr»ot tc hf> p r- 
fonted for a apeolfiad aaotust. 

Th« imff lolimoy of the state* ent doaa »ot api <«r to 
buy* baan aurstlotsed upon thr, trial, 'rtifre Its al}^^(r^t& insufficiency 
eottltf hnYe been raised by prcpe* motion. It is tec latB to question 

It tor the firet, tlai* in thl» ccurt. B|;fid^ ey v» :^^'0.^<.«'rfi ^ . C , f? p .Co . . 

lefj 111 . A^r. s?6* 

Sto» JfutiKttent va« juropor «»4i«r «««tl«it 65 of t>«» rwictl«i« 
••t* In urriyrini^ at th« aapwnt of tfe« Judmwjt th© *.rl«l co«rt !(?;»▼• 
4»f rniUutt cre-llt fcr ftll it olaioio^ •« trw^jffnta '^n soeount »nA fey 
•iiy cf r<^erupa«{it for alle<tt«d ds«r,.<»fe« »nd ?mt'?r«d Ju«Sr!««?»t for th» 
))Alf«ne«. *'o dc net se* hew def<tod«nt ©*«» coa|>l»lBi of this. It 
■i«j5ly holds fer trial th« Itwjaa for wfcl«ls it «l«tait oredito, dl«» 
duotleaa wnd ««t 6ffs» if any. 

%#r« tto« affidavit pf d^fensit iiB»eft« ttmt ih« def«Dn4* 
M»t lb(!li«»T«0 h« hA» » e;ood d«fen0e t<? the «]rtel<» «;f pl»lmtitt*» d»> 
m«nd, v.ut in apeoifySng tfa« natarw of 4©f iWiSe' (Msly d«?fe«d« »• t© 
owrtaln itcra* t ia cpcper te ^tt«r 4w.<tisB««jt for tin? wmo-ont not 
ap4»eif loally (tu^fftlenoA. *hi» ie th» «»t«to1,$HhiSid piwetiee la th« 

»«»icitp«.i c<mri. %^,^nfJB v. 2£ji«m£ Iiaa* las* i^'* i«2i in. app. 
^f^i %^fiffTA -y. MiSfilsx. 2C6 m, Apr. 35?-; iijjjsi: ». ^stsmM.* ^'"'^ 
in. Apr. 12s. A« »im« aai« i« T..yfi] R. V. Byji^, «n4 ni. AIPP. 852» 
th« •ffi/'lavlt cf Reylteritm© d#fen«t« "liatita th^ fJtreftfa that c«.n 
\>a ttada ttfidar tha pl«ft t<* swcitj fpiats a« %v« «a* ferth i»^ it.** 

*« af** »Kli(«d by plaintiff te holi tbat thia? sT^paal 
w»» Trosffcwtaid fcr <i«lay Rnd to »•»««« a p««ft1ty, Althettgfe v« 
hava no diffieulty i;i Uolding timt d;ftfanda»t*s ccntantlone ara 
vitttottt narlt, yet we ara net frrai^arad ta aay that Vsifi ftrp«*l 'sMt* 
•oinv for dalay. '^*t are inelip*^ te thlikk it aaa tak^n in «eo4 
faith Rnd no pwnalty will ^a impcsad, feut th« Ju:5r»«nt will ha 
aff irssud. 

Ucl<!rM, i, J,, and J^rvar, J., oeneur. 

401 - 2657& I 

J. HeWjRK-aL, 



221 1.A. 651 

i'-. JU:>7ICg HB30R1LY D^^IVKR?!!) Tim OPIKIOB OF TM>-; CCaW. 

il;>inti*'f had judit!}*'nt, bv ccnfpasier. fntT^'d en a 
net<p sirrjpd by def«?ndant for #160. ^^baesni^'ntly, ct? moticn, 
defendant w»» ^iven leavft to plead »n6 defend, the Jud^ent 
atandlBft: as ••eiirity. Upon trial befor* » ^ory n vf?r4ict «a» 
rcaiderad agHinst plaintiff and Judgment ^r.toped thereers, from 
«rlch he app«ftls« 

flslntiff is in the T«i»l ests^te bua&iiess in C%i<> 
cRgc * -"Jefftndant sair en»» of plaintiff's advertiseaientB in the 

'icag^" pB>>era selleitiag perscns hsTini?: real pstste tc sell te 
e"7ploy bis Rs »F«?nt. The advert ieeBusnt in Isr*?* 1 otters ccntRir:«»d 
t;'=«- wer3« "Ho «»! *. O'- charge, " in r«?S!onse tr thi« defendant 
flmi«l upon Tlslntiff and tcld his he h»d a fl«t builJini? on 

h5jI In Rverm* fcr swl »» st » certisln T'T'ice, Rnd ngre*"^ tc pay 
ylnintlff ^4C for spll tnc- th*» Tsrop*«rty, i'latntlff aai:r,a d«fend- 
snt tr i?l*Tr» b ccntraet. r^fendant testifies that tl»c contract 
ir»8 cosRpl leottHl i»n4 upon inquiry ht> ams infeiised by plPintiff that 
it waa aerely an authority to plaintiff to sake a aale. Vhe latter 
part of this deciffljent was in the form of « proaisaery note, but 
this defendant aaye he did not knov and relied upon rlaintiff *B 
stfit^rent aa to -what the Kiousent- «»• . iJubaequerit) v the note wae 
detached and used in the confeaaion of JudRpsent. llaintiff did net 
stHke a sale of the prcperty. 

The Jury waa eridently of the opinion tha^ the eireuw- 
staneea aboved no intention en the part of defendant to sign a 

note and no rpss^n *hv ht» eiiculd, and that hia si(Kn«tur»? wa» 
obtalnwl by mlsrpT-resentaticn . -?» see no rcasen tc diaRftree 
with the Terdlct. The instructicna of tis,e cctirt fairly pre- 
»ent<Hi the issue of fact, and ac auffiet«nt re&ucn for reversal 
l3 rrffsentftd tc ua, riae Judf;»ent cf the i^unicipal court is 
therefore affiraied. 

Kclflcaa, 1^, J., an<i Bevsr, J., scneur. 


413 - acse? 


CARL m'JAi'3 a^TTJiyar by kie 

Eext Frlftnd, IVO. ■IFA ?i r- R 
\^ Appftllett, 



221 I.A. 651 

siS. justics 4ic3uraa.r UiSLiVRiiiD t&it oiiisies c?* niH coiir^. 

Ilaintlff, n wlner, ^ms in^ure^ thrrajeih th^ aMoRpA 
nesfllr^v^f ef <!*f «ffli'1iiF»t. l^on a«lt by his next friend for 'wtmre* 
h«^ >.^'d »». TfrUct for |:*,CC>0, ^jpon w)lch Jud|?ajent ms raterwa and 
frcas which def*B(5ant mppi^iiln. 

Def*nd«nt 4eee not arpue tfce qu<Mitia» ef 1l<<bi1it.y 
but asserts th«t the Terdiot la »o grossly ««e»ssive In smeunt 
ss t» require « rerersail; wc sre ef the epinioB this point is 
Mippcrt '4 'b--' th« reecrd. 

The accident hftppesed «^u»e 11, 1917. llaintiff, 
then twe t>n6 cne-helf ymrs of eire, i^» CRrrleeS by « ■wemam cure- 
taker -yhr, Willie nlirrhtlnp from • Btre«*t car of defendant, rma 
by Ite 3ti<id«n ettirtlR^ thrown frcsB the ateip tc the street. Ap- 
parently the iftmtm did net 1 »t |f<» e" the child until efter she 
had fall ^9. "^lie vrrn»<n and chllfl were tak*!? tfr a nearby drv(f 
8tcr«» and the druppiat teettfied that the little boy sat in th« 
chair ~'h»re thev had pi need hl» "and Irelred areund sert of aoared 
like,* A dcetcr frere thea attention and ''euad that the e>>ild had 
•a sliFbt ccntufiion" an UiS bAol? ©f hia head. After the cftild «»« 
taker! heme the dooter further eJcatKined hlai and found nethln<? sore, 
there «aa ne Tospiting or ether focal av«pto»«; the lup?p on the 
back ef the head saaaa to hara gradually dlsfiiniahed in- else, 
i^bse^ently the child wat treated for constipation, h«t the erl- 
denee tends very atronftly to ohow that this condition was eauaad 

by is8prc.T>«r fe'vlUnp'. 

The thfforv of ^I'lntiff 's ccvnsiil vh.e that the scci* 
d«Bt e«n»*d on iP|>«lm»Bt of |>lR!ntlff *a suentality ne *Tld»nc«a 
by 1rii» b«»hftTler, »»!?« f.r \-t p.'CtJli*r »»■;<'. ab?:-en;^l . '-'hi' c?>6e -rr** 
triwt «beut two vemrp p-fti^r tht »eci''.f»»it» As 8hpi=f.iniE alsrofffirtl ity» 
witnesses testified that sftwr the acci^^ent tiie ehlld hsd i-un 
«<w»r frrsi hcmr eecmeicnftl 7y; th« t h-: 8«K«»tijK€S tot* plarthings 
froff; o'-Lfr chllrtrerj; st times troke t'ilKgs with ft hi««s?«r; a^ic'fe^t 
i»n unwmin|?Ti«eo te talk to strsinff^ra; ^1 »; scjc«ti'«:ee o.i^rri?!^ 
with ether chll<.-r««, *nd »cm!^itf«9 isade fecllah r^^iark©. TfafTS 
was no "Tidrr.c* tK»t rrnrlutt n-as relBtcs? tr the fccideet. 
Tbe incl4pr.t» narrated mnrel"^ shetf sctirrs srf* beh£-'?icr slKOst 
unlTersnlly com<n<»i} te obllrtrws, ("tte! *:he Jurv <9* net jwst.if}.»(! in 
• scrlblTjf th«E tr th#» «eci'^<*!r!t. 

It i» »ild the trfiAfnc*- shewe thp dl»T-c»iticn of 
the child hf»8 b^an nhmnged hy reeaen of th« InJuTjr; ♦hst l»ef<?re it 
h« bad >>e«n brir>-it and 'h«»1t>!y, well >)<*|ys'»ed ««d beppy, but thtt 
eftfr the «coS't«nt h** wn« ««i"?«n, Vsc'itard ?>?ia !«f©reae. 3t aiay b« 
jT-r*r in ♦.he csae r."^ fin M>i1t pf phvsSesi ^n-S Rental natwrity te 
■how *! differenee in dl«t^e«ltten nf>4 wental ty*lt» befcrf nnd 
•fter an Irjurv. lu Y. C, & St. 3.. P.. Gq , ». t«"^^tS^» ^ ^^ ^^ • *^*« 
Oils is upon the SieatcsptioB that the «r»t«>l.«1 iehed diarcalticB of ths 
adalt will net tee ehenited within <i short tis«e without ceuse. tills 
••nnot be pfodieitted of « child betw«?en t r and one-hslf ftn(J four 
end one«hi»lf yimrs of er«» 2** rtlsrceitieu ^vv^ fii*T!t«l habits err 
then enft^rynnic end fcneetl-re ehenres eocnr »«o«w»pn«led by setlens 
•]pfer<mtly ebner«<el en.l ^*»rwer«e. In the sbs-^nce of «ny twetiaionjr 
eenneetinr the subsenuent eiehibl ^lena hy plaintiff of hia dioroel- 
tlen ©r »ent.«l trmits, with the Injury, the Juy ennnet adjudire 
taeeires therefor upeil m ssere ehence. 

Am there wast be another trtel we here refrelned frws 



Ccmplsint le mnd** cf Instructions swTwr nni #irht i?W«n 
at ths re<QM«^«t cf t^lRlnttff as Terwlttin?; Teenyew fr-r a loss of 
eamtn^fa during minority, irhlch ar«» reccvarable enly by plaintiff's 
fat»;{?r. "Hiie inflinsctiona ebeuld not b#» so coBstruwS. Th« eleaient 
of daoifrea la eenfin«*d tr thos<^ all«»ff«»d in the declaration and as 
•«tablleh#d by th^ ■pT^v^^nirnvmnne of th« evi'^enca. fhuTt was no 
eTld^nce h8 *X' th.^ ««tmiRjf( caT>«olty. "i(« think, hrw#»-»er, the true 
Intrnt rf i"«trvistien «»i!^.t wcyl <1 hr»Tfl bean b«tt*»r pxrr"e««d by 
Hrvibp ♦>»» l«s* r«Tt r«»«4, "and aa h»ve bewn <*»tabllj»hed," InsteaA 
ef "vThlr>- h»vo 'h«»f»R ♦►stabllsh**.* 

ObJ«<ctle«g firi» «j««I«» te th*» rullnifs ef the trial erurt 
uron th** »Tl<*pnea, 3ejs«* cf tht'se ware err-nactta althctirh hardly 
cf et'^^Jel^^nt irpertanoa in theniB^l^ea te n«ea»eltHt<» ss rrversal 
an'' *-^»y '^ii'y prrbRblv not eeeur atrain. 

This ala© i^rrllfPS te th«» charjr* of ifB|>rcp«»r oondtiot 
ef thtf cpurt. abii »• ther* aeejss te hsTa b«?pn confoaien and dia« 
p..^rff«s5«>t between the Jttdite «nd hr attomav fcr dftfen^iant, yat 
nothinfr ceewrred »e serictjs sb tc call fcr <>xt«nded ccBKoent. 

Apparently the setber ©f the e>iil«:! waa in the ootirt 
reoB, a1 thoui?v. sho did not t»V«« the vitness atand< CoBjplaint la 
Bade tbat ecunBrl fcr defendant was net pers^itted In ar,"r>jwent te 
r^fer te her aprwirance and conduct wMle in ec«rt. Under acse 
oiTeiiwetPncee ♦.?:? e^ndnct of lnt«»rp«ted T>*r^l*« r^itrht be referred 
to. In the present enae thrre eaa nc proper iden tlf icatien ef the 
rsrty aa the notbxr of plaintiff, ^-e pvaotioe cf pensittini^ 
eonnael to eo»s»#nt wnd rrf«»r in Rrmsrent to the anrearanee and 
dewearjor f>f vp f>otn%tfT» in ♦.h'» court rt^cm ahcwl -1 net bo arrrc^ed* 

Wer the r^naeona aboire indiented the ^wdf»«nt is r^- 
▼eraed aniS th<» enui»»» is rewanled, 

aivi8j«i> AMU umATiUsai, 

Heldca, 1. J,, and IHrrer, J.» crncur. 


435 • 26609 

▼e. \ ) / 

\ ) / or cmcAOc. 


*^^T^^ V 221 IX 651 

u?, juatics Medi^^^i^ aniavHRiH) thb ci»iBZcm of ?bs couk?. 

iT.«lntiff, brinring ko actiOR ef forcible detsinpr, 
upon trial by a .1ury had ft directed verdict upon Mrhiob judreent 
for posseaeicn was entered, froa «ttioh def crseiant appeals. 

i^^fendiSJRt oooupied under e written leas© running 
froB l'«bruary I, 192G, te April St), 192C. I)ef«n4'^nt did net 
TAeste th@ pr«»mises en thie l»st day and en ^y 1 this ecticn 
was bi^un. 

Befiendnnt here elaissa that as hie tenancty vac for a 

terr ef leas tJian a y«ir and h» wi» r.clding eir«r without app^cial 

agr*«a«Miit» he vno wTtitled tc thirty days nctice in writing under 

aeeticB 6# chapter SC» landlord and Tenant • Thia »eotlrn is set 

applicable 'here tteere la a written leaae for a definite ter». 

The statute applicable ie section 12 of tJie iJindlord and Tenant 

act, S8 follows: 

"%en the tonaney ia fcr a oertaULn j>er<cd, rnd the 
tern expires by the t^r.'as of the lease, the tenant is tl:ten 
bound tc Burrencier poeseesicn and no notice tc <{uit or deaaad 
ef possession ia necessary." 

Suit for peseeesicB under »uoh cireusJDtanees emy be 

cooa*'nced without first Bakia« a demand. Cfp l i^ fi uo. v, Fitager&l^ . 

151 in . App. 135; Co£jyt C£. v. Kaiger L Best B. Co .. 163 HI, App. 
nO; Cg,pdpB T. Breckaav. 157 111. 9C. 

nicrre «as bo queeticn of fact in/clyed raquiring the 

easa to be aubaiitted tc the Jury, "Thw fncts e*rre ctipulated. 

the conTiireatieia between defeKclant ©nd r irreafftotiT* 
tw.ant, in which dfff cr.rtwnt aald the pregslse* wcr« net fcr rsnt, 
do«?0 not aaovat to an orBl 1.«*8inf; from plaictiff . For deft^n iaiit 
to cleie that he wrb a hold-CTer under a jrieial ftgrsfissent is net 
•urrrrtrd by the record pnd is Inecnsiat^Rt with hie clain upon 
th^' trial nn^ in this court, nRfSK^lv, that i;e ie under i:>«ction € 
of thp i-andlerd and Tenpnt ?»et "wh^ri* the t«»n.<s.nt he)<i» CYer irith- 
eut sT^folal «*rre«B^nt,* 

BeT«»n4Bnt*8 prints Mr« wholl'p wltbeut !s*»rlt, tind the 
J«d«=r<=Trjt Is efflrssed, 

KcldoiB, i. J., »nd Bever* J** ecnour* 

461 - 26655 

Qm*l.3 V, KURTHlfA 


) /ii>.Aj- vnm mmauAL mum 


2 21 I.A, 651 : 

KH. .rUSTJCE IS«3U5*l3.y I5Il.IVmiTJ ?«S OtIIICH (^F ?K1? ac«lf», 

\Jp©n trlftl tn pn isetlpn cf fereilfel^ d«t«lner flalntiff 
h«rt p fflTor«}?l© T#raiet of a jnrv and ^wij^jnst en th# T»rdiet, fre« 
whiish d«f»>ti4iint «pri»Al«. 

■>«f<»n^«nt «R« « t«n««t of* |?l«iMtlff cf an dfartfisftnt 
ttnri»r n written leA»» »hl«h <s3ct IraA Apt'll S^^* 1^20, and pa»lntiff 
»«d» oQt a eaaa /by intrcduolnc; tli« l««ii»« vitb. erlOcnce that A«* 
f«n6ant ^waa still in j^osaeaaten <it the tt!»« of tha trial, ^^loh 
«aa iw&m 9» 1980» although jpoaeanBlon ha4 ba«» deianndad. 

%« dafanae ia that in tha lattar part of Fabruary* 
1920, th« partlaa nade a varbal a^r«««K9nt fcr « n«« laaae ««iJtK?«B«inc 
K»7 1* 19S0, and that ahertly aft^rwarda twe O0ri«a of a wrlttan 
l«a«a pursuant te thla undaratnnding war* d«liy«rad Toy plaintiff 
te defendant. So far thara ia no dis^'ttta. The orux of tha ocn- 
treT«*ray r«»lat*a ta wliathar tlia naw prouaaad laaaaa wftr« 8lp:n«d by 
plaintiff. !)af «n«ant twatiflaa t:Knt whan h« r«o<»lT*d t,h««i thay 
itrnr* tlf^ad by plaintiff and tJiat b© hlmaallf aubaaQurantly sifmad 
th«i, alttiOttirh kaffpinjr thaj? In hl» pcaaaaaicn. thara waa ta«ti»«ny 
af ethar witn»aaa«, iHhia elTttmad te baya a««n tha 1 «a««>a irhila in 
dafonOant'a |>o«aaaalcn, that the lasa*'* bora tha aliRwatura of ip^lain- 
tiff , naintiff danlaa harln? algnad tfcaae par^ra and taatlfiad that, 
net haTinK raeaivad the laaaaa fr«B dafandant, »nd aa subaaquant a»t«» 
tara ocourrcd idaleh dataroinad hin to withdrav <ha prrpaaal, ha 
satlfiad defendant to thie effaot. 


7h« pvopem^A n«v itmam* w«]r« net produced upon tb« 
trinl ♦ find d<»fend«nt iitt«s9i't«»<a te ftxT'lfiln thl« t> testintony o«l» 

This suf^irmBtioo he*f«T<»r hue T«ry Httl©, if nny, fMiniffticn in the 

1fh« Jury b»Brrt «nd «fiw th« ivttnA9ii«» t«»tifvl-nR upon 
th«» ecntr<rr#TtifA f-rlnX na tn th« ]pr*o«iiie« of th» 'Uicn^stur^ ©f 
jil«lntiff uipea th« papwre, wnd ©euld t)«?tt(»tr dutftrmlne t>;v#lr erfldi- 
billty thmn w» e»n. Th«r« ■mm aoae 0Tidene« tandlrjip t© show that 
thi* t<»«t>!«?ony w«« lnf1u«meed by persfwftl toi«*«, ^e «r« a««bl« tc 
(wv the -srerdiot ««• vreng. 

Jhft rpcord d«f«8 not eavpcrt th«^ «ln,iKs timt (SftfanfiRnt 
Vfts » t«nent fram ncnth te month niid henee «»ntitl«MS to thirty 
dny* noMee ©f t«nnin«tlon. B« unto « t«mant Hn«ler • written 3 eaee 
wlileh bv Ita t«rtsa expired on April 3C, 1020, 9nd in the sit>aenee ef 
Any mtld exti^nelon the leseee eheuld heve (lii'vmi ^peeeeeelen tc the 
lan^lerd «t thnt time, 

Sfe eee no eufflcient r<«»»o« to iHietarit? tb© yerdlet o» 
the ^eetion of fM>t, und un<Ser the Iftur plwlntlff wee «>«titled to 
Tio«*e80ion. '?he 4ttdf?B8«»nt iv efflrssed. 

47 C - 36644 

iMS-lAIrCHS, 3f. ?AUa& JAIiLT ) 

. ,' _ . KABii. liT. Gv), tttn -, C, ^ 

cAl)'. 0, !.lrector G«)ii<3i%I t^f ) 

i Uto&da, \ ) 

Appall snt . \ / ] 


1;R. justice licSUSTnUY Om-IVSRSSJ TK^ OJl»IO?f OP tm CCURT, 

ilfliirttlff breufjht suit to r«»eeT«»r d«n!ftg«t« fer per- 
i arnal injuries «11 ♦'p^.a tc be e«»t!B«a \>v fh« n«»f'l Irpne* e>f th<» 
' def«nB-'«»it rail road, nri<\ wren triftl hp^ r -rt^r^ic^ 'or $2250, which 
was rMsittffd to §l&*>^ acvi ju<3j'ff;*'nt fintored fer that ros'unt, <'Yca 
whieh aef <»n4ant appenls* ^^® ^^^^ ^^* di8s;l98i»a as t^ the <^<>- 
fencant ^oAdoc« I^irectcr Qeaeml of Baiiroads. 

Tbe deelur&ticn cen«'^ted ef tvo counts, the first 
of whlcn eh«rfred that risintiff, while attep-ptinir te b'.s^rd one ef 
defendant 'a traina, 'vas in,iur«d biMSRUse It .^er*nd and at«rted icr- 
'siird «tt^ !»rily; it alsc Rllpped a ctiatcw of not VrlBifiOfr a train to 
• fun 8to^ «t th# plRce in ou«»8tieB. At the cleac cf the e-ri- 
d*nc« the Jorv -^s instructor tc fin-i th«» defeniiant Bd rviiltr 
ae tr this rirst enunt- 

Tint hf-.^imC ccuat c-hnrf;»d that deffndBnt •n*;glif;«6 tXy 
»iid wronf: Tally, befrr*' rla-irstiff ws«= frilly »nd 8*vf ♦»! y ur-on «iiid 
tniln, fet'.rtrd >»n6 J wrVed erid trsln 8«(?'^<»r'lv fcrward »nd ne?:ll- 
ir»rit1y, cf(r<>l ^nel y «»nd wrenrfully ctps#d cn»» »f th« dficr» ef th» 
WiT, -irhich fl«l«»tiff wi« th«m «^nd th«r« fct* ^^-^ptinr tc "ntrt" upcB 
and ftrMiQat plaintiff »»nd oaue*td "«ia d<><5r tc «trlke apalnst and 
MVvn ulBlntiff .*• 

Tb« accident haFr«?n«d JJacereb^r IS, 1916, betwe*m six 

8Bd six thirty o'clock p, s*,, nt thp I-Tajjlci i« ri»rfe i-t«tieB of aa- 
feri-^Rnt. ?ti*»r« its nr-.i! rcRd tuns north and aeutli. I'fao tralc «fft» 
Tunr.lcK aruth en the w«st ♦ry^fej it cersgistea of an ?>Ksrinp and 
fpar fwirs, 9. ccm'feinntleB l5»».s-fr!rt.if« ^r.-i !w?rVi»r, r sRcVinr ^;rr, n 
f l-^pt-rlftsp r'*!*9»^''j'«»r ce?*eb ^n6 p rsrlcr C't't it *«» ^'f the 
USUR} veati'feni f» t^xo. Tl^lntiff pjirshssp?* V^.ts- t5c>*t rt tfte 
sti^tlT. «r<? SPITE mYfv th© tr»In ^p!s*» bo »tt«'Bj|>tod to Isp^r'' jt, 
■but i' ^i-' ♦^Ct 9tcp, "t^.^ ft^ \^_0 gt^r'T^d ?*r ♦^^e ffififjop" t.r^'iTs "^t 
th*» ""f^ar •T'l r' th** ?BBici»Jnf; mr, the rsstJVi.'^l ■« dc?*r «'«ia elcaeA 
In hi« f^c«, stril^inr hiss nnd thrcwiej? Mk tr U;«9 rrnu^d; that 
the tr^ln •:4Wf» »»,fc fhia tise sievinfr St ^.betit tferee ot Tomt si11**» as 
hour «nd incr?» it* s^om.' ilauit-iff is eTi(?,6ritly aistaJcen in 
sayinsf the train cUd net atop »t the titsticH. "^fcf^t it rti-rt i=ic-p in 
th« usual mad custc^ery ssenr!f?r fcr passorsgers «»'?«« eat^Mlshefi by 
tb.f' crip-r-r f>i?epoBderance of tli?* teotisaeny. ilfeitJttff '8 se-unsel 
cefws te Pbsrsden in ;»rKta!<?nt ths elssis thst tS;e trein did not 
gti^p, Isyt lr.3i3t? thet the prcxisspt,« cfiiisr cf the &ceidf>nt ^snK 
th» c'ir«l?sf r** th« door, striving ylaintiff, ?j!io t'^^stififtd 'Ant 
i^hil *> he >ift4 bis rl^ht feet en th» lc««r nt&p «n 1 his rijrVit b.fiind 
or> the u^rlpJit, the Tetftibtile wss closfr* it? his T'C". « > et<S 
■ thet this veraion of the accident is aet 8Ui>t?ert«a hv the w^is-ht 
of th*" ^Tifiv'iKs** >n.Jt it *ii !»«i:oi9« tc he.^r*?' «c€n!rrfl4 s*» folletrg: ?hat 
th<» tr»in nrriyed wt thP stwtion ro^ stnjvfw? , Flsititiff thermiT>OB 
attrteKj to boetr^'^ ty» tr»in» ^wt ret'imed te th« atwtif^rj tc f.«t 
oittftWel ^♦iiicr he h»d } f f t i'^aJ.'S©. ties; ha e««!aH rut rf the 
("i»?-.ft d*»pr th« tr»elo »«• in syctlgn, "nxit vlftintiff orntirM'>d tc 
ruo t9 th» trfein altho>.<^£i w«m»»<ii by the atnt^pn m^^frt te >#«rp 
a.-jny , ilaintiff B»f<d<? « jrral» fcr tho i;atjdle» fit the reftr ena rf 
th«* n*T» to the l»at ecseh .1u«t »he«»d cf the perl or cBrj those 
V'atibuloa wore olo»*« «nd plpintiff f<? 1 t.r the prmarK!. 

C nnsol for pluiotiff akillfully efflph*al«e« f^ciop scobs- 

iBC disorei&eiBOiiNi in th« stcriP* e^f tli© wttn««ae«, frve^n tf> qu99» 

tienin£ th« tSst© of tfee fieeld^nt «n<5 aorif^atiiijt thttt th« vronc 

tTRiR crew b«d testified* 11ier» can lj«» ue dcubt bat that th« 

•eeidant hstpeRcd on the «v«ming cf I)«ce>b«l* ISthg ms twatlfled 

tc bv plalBtiff a»d th» ether wit«e«8«e; th« eireymstanoe* all 

iBdic»t« thftt ftll the witnesses were teatifTlni; «1»eut the sa«e 


Vlaintiff '» -version rests selely upim lata own tee- 

tlBooy. which is oontrndicted in its ©sseiatial festaree by t&« 

br«Vc«;:!«r! y/hti/elBimfA to hmve elesed the T«?8ttbale door; tfce stmtioB 

Ufitrnt, nn ^n^inepr ef 'he defendant ^^m 'ft»B vi6ing tO) a passenger 

OB ty.e 'twin, ?"n<S the oorrofeoTatlve evi?ie«ce of other sseabers of 

the train ere«. 

n.aintiff b»a feilM to sbo^ thet th«» eccident hap- 
pened becBuse of the B'?^llrence alleeredi in his fleclsntt on, but, 
en th'^ contrary, the prerveaderfince of the evi eaee establishes tbat 
the aeel'^ent hapre^ed throueh the neglt«?enfi« ef plaintiff, 

^ssilar f»ctn hare been eonaidered in mm.nvF eases wh^ra 
it ^8 hrl.1 thpt rtaintiff tins net (entitled to r«ecr9r* ae al»est 
exactly like the instent case is iMley y. il^.. Central H. R. Co .. 
2i.j; ill, App, 625, 

%« JudgB«i}t of tbe Clrouit oourt is rereraad witli 
• finding ef fsets* 

Kmmsm mm a fxkdxxs of factii). 

]|elden« f. J., and Perer, J., concur. 

4TC - 26644 WimiVG OF FACTS. 

»• find m» m fnct that a«feM>i«nt wna net rt«Uty ef 
th« n*vltpence oharfred in pis fntlff ♦» declawitica cr snv e«mnt 
thereof c«u»ii»p th« «cetd«nt in «iti#atieH. Je slsc find thsst auxA 
•ecident was cftus«4 by th« neplirent rcaduot ©f jlaiattff. 

176 - £64^ 


fte plaiiRtiff, 4«^» Life lnam:mnm Qew^angr on 

ol»lakin^ th«t ftltlieu^iis %n# viisi^e v«»7« 0rigiis&i.ijr iseu«>i wo 

jr«i ih« d«f«Bd^Rt, «»« liaM<» tm Uim £iro«ut4 tlast *tho mtmimlA 
G«aetru«ticn Coo^angr mi« t^ Siginfti sf th«^ 4s>f«B«t«ai in »»ou3t» 
iim ih« iaeiuelon of th« l4&t&«r a« tSie »»B«ir«4 «B»a«r Um 
{i«Xiel#»,** iai4 isoi oaljr «&• Uhs »»«aaHilii dc;a*Ui8ietion Owiyy 
lialkle f«r Uw sMOuat of tb« iirr«BKl««Mi ««kjni«<i usmmr tlw 9oXiel««« 
but lUe«vlc« tkm dcf^nOsst** la a trial in the Cireuit C^urt» 
vitheut « ivxy* th« ^lAiatiff, A«ta« i,it« in«tur«o«» :;iM«p«MQr» 
r*4«Vfir#4 A Jtt4s«t«at a^sainvt th« «icir«a<%nt in ih« sttai of 

THa 4«r««4Mi%, Smmmsflsimiu. ':xmsnuay» ma^^^ - (v^" /.i.i« 

i« &»t chova s>ui it van »rkof: to ^k« ii»tt«a9» of to«> ^Xi«l«» 

ii«n JSMMMiQir ^ ir^tle^ ifc« 3.ait«3r c9»«@mm^ was *)»• 's<»a»t.»t«t« 
)m414 *s4 fitti«]i rett)^ for «•«, » * » th# tlii ri«<m a«« 4,iru«««« 

j^ihS'^li U)» &t^num9X i.K mtt Y«jr^ ^^at &^ut it, 
MM M»l eaX^ JBufic* Uw »«v «»»«, but imt. %Jmmi in ^Xa««i« 

ias iH« pre|^eit»tia» of mil aee«»i»fejgr e3»o|9 43r«»itt|(s» 
tik* fal»3riA&iis« eii«i in«p««tl<^. of cO.! i,-$:«t»9riftl, %U« 

trtt«6«e, tk« a$^?s0«x;y iaoiiroia«» on iho ^uMio tuMi 

of tJM wexk* vh» ^zli d8»« o^ulS bo cNitJMfcioA *sMdt us UlO 
oatcttt of «0 pojr o«fstt of tfiot «l«a«, 9«il«i for en of at«u& tiw 
)L8Ui of Um» foll«tiins B»iifcij« 

Tte oontroot fur%iai»r yrovidod vh»i tlsut ae«oli«14 
0»solmeti«B Qmagutagf wotati tak« oil n««oeo«i7 pr««Mit-oiio 
•coiaot Um ooc-urrofioo ef iajarl»s to onj^ j?er«»a nr pro^ortjr 
duriae ^J» prosroo* of iho eoark, &ii4 «eul4 1>o rvopnuiiUio for 
ibo ^oywrai of eaA tettosoo, if oigp, aaO iwl««iify ond oa-ro 
llonaoso tko owM^iToslo eoavMqr* 

Xlw •ett%root furtiwnr pr»vi<t«tf Um( in ootuoaont. of 
eloiao £re«eias out of iniuriam to or 4a4(l» of c»i>lo/o«o» tho 
Oofon ...aat. tto jNMwojrlTottio Oam^majf otaoui^ bo inolMtfo4 i« tJbto 

tiff, *i,«ta«L Lif» JCnsanua^ ':::«»cm«njr» t« the g»«saJ5*l4 ^»Ktjn4«>« 
«x{;a v^. ^» that ReeunMi, (we ^^»l.t«i>*i», @a« eBtiilt^ia * 3ntr&et« 
or* *«jji03f«r» i^i»1»ilitijr pr-iiay*. emd %hs ©Ui®?, "C&tttrseterts 

iki« a8»u7«6 ^t i^ {io<?«sh4?l.d CcttstrufStlCR ■':t3^-^m^-, thf- first 
of thftB« i?^lidi&» inttar'nA tim iienmimX^ ^^innttM^timn Coia^)^ 
ft'jgJHin«1;< loss- &ri»i.nis ^t-qh ^\f>xm» up^n %fi» mBmureu f&r d«t^siEag«« 
en •«oeui»t at itijuriea W or <ti«R%li of 9it;pl«jr«'«» &-' tm n.uuur«4* 
thm a^isumA fwlicgr i»mtr#<l ttift 8o««dB«l<l CNa»(sixuQti&». ^lo»p«uijr 
ft^isiet I»«« f«r <i«!»»i;@» en *«fi»intt ef iH^uriee ie or death 
of &.a9 j^»xs.on er p«7e<»n» set «f%;<lojr«»4 i>^ &]^« isswr^d ^ jr««.8«B 
of ttHT i<^isiB«8e' d«eori.l»«d «nd! <i&aauJ3ird sit ^im l^^.i^ti^n n^si^d 

pr««iHs« e:-£C-jiiu V^ i>l(t9e«L on «> 9<<Tiatn i£iv<»n ratti^ vo bis efqH|»tt%««l 
•B thip basin of \h0 UttaJL «$< et of iHw ^mTk^ 4(1«* ^^oh polii^ 
wKs ler ta«> p«r4o<l of %}^«<i» iiiiUkitl^. B«^»»ing <m jUsjr £S* 1$IS 

«3ii«B«^?<i 96 foIlo^««; C-B &«pL<»ii^«r F.4. 191S w »jtpire Ceiob«r 
9» 1912; OB Oetob«ir 1?, 1912 U; t!X^ir<» J^nmtry 9, ]1913; OB 
Jemtory 14, ltl9 i« #xi>ir« on ^»t .)h 9, 1913* 

li w*« otliJUltitvd* at 42t<^ t.r&«l, tiia% &fi«r lh« 
iovuMseo of viK* tim polloioo ^sni^i b^foi-cr Au«tt«i 21, 1912, a 
l«it«r «■» r«o9ivod tuy £to«KiM)14 of Uka li««9ikh«i<i .jOBflii^QtiuA 
C•«Pft^y fro« Um ihmKMgflwmAm OoavBflgr, ro^oiriiHt th»t ihe 

pretmatien »t i^ p^li^Sf, Cm Aii«»»i ia« iVia, that meiiia»l€ 
:3wtt«trttOti»n SsaafMHtgr wr9%« ie iiiif«4b eix^ M4&«i»»si»« tft£«Bt« of 
tlM» plaLntifX* iitfftr^Ji^ thest of iM ree^ipt of & l«iiiir trmm. 
tlM ^aa«j'l,vani« C«>aMP>ftfl9r "for vhxm we cirtt «x«(mikliifi ilKis worlc* 

ts>»et «oyk vims b«i8i|( d»a* «9cedH«iv«l/ fojr ij&« jh<)Ov« »n»»«l mil* 
r9«4a, «« ^«i[^ te rvctttevt il»t jrott iiMi<%t« i& us ^ & rtimr 

• tee<i «id ft£jr*«tf ^is^t freaa t^ 4m%m et tmmm Vhe xumss at i,im 

ilM J'iiuibturiS, Xt. m^rn9 St <^ilm&it W»ilT$m4 O/m^/maift mwMttm,* 

S» work vsKts 4fttto by ta* Js9«MlMl4 C^tt»t7ueUoa ^ngraoagr 

Surtmivmrn w^«k b««aa» diva «Hftd«r ttat pel i sic* <m»«u«&»4 I* #181ft*G3» 

aa aaai^Miia CSaaiKtruoUon Ok»9MB||r« filod • vslaatary 9«UU«n la 
%artfr^q»i«iy Mwi aa ^ajr 14, 19X9. Im» aaa 4aljr atMt^ieatiMI a 
%aakni»». jtarali * iMiiaMMUi* »««Mta af Um plalaUff • ««ra 
aatetelml a* «r«Altera In i)ie euaciiiai of &v«r $I9C>C far iaaav* 

It «»• further «tlpulftt«d ihst «11 hills t»r ^e 
yrmrt— t sf tlS15.C3 ««ro sffat Vjr the plaintiff to JuXmt BU 
» ihftld or the Hoem&t^ld Construction OO* et»& ttunt l»ill» v«r« 
•o e«at at Intervals dotm te July 19 » 1913, aad that no billa 
wrm pr«s9nt«di to th« defesdaat until Juljr 19, 1913. 

ca JuljT 22* 1913 » %hM plaintiff, tbreugh lt« «g«Ri» 
sent a st«t«aent to tte d«f*Rdiuits, «»kii^c «hat» if tmjf, pro* 
Ti»i«n« tied 1»««n iiAd« la tiw contrast betwe«>n th« H«ttnb»14 
G«nstrttetion ^M^way, ^ittaburg, Ft. VnsfR« & i^isage Bnllrofid 
0<Mip««y and th9 4ftf«s<iaat for tta« |>sgnsM»at of the pr«Bitaui. 

On Augaat 16, 1913, tlM defeatlaat, through oiw of 
its a«enta oreto to the plaintiff otatiae that the fitarthalA 
i^aotruetioa Coapitflgr alone was liable; fchBt it «ete«t aa a» 
lad«^^eadeat oontmoior and produrad tha in8ux^a<» aa prinoiyal , 
and net aa agent for the railroad ooaipanQr* 

Cartala otatcaMmta of &ceo\mt and vouehora were offer* 
•d in OTidvaeo ohovin^ that iN^twei^n February 28, 1918, Mid 
lovoabor SC, 191£!!, tha d^^fonaant, i'anaaylvanla Coapanjr* paid 
to tha aaoaheld Conotruotion Ceqpaagr, pureuaat to the i^naa of 
tho conotruotion oontraet, for «erk and material, ete.lESS«677*00a 
That total «ao maiim up of t<ni Monthly payKaeate, th« first pay* 
Beat hoin< oada February 28, 1912, and th« laot Koveaiber 2C, 
1912. In the veueher for t.ho paynant of $6076»44 of ; areh, 
1912, thf!>re app«>arr tha itoB *lOtf% on labor for ineuraace on 
labor and publie 4Zl^»'fS»'* In th« rovnAuer for the paynent 
of |3077«61 in April, 1912, ap,>ears the itca of 'l<4t% on aboTO 
far inouranee on labor nnd publie #57&»57**« In the TOucher 
far hay, 1918, app ara Utf^ iton "lOf^ of abOTO for liability 


insuranec on Iftter and palhlie #591* 71»*' In thf- -roucher fer 
J«ly« 1912* if the it«n *I5^ fer iacuT«nis« on labor smid public 
$307. 83. •' 

It ftppeare* Aoaerding to lus ^Btioreestenl, en tAe 
ftppliosticii for tfa« "^aploy^TU* liabitltjT peiit^** that ih« 
amount of ^fags^e, ineluding oTertise and allowiuaee 9al4 to all 
persons ia Uio «nployBi<?nt of t^ ttm9ahcl4 CoBstrueti a Coma^aa^t 
to whidi the poliogr applied during tfa« B«v«n months and three 
irc«k8 ei»iiiH( Mardt 9, 1913«, imm $39S.38. It np^HfiTm, furthar* 
•eoording to an endor8«»eat on ti3« application for th«> Oea* 
traetora* cuM^loyars* liability poli<^, that th>' full asaount of 
wasee, in«luding 0¥«rti«« «n<i allevmaeea paid ic all paraena 
ir^ th« 'Employ of tbe Heiaahald Oenetr^i^tica ratapany under ihr 
policy during th«» a-^Tisn sicoths fins thr«<» urepltB p^adan*: J nuary 
16, 1913. «aa ^7844.84. 

At the cfiLaaa of all th« evidcnea, th« trial, jwd^a 
found as a r:<«ttar of fact, at the rc^uast of oounsel for the 
d«f(^nuant, "that th« dcf«naant did not erer sxpr^aaly promiee 
tha plaintiff to pa^r it. thtf> pr^aiuKS on Inr^ polici«»« in rj;U'*s* 
tion or aithar of tiiea.'* Oounaal for th« «laf«ttd«ait autalttad 
six veittaa propositiona of law< all of whidb wf-rr r^faf<ad. 
Cna of \iiea rf^^uaat•d th<>^ ODitrt to hold that th« nmmmhmli Oe»» 
struetioB 0<H^any "vaa on ittdf>pand<>nv contractor and deiag 
eonntraation work 90T«rc>! b> the ineuraaoe poliaias in qitas* 
tioa and not the a«ant of the defendant*'* 

Sttbaotiuently, the eourt foiwd tha iaauae a^ftiaat 
tho dafandant and aasaaaad tha plaintiff *a danagoa at I1216.03, 
and aatarad Jad^want ther<^for« 


Tb* object of tnc otupiructi a oDntrsot \»6tw««n the 
^«f enfant and vhe l^enh«ld Oonetruotien Qonpnsy vas thai thn 
latter siiould fabri<».te and act In plaee eertaln trass«« an4 
>« pniA by th€ defeadftttt «h«t«T«r it east • whi^ induciad tH« 
cost of o<^rtaiR ineurartce • the i^mtheJLd C astruetlon Coapaaijr 
tacetb«r vith 10;^ profit. "She traooea wera to be. and w^ra, 
»ada en th« prtmimen of tn<» Hoeaheld Soaetru^tion (%gipii»qr and 
ware pat up oa th^ pz-eraisaa of tha def>»aai%nt* ga<i«r ti%« €»»• 
tract th« oonttruction ^oBpasoy aae daalt with bath ao aaim* 
fsetur«^r and buildar and was dealt witii et sxs*8 length as a 
tikird pareoa and aa one entirely iBdependent; nov as a eervsnt 
•r eaployee or a^Ennt. but, as hti equal. Ihe fi^et titat ihe coa* 
tract did net istate in ^xaot figures th«^ price to hm pnid by 
the (i«?fen .ant foi- the fabrio&tiea nnd ereoticn Of th*^ trusees 
but proTlded instead that tiie def«>n{i«int pay "actual oorts pine 
ten (10) per e^nt". in no nmy affected the legal relatioaehip 
or indi^pendeaoe ef the partiee aor did it imk« ih« one aa 
agent and the oilier a princdpal. it is our opinion Vtitxt the 
oeatract between the Penney iTaaln Oam^ns^ , the defendant, aa 
the one bund, and the rtoeeabeld loneiruotioa ^oapai^ on thr; ev^r, 
vas Made between then as principals. loneidering then, ftbat batb 
parties to th« eonstruetioa contract dealt and oontraoted with 
each olher as principals, and the eTiden<;e tbnt the Roemheld 
Caastruction Cospaay itself applied for the two policies of in* 
auraaee and Becur<>d then la its own naae, as the sole assured* 
and that ae ehaaga was sade in the relati nebip betveen the 
Baeaaheld Coaetruetion Tom^majf raid the plaintiff until, at leaat, 
Aagaet 21, 1012, it follows that prior to that tine th«>re w«a 
■o legal abligatlcn whateTer on the d^^-fon^ant, i'ennsylTania 

Oe«tpiu^, %« ]^«y Aigr pt^r\ ot Un* prflmlvww for it«t tR<Dur»n<M» 
te tin* i^lnhintiff* 

tl>« ]to<«nlMi4 0»BatraetlQrn OeagHiuqjr almao e>.pp,litf4 for 
il3« 9elioi»« tRua Uwjf ««r* iMttt^iJ tsin^i 4«ll.Y»r«(^ i« it ftd Ui# 

iMflUM At oao«F tftur «a4 s>agriftU«i, ihctt !>? on kojr SS, l@]iS, «»4 

»«r« do* fren the i^Miteafld Q<'>nKU'ii9U'.^n <i&m^m^ tklenm, Xh»r* 
«M n* iMiiiiett 9f Xim 4.*t9n4sat% in niiHuir $H»llQiy »a nn iit»tur«'4i 
iiftiil Aisfn»t Sl« X91S - «ft«r ti$« 4«f<Hi<;^«ki»t )md iriD tlf led Ui« 
BowRncid c^ttttirastioa Q^nmfV V Idtivi** r«!>qttlylim &]te& the 

Hail«;irt^ u«>aQMU!)jr h« seer« •p««flfi«fiJL.lLjr ineXu^*<i i» %!&«< j«rot«eti<&B 
•f th« po;i9i*», aa4 ite* lfe64MlMil4 CoftAtnt oUon {:e«^«ia9r «n 
Ausuet 12, X9i2, wrote to iH« ii«»^ie ef th« i)X«iiR%iff inform* 
1^ ihoH cf th» r«««ipt of %H« loiior Trom Uto f'««m«jrlv»aitt 
dMi»MQr ««A ro<|ii«ot«d thai tlM itXikinUff iBf^iOAito by wjritlBS 
or •nders^ii.ii^at or I«tter %liut^& iAe 4«f«n^at ba aoro oiiwoifloMilljr 
in0lusl«4 in Uk« prot««Uon of tti« i^9« j?ivli9i<pii • wfenn ihft «ie*itto 
of Uu» plointiff plA<soit ftn «n(loroo««ni or rldrr en oooli of tiio 
l^elioieo to t^ «ff«et Uuii it »«<$< W94«r«tood and ttj{;r««d thai 
tho niiMoo of t>>« ft«»ttr<°fi (torfrttd by th» .plieioa w.rtt m'mibMlA 
Ck>»oirttotion >2oatp»rqr« iMroen&a^^o Qen<i>r»9torr« i^otino^lvoniA 
CoatMuqr oj«a tho Pittoburft, irt. tfoyno 0114 ^lUcmgo Koilvojr aoM^Mqr, 
•vaoro. It would •MM. tlMT^fore, th«t itiv difflc^t to ooa* 
ioso with r»«eon %tet tho ctofondoat woo liAbl* for proodoiM for 
oiqr inouraaoo that <»»istod uct<ior th* polloi#e in tiaoetion botufoon 
iG^ 28, HOa AOffttat 21, 1912, Ve are of Um» opinion thot tho 
lOMOiold Ooaotruotion Company alon* «oo liohl* throat>;,hou% that 

Of oouroot a olightly diff«r«nt «ti<»«tion »ri»«o 00 to 

A«igust UX, 19V4, »bout threx? fe:)rthi> o;: Uj^^ iserk of tiatt 
oottsintsii&n aos^ji&isy h.^<i iif>*!n aoa« «a«i *<«» >)«Ae for fey i>«« 

uiB«(i i«) auoh «t mn^ sua u> ffimw «;ui.%« «ironoiij»ffiiv«Jkjr Umt o»t«! of 

VAC tfii fAgur* i?,e |$f^ cf profit, ■««*.« tJ-'w «.im«^e for pr^'^Jtua* 
for ju«t »iwa^ |»ol4ai«« »e ■v^f:r» sub«4K|u->)atiy t»Mt«*n «at by th« 
Ji0fi(ah«ld C©«0ir«eti«>R .JowiJMny; in oJ.n<*r -wcfr'iis, 5.h<» A©«flu«fl4 

ih« .aiiur«no« Aod i» )i« Alen* r9»i>c«tt»i%tX« for vh«r <^jr<»«iuaBi 

OMiy^Kiqr, aetisi; «.« « prineijipal., auftc) it«t O0nir»«t> tar iniiujr» 

• f t)M d«f»a4aiit to tjj* jjiftirstiff, tue i>i«iaiii"f«j^ fjsuse of 
•oiien fit an* 

It iras Rtli'uXntffU on tlk« %ri»l &ib-kt frc<»i %:*m9 tc ti.->i« 
th« i)l«intJiff cff«t 1»ll.l« Or nixittDmimU to U>» it6«%hikl# \;&»» 

• tnt<ttlctt Oei^9«n|r aati that aXI ih«» MIIr; f\na titKt4B!A*Ri« tft»t 
w«jr<» ••Rt b/ tiwe ;il»4nUfr for th» yraai-wan in ^^u.-t^tion <t»m 

tc Juljr 19i 19X3« wAr« ii«nt ti> the^ F(ci««h«l(l &»nKtrMot4oR ConjMiny. 


%r»as«etioa sad until th« 2ie»«H^ld Ooaetrusiitm Oea^ssny 
lM»owa« » b@^rup(, the ?Q»)4aet ef Uie plftintiff itself 
(niS£»et» T«7; «trc-'iiel3r tltat credit w?s« @xiea4e<l ecl«]^ «pRd 
exeXttBively to th' So«idteldi Ooaetrttotlda iei^^«iE^. fsttg ▼• 
X^hearer* 56 ill. ^p. M2« 

We Are of th«» opiaioa t^t th# ^u^^^^nt mutst he 

o*ao:3ii^OA AHD THf^sca, j.f. 0^<isr« 

U&t - 3&S1S 

7 221I.A..65 

Tb« i^jtiniiff 1»rou{|k% nui.^ ».i^!Sii.w^% Umt 4«f«n<afit for 

Thi» «fttti»« i)»« trjl«4 y>n>t^}rn ct ittJTjf »{i4 % verdict r«aaere4 ia the 

•un of iS?C<^*&0, A 7«s$il.taitur of $2.,e'.^".0C vne tm^f^ <f:n4 ivuO/g* 
«t«ni cotftr*^ in fAvoir of tn>> :;lAintiff an4 ««««»»% Ux^ deft^nd- 
aist ia th« euss af ^17:0C«c<:>« 

Cn Attffist 13, 1917, vhe ^^Ife^atiff as M^nnat luaa tlM 
<l«f»adajBt Ml looBor «xe<»it«4 n writton !•««• of r flot in a 
tw»nvy»on« flat iKt^ldiBg kna?m ne 94$ Oalt «Y»mto« C^Oftgo, tlM 
ioim to ^i:viB oa ^^optfiaAMMr 1, 191 ?<» f^ad oxpir^ on oe|)t«MlMa' S(^» 
IQia. Tho roat wa^o #4SC.CC for th« year, ^sg>^bl« ia a<»atliljr 
laotAlliiMMto of #37* 5c tn advance on tbn fix-et d«g^ of «««1b 
■oath «t tl»<9 offlco of Oie loosor. a r»>eei|»t itatetf Shieaea, 
Aucast 12, 1917, aaa rffoitxas a pa)r»«nt of |18)«c<C iny Uw 
plaintiff for r«nt tT%» ^optonbar 1 ta aoptaabor 51, 1017, ^mk 
•icaod \^ Qeorgm J, Villiami, vaa offoroa m «vid»aeo, SJaat 
reeeipt aaa elvoa at tha tiaw the laaoo va« signmt. 

It aaa ateittad V tn« plaintif tiMV sh« rentrd a 
flat on tba praaiaaa fxaa a .r. |}urila. £ih« tfotiriod tkat 


nhs pai.4 %h» r«at for &«pi«nk]M»c l$a.7« a>a4 that on CtsWIwr 
3S, 1917 • ste |Hib&4 #S2*C0 to OBtt Ot^riUMi ftiKl r«Qeiv«4 « r«» 
o« -th«r9f«r* ti»r9 mum offers^ in «vi4«»«« a r«o«»ipt 
«bfti»d 0«it»b«x 29« 1,917 • v^leii f&oi%»^» maan^ sthftr tM]ig»« 
tiaat aojime«» » «>ll«oter for the d«f«r»«b&Bt, r^c«ive<l of 
tins plaiaUff oa Ootelior 23, 1917« #3SI«CC kn ORVlt, * m. ▼*««• 
tel proal** lo »a^ 0«toWr 24, 192.7 » $S*8C*« a note mis»e4^ 
hy 6»r p«ijrable la olxl^^ ds^yo f^oa u^t«« j^3»0C; all ^Xwtm 
for cotobor r«»t aaa for 3oa;r% «o«t«a 

Tt» «iftd»ntm of t£io |4«i»Uff la to t^ offoot 
U)ai alia rtt^ntad tht« proas&ses froa tUe d«fe»..uat; tiiai 
afeta libdl a itcnmrmaiAim %'ltti oa« ^urgia vhe tol«t j^r tli&t 
kw »aa wuMtger; Va&t oa Oeto1»ey S3« 1917, albe 9al<t$32.00 to one 
Oojraaa nanx r« selves a r«eoii?i i^^ j^fajr vliich ife us followe: 

*9aOT^ jr. SililaaB»« eht%or»«?y at lav, 
BontiKar Bulldiag, 326 Mver £jtr««t, 
Sttita 311. 'i«l. OftatKl 21 CC. 

Ooto\»«r 23. 1917. 

fiaoBived of Mrmm 7i«toria Aidclcgr oaeh, I3£«oo 

A itrartel prMilaa to pmy Oetobor 24. 1917, &*&0 

A aot« oigpaad tgr 1>*T payablo la 6C a&^m tram 
data, a«€C 

¥)» abovo xm» tf&voa for rent of AfartsMtat Is^ 
949 dalt AvefNNt fox Cat.aoat and Court .i^o^^ta. It &• 
asvaad libat auii aov pandii^ ic oourt for poaseao* 
lea mt the a'&ova a;>art8Mmt trill h0 %rltMraan, 'iui.9 
JMiwovav is aulxjoot to the a-^.roval of c;«or4i« J. VL1» 


6iM tasiiflad th&t aba i»tti<l tiie $ft, 6C aontioaed la 

ilM raoaipi oa Catober 85, 1917 aad r^oiti^ttd a r^eeipt for 

that wtikih ift oa folXaws: 

'*OaOb J* VililsaM, 
326 iiirer Siraat, 

Sill 000* • Cat. 25. 1917. 

Baooivad of Mra, V. AOklay Ptva and bc/XCO Sel- 
lara for rent of flat Ko. 1, 949 Oolt Building. frc« 
L. of C'Otober r^at. 

0«cr«a J. |1^4<>f> 


She tnrVh»T tccUfied that the ssoncgr «»• tmid %9 
one 6ojrn«B In tiie otfi.^ of Uif def*»n<i«3iat, 326 Kiver etr»«t, 
Ctaioa^; that »t thft tine sh«? p^id t>mt «OB«gr Bh« told 
Qeya<«8 tiiat she would leave f «r >^e« York Clt^ that night 
aad leave h»r busy sad istrl in the l>8>use ^nd ^o Id b4( )iudk 
not later than the I6th of KeT«etber« the next sionth; that 
OoTnes aaid it im» all ri^ht that Kw would give erd^ra and 
w> one would he allowed to £0 l|i the door and that It would 
he all right ao l«Bg aa she paid her rent fegr the 2Cth of 
SoTeaher; that the ^ajraeat whioh she ttado of ^4^*00 waa 
Mad« at the defen<2ant*a office and Ooyaoa waa there and 
reeeived the mon^ nad eigsod the receipt th«^r« en the letter 
)w«id of the defendant* 

Sar erideaoe ia further to the effeet that she 
T« tamed to Ghioago on Noveatber 15, 1917, hrtween nine and 
ten e'eloflic and went to the premises in queetirn hut no ^^zie 
answered the hell and eho found her ^lil dren at her daughter's 
reoioeaoe on Boket^r atreet; that she vent to the prmaises im 
Question again the next day and T»n£ the hell hut nobody ams- 
wered; that sh<? could not get in and oould not find her g^ods 
and effeets and did not know iriaat iMd heoaae of th<»i« «Antil 
the next dajr when ahe went to the defeaua|At*s office^ that 
Coynes then sad there told her thai her g;oods were 'in storage. 
She further testified that she went to the storage; that she 
did not kadw before she received a letter froui ;Hol lander 
her furniture had been removed to. 

the witness Dureia* aa enpioyee o'f the defendant 
testified that the first tiaie he Met the plaintiff he col- 
leeted soae rent froa her and get a lea«e'~ signed for the 
flat at 949 Onlt avenue; that the reofeipt he gave for the 

Hit J .'£61 bona if; 

rent ftt th&t Ua* weat ml$in»4k *Qm»v&» J» trillitijse, Pes* h, 

•f ik0 r«i?»4m« r<inUitg fl«t« imd «i«Qomiiii!« dMesK, alto 

to »})»'9 tlM%» %» frffiuatte* ilir furtbc^r i9sUfi««l Umi, he Jtm<a 

vtt^olax bear* »t ^« 4«Sva4«nt*e ofriae at. 0:30 la t^« trngm* 

tlMi iM» jm« oelXe^i?^^ r«ai <« ibd»« ps-Mt&esv; xia^% fre^ iissa 
u»t until SovQ^er* ti«ya«ff oolleefcud all t>h<? rest* t^t 414 
aet, ootte in ^ ^<s^; U^t Oojrn^s i»t» & 4««ic in WilliajMi* 
•f/loe; ttt&t V&9 ilef^asiiiAi'tt offl<3« osnsiat of ihi«* r«en«i 

jBljne«lf tb# n«3E% efJS^eft lund Ute 4ef«ad&iit U)« lUilrd; tJMtb 
•flijroae g«l»8 to soo tte 4o ft»a. ja% iK»ulii imm to 8«o kila» 
tbo vitMftOt flrol; that &o Sov«is:b«r atti,«ft«r tr/lsg the 
fvoat and 1»»ak doejr of it» a|>&ytttent m voat out on ttoo 
stroot aod i^t t«K» s^ion to ikovo tte@ furaitore out into %3a» 
^«k yiMnI: th>t.t h« thoa '^lied «p EoXiaad^r mmd. s^ym Mm 
ttm erA&t to store %h» j;oo«to In sirs* Aelclfly*« asiao outtjest 
to hiBr or aero; that hXI the furaltttrO was eovefii out of U» 
flat; tiMtt ]a« told tho d^fondant on tise 9th or lOth of 
BovoHbov that ho had taken tho fumltare out. 

on <ve»o<»«xaalaatlon he teatlflod t^tat ho Miod ^o 
•wa aeaao la doalli^ vltii a tenant; thnt h» tcld the defmMW 
aai ho aao t£ie aaa that oould get hlo rente and oouid i;ot 
thna elttout eaualng hl» aaaojraaoe or trouhlo aact Uiat ho 
then ttood hla own Jud«{aent« 

She (iefend;Tat« WllllaMO, teetlfled tljat be hau a 
ooatraot vlth Gojraee for the oolleotlcm of rente on four 
north side hulldlns*; that kiA never save Ooynes aathorit^r 
to do angr other huolnoei^ thna oolXo«t rents; that he gaYO 

<Ktya«« |7»S0 a 'vwfiiK wH m Settle as4 » Udcstett* atsd tlMi «•• 
of s %3r9vmti%»t0 t9T i^i9^ a«Qra*s ««• tt a»Il«<it «^@ x*«»t« 

r«isii» v^r« j%&i ^«^d iM^fer® XSm Sfttb to twva ti^« suKtter er^t 
%» i&a» S6L««« vhie taok oar* of tiM l«ur (»XI.«etti««»; Uiat 

h« t&«a 07dejra<i a writ of r^^stitutlsn i»inM»4 »n febft |iMl#MNBii 
U»t liad Wes elilMUmtd Ia G«tie%«r; tkb&t ^«f«ir« reoeiving Um 
«rlt 'A9 l9aueam4 t^ei t^ j^iaiatlff 2asa4 1mm« die|»««MMM«i ligr 
S«3r»««* M tux%h«fr i«»Ufi«4 tittat en 08«»lMrr S6, X9lf, te« 
Uw 4«f«iNi«at» «v«te to l.h« i;>ifiaBt4rf &Qkni»vi«agi6g Ut« 
r«a*i9t of tUto &4r%o)w»r r«»t «&4 et^urt >»«t« «Et4 ftVatiag 
tl»t iiMitoa tte pa^iWfit of li^ie .^m^aiMn' xoat »« tJu» firoi 
4«jr «f ^OToalwv, 191.7« ^ «Oii.2.4 tile n iM&iief»9U.«» of Ju4e» 
»«ai itt tkm oaoo of Will,in^| aqj v* Adtloy; ibtet if set. iiaid Jm 
voala ordi^r aaatwiioa »a orioU'^a* So ftfrywr tooUfietf tlmt 
ki» offioMt Mr«i ai 3L>6 lilvt^r sir««t ;Ka4 %im.t Urn eui«r ro«a 
is oeaui^9(l t^ ij»« iii»i«olI /igeaogr* whl^ ia rtca )igr <«eya«ss 
thai vh* flrai porsoa eustemro aoai is fiai^a, and idaca 
km i» net thero, tUc lM>oldc«ai>«r, MiMi ttal^^aaids ibat the boolD* 
koopor luad Sur^ia ooouigr il^ £»«ooaa offiw aad ^>e aefonosat 
tho third* 

At itaa dLoao -of tlur evideaoa ttoe ^wtj rotiuraeit a 
conoval vordiet fiadias the 4«f«nttitat tfttiltir an«i a«»«sso« 
Um 9laiaUff*a il0Mn<|>t at tiat oua of t^TGO.OO. Xiao ^laia* 
tiff r««itt«a $XtOGO»Oli fror^i tke vordiet and Jadjpftwit ««• 
oai«r«d asaiast tha dofoadont ia tUo stm of #17C0«C0« 

It is the Qoaieatlon of Hm plaiatiff toai tiiiO 
vojrdiot is aanifeatljr as^J^BBt the aaiftht of ttw «viu«o(Mi» 

j SlM «-n&enee allows ttntii on Oetohntr 2^,1^17. the plaintiif 

i«ttl«d nlth one Ooyaes, as »geBt of the dsfendast, for the Oett^ber 7«it» 
ssA it is %h« t«stisK>n7 of th)s piaintilf thi^t abe told QoTses, the 
{Hfsat of tbs dsfoQdan't, at ths^t tiiae, ^h&t vhs was going to lei^vct 
fsr Ssw York &Bd would bo b&ok not later t^n th« 16t& of tM 
itlloviag Bonth« tinA that Soynes s&id tlKit it would W all 
right 80 long as she p^id her rent ty th* KOth of that ij»onth» 
lot, on BovealJer lb,l5»17, whsn th» plaintiff returned rihe 
tensd that Jmr fuaniture hed besn r«aoT«d to & storaeo w&robous«; 
it ted really boon MOTod pursuant, to authority g^iven by the delend^nt. 
OsvBMl for tho letter tergTue r0Tf strongly thet the ©vldenee do mi not 
SKtfioiently nhow ttett ti» defeodemt «s.Bthori«ed the? aote of Ooynos In 
tks roaowl ol the ftimlture of the jaaintlff fro« the j.reaieeB in 
fuestion. She evidence on th^t euljjeot Is scaswfe&t voiJ-wBlnouB but 
la our opinion a cBreful eaauaiaatlon of It Juetlfiee the oonolnaion 
ttet the dciendant must be considered &s responaltde for the aots 
(tf both floynoe and imrgin; and, further, that the entry w^s j:orcihle 
••i oonstitnted a treajmea. iieeder ▼• iurdy . 41 ill.ii'/i*. 

It is oontcajded by the defeudRint that the d^Lm^ee assessed 
W9V exoeesive. 

Considerable eTldonoe Kss Introdueed as to the vulus 
•C the household goods, ti^nd seeae to h&re been put in on the 
tisory ttet their Tutlus wbs of epeoiiiLl Importaaoe in determining 
tlM dUBs«es sttfiered by the pl&intiff . Stet, hois^ever, w*s &b erro- 
«lOBs tneory. as we Im.r9 already said the plaintiff was entitled 
%• aotual dsBagss to her property, if any vere shown, &nii to 
•asi^lary or punitlTs dua&ges by reason of the wilful trespass. 

fhm household ^ods wsre put la storage, and oould, prs>otleally 
lataot, heve been obtained by the plaintiff from tiws storage ware- 
ftmse. aoae of the things the r'i6>lntiff did tajce out; the rest 
■he left and never saw fit to take. Ste ttttal vslns of ull 
%lM Household ijoods was givsn, aU the way from 440,00 to #2000.00. 

The evideiuie shows that the pl&intiff received infontfttloa 
fts to where her goods were stored; th^t she wont to the warshouse 

and oasQially examined them. It is har testimony that she xiever 
took away froa the vvarehoaee aojr oi the goods that were stored 
except some of the children's oluthes. 

AsBttaing aa we do « believing that the oyidenoe justifies it - 
that the defendant was guilty of a wilful trespass, it follows that 
the plaintiff was entitled to an award not only lor aotui^l damag-es 
to her property but exemplary or ponitlTe das^ges* 4nd, turther, 
inasmuoh as the aotual doioage to the personal property wag ss^ll, 
as far as the eTidence shows whut the damage w&s, and as the evidence 
shows that she could have taken taom the storage warehouse whatever 
had been placed there by the defendant, it follows, t^t practically 
all the amount alxo<?<ed as damages In the original verdict must be 
•ensidered to be piinitive* 

In iJearlove v« Herrington, 17 ill. 2&l.the oourt eaid; 

"Me have looked into the testimony as it api^e&^rs in the record, 
carefully, and it discloses a case where un entry vma faade upon 
a tenant, by appellants, acting lor the iiiUdlord, befure his 
term had expired, other tenants put in, and uoTainiori exercised, 
by appellants over the goods a.nd ciit^ttela of uppeiiee, removing them 
from one room to other rooms, and aepriving uppeilee of the beneficial 
enjoyment of the dwelling house, so necessary to the ooalort ef 
himself and fatally, ^ito. treating him with the greatest indignity 
and uls ritjhts with contempt, '^** it o nnot be said that 
one thousand dolltrs d.>.mage8 would be excessive, if the plaintiff 
was the tentint of a magnificent mansion, and iso taoleated as 
the evidence diselo^es in this case. Shall the itoot that the 
pj-alntilf is old and poor, and comparatively an insignif icent 
figure in the great swarm of human society, subject him to a 
diminished Lieasure of justice? uhen the larieaeneas of the «*ct 
is considered, and the circamatanues, we c^^n not think the 
damages are excessive, or milord any evidence thsit the jury did not 
take a cool and deliberate view of the ease. If it was true, 
that the pltiintiff was holding over, in defiance of his ieusors, 
they would have no right to take the law ia their owb hands, and 
thus redress their wrongs.** 

She question then arises, was the final Judgment of ,|17fi0*00 

excess IveT She appraisal of exemplary or punitive damages under 

smoh olro UBS tunc es is exceeuiugly difficult. 'i'hor& vre no &et 

standards by which to formulate a judgment. It is a matter 

peeullarly within the province uf the jtury. Considering the 

illegal trespass, the taking out of all the houuehold goods of the 

defendant, their disposition, ner humiliation una attendant discomiitur 

Iv0 iir« oi the opinioa timt, under t>he oireimst&aoea, c 1000.00 
' vould be retiSox>&bX« dasaa^ee* 

As to ti)B ooiiteBtlou o;£ tiae dsfend&nt %i^% the d6oX»r^tloD 
does not Bastain the Terdiot:- 

1h.Q ilrat eoimt sets up the wroogiui. inT&Blon by t>be delonci&Bt 
of the pJUilntiff's flfit, and o&rrying Avay o£ the pl&lntill's 
household goods «!lthk>at due process of law, thtuB o&ueirig i^h&me 
arnd haBiXi&vlon to the pl&lutilf uad the daaage to her property. 
Ifhe seootid eouat getst tip th^t the deien<.&nt «ruxtgi:ally broice into the 
pl&inti£l*a hoae and without dae process of law reaovcd her hoaashold 
goods, &t &. tiiae vhea the defendant vas not lu dei^^^alt with i,h@ r@nt, 
and ejeoteu the t«d aiaor calldrefi ui the pXaxntili aad xeooTed all 
the pliii.latiX£*8 hoixse held goods in ta@ e<i.aaBoe ot the pl&iatiff, a&d 
th&t as a reeolt of the bonduot o£ the dexeudaiit the pl&iiitijif keo&sie 
in purt p&ralyded aad suixaied othor d&iait^es to heraeli, and aleo 
to hor property* 

Inaoaaoh &s the plaintlll: v^s ri^htxolly in possession 
&nd ihe ontry oi the doiendaiit ^^ua xoreible £^nd illegal we are 
of the opinion taat eitlier ooont is aoixioient to saat&in the 

A.e to the instrnetlons: iftaat purport to be sixte^!) relciaed 
Instrnotions and six given instruetions appear in the ooiBman lav 
reourd; and In the bill of exoeptions there appear wbtit purport to 
be soren instruetiuns, but which arc not rjarked Either given or refusod, 
and whioh do not show by whom offered. 

Under the oirocouitanoeB, it ie, of oourae, impoesible to pass apoa 

tbe oontcntiuna oonoeming them. 


Provided, therefore, tiiat the appellee l^Wfm^ days remits 
$760.00 of the foriaer Jnd^^ent, th£.t Jud^pBent will be afilirmed to the 

extent of ^^000.00, othsrwiae the judgatent will be reversed, and the 

on remittitur. 
cause remanded. AJPI'-iiOAJt;]/ Ifl P..iii'. / 

^^ / P J 

O'OOMUh and 'gmm^i^B, J.J. ooncur. ^ y 

.behnfi.TiS"! •et 

9M • SM1« 



COCK coamr. 

221 1.A. 652 

oj>iaioa ftf tb« «euirt« 

Th* plaintiff whil« ^alkiiii^ down » ^utolio st&ir* 
««y ia a Imilding twloaginij to th< (i«f«ttdaiit pKt Iter i« ft 
foot In aa op«ning b*tir««» tl»e a«««l {>o«t and a platfom or 
•»e of the toead* in tlw» otairwasr and ^^ttm UiTova dovn and 
iBjar«4, She brouij^t suit a^aiaot the d^fon-uuit and roooYMr* 
od a verdlet and a JudKnent in tl^ siai of tH,Qe<J»GO, 

The datiLaration eri^iiially eonsieted of throo 
couato. 7«o of thooo, however, urere withdrasft. thie oouat 
that raMoiaod allotfod ia suhwtaaoo the followias: Ifhat oa 
tl^ 15th da> of a«pt«Hbor 1914, defendaat «a« the owner of 
a oortaia Vuildlng ctt 5586 -v>}rnell avcnuo, oontalning Tar» 
ioua apartflMnto oocupied by Tariouc tenants, that the defend* 
aat ocKoraioad and retaiaed control over th<* pass««;««ngr« stair* 
wajTi otepa, landing platform nnd railing extending from the 
first to the third floor of said building, which were unod 
la eonaoa 1^ the tenants and others lawfully using the etuso; 
ttet it was the duty of defendant to keep miid istairwojr, stops, 
IsMdiag, oie., in sowMMMbly safe ooadition and r<>pair, and 
swf f i ciontly and properly li,;htod.for iiurpones of ingress 

•04 «gr«s«; tia»t %im d«f«n«ijiiit^ Uutn ami thf!xv> a«£llg«»»U)r, 

8«i4 stelrMMurt »t#9s« l^^ndlag, «t«. . to )m «nct r«aal« 4aak 
Kitd iKvnffieientXy ll^t««i« saut ill &n uiai8«f« nnd d[Kii|s«ireu« 

nmiA Btstlrvay X««t» «ff • s.n4 %h^ said inmlisg %«gia«, b«N» 
l»«Mi th# cttetfiMi attd first floore of esid promisee, the be»n3s 
07 plaaks wltn wJ^iieli t}i« said steps «f B$tx4 BUiirwaty or ]..n,a«i» 
ifl^t 9«rs eon«truot«d land tut unpAetseted epea ii]Mi«s sr iaole ia 
(MM end tiuir«of« so tbat, ysrsoaa using said stttimgr «iiid ^aW 
fOfM, «yR4 <atf«Hiliar with %hn ccmiiitieas thexeof , vould to« 
apt to 8t«p into urid Bpao« or hol(>, all of wliioiai facets: tiie 
4«fandflat kasw or eti^lit to >mve kriowa; tbat plaintiff aaa 
lawfalljr ia said Imllding as a gaast of one of th«^ t«n»nts, 
aad was with thm axeroisa of erdiaarjr «»rtt using aaia stnir* 
aajr, fuid bjr riNuton of tha saita baii^ ^urk and pearljr aad 
iaaufioi flatly lightsd, aad %gr reason of said iiola or opaa 
apace beiag left ia said stairway* sititout thr^ knondiadga of 
tibs plaiatif r, aks stepped iato «>aid bale or opo-a spaea ami 
Igr reason tfoersof* sh0 tumblad ani was threwa aad fall with 
groat faro* aad violence do^m to and upoa said ataircm^-, staps 
aad platferiAc aad iajur»d her l«fi knao. 

the aridt^aoa shows substantially the following; 
Tlw Vuilding ia queati' a wnts a largo tersashea shapeu, threo 
story apartourat building* oontaiaing ttiirty apartM^nts, nit* 
aatad at S526 c^omall aTeaus. Jhiemga. 'i'h're w<^ ic- five en* 
trances. Xtaa entraaoe to thr> stairway in quertion fac<>d 
north. The building aaa «eim»latad in Xh*' winter and npring 
of 1912 aad 191S* aoeording to t)M> plane of an architect naaod 
Bishop. The desi0i aad ^aa of the stairway end landing ia 


f«««ti«ti %«4«M«i tlw firei and •m^ytA tl99r {»roYida4 for 
aia« 8t69» trtm th^ firvt floor te ih« platfozas loJif traqr 
)i«tw<^'«n th<> first aaii ttmnoni floors sind eii;ht 8i«p« fre» 
th« tHilf i»^^ ^laifom to ih« level of th«> Koeond floor; 
tJtett trosAo v«r« tiNi feot Vy ton iaohsft in length* «m^ the 
luklf ««9^ platfoRs wifce three feet aii»e iaohes \ty six feet 
Mine iaeh^B. At the Inn^ios* fnoia^s xtorth* there vae a 
tviBdee ti^oe feet tim ini^teo «i#o %ty foar foot high; the 
0111 of ihot viaittnr wtm five feet eteve the plotfem* On 
tiM hftlf ««gr i^lotfom oo ^ou go dona the 8t«iir» froee the 
ooeead floor oad just ao jrou oake th*> turn tc go ^«a to the 
firot floor there ic et the newel poet, n ^irvo* le«vi^B 
on opea ajM^eo between the troad or Ismiing nnd th«« newel 
jK»et* that o^eatae i» d<&aarihe(i la iH« 4e«4aratioa aa 
*Ba w^rotoeted open opaoo or hole,* The stairway in quea* 
tion was oavpotod tl» usual way* ia the niddle area. 

Ahout two o*olodc ia the afternoon of Sopteaikor 
15, 1914, the |)l&lntif' went to on apertaeat oa the ei^oond 
floor of the baildiac in question to visit a -Arn^ Bustcing* 
hm« She remained the e until about elx thi rtjr ^^iim when oho 
left to go to her hotel* On the day ia queettioa th<- euii sot 
at sijE P»M* so that i^en she left the Badkiagfaam iq^artiaent 
to go doim the stairs it was thirty ainatoa after enaaot. 
As ohe left Urs. Buckinglma* that lady r(«arked upon thi? 
darkaess. The eleetrio lights baa not yet boon lighto4« 
when Rhe started down the otairs holding on to th r&iling 
on her Iftt hand until she r<»aebed the nevol poot at xh^ oo» 
oalled half way plntfom or landing* As she waa stepping 
down to the next tread or to the teslf way platfona or landing 
bar left foot slipped into* or went into, the open spaoe 

betir«ea it and tlM ntrarvl poet asd »he fell to the plstfera 
and an thm steirway and iajiar«d her l«ft knew. At the tint 
•f th« tmH and inju;nr c>i« was aldn*. She iR«nt to the hotel 
vh^ro Bh@ liTed* opplii^d bandaetses to her knee and took caro 
of it oe veil ao she could. Shortly nftt^r the lajtuy she sad 
hor haotand vent to fhilodolphia and Mew York ajciti r^turnt^d on 
Oetolbor 2Q, 1914. About MOTeiaWr 26. pursuant to the advice 
of a doctor the leg «iaa plaeed in 4» cant. 

On JfWUftxy 14, 1915. when she still had « OMi «» 
her log ol^ started do^tm some steps in the windeM«°re Hotel 
sad seriously injured her face. On JTanuarjr ^3, 1915, ei«ing to 
his ill iMsdLth, she snd h»T tattsbaad -sent to {Jallfomia. At 
that tine the cast «as still en her leg, Qn UAroh 3, 1915, 
the last east «as taken off ehile she was in Los Angeles* 
After undergoing sosie treatments in California* such as and 
haths and naasago, her leg being in h cast for about four 
oaonths, she and her husband returned to i^hieB^^ in Juno 1915, 
nsr testimony at the trial is to the effeet that her knoo 
mis roro and that p^ior to the injuzy in quoHtioa she never 
had pains ana stiffnese in, and •volliags of, tho knee. 

After the cast sas taken off and until she left 
California her knee was ver^ stiff and fraTO her a groat 
d^al of pain; the leg was rigid and h^d to be aado supple 
so that she eould laove it» After 9f9ry day treatment for 
six weeks with padcing and SMSsago the log was Blir:htly 
better but not entirely free from pain, and during the next 
three months she was unable to go down stairs iixaopt like a 
ehild, by putting both feet on each stop. It was nearly 
Christmaa before she was able to walk naturally. When she 


MM Jwr hmmlttmA mamm Im* to ^aaie^* in J«aM* ItflS. sh* 
eoal4 onl^ wftlk v^rj* sUffly, aAti frvai thnt ti»« on lik has 
a«ImNI mod «^i,vea her piiln« It i» iMir wvldoiiee that. It is 
atT*r fr«e fr«>(% «eiw or pal»s Ui^t it f*«I» like, "«b ttl««r«t«<l 
t*otli Inaide**; tiuit vh«n ««Ikiaic it ic v«rjr mtmk aB4 i>c— ti»#» 
siYe« way tmder h«r and i^a««e h«r tA full. 

At tb« tiiatt 9t Uie iajuiy tlie plaintiff «as tMrtjjr 
•«V4NI /«aura of a««. 

Xh* faots in ih'^ eef wr« sisi^e aua j>raoti«Rli7 
all aiMlit«4> Thare is a alliKJ&t oantm'veTtt^ alMut th# aaoiaii 
•f lii^i at tb# tlBM, Vut IL 1« ctOy fair to infer Trim, the 
ovi<l#<ne« tlMt at the tieM i.i qtieation th«> hall mad atainray 
woro 80 dark that th<% <x>B41tioa alwut th"^ a««ol post aiiii the 
landing oouid net >mi fairly aoaa ^ oa« d«a«endinc the otaira, 
at loaatftritMtut twiaua) of fort. Aa tkv* plaintiff had a p«v» 
foot rickt to ho thor • thn aiy qneation is i^nthort «0»* 
sid'^riae ^^ pkaraioal oo»ditl<« about the nevoX fwat* the 
cpeninst anti the dsrimooa. all in ao«biaotioM» th« (l«*foBdMit 
ana dharcoahlo with oosllsonee. In ffy^hay t. ^mdrtoaicirch . 
99 i9p, ttv« (B.Y,) 342 • vh r^ the ooaplaittt net up that OM^ 
plaiwuit* wallcing* at noim, along a hall ia a flot bttildlact 
*«BHMi upon one or »orf» etepo or otniro down and direotljr 
aoroao aaid hall" and *ia conaoqucaoo of the inauffioiont 
light in onid hall and on aaiu Bt<>pa or staira** atto fell, 
it vao hold that the oNvlnint einted » .cood oanao of notion* 
The QOurt ua^d the following lai^uago} *Xi has he#n nmny tines 
held that where pronlaea are oooup ''d bjr aoYoral faaixioo, 
and the halls or passasawajrs are under th<! oontrel of the 
landlord* the only ohligaiion resting upon hin la to uso 
enro in keeping Ui«p In a reaaoanhly eaf>=> eundltloii. Crdia* 

•rlljr» th^ ItisHtlord is un^^y nc geasrail idKlgr to t^fp hie 

halltMjr* li«lit«4. MaJlttla ▼. 222SiS^. 2 C*^ 9«'- »• *". 

•ffinw^d 107 ».T, «83, 14 M.S. 611; -iU4e^<|ai, V. ^jgHQUJ^ 

S Ci^ St. &• S49: Jttgbt ▼. aehrgftg {Sit«y at. Srook} 7 ^.X. »a9P» 

1»6S ja5ai^£& ▼ ^i^^M*. 1331 ?f. 1. o74» Sc «. H, SSC; 

a«ya^^ V. ;t;hjit «. 19 App, Mir. SM» 46 B.Y. ;^$>p. 1, ¥}i«r« are, 

]u»v«V«rt axsoptleB* to this ^ncral rul«, jprovisg out of mkmi 

(UHteu^ oftastruetioA etf htsll^egre «r pAttSAfiewsgrs «biah« in 

or4«>r to render th«ia reavenA'bljr »afft u; pcrreDac X«»fally 

ttsliii^ th««, a««4 to ^ light«rd. 'iliits irher« the flooring 

•f th9 b«ll «r pswMsmMgr ifr xaersm^ or annusgAd wit^ at^^im 

•r eua op«wLag Sttola «• ah el«v&tor shftft* »• slttuited mm 

to V> «at mtt frttM th<: twtural light «f dcgr, tiy r«>as<m ef 

vtaioli daxkii««» their pr^s«n3» cmi^iot l>« ki^im* failax!^ e« tte 

l^iurt ef tte Iftndlord to eupply artifioi&l Xxght is negllgea^." 

MKicrteok to ^ m mmm A tro» %tm fifth floor of s 1m114Uv ^ 
MNUW of a stairmgr* Xh* (>l«T«t«re havine stopp«Ml, «ad «• iriM 
««» goiac dowi it grew darie and ah* vBn% on heldlng to the 
iHuUrail wiUt bath )Mtnd«» aacs nt a tttm in the ataira last 
hmr hald aad fell and was injured* it vmm hnld in tm aetioa 
agaiaat tha m/wwtr of ).he building that the quf^stioa ^Iti^ther 
tbm dafaaUoat was negligent in net lifting the titaimay mtti 
whether tha plaintiff ezeroised due «ara in deeeanding* under 
the alrouBBatanQt^a. vere natters far the Jnrjr; and in tha 
opinion in that eaaa, th<? oeurt aaid: ^thc Javjr pui^' well 
have fouad upon th*^ evid^noe ihui Uk^ etaira «ere tinaafa u»» 
leaa lif:^ted» and that the ec-natruotlon of the etainngr and 
building vaa audi aa to out off the natural light, and at 
tines when it vaa full daylight, and vhan the atairvay waa 
properlj^ ia usa. to render it unsafe artificial lii^ht. 


»a that ih9 »laiatiff , vkile goiag ao«n uie st^ULre frc» 
the fottrth to the tnird floor, fell at the turn el th(^ ot«>..ix-F 
at the htkisk of the well in ooiu)e<JiueBO« of Uu- stairms^ not bo* 
im &rti£lcl»lXy lightod, naU that th^ otsirvajr «a« th«A »»» 
safo for mutt of »udt) light* * » * 'fhft Jury vore justified 
ia finaifig that the def«a4eato ov^d to the plaintiff t^ dutgr 
of providing ou^ light as »tHild reader the otairvay rtMiaon* 
ably safe, asv^ th»t they failed in th^it duty.** 

We are of th^ opiaiott th^it th«* oenotruotlon of 
tiw stairway in question «a« of suoh a chnracter th»t in ord^fr 
to render it reiciBon&bly safe tc tlio«e lawfully ueing it after 
dark, artificial light was necessary « and that the statesient 
of faote 9^ oh imm i^ree^st.s'd to the jory va.e &uoh a« to 
Justify Uie infereno^ that the dicty deTolTing vip$n the land* 
lord of using r^^asonable oare in regard to )Us pr«»siis«;s oas 
not ooaplied vith. 

It is eon tended by tjie defendant th&t Uu plaintiff 
was guilty of <»ntributory negligenoo mm that there was 
sufficient OTidcBoe on th;tt suhject to Justify its sutaiiesioB 
to the jury, so are of the opinion that tht- conduct of the 
plaintiff, i i undertaking to go down the stairs and in taking 
hold of tiie handrail as she prooeed'^-d, tras not eubjeet to 
eritieisa but wan obvious evidence of ordinary car** 

It is eont<»nded by the defendant that the verdict 
is exees^eive and whs plainly tJie r- rult of sympathy or passion 
and projudiec. Considerable evidence tvas pn^sentod to thm Jury 
to show the nature and extent of the injuries whidi she suffer* 
sd as a result of the fall. Ihere is no doubt but that it was 
a serious injuxy. At thp time of vhe trial , nearly five years 

«ft«r the iajttrjr, tho )saem «aa net w»ll, (Utd it 1b quits 
otovicus tr^sa. the eride^nc* thrt ic «ao r<'R80K«bly eertikin 
th^ii iv *na p(»nuinentljr it^ipolred. ?« «io ^et feel abl^ t« 
oon elude thnt th« detcrainAtlea of the Jtuy «ii to tb« <!■■• 
ages vas mxetsnniye* 

Obj«cti(«R ar« «ad« a»a«erBiim eertain iaatxa«* 
tiona* A» to iiuitruotion Ho. 9, trhich iaforawd the jury 
ttaftt *iiie d«fenUimt otmn plaintiff thn dut^ te k««f> aaid 
■talrvajrs* taall and atairwair platfora, in a r^^ascnably 
aaftt eottdltion for a r<"ascnable nm thereof Iqr plaintiff*, 
•learljr »tat«4 the lav* It miet he assusaed, froa th« r»9m 
diet af Ui« Jttxy, th^it it -mv th^ir opinion th&t, as thf! 
stalrvajr and hell wara net lighted, and haYiMs in ejlad tha 
imjr la vhinh it wae tellt. the defendant failed In his dutgr 
to keep theai *ln a reasoaaUj eafA eosditiott far a reaeenable 
use UM^reof hj thn plaintiff.** 

Oeun&el. for the d^fendiott oritiaioee inntructiens 
naibered 11 « 12 nnd 13, hut we think vithout euffiaiAnt Jueti* 
fi cation. 

▲a to inetmetion nuabered 26,«hi3h wasi refusftd, it 
■ay ^« s»id thnt it ic priaeii enlljr entirely ooTercd by ia* 
•truetioa mnhered 21, which ime giwen, 

lastrttotioa matbercd 27 a«r«ly reiterates wtet waa 
alrea4y ooatain^^d in iastruetioae aualNired 18 aad 19. la- 
struotioa moibered 28, i^idh wae rnfuo^ d wae defectiwe la 
not coTerine th" ease whieh the plaintiff undertook to make 
cut. That instruetioB intiaated that it was neci^nsary to 
vtaov the defendant was guilty of nf^i^Iigftnoe even if he aerely 
failed to light the hall and stairway in question, 'ihat, of 

«cur««, hy itself, wns not t^in plaintiff** «««•• 

Ittsiruoti a nuat^ereti ^, whii^ was r'* fused, vmm 
a»i applioftble te the <3«tt»9 of Aetl»a tite plaintiff was 
und«?r taking to estnblish* 

Instruction nuiab^roa 50 whi«^ vaa r«fteB«>4« lik«wls«, 
vas innpplia^blc Mi<i for th<- ^/tstt^ reason* 

lastruotion nun1»Ar»d 31 undi^rtook to tell the Jtury 
that th* def<?n4aikt owed no duty to the plaintiff to light 
tb« 8t»lrvnj in question. Ihat, of oourse, is not the law. 

rarthor, instruotione nutth«r«d 34, 35, 36 and 30, 
wor e, in our Judgment, properly r^fus«»d, 

C»ttns«l for Xhn d^iendiuit olaias that arrtir>ia 
erroneous rulings wer« mtni» Iqr thf^ trial Judgs in mssiTA 
to the odaiftsioa ana rej fiction of e^idcnoc, 

Xte plaintiff la thr oourse of her teetlneay uood, 
to sea* extent, n diary »hieh she had kept in her own haad*» 
writing, and in «^tieh vhf hud written certain M&tters froai 
day to day as they had takon plae<>. It was perfeetly proper 
for her to use such a diary to refresh hor recollection. 
Further, en one oooasioa, oounsel fur the defenuant, when 
asked ky the plaintiff if she Might refer t« her diary, 
gaTe his eonseat. 

Ohjeotien is: nade to th«> refusal by th<^ trial 
court to permit o^rtain questions to be propounded to one 
Bishop, an architect, iha subject inT< iTod was whether the 


oonstruotlon of the atairMijra ^nM tumsiml or In lUii opinion 
ia CMd soehnnieal ferat. xhm r«eora ehows* howevorf that 
la the course af tho examinntlon of Biohop iu» «»■ allowed 
to, nnd did stato, tbnt the oonBtruotion of t.H«' st&irwnjra 
sad %aiiiat«ra ima proper. 

Finding no mrrox In the rt^oortl Uw i\i<Xipatitii. is 

C*CO^€R A3ri3 fHCX;S€f, J.J. ChiSni, 

449 • iiVntf 

3om Y. SAIUaXKO, 

221 1.A. 653 

Mil. fa&lSl^^ JUmaim 'iAXL(M d«llV«ri»tf i,h« opiHiim 

flM plnitillff, A»nl« £tiaut«r* brttu^tii auii against 
til* «i«f«n(}^ft!»it John ?• SAmelno, to r«»<>ev9r 4»«ta£»c for per* 
•oftttl iajttrl«* eu8t»iii«4 by h«y wi tl«» r««ttl% wf an ftittenebll* 
oelliaioa auid r«<9er«r«4 « ir«r4ie( i» the mm «f ^,C^0*00. 

ttMi«««ui ft r«8BltUtur of t4«€iO<2»00 «n4 Jw4iss»«nt «iit«>i'«4 
1« Ik* ma ttf ^, 000.00 in favor of Utn plaiailff. 

flM j^laintiff, a venan oboui BS jroaro of o«;«, \»««> 
Woon ihroo and itnroa tJairtjr i**^* on Juno 11 « 1917, a eloar 
4«iir» va» driTiajt « dmnt six. touring oar, «»ot on 90%h 
• troot at About «i«Ht tail** as hour, and oa olw drovo into 
tho iatoroootloa of Oottaco Orevo ato. an4 90 th iStroet ftxt4 
«»o aalcing %hm turn ta £!» aartlit oa4 wna aoiually going 
aaot and Boriharljr* ond just aftar aba had orottsad tfoo mrUi 
bo«iB4 traok la Oettac* ttrovo Ava.» a taxi*«ftb boioBcii«B to 
iha dafoadaat, drivan bjr ono tfaahan, a otaauffoar for in* 
dofandaai, gaiag aauih oa tha oast oido of Cottago arovo 
ATO. , at a opoad of twantjr-fiTO to thirty aaiao aa hour, 
oellidod aitta tho MutaMOhilo of tho plaintiff iAd ao a 
rootilt iho plaintiff van sorioual/ iajarod* 

25710 ••• 

Gn tills me>ffr0ml «eutt»»i f»r tlM d«f«»4Uu)t «»ttt«nA« 
(1) iliAi %h» i^iigmwiX ie «x4H(»»s1v»; (a) thai it «»« ^ntpmr 
to KfUt tlM pIniBtiff upon er««« •x«ninftt4on wh#th«r b)m «»• 
vlliin^: to «ttlM»lt to • p]v«l<wi «nMbliMtlont and (3) ilMtt tt 
««a •TTPt %• glT* iBeVmeiioit K»» tft* 

(1) AH t« t,m Jud«KUHit 1»«ing cictMiMdlVAt* lan)M»di«t«iljr 
ttfter th« at<»«l<I«iit the plo^intiff ««» tttkan to a hft«pltftl« tim 
«vlA«n«« «f ticM plaintiff Id to tho offoot thiit umtmrml dsjri! 
•ftor tho fteoidont, ajtd aftor b«iim titkon t« tnt IMo^ltfbl, 
tiMit oho r«o()gni««4 W, Hkmumut th»t vh«m «4^ ftweko sh« folt 
froftt pMkla orotmil on« of h*r ^oo; that It imo all 1b«ua<lii£«tfi 
ilHit ht» ]MoA, oyo an4 oJwaldor imULao^ lt«>r flMtt; that «h« ha,A 
to tel4 Hor olbo«; thHt olso woo in tho hdOj^ltal two or tluroo 
vooIm Ifli • iprivoto reofit; vtioro olMi 1m4 » op«el«l nuvaw; thot 
Br. &le«Mm« oojm two or thro* tiatoo • <tcijr;' tb»i iM ««t« IMir 
Mo»ft««o trootnont w»^ u«ft4 oiHtto aiNllelno on bor ^roMito; tlMit 
tboro woo o IflUTKO luiMt{>, tt» Xrv^o oo a goc4 oiood luni*o oi^i, 
on )M>r rlffht ibrMotj that tki«ro io o vamkl Xvm» tlioro aev, dooy 
•o«t«d; tbMtt tH« <ioeto)r vTid mtroo ptit on hot «pi9ll8«>^ti<m» nM 
SOTO hor aio41eiao .'and tho nur«« awoooigttd hor oonotaiitlyi tnat 
tho nw»«04|o troftt««nt« oontlmt^d f«r otMut throo Bi»ntlt»i tiu»t 
kor Vrooot ««s klook for o long tiao oad thos it t«mod {rttrplo; 
thot ttoo booar of kmr rlftht olwttldoir mm» oil oorotoiuMl or oorop* 
•4; that oho eoBitot now aotro tho right oheulder; thAt thoro lo 
o Wd »o»r ov«r tho right toovJlo ood a aoojr on the forohoad 
r«uwi«g down in a ooatral lino to tho nooo; that tho doprooeion 
o» tho loft oido of hor hoad is triangular in oho»o} that oho 
•anaot now ooo woll out of hor right o/o; Uiat hor ri«i:ht oar 
«ao iajurod ami hoowao ovollon and adhod} that oho hno pain 


in ^r rkgat •h»ulA«t at tto* i^rm»tm% %Xim SKwi il is •cmtwwlitftt 

•Uff; Ua^t sh» «»nn9t put her !ton« 'bftoSi} ttbwt wlt.te «!)«r right 

feHM4 aCMi hftB not noiar « very 4see4 eri^ find th«t tfrn mmu'^t i^ut 

ii te«k tttwkrde t>)« •i(t«: tlNitt th# «ir«in«^tlsi of t»Mi> nr^ i» ii»» 

IMtirAds t^t ^3r )»r«««t im» 4i»eel.6r«4 f#r fuller fiY« or Bin 

w»«lcii ftAd tlMii it *«»« e ^r»#a «K»i9r; %}m% timi, fmmin^^ for nix 

woikt^w; that tXt« luetic vent deim to About t^ i»l»» of a walnut* 

thnt it pAiowd )»«r but net all tlM tiawj tiMt th« ri^ht 9jf 

1>«MiMfl ittflflowti mn^ i« inn.4«)tt*4 a»itt of tH« tiiste; ttet t^ 

•iftht i« i!a9»ir«4 mM in very ^orj tMt, now, «h»n «£t« g«tc 

» iittlo «el<l «fi infootios in h«r f»e« »«t8 i»; tmt ch« uit«& 

aioeiiol <in4 nodioln* t^ 4oot«r ««v« l^^f^r av&jrj' nighti iMt «'^ 

tt«»d tltro« g«aien« of oloohol o» her hm^ siisoi^ th« «i.ooidft:^'tl 

thttt (.lie paino in b«r ho«»4 tait tl3n«8» '3J'«' vorjr e«v«)r«{ \'Kmt 

tiMgr soaoUaMO saak* h«r f««»« rm^i s^mmtiame pMPpi» mtA 'etemt^ 

tiao'o it vwoll* U|» Ota tl«t» rigiit «ii4«i tm^t tho »a»r en t^^io 

loft oido of ^r fttoo 1»r«ale« out «v«r;^ o^oo in a while mnA 

bloods; that oliout e /o«r tt«o bor f«oe «ft« ovoilen and ei)o 

diooovorod oiMi )m4 oJpiillo ftn4 taor right o&r tmA f«t«o 1»os«ui to 

•vol! ttAtil oho 00)114 not ooo out ^f %m Ofo ot tull oa4 

tho loft OHO otortttd to alooot tMt timt l«iOt«4 for »in« or 

%mm 4aiy»} ti»>.t lior o«tr tuntod blook oDt^i. got stiff o«i4 t'no 9«iA 

tMO •• oactr«so ttet obo woo tai(»»nBciou8«ii nii^ht; ihi&t oho imd 

* tturoo vitb tior for niao vooko or noro glvlns )i«r saiodiaiiio 

oa4 aMMM|Eia« iMT boA« 

Tho ovidonoM of t>« pl^sioion, J^. &i«««no, io to 
tho of foot thot MB firot •«« tho ^nloititirf ot tho hoopit&l a 
fow houro af tor tho aeoi4oatt that )ior faoo and Hor sealp ««r« 
•11 dioficurod and oovorod ^th blood; that tho tioouos of tho 
ri«ht oido of iho okttll and 4ooii to the o/olid oorc badl/ tom; 
that thoro voro oovoral oniallor onto on tho ohook a«i4 on tito 


lip; ihAt it took fulXjr tmt hour* t« ••« Imht uf; ihAt sImi 

wfts »«ai<»«eii0eiotts at ih« U«« «nd i9jmi in 4{r««t ipiila f«r ii 

iitaili«r ftf d«/«S ^*^^ ihcfire 1« sn cistV^nuOL defenoit/ of yt« 

right eye «iis«ltt, sM<i aiill a (M»ntlA«i«Nl ait<(^i» «iif inflmmmm 

iioa MreunA the euta vhi9lt give ri»*, fre» tl«iu» U tiat«» 

l« »ttft«ln af he«d««h«| tiwt nb* httn •iwotliic i^aine ia b«r 

»itl«{ tlMt u>u«h.ii^ Ui« p»jri«tftX )»e»<» 9au»9» her pa^ini that 

«k« «i^iBpX«ia«d oonatantX^ atwttt • imi& in hmr aftaulAW kM 

lMr«««ta{ tiwt titer* ia *«ae dif fer«^« ^«t»««m tim rieht »8<t 

left breaat* the oair «a tit« right aid* l^einit eaiarged; tiiat 

tite flaeuy part ef t&» breaat* the glaad and ttie a«j|diatia« 

iMMiAe, are <u}la3t«e4» ■« that yeu ana »«• tli* diff- reaee with 

tlMi aakad */ej t>]^t alie ymu ift tH# iaaaii^itiil tiure.^ weeks aaid 

Itadi a private roAH %a4 a es>««i<iia nurae; tlmt, in Me 0|»i»i(«t 

the injury areiutd tM« aya ie parma>;«eRti Uwt the ^Mttattiea aeaift 

te \m parttly«e42 that ehe i« unatAe t« elttvat* tiie ayaiiil; 

titat it laae affeetedi the ai^^lHit 9t her «^y« ao the v&aieii ia 

aat perfeett aia<t ^a afr«at«4 tlM: eirmtiatioB of ataatt the 

whale right eitia af the akuXif ^>Mkt ^ »*« ^^^ prier ta the 

aeoident aa4 at that ti«a ehe wa» th« ^idt«ir« ef health; that 

the iigturjr nay aave aauaad anaa ailhaaioAa af th'9 maaaiee af 

the am ao aa ta iag^air ite uaa| that %h^ ligviry ta her e/c ia 

vhat ie dialed fitaeia} that in ahakins i%mA» wiu; her new it 

ia ahvieae that her am i» not la p^rf^^ct saeties; that her piurm 

muM»« Injariee are di«fA4itur«h«nt ef the faaa, a iaok af prapejr 

aae ef her risht aro aswSt forearm a«4 that ahe eaiuiat« namaXljr* 

«Kt«i4 the right ane. 

laaMM^h aa the evi4eatte defimitely ahaea that the 
piaiatiff haa aaf fared, a* a reault af the defen^<aats aegliceaaa, 
paraiaaaat diafiiptraaan t 9t the faaa* a pewMuiaat ie^MtinMwt 

m<>-at mt i^ rl^lai ant ana p#nHiiiefii. Injax^r to one ef jfuir 
lu:ea»t«. It <t««8 not ••i«a rea«on«ibl« te gersi^udc ttet a Jucli!* 
»«nt of $4,000. CG ie «xo<^«BiT«. 'i:iiieR« i<K>» tiM» four «!p«»*» 
ifi« lBjturi«9« thnt hav* ^uet V«en rcferre^d t», 4<^ n«t ^a* 
oittd* ail t>ie iajtux whic^ U»« g»lei stiff stiff er«4 «■ tb« 
rcmat wf th« d«f«nu&ai*B a«gllE«ne». nvidvntljr «1m ta«« 
suffered gr«4it p»itt and etlll ie la manj^ vaye af f«oted an4 
affXiet«d iajuroiualjr* aaiald* af tlan j»&rtloaIar apaeifia 
reaulta tint aajr ba aaerlbad t« Uia faux yanMaeat iajuriea. 

<SaaA84l far t]»» defent^nt eentend tJhsi ^her^^ in aa 
eea^atant mrt^nom of any p«v»a»aat iajuriaa 8uataia«d Iqr 
tli0 pXtkiatiLff eataida of thi^ aaar apan Iwr faoa aa^ fera* 
bead aad tha Btaals af tho (gralld. (^aaid' rlas aU tti« elxw 
aoitttaaaas, iBxnp paia* disfl^aren^nt and panaMiaat lajariea, 
«a ara of t)aa spimon that t)»e la«^^eai af ^4,00; .Cie aa far 
aa th« aoMuat ia eonaamad. ia fully Jttfitiri«d. 

t2) Aa to the right af oaimaal far Um defanoaat ta 
aak tha ,'laiatiff ti^ea «ro«a*axAaiaatloa alwUmr alia aaa will* 
ias to mateit to a plQrsloal axaBiaatioa:* Coimael for tlM 
tfafaa4aat apea oroae^axjuaaatioa of tha plaiatiff aakad 
firat, if Mum plaiaUff aaa willias to auteit to a plgraloai 
auuadaatloa: aaeond, if aha mmrm wiiiia^ u eulMiit to a 
plVBieal axasiiaatioa lay a o»npai«nt plyaieaa to be avpolatad 
tgr Ut« aourt mad tlta exaaination te b<» in th« pr^aanoe af Iwr 
oaa plqroieiaa. Si aa«b of thoaa qutotiona. oouna<>l far tha 
plaintiff akjaetad aaa Ma objeotioaa wtre 8U6taia«'d by tha 
aeurt. la think thia rullac aaa arei^. Juaaat ▼• A.K.4 Z* 
Hy. Qo.. 177 m. App. 438; Hartaat ^. Crana ae.. 142 HI, App. 
49. 9hila tha d<'aiaioaa on thia poiat ara nat all haxaoaiaua. 

jr«t «• ur* *f thm o?i»i&a tHAt ih« r«a»»niaiB of th« eDurt in 
(h« tve aM»«s Just «iU!d ia wound in principle. For if Ui« 
plftlntlff bed r«fas*d to sulmit to «a •xiutiantiea, tluit ve«4ld 
W & fR«t proper i& htt ooaviooreti tagf tiie Jury. Bui ««ua»al. 
f«r th« plaintiff avgue« Uiat th« rtiOLing of Ui« trial Ja4l«« 
««• not prejudicial to %he <S<»fenc«nt for tlw reaoon thnt ho 
sot tk« eamo benefit «o if the qooetlon ^d been nnovered in 
the nei;«tiTO and the plaintiff had refuopd to eata&it te the 
exoainntion* am tMnk thia arsunont ie nnoeund. It tioeo 
not appear freot the reoerd that this ,>ropo«ition van arKttOd 
to tbe Jury bar plalntiff*e eouaool. Of osuroo, eueh arfi»nont 
vouid be i»pro|»or if oikjestnd to* for «iMn th« trial Jodgo 
held the ^uoetion iapro^er ooaaeel oould not arittto to the 
Jurx that plaintiff had jrefuoed to !9iuhMit to the «»Eaninatlon« 
If eueh argiMinnt wmr0 att«isq^ted and ohjeetion nadOa the ob» 
Joetioa should loffioallj ho suetaiaed h^oanae the ixart had 
previouoljr ruled the question in|»ro?<»r and the witncoa «no 
therehjr prevented fjron aneweriag. Although ther«; vae error 
in the ruling of the court, we thi^ it was not euoh ao woul4 
vnnmat us in dietarhii^ the Judgaent. for in the instant 
•nsa the only benefit the defenciant eould expeet froa a favor- 
able ruling vould be th? latroduotion of eoas evidenoe tending 
to redaoo the «uufiages, &tt einoROO litavo «lroa4|r held that 
the plaintiff vao ooreroly and pomumontl/ injured and that 
the Jadgaeat naa not exiwasive the error vae haraleoo* 

(3) Aa to the alleged orror in giving ia&trustion 
Bo* 26 vhieh waa AiTon at the requoot of the plaintiff:* 
Yhe instruetioa in qnestioa a«dertakoa to give the Jury the 
law ao to what tboy aii«ll ooaaider in aoeooaiiig daamgoa. 
The wards *if you ahoald find plai:ntiff waa injured at the 

tiMi an£ plaw ftXltt^d** wt-T* (>up«rfl«iOMi «a4 it ia«^ b« that 

• till, in our OMinioa, it. «oul4 hm mutmmotm\aX0 » «NMt<*r Ui« 
airoutt«taA«9«, tc faold tiuet ih« URs&ru^itloa *a (givca oea» 
•iitai»d su^ mrr^T ae u) ^voitity r«Y«r0«l of Ut« Jiulsaimi. 

I'imtiag ao cy or 1 iit® tmsarn the 4aagi»<»ni ttf 
Ut* >^ii9«ricr C«urb i» a.ffir»«d. 

463 • Sa724 

VRnmman a. mf, 

'mtM, mm 

221I.A. 653 

MA m nwxm samim- tAtum 4«iiT«r«tt %m otmioii 

On S«iii«aitl»«r 3« lfl9« iti* ^DlftlAtiff » >^r«»ti«rlok 
0, IbftfT, b«g»n fuit &a feroJlM«r 4«t«!iin«y «saia»i thm 4«* 

*atf on !^*9t«iiib«i' 4, 1919, •erriHt uiFon tlw <$fff«mdAn( %gr 
l«aviRf tt MpjT vith «>n« vira* larris of liw .'nw&ljr oi* ti^* 

On S«pt«sriMir 1S» 191.4 » itew mvm9 aeite aa fi»jr trial 
1)«fer« th0 oourt without a Juxy* fb«ir«' w « •rf«»r«il i» «vi* 
4c«M a writtMi l«iks« <>iat«4 F«t»ru»27 8C, Idle, b«vwtt»n %1» 
plttintiff «« l««»er «ii4 %h6 ti«ri»nd«ttt »» a.c««««« diii8il»t«je MB4 
l«««iiif to VtM 4«f«»d««iit Apartniffnt Ctt« es 4;ti« fiy^t fl««r 
•f thft bttiltfiag kaovn as 4148 r^ar«n<l(»n avvssu*, ahi«»i;»« %» 
be •«(mi^i«d *• a privat* dwillag fr«H» Utatuh 1, 191d« uatU 
Miuralte 90» 19ac, Tlw laaeo j^remted tto«t tlM 4«t9aiiM»% «« 
9«y &• r«At tlw »tm vf 4ftO«co p«r ttoatb «M tlM rir»t digr of 
••«lk Mwatli. in «tv«i««, until th« t«munmtimi af th* !•»«•• 

ynmcrnpli 13 af th* laan* proTided tiaat, if «•» 
fiwilt ««• and* ia tN« iwjnMat af nnjf 9»njrt af th« r«nt« it 
«ii«>ul4 1>« Invfol far th* plaintiff at hia alaotioa t» d«olara 

25724 .^ 

and tiMi la 9riii«x %» •nfore* » fvrfeltttrt for «J«»f«a;it it 
•iwttld net %# n9a««0«ry iu &uilc« « 4«ffi«»d or tMt ntrvn asiio* 
on th« i')9f«^ncij^nt, Bi»Vt«« 1»«lim •xyrvfttiljr ««iT#A hjf th« d'ef^ad* 
a»ts fur ilswr, l>he>i th« a»tt9*rif»insflAa« «f «iay vl^ vb« {»v«»«at« 
«f th« l«ftS« si^ttlA, At th« (»l<!>oUe» Of i^ ^lAiniiff, «i.ft4 
viUtottt im»Uq« or 4«m«n4, oeasUtut« m forftti'tor*, «a# of oaijr 
sad «11 iioee aftojr ottob Amtikult th^ 4ftf«»<lB«i oiteftiit %m 
Ao«na4 guilt/ of ib» forolMo Aatt^imtr of i.h» i>r«RlMMi» 

In th« «&u7»« of tlt« i^ritil, it nmo tt4!iiiiiii«<di % 
ooaaool for ttw ^lalaiiff that for Oftola of %h» WBn%hm 9ri»r 
to S^ptmUft, 1919, tlio plftia Uff »ee«pt.o4 romti Afioir %h« 
firoi of oo^. neatly OounooX for Uw tjt«f«n44mi on^^iorioolt 
to 9tf«r in ovid^aoo ««rt«t&ia r«a«i#io for roni ebe«iai; tliaik 
reai «ao 9*i<t for %)»• iunmbIooo In <iiioo%lo« oo followot Ybo 
aarob rnat* ^aid on fotMrttasy StX, I9]l9i J^rno reat i^id «a 
Jttao 7, 19319; Jiily r«at $»ald July S, 1919* smS A^4$it»t r«at 
paid oa Aac«st 6, 1919* Obiooti«»a wui a«4o %^ eoaaool for 
tfeM ylaiatlff to tim latrodu etloa of Va« root re'oeiirto and 
that obJ«4tioa waa «uetftia9idi >»jr |}»» <)eari. 

Aooordla^; to tlia t.mmtiamm3r of tha ^laiatlff at 
dooMad for tao aoytoabor raat w^ta aistdo* farther* onuaodA 
for t)>a <Mroadant ttftdortook to iatroi£uae in avidtmoa a Qea» 
▼aroatioa botwoaa th« dafaadaat »ad th« plaintiff, ootsarr* 
lag atnce thv antarad iato th« laaao, for iha puripoao of 
a&ovia« that ia« pkmintitt bad vaiTod Uia olaaaa in %h» 
laaao ra^uirias tha raat to Oo |wid oa tiia firat of tho 
■Bath aiUMOt firat amkitm a daaasd tkarefor. Vprnx e^Joo* 
tioa to that prof far, iha triAl ooart rafaood ta adali tlia 

25724 •^W 

fliw •Hd'Mm «ltt» «ih««» tisuhi tltiB Sff-ffffictaAt inun* 
«luui«4 m «i>»«3r •rtf«r X1»r ih* iBW0ii»i tf tlMi &>«pt«wlMEr rent 

yk« irittl ««4r% fo^wi^ %b« d«fon4iiel« .iHttx-rin, tfuiity 
of unlMrfttiljr viihiM»l4iln$ fr«»«i %¥» plmintltf %h« pom»m»»Hm 

MM} r«««fv«r from %i»« (t»f«n4«i)%« il»ffirl«« p»»mn9»i«in •t it^f 
pi>«ft&»«« d«e«ri%«<S, AHA •r^re4 that et vrii ef r««tiitt«4«« 
i*t«t« th refer. 

«t idL. {a««. ^« «S#I]L) i» ««oi»ST« of tihi* tt«>jiM»«a.« la UMt 
e«is« v« ftaiid, ''it do«» ntti r««|ttir« vrt <$»»<»« of tmt^ liului« 

«• U) t»« pigruMMit ftf r«'nt uii4*r « «Tikt«n 1«nub« wMdh ft** 
il««« that an laeV9tlli»ffatt, slmll %• ^«ti(l «n ti»e fir»t «f tmiik 
w»aitii« t» 4tt»%ify iwldlng thmt » 4«i»^ of f«ar A«jr8 1« tttt«ii«» 
11il«, «it<i ttttt ft ««i1>«t^aU»l )>r«a9h of &Ja« l^eeo." 

Xa iti« ittoiaiii c«n« %a« 0ri4mi<» nimw* itf-jr-v vao 
d«^f«iiaiMit e«ni « mos^qt order for \im e^tmAmr rvmi. vixMn 
looo ikoa VS teuro of tho ovylMLiioa of ih« fir«( ««]r of tteo 
aoatlit iui4 iltttf ilM a«f«iiaii»t off«r«4 io i>rov« vhat, in tfco 
oMotho of Mir* luae, J\U,]r «atd As^pioi, vtoot 7«m>» i.*^« jtioinilff 
o«o«9ift4 fc)M> jTOAio «M>oii woro i»«14 frooi fiT« io Kcvim d«yr« 
«ft*r ib« flrot 4ay of ocioh of ^ooo noavho. «• or* of ^o 
oj^iaioa UMi itM irua os^ri orr»d la r«'faolac to ^rrrnkt 
%3m lKtro4«otioa of tHo i»roff«ro4 r«o«i9io» «ii«(,fMrihi»r» 
ia rofttolac to yoradt ih* dofoaaoaiH tuotify %» mgr oo»* 



vl<l«<l iha.i %b« r«nt «iii)«>..;i«i li« yMd on %h« tiwml »f thin jaernth. 
Owing %9 th# •»*«](>• m«nii0n«4, th« 4it%i»«nt le irciir«>r«*a smil 
in* «fiitt*« jr«Mf»aii#<l f«r a »«« trial. 

Q*mm&^ «nd ¥mi»c«» ^t^r* seaisiSi* 


891 .1 Z6M9 

si^^sTsms ^m, :^gsm * 2111 

\ .J.«t.! 221 I. A. 653 


HS. J^9sfX(^ e*aan<eK 4«iiT«r«d th« opisiojs of 

9Ms«eat*s this ftp9«ftl. 

l^lftittUff »ini«4 and cip«r»t«-4 a a»al jr»rd l» Qlii m&tt 
«fi«i An Miguet 23, 1916, «ai«r«4 iai^ & o«nirROt wlUi dKfemlftat, 
vi)o «Mi %i» o«m«r aad ejMrrsior e; aert&ln (K»«1 niacN) in ec-uth» 
wn lllia»ie* whAr*^ ^h« pl«,inUff tms &o purdj^fio fr«ft <!««» 
fftaaftat « ««rtain <ti>%atity of hoaX %o He <i«liv«rnd b9%tr««m 
««»t«n1»«? 1, 1914. pn4 itttroh n, 1917. Jdttrin« praeU atslly 
ilM «atlr(» period oovAred l>jr the aeB%r«o% def«maisRt failell to 
•hip th« r«Qttirtt(t Quantity of ooal «n4 oa Ibkron 91, 1917, <•• 
f«i4«it had ahlp^etl l^t 98 onro of th« IftC otra orfl«xo<t V tho 
l>l«laUff tuiKSor tho mntrnoX, iAxri^r^ vho I if* of tho oonimet 
U» prloo of seal huA tkOWRnwM naa i)lalnUff lirou)«),ht thia ouit 
to reeoT^r tho 4ifr«r««c«» boiwoen %ho tsoirkot prloo and %h« mm' 
traet ^ric* of ih« ICtt oars whl ^ AofoatiMiii hiui fail«Ne: Ml ohi|i« 
th» dofflttM 1NM ihfet pXoioUff «»» in tfefoult in failing uj poar 

25549 «Jik 

Ic azs*«^ thav vherm \nt%ii ps».rxt»* »EC in lietmuH n»iUier ef 

«»rB erd«r«d for isi« r^^iMMiA tm.i t^r« «%« & ei!><&ri«ge ef 
««r«» ir&>jbl« Bi ili« 8yLR<^e en &o«>^%iii «X j&rieMtKsrjfF l»«lBg out 
of »ot4(ing •r4«r s>»^ 0thitr mmilti&nmi %hsti, vmui^^r x^ t«xws 

•hea ii ««.• pre^»sAUsA troM doing ft* li^r «^^e»»«9 b«y@«i£i ite eson* 
trelf «»(i t}»it v^-- esbir »^erUi^e and %ht> t2>«^Me at i^ £%in«c 
v«r« V«yo«4 lis si^streX* 

Wf»;r« %h» fif ts«aih 4ey «f 4%«h «i^%ih fftr ^11 «»<il sM^'P«4 

prior %» th« ttNia^^fiftli or iiu^ pjr«9«4iiNS i»ea%ls» li wfiift 

• U9tti«%«d Umv plaintiff wu^ <(s«tia«4 le 1«»0 ^sELn ef «»»ai m*<i 

pxe&pUjr far all wal il«liy«r«4 «x«i«pt ^€Sr*a6 f«jr 1,3 m,x» 

^f en mat 90iit»iMN> %hm% «vtn if it ■mm in d«f8«ii 
is fttiliag %& iiiup tit* 108 «atrc« jr«t fiin<$v ^ladaUff me tiieo 
iM ««f»ttlt ia failing t« ipny tJk« #Se%»M •» ftir lM^for« ^rii 
!&• 1917 • f»v %)»t «eal <t«iiv«r«4 dsrlQg th« flr«t 24 4«gr» »f 
Kartidia 90 rcoevcvy a&n 1m» hii4; ti»t, i& is t4« la« timt hitfvf 
?l«iatiff mm rmtmmtr ila»«g«i f«r * liup«»olt #f thm «»n&rA0t it 
«Mt all«4fc« mnA prove ttet at ijic UMi tlw i^it ««« hreagliA 
it va« not ia 4*f»ult« »fKl Xis»t wb^re li«fck jMUrticB are itt 4*» 
fault it wOe** n« dlff«j-«n<^ »tteh jNU^tr fi^«^ br««e&*d tht 
•aatraet. It is ajr«u*<l tliat pl«kiaUff iii »ara«» ta lUaaa tk»i 


25549 .S* 

has i«^mi«At«4, &s in tk» fLvtrntmnt «»«« m\X of ic'ri*' oeel «»« %tt 

«W fth^Jl eMK«iMN» %l%at m^ 1%« ie »• mm%miA&& t»t \^ tim 3l«>f«d4>» 
»Rt« Ju^ 1» fuel* tJB»& is th« 1«b««i3r c»» «)iia6 %M &ii»« mus 

■tt»i jfxn-wm 1iy ft |»r*^sfi4«r%B30 •f t]^« •vicieiiaiw Ua^i et »r hmfer* 
tiM nuii «a« ««K«*!i$«^4 it ^k4 9frrf<»£8»»d ih^ »»8trfte% <»n iM 
9«rtj| that «Hia«x- ti%4? i.^ntr«.9i ^Iftinilff -»»« 7«%ttis<i$4 t« pajr f»r 

•ffiur U •«! ^ff Uk* «M»«Nli 4«» ftiEKla«t Om 4»«Hii*» it el^iw»4* 
Ui«n Ui« piaistiff «Hiul4 ia»« r^NWTvr. ^ ii»ikt it ft|^^««jr» ikik% 
«iw «»•• WH» triMI «MS Ihm t.H«9iqr of 1«» «ei»i@M«4 f*t hjf A«i^im4m 
wMtm l»t 4«f««4«at ex^«9( 4hAt thA7« i« n» «iRiL49«a« t«<»4iag 
to slwv tteikt laalKiaff w^A A «i»titt«t 9ft9X Ut tmi, eff tA<^ 
t99Bm9^ «Nptijiftt iift «!«»*«««• J^rf«i4wiit ^Ayiitie in6nmA ih« ^euft 
to giiht tlMt la«tra8ti«» just r«f«rr«4 i« i» l» fM> j^esitj^oA n«« 
t» ttfVM lAittt th«r« wM a» •«t4«ae« te »y|^ij«rt i t f«r iho i»» 

•t9«Mlti«« «NtI<<( iMV* iNNm WNmt «Rl<hB«' t]9t«r« WRB ««»» •Yi««nQ« %4m4 

iac tB •&«» ttet s^iatlff kwl wtf* the cff^r ef Mt*^ff. riow» 
•v«r« «• tMlak tk/irrc «»« i»viii«a«« t*a^ns i» KJiaw it&ftt f^lAlntif f 

r«i^«V, t«sUfie«t tk«t At tlM r«|iM*t cf 4*feii<i«at«« »r«ei<l*at 


25549 -•*• 

lM» «iai»4 on tny^ Initffr in thr . t«ger Bail<lliHi, Chi ^4^, on 
April 4, 1917« R«« thmt at U»a4 UsMi l*e ««i» d«f«wti?vnt»« s»r<*»l* 

d«fi?« vj-ni** failujNi U> nhip ftll th» e©«»l or4*»r«*<Sj itev at tj»t 
C!e«ver««^tieR ih« witH*«» tel4 r. EftYa»««i#i 4JN»t h** l».d hr«l 
o-9mr<sh»refii ti»o cents i>«»r ten for in*; r?««wl Bh4?>r*<*4i s-fier 4.h«» 
first Of th« y»ar asni t>siit r. r^-viR-n«b«si,li «<gr»«4 tft l©«Jt ini© 
auMI audjaat tn«» is&tterj Uvtt «« «jn« wste pj**»«nt si t«lB 3&nf«»>» 
»we* ©xft^-pt tJ»« )«rltne«» »n4 -jf, ir«ip«aMMi^li. i^te fartlw»r t*»ti«» 
Tied ii!»t aft*»rw'ir6», •s«i«U^« i« '^^s^, h« lutein Cf»ll»<i «t '*hf 
MM* i>X««e ttni »»T» ar. UlAVwimt^l that *kt tiisi ii>:;*?r the* letter 
•ff«r*d te 4«lkrtfr 5C: anre of aesl fet t»*e «0ntr»«t i^rieftj that 
ttoe iritn«S8 thoot^^t he v. c «ntitl«Ni U» i(kb«'«« IfA'- (m^x-k «!»ii iitt 
tlMit ti«« «a[^rt»saly oft<^T«f4 to s«i fiff t^ $»iM»m ft^jwdnst th^ 
9l»iatirf*« 4»!!£fH4pr«; that a» «M|x^«a)»»t was n^^ohed* For the 
d»f«e<^«Bt i&jr. SavnaMi^ te£tifi<»4 Umt h« 3.»T»d i» 1%., l.ouis 
and «nM to •%iea^ to •«« &lalntiff*e 9r««iia«int; 0»t %gr 
•?I»»iBtBwRit ih^ fast lit tiMi Sfteg«r 3IMtil4liic «t>«^r» {|«f«ndian« 
IhMl on •ffie«; tssse. at vh^t ticte ttm wttn^as teXd ;itl«iHtiff *e 
9r<*»id«nt ti»t 4t«f»a^ttt «ns not in 49fs>4lt in ft^Jtling 19 ship 
tJui C0ttl; tiMtt it* f»xltt7« OB to de 9fi(t tvie result of <»tu»«« 
b«/ofMt its «»9trol, 1»ut thAt it s^(»ir«^ to tr«%t its <m«i«««r» 
rij^ht antii wuld voluatariXy <ieilt«r t« plaintiff &c a«i<^iltAc-nsl 
•urs of oomX at tha omitraQt t^rlMis tJiftt plaintiff's ;^r«-»i(i*nt 
tnought it irnB entitled te li:& «8,rs ittstMid »f SO; that tha 
<vi«R««c mig£«aWu tluit plaintiff's p^r>-^»i<j» at tItinlE Vh^ 3>att«r 
OT»r «ijt« latar atfviiM hli»s tMt aot^iiag w»a 8*iti «ii tlauftt tint** 
viaiflii mam 'Xprtl 4. 1917, abeet tna !»»tt«r af amjr ••(••ff* and 
Utat th« witMNNis wnmr mm plai»tiff*e 9r?ai<^lant at aiqr athwr 
tlMM. ¥wi a '(.bar vitaaaawc v««t4fi«4 tuat th«> w^r« .it tniw »««t« 
iac aatf oorx«lMrata«t M.r. !Uitva»ni^^» taatisae^y. ¥h«»r« in a elaar 


25549 .6. 

WAflitkt in tMK *vi<t«n«« aiKi Viw Jury »i|^ht b«li«>v«» th«.t> 

qu<i«ti0a 9t n*t»ptt in 'imjf h» «a« ]fti*UikeFn» mnd Umt as a 
■MittAr •i' fA«t ii was 41«Que:»9a in April, or %)a«;y «si^M 
iHiT* f«uii4 Khmv ihmr*:-- im« et »«<3a>nd eenveru^iUon, uu plaintiff** 
jir«Bl<i«ttt MsUfii^d, A»u that, ¥f, £avaiaKit£lii «in«t lh9 •thvr ^rlt* 
•••••• «»r« nisitiaK^n. 1» viA9 Af %h« «!>irl(i«?no« «n thin ipeint 

«e (tm tmaMff te 8a|r l;ti».t %,'h« fiii«Sifig of th^ jusy Ihai j^lain* 
tif^ eff«r«4 ie est off tAe l@03,A6 M|s^fitiii«% itffi <dMiittiijs«a t» 

fulljr for iu« '3ei.\T% 3.%. 4«f«!tnd«mt*e 7»Qtt««t «uteiiii»4 faiw follAiro 
ia^ •perdial 4ttli»rxwe«tor'jr to ih'c Jaxyt *Mid tiNi» !»laiatiff «sajce 
ia %h<? 4«feA4*at a dlMilnot ef i>r to »«t off %,}m smnn;^ 4u« fier 

Haroh S8t iei7, aKalast aoj^ ii».u&^9 vhich it alei.^<«t:i tc hit daa 
to It V Jf^iton of Vtm fteiltira %e «RXiV4nr a |»ertioR of t^« whI 
«aJ;L*<t f*r '^tB4«r thff i«ra» of th« «eetmot xtfto uj{»«>ti1*'* Yha 
Jury aiM««r«4 thl* la tint afflmailT*. (\ft«r hetxiVB vuhailt^tA 
i2ii» iat«rrog«i«>xy the <l«f«n4«nt> will net now b« psraittad 
to aajr vhat Uii« fiadias of tl»» Juxy on tMc ]»«int va» of no 
•ffeet lt*oau«o tfet? iai«rrogatoiy did »o% aak whether th« offer 
of »«t»eff wi»» ««d« on or tes-forir A^rii Is, 1917, the ©nljr 
iBt.«rrogatoi!y pre^«ir i» ouoh eaao In &n» tkat if anB««r*tf 
aouid b« oenijrolliBe, Soo. 79, Oh. lie H,a. ,; a.& if.y. «r. 
Oo« T . ^tal«aTj^ IS9 ill. 132, ftof«a4«w» liaTiag B.jl»itt«* 
iJM iat«rro4-«toi7 oaanot ao« argo iliat itw findia^t ic not eon* 
troll InK, 

Safwafiiant aloo oentoadii ttoat Wfojrw ))l»intlff oaa 
r^ooTor it aaat |»reY«f tiaat it vao r«a4]r aa<i ail Ling U> porfom 
ibo ooatraot oa its fart an4 that tho proof ohoiHKi ttant plaia» 


■ ■a as 

25549 •&» 

t,kft wmm tmx rmmijf sxks vUaJLi^ to perform bui ea vh'< eentixary 
r^fufd to p«^ for ihe UAT^ aki^j^t*. tlM Jttjqr* »& the r«* 
qa«c:t of ik* 4er»9vuui%» «er« iwBirtt«t«« e» m&« i^lav In atftooro* 

<U»f*»«aint, &»i 9T9i^6rXf eo »lit«e »• k&v« jMsL^di ilitti^ t^rH^lr finding 
Uuit tkc offer of ««weff vaK ii^&« la apt tl^i««eheul«i net 1»« 4is« 

I>»f««dt<Bt furtliar ociiteiMlB tini ii «»« >wi ia «•• 
fftul% in tmillm ^ 4«Iiv«r «ll tii«[ tttmk xttqwustmA vna^r Ui«^ 
«W!U««t for ite r«u8cn v}«%f. tfaiS aettij»«t« tit/ iM tems, «»» 
«ii»«4 46«f«<»cetti trwa p^rfortm»9e «»«« proven led bjr «»«»««£ ^«Qreittl 

Mit ««» octljr r«qttir»4 tanclejr tJ)« lay adtd v»^er ihm a(»atni«i to 
d»liT«r 1^ 9««iattlff lie pro>»mt» vlMirft ef »1X the e<Mil il^ vlsiy* 
9«4« aMid UuU Ii3i« «vi4eae« tilwwe l>b«t on «e<^unt ef tt »!«e>rt»g* 
•f «My» it WM ttaft)>I« to fill a aijeA»«3r of its eontrftcts, but 
tlMtt it |iv«*ratt*<:i ttw «••! it im» ftl»i« to chip «s>%eiis itc »«Tsr«l 
flHfitcw*r». «• hs.r« f9<Mnxly 8em«i4«r«4 this %tt4^sti«»n in tkM 
«•«• or ^atn^ijL gofcl i'feapttj^ ¥, g.« g.« 'Xl>^m , <^y ,. A^i;r«llAt« ?»urt, 
Firet ii^lstrici, iii«B« So, 24782* ^sd th^i^ iwlii f^?^t ah(rr« tii«s*o 
««• Kt »taiLar piroirioiMi ie \Mr ^ntiraet t^« «i«ll0r ivft» re^gtalreA 
to 6*liT«r %£ it» sa«t<!n«rs »Bljr tl^ijr ^re>)Orti:ti»ur &h»re c: 
ta« oo«i •Mp9«d vlftttn %h» tetal ftt%0«mt «« »lti]»9*4 «Mi i»fittffioitt«t 
t* fill all ootttmeto. But j>lalntlfr*« peititi&a i« tn^t dcfeai* 
Mit*s r«lliir« Vc okaip Umi 1C<8 ««>• of ooitl woe net a»«up«A Hqr Mur 
»^>ort«i|0 of iara or tm aoooimt ef ttoy troulale at %h« aiaeo, Wi 
wui «btta*4 sololjT Iqr tJb* fft«t t]»at defim^iA sold i u protiuoi 
lor Mor* «m«jr to oUmt Asd »nbo«^u«nt imralaft»«rs« £Nif«ik«taBt 
offorva «vi4«9>0« imtUimg to ouetoio it* eont^ntioa Umt t^ro 



25549 -, 

wMt « »«i«rtiMf« «f 9tkxm and ia»ouM» «^ iia »&»• il»i 9Hr«r»»lMNl 
ii from tf«liv«riii« all vf ij» 9imX p^l»l»Uff r«i|tt*»t»«i. ttiaAwr 
th«- mntrm^t, on tine ttiiiier hi«inu pl<untlff «ff*r«4 #vi4«Htt« 
ivtidins to «a4ri*ltt iX» &Q»i,%iwa, t^m juvjf %(ttir« Mid itei»t If 

(MM <i«f«a4«fli _««»• ottXjT r«'Qiilr»fi to giim ^amlnttff It* js»r» 
r*ift rnhnf* 9* ottoant s*^ um% vb« v«v<Lldb of %tk<^ Ju;ry i* 

OMi^iftlttt i* «!•» ia.%d« ih»i <63be iriinX. «ewtr% in^x-tt^friN- 

•4 Iqr ilM «e»trftet« '?« thl.ak ihj«^r« ««i9 fv« «yr»ir in tM» «• th*- 
•WWiMAt tm» 4^^npil«4 frc»' e«3r«-n{i»ni*ai ttrnvt tamr<Aii mmA if It 

out. In t}d» «6iineatlen, the ao.ii't »4teiti*«t m IrmA* i«iuurawl 

V lib* ao»tr»o% *nA it is 9liiiBi«4 tltM^t t)si» vab vrror* A 
•WBkcr of «itn«tM#tt f<»r ipiAinUff t«fttifi«4 ikai thin J^uraal 
Wiui r*XlaU« imd tta»« it •aeurtitttljr i^nym ti3t# r«'i9*« «^ 9e«il 
t0r %3» Aattfa ««at^«nff<i in it omA %3m% wu^ |piri«««t b« «:ir<m 
««re aatAtf «ij»oa Mid moeeptml %Qf <m»«1, d««i*jrii geattrftUj. Ott 
'b«telf 0f 4«f«nd«»t witii««»«tt t«Btifi«d tJMti th« ,^ri««» j^on* 
tie»«4 la thiw Jeum»l ««r« usunlly Migimt thuat^ t«i» >nRrk«f 
pri(H»«» in t)i»a» «lr«vMUit«tn<»ar w« tMnk %h» aooutac^- ef 
ttait»« fiipu"'* «&• ft auvsti^tt «f f««t for iMm JttJry. 

Co«i»iAJia% i* ttlM. tuk^0 19 tiM» «iviii« ef i8«truati<ni« 

6^25 S 

25549 'S* 

•s«ri 4»&C ioa« of c»Al ana iJ^% *ia.AiaVifX JL0 «aUUe« mi r«» 

t^* «v«4rKa« SHurket i^ri«M»* s»r©Ti«Nr4 f^lsaaUff ««« Te«My» sWle 
ftsd wiliing U» r«?*«iT« ft»^ pij^ tor iM oe&l, c^d provide': fu£^ 

•f a elaerla^* of oajt* or AtJateir oettdtticae be/en4 its ^rIfoX. 
flw ebJ|««Utto !.« ilae ii^ t^»i $«»«» ^^ «»« ve amm tr<m d«» 
f«ite«i*» «tiR« at S«w Bft(f«a &4ftidi e£«« fxwB it« «i»«^ Ain« «% 
Sill0k« ftas Uia% Ui«^ iasiruciien mtkam ia» tliiAUaoUoa Wl.w««m 

tte ^^laaViijr to 3>c»8e froia »&4^ si»«« ^iii«9 iA«? Jw^J' f&«jttt4 

«watr«l« «• thiak «li»r« i« em ^«rk% in ii^« p^iat.. 'Imttvam 
tJLon it«. IC told tis» Jliury tli«t d«f«sK;fasi*o (»&a.t«~nUoB *aM %^tA 
o« ft««o«Bt Of its laftblii«y u: |)x«c«r« « sttff ioie^Rfc noMlMtr of 
Umt y««p«r kimA mt oa^r* i t ««« ^m^mXlm^ %e d«l iv«r win* run 

«9«1 MI4 oottlA aofc pj^paro «s«^« mtt fi»S l«mf> ooal «Mai«d for 
Iqr tte» centraot.; t^t if a»e>- l»«Ii«rv«ii fron tlMi «vi4«no« 
thai plaintiff of ftro^l to aaeopt odiio rt^ oeal as a oubstitato 
aad 4*feiuitiat «o«U<i not fumiaiii Uie »tSM» raiiR eoal« tiwn 4afoaA» 
amt oe^Id not tatorpoao aa a <l«f«8«« a akortaga of oara or thut 
4oa» at Um» mitt*** iaetrttetie& Ue, U «»8 to tte^ «!ff«et that 
if tlw ivory foua4 fc«w Va» evi4aAeo titmx aafotwactt mlaa4 nAmm 
rvm Mai iaat«a4 of ant. ^hhi <ub^ ^«K9 o^«^ ajfeoa It aoul4i tevt 
yroparatf tko latter kiada of oeal. oo»ai»t«tttljr vttii thA prao> 
tloal oparatloB of itc iaiaeo* it aould nei. bo axeoaod fnm 
perfonnmoo of ita oaatraot ^ a otertaco of caro. lli« arcw* 
■oat la tiaat Ut# Jary ««ro, is offoot, t»14 %iy iaRtraaUoa 
So. 10 tiaat pla^aUff oa^^id otoM^^ ito ooat;-aot fwm aat» 


25549 m9» 

&sd Iwa^ c«ttl V> 9tX»0 run <»mX whtta 9B & sAtt^r of fftot i^lain* 
liff i&aA no a\»«fi wkiih%» ha$; th^tt tetn ita»»« infttru^ilaati v^lij 

icnaredi ih«? «xiat-*iQt^« of mtdmr&fmk •a^a»«t •m»i|ks«i5il*. viU 

i»*86«e OS i>#i.«af «f FlaiBUff t^uUiiPiS «.&»««. «t. nusxtsrouo *JUi#», 

eSt'.fvasft^i W! far»lsh 3altt9 run «eidl i«i« i-»s4 »r «i'^|;» tttii a»$ 
lMa9, Wfc that d«feaa«sttlt x-«f>ft«*4 fco ti^e ««• vt: «<».(» eia^r handf 

offsr^ii te 4«liV*jr saiae jrun qael Umi fc^^t jjlisiRtiff r#fu««tt 1« 

pr0jtt^l<s#4 ia AH^ »^' ^ lnetni<^l<»»e li^ mxi 11* Ic f:tirit»:t,i&A 

for ^t«r»iAliiK i.h« ;^rk<»t £»Ho« tiiU.««» t^jr ttinn^ t»r ^a«i9» 
tiff. 9ft iMvoi ih«>r« i(ii no £i«yil; £» V-ls poini ».iKi t'»«t t.r.« 

jayy w^-aro not fii»X«4 3i« vh^i^ w«>rre "raary osirfifuiljp Aosli'-u^.tte^ 

<^tMiii^ «r «e«l f ro . iU uHil»i!i ain<^ sntS fron tu oth»r ni»« 
m.mi Uut% if li v«» i»r»v«ni«Hi fr«m nbicinc doliY*ri«!r« ef ite^ ae^a 


25549 •lO* 

fMM iiv» retire <3ilve i«Xb«c h^ m>M.Bi-'St h»^tin4 its «oair«l« i«t«R 

dAfeadASi maid t>e r«l«ftB«Mt tx^m nmM-ing^ d«liv«rlfts ftt suit, 
tfeut eotiri utrugic eat timt pi»rliei3 ttf Uw iaetrtteti<i»n8 vhisii 
told U&« 4ury that in saoh oa^cc <i«femxa»t «eald sset \i« e^ic;«d 
ie pr«4«s« omJL frss ettier so throes to a^ke nuA ^«iiT»ri«s to 
#laiMtiff. t* tolak the iseaifleeitip» «&» ««mtBi«d, it & 
««rtaia kind of eeai trws te se«« fr«»a %'ms &hileh saJLae asu tagr 
r«aji«a of trou)»l« Uwr* all •€ i^&t kim& «f <»«! m:ji4 iset 
b« d«iiT«r«d« tx^s «»^i!i 2>eli*Y« def«BitifcQt freis li«>:?il.itdf o9 
far &• tIkKt j^art&mAar kind of ^aX vas ttonmmmd, ^.a^i %h«:-9 
vottld b« BB r«jjt««n for Uw quKlifii^tioa «t%ia]ft dcf^n^nt iii»«^rt» 
•d is tlie instjr«ietio« <»nfi wlii«h tite ne irt «trtt€ic eut* 

It i« bJLm lurcuhBd that vi^^ ir«rdiot i^^ #xo««»1t«. It 
ws •tipulatUd th&t d«f«ni«ttt «&8 «2wrt i« ive <>«iiYeri«« 4d4kO 
toss of aottl u»4 th« Jufy figured th« diff«r4^aeff l»»tv«#» th« 
■arliet fries nnd tb* oDavraot prios «t 7S< |^r ton giving » vsr<» 
diet for >:UOC* W« tbink this wum iwli within r^tage sf tte* 
prie*« tsetifi«d to \Qf ths vitaesees* »^d !« y>«{-M &krmmmUkavm 
w ahftuld n»t dietttrl^ th" finding ef Ui«- i«tr^'< 

¥h« Jttd^pasnt sf ttM Si9«riar ^tirt ot Joeic SounI/ 
is sfilnaed. 


m «0t&, • 


«• \ /i usiiiaxi^Ai* QWUt 

m €iimAm» 

t. f 

UK, i^iifX^ «*aa»iB» A«ilv«3'«A i^m o^%»lxm #f 

r«««T*y for saote 4ftfi«»a$«. fJste <»•« w«m» tried %*«fos-e tJ^o- oourt 

this »i»p«ftl. 

lMi*Aflit«» «n«d on J^Xjf 9T r<int«4 to %y» <i«tmm&m»^ m» «nt«n«1»ll« 
truok far itm<Hi i»«r ejatjri UHit 4^f«n4smt io»k tlM> trit^lc «m4 oa 
i>w afi«rm>«i of U»6 Hiikr^ <Ugr tf«»ien4«m%*« elwuffwar imik driv* 
iiii!; tMiuth on Ooitftift 8r«v« »v«inti« wli^^ « ioiUl »t »4»ro9uunai»t» 
SIM irmflk «»• •tntA^iae Vm tm.*t rail or tis(» ««»t oi MuiJb*- 
tetuMJ «ir imflfe* At>#rft«ehiaii: froaa ti3« nsi^tomiUi dir««ii«n wui 
• otrovt «uT •« t]^$ e»»i or »orikdM>iaii4 ira«k« f^ ffi2*««t nur 
«a4 ttiio tdruoAc v»r« o««l» travoX^tng at »b«iut fiftvos Milen pnw 
taRtor* 1»Mun ih^ny ««r« fr«Mi 16 to 90 feot nvn.Tt tm «hft«ffttisr 

ittitt«4 «• 'Uui *««t «nd MllldcNS mi%.'-i U»« «ir##i <«ftr anti w«« 

tiMt *!• iiiTidAnae «h« intrctittOAd lir «4!>:^U«r« m show |ji»i tlii« 
u«« •v «(U« ^r Urn ^c^d& in <;^tt6ii4»ii • * • fi»<^ r9<»ir4. 4ii» 

QM»«. l^iftliitiff wftfi !!•% r*<iulr«^ i» twheur t^t iHt «#r#n4Mit 
•r ii.8 driiTir «m» gtti^l^ of mn^ n«gii#i»ii«« itt %lt« t*e« ef tlM' 
iir««fc, f«4r «l)t#s M« ttlmtiRxi ilw^t )%« 4«JLiv«r«4 Ut^ t^ritteii ixt ^tt4 
eeQ<ii%i<m »n4 ii ira* r«t4uni«4 te J«to i« « 4wene«4t «MWii%i«B 
%h« Itm will 9jr«»iisHi n»<^igmk^ m tm ^luri ef %b0 tgotfrnnaimt 
and ilw 1ki3*4«b 1« tkpmi }Am te ela»v t,'k»%, 'h^ ^xmtdiiiM or^itrnxy 
•flur* ia i»«> ttse of tM« vruesae* ihl» b«iais <i^ V»il«Mint f«r Uiw 

SA. Sui ill* A«f«i»^(tiit «lso <K>ni«]!)4« Uhi«' ibe #vi<i<?noo di«« 
4a«»«ii,ilMi i& «x»jrai««d r«ft«eii*i4« mrm in yi«> «»• »f ikio 
inidhE Mul tli»i ikiA a««l<ieiti «»» itflwiNMt V iJk«> 4«f*9tiT« ei*!!'f'« 
intf «ii9fir«ki!As, Hi* «lst&itijrfMiJr %»«tiiri«(i ihat ti« iMad b«Hi «•!• 
«:«ead in 4riTinc; «at««A%ii«« t9t •itibl^ oir nine yMura «^sit^ UMi 
li« taM «»flc«d in R gMniK«s UMt «i ili# Uwo i» ^tt««iie« hm 
)Mi<t a lOft4 «f \»««k*«(iB«» in ih« tra<dE; ih«i. hm IhmI driv«B Ui« 
irtt«k r*r a«f<^n<i(Wt fraM iit<» iu&a it ««• iiir«d until tr*(» aeai* 
4«tii; ilMi i% iMkd to««i uptt to no oxtroordtnAry uoo mn4 ilmt 
ili«r« lKii4 boon AO olaury iurao or «oai<<i««ii« u|;i to t»» ilioo of 
tk» tollioioa viih iho etrooi omt} Uia; Juat prior to ai» oo* 


Mih «a6 9].«t »t7««ui ttt t^aA mt« ef IS t« 13 ailif^w j^4^ 
bour; vit»i *mlX 9f » 9^4«m 1 f«lt Vh« rl^at frmti «ltai«3, 

maw Usi« «tt4 »&« siaot rlis&t a4U«<ni ite sl>r*«i iRi«^ fciti® 

««et or iK»uiJBlM«»cl sir«»i <mr trails t.hA% fci'i^ eir^^t »@» 

ilMi.% ix Tm» «Mseet.h riiii«^ 1« ti»^ tr^«)e ism;. iHat It vac ciuii« 
cts eld brioii 9ftVini«tsts Omfc »ls» rig^t fmnn, »»»«#! ««&t d^wii 
itat lam aiaiT%»i tc e£Lk:e a mitu^rcd iar« %^i il^ «ieir 4ia ^joi. 
r««|i«uts i^t »t th«» &!»• h« f«lt U-^ rii,h% tmnt wm^l isfi 
^own *l «»■• mtmr lb* ir«iic » * « i ^iG-e. de« >aB«!!»l «» ih« 
Otttftiftc rail*} ihftt iu:s« freni «ukI(i tawai 4»«i on t%w< ri^hi 

eir««t auT, «av ih^ ^llln^iNt end i«;:tifie^ timi. hM ai4 net 

vamm aft of it. Wi %i^% h« »&« iii«^ <^ttttff«ur tturaisg %3m» 

tru^ «h«£ It w&B «\»ettt 1& f«N»i fr^si tliA tHrfe^t esorj tHsiV a« 
»kii««4 it j^«trii«ttl«rly en ft«M»va»t ef t^ l«ft4 «f frst^s 1@ viae 
trufdc aaa th&t it «&• Atxi&d^iag i^« iti«la« ^ratil 2»r«tljr olos* 
Ui tb« «ar; "X «a« veod^ring: If he ««• ^^iaii i< i^«^»si ttttt ft 
littl* Wit «««gr fros Uao <a.r and Juet «t fcja&t ti»« X aetls^d 
tia* MhmIs t)t tisM truek b«giiual«g t& ti«bld<» fijcet enw «?«jr »»« 
tia*r t»«> etiHir, Aa4 \^ tlwfit tiJM It^ n&a« » ^aioic t««nii iind ran 
iate the «am«r «f tb* fl»r*; th«t be iMt>ti«eft t^ «immft9ur 
tJVittg te tuTM thft stccrliv hIsasI t« <U»e rigiit ha.% the truek 
«U4 R0t rti«|^^M(« Xn rw.Ijr io qu«)(itleii« pal i« th« «lte«*ii b/ 
t^ 9*turt» iM t<*«tlfl<r<i thai h* ain et s«« an/thiBK ^ffsk 
•ad tbikt Jai» 4isl a0t M>ti«« th« aid« drop 4«wb mtm sl<a nat »♦• 

tba-t li «xer«4««ii ordinary «iitra in «^« %»• ftf '%h« 'irutAc wttiill* 
%h«ti ^ttjrine th« i«» &nd •KKt^K^df <te|'^ i& «»• usiMC i^* Uiticdi 

•hev ib&t it ffxt^oi^ttft i^tdinao'ir o^r* i» ynt {*»• of %!«« t««<!l( 

«t «.ll tiiB«« «&)»dt ttli« flB<^l»g of tlx«> %ri«>l <9M»urt i:^t «h» etiAmtm 

tHiX&i Ui mlBsm min !« not im$«i«trt ^h^ msosifttot ««%h1> »f tit* 

Sli« 4tt4iiSi«^tii Of tlMK iilURl^pftl Oouri of ^ttioa«» if 

• ) 







mu JI^^X^ ^•<:$«S)»l3a «l«rlllir«r»4 t)&«^ «i>ifti0«^ i»f 

»tt« bttminc O'*^ 4«fli4(« ftli «fkeift« it van «nUr«iy mmiummA, 
i'iAAntifr** •otttvnl.loi^k w«« tluii vit» flpt vmi Vtim r^nult ef 
»iNWttm»'m» WM^Ifcftti«tta Wmi UMIi 4^« 4«f«tHlCUf»t» ftt Ui*' Um» »]«• 
«»ftl ««« «Mi4» tworrantiMl «.ii»w ii 9e.3,« tt«iflRlah fira Iiq^ «|H)«t4M»* 

•ottii «8«)Ni«ti«ii Miti* tiwr«f(»««, tlM>r« ««• ft t»r«tt^ 9t v^rnmly. 

ittr^ &« Una j^»r o^f«ti<3i^K'i»« «il «f th« «vi4«£et»tt itt i» l»« (Mik* 
istTtticd in i&» »M»«t f&v«^i»i« am^tK &s» ivj.aiitUfi« ^Hsa «tii lift* 

j^^ssldSftleauv* i,i„.#.^A,^ w„«,j^, ^»,,',?^.m '^^ ui. 989} mBk» 

||«l^ll 4i 4i:fe) i s : V. iln^* jfefy^ III. to«« 

»e^ tttoicsd <f«>f«»4&»$ 44^ 1391. fcwvw i»ty ^^^t^tii f-ivufii^ «»ia 
ti^ j'ftar l$^'f&r« <&o<$ b»<i ti* troul»l« vi vu 1% !^«»ttfi« «f flrv 

nttturo •{ il« i>Jli»K»» ^nta AtelMSH^ l^lml ^iAinUrf <»«iii;i<^ net ^t« 
MOT tjr«ttiat' vii^ m»X um,X m»:*i4 mk%^ tttm trtm i»§i®»%tm»»vB 
«o^«^9ll3tt mm* %b»t 57ar ux«r«»)»»tt 9Ai4t "X ft««iur* f»u jr«%t «fU.l 

County} &«• w«» d'^t uu'iirt; a f«'«ar ait4 «^.ir <K>«i i» am geoi •« 
iKfl «fcta«r '^itl*; Vium t,ii«tmi;»t^ itlminhitf |h*<-«)»««« fnm 49f*mb» 

tm4 \im.\ i^ftjLftiiff aft^ljC'Iftd 4«f«n4»tit. •r %ki» f»«« hAjI Mw» 

t« vMak lrift« «l«tii,«»)i«s>% «t^« lair ^f9W *»^in 

t* u.m'w %im% vuois immi t]»« mmm 9t l»^ fliN!»* tlMI «t<i.h»imm 
4Mp)iiyp««» MOP tmftktt ««iWLn|i fr«M iiM ^ta iMkii nm^ flr«i» viwt 

Urn tJMMOMNi itf dolkplByKr im mm%mriftl in 9aa<ilMtti«» j»««%«m»« iv 

iHtft * toMAiMMy <M hrmM Um o«^(»X i»%« finer iM^.rU4l«»t ««i«i 
«xltf«U»a i«i taffx** tr«i»i4 Aft tlm f'ftMnr ft«iJrUal«t«} vmt %h« »r«B«ift«« 

tr«m tusf to fivi> p»r ««»%•* *i;u ^ <^« ^^j^^* •ul^ittur tt««r« 1» 
i» Uto» «»al* ill* norm «r «ir '«W«- ilM t««d«a«y U lb(8S»i«tf A« tlMI 

iNurU^««* for Usftt «.hffi» «Sj^ft#a tas9 wuULi Fitra^O.^* of u»«^ 

bin, W3l.l«4 &» tmo si4t««» ik.f(«r & >?:«jrlMkiii %iss*« ieaiict Ju 
S*B« Sir.* W« tMnk it «l<$aY xmt l^imle «%» akKH»affici«a« ii« 

n»i «a%4l& fire c^ &po«iflM»«SK» «(HsW«tl.v« Aae Uit«i it w&« faur* 

\dBm a*ttl, mtt «m* t;^r« «d|jF miiA-»-n-m ^ttttir^^ii \^n4Xn^ \z sM« 
^'iMt t^re wa« c»m%@« Ic^ tJ»e stable «r ««a3. %9r «ij|#si^ i« ««tir]»A% 

i« iMJU «n>iil iMui a» i»i»a.i«4 ^.ttUwrl^ !,& vi<7xi^^ Ui^t ji^ 'twill »«i 
itfSlUi lisir e»«at4»icH&«<s ttt»ai)Ru»tieii &sii «^«v'»Y' relics &a »u«^ » 

or tt Cttstea u> i^v* Mi<^ a iRMnriMSijr itt ttai(i«$; ott^ «ai*« b«i:*?» 
t.te« pri«oi]^»i will >« iMufiucU ^^yjjBifc v» ^SM£Sl» ^ ^'^^ ^^^l 
^atai^BaK T, j^isaa* ^2fc'^ ^'^*» 1^» 'irftjr Cy»c«rg i^. v. £gjy^££. 
%m Aia. :^$; fed«y»l ia^be^r i.SiL. ja. T» i^<rf ^4^if ^^^Ht^^a ^^^^ 
21i« Al^p* X2^; JScAjeatle o» -«leet 003. &<f4: q « ^l.f^^, geawerai ^ g^^ 

479, £•« law », a»fnt 4 Oo . , X«T HI. 28* j IU»ii«r ▼• 

^?«im»»t. nt^ auLf :^>^. xm nu set. 

Sftrri«^ aaa ciiwjns to r««»v*3f 4«iasi#®» fe** *^ 1;»y«»fflfe ef » war* 

iron »af« «M A tJ»e «««»t »»rrsr*f»»4 W fes IwurglsMr pr«<»fi feisat 
aft«r the »a.f» i»» $4eiiir«r«4 j-^latlaiilT iwsv iil% ¥sii»fe*%fcl«® in it 

MdT** Ww wai« »f i^e •«f« Wis^ v««3? t^Mll 4*«^ ttOl« »« r^jsrftsesMNU 

f]a» oeu^t sel4 tlsat no r<«fi©if»*y a»uI4 fe« fe.«i4 &w^ e«i<i {|^•l.M)t 

ike A»iterl«^ l»^li«<& fx-es^ «a«i)» pw«94m «MSt>a« ««i».'l<i <soa»Ut»i* 
tfe ftst ©f V3a« *««»* *»• ma% 9t t&« ^ria«li^lj te*i %i^ Xm» 4»mm 
m»l iatply t>hn mmmr%%9 frcsa iJfe» fast vh«i ys.*w&rt «iB» tjMm^«%flt4 

»t<ailoa i* l»iw» u«f!Ki.*«jatw saving «-.^rt«4ia »r«l SMkjrrsiata^s** i'laitt- 
Urf» teiwu^iiii n-iii tits' liiti i<u?sjh.>«e ;>3riay ©f iJ^*' iii»liio« ««j4 tis» 
4cffttt^»etitt «oiii«^«t{ ws«re •«• ft liy®a«fe »f «6fi»«ity ^jr ar**i»» of 

#ia»Ifni« i» te&Oiiis that ifc* 4»#«m»« iKte ««t eei«l»ll»i3«4c »»*4 

iJULs o»ar* taat In ««(«k «Mi« tm v«»4««* i/i »?««» to raforo* »n 
lai^i^ ej«s»r««« waj^rnAtjr ai»4ai«4 to *»w %«•» «&«« Js^f ta« as*!)^* 
■»»i 9i»v« •ii)toi' Utoi w*@ iM|4mi tehS «s^r««« Attthecltir rr«a ai» 

for ija» i;Mr«2»MM> iiiria« of fish tt^lA^ i^ watt H»l«t lt)!ii^t. t,;'^ plmt 

fttttiaoritiy* «&» ^d* SiM» fl^'xts-i i}^^«t »tR44, (f*3S7) t *lt <ii»^m 

Win teil»« rr«i« !)»» .%£«r» ftiat IJiM»t> 3^»iMMi«t« iMktk pa.alttii.l'i'*^ 
tnttmlSttg 9stl««^^a mud hmkA tmtmritv %^ %f)ikm ^■»tvin!A>m%*» »T^mw 

i«K( in tl»«&r boinaf* %j»tti .%]r«@ ii^ivl^ tmiAlei kmrnp^ mwM f«r «i»#Iy« 
aie-a:^»» ttr I'cir %i^«Ni .manii^Vt fr^is l^« li»* to%^ ««?« j!^«!!ted« 

tlwi,t. «.tt >»£ftat 4n i9i£ttii^ «; mA* of #»o«ift $« «ktti^rl«e4 to 4« 

it A ^^parr^uatgr elf i^irio jrs«di« is tuir^ml* ^^ ^a^ Mv« it &» •iriiov to 
i»rf«et % sal* «8*t »te»r«^ IKIL»* M« ^Jt.»fllif&l# I* i* K'h^m tux» 
tiMt lutia ii^t v^Xlmv xim ^^na-ff^i^^^ id ^^su^iiiy i^ivm i* «t w»«im» 

pli«4 Utrfc^ jiji «»««i«t te e«I], isHMi &iiU^£l(y «i» tfiT^ oejrtttJkti ki««Mft 
%)»% tlw iii(;«Ai te&<l ttaiiKSffil?' to mM»»i»t ^^ofti « mr's^in 

•1U ■ 

flux w*s,m »» iE^«4 Ml mim%ln0V htmmA, A& w&m h»l& tisskt Uiis, vsat 

ttt«»tJk«« for i^ J«ury i» 4>^%mmA.n«' m^% l» ttHMial,*** «ttiim 

Itt ^iw» iaMtliMtt «k<Mi, %li^i-» Wiftg a» ftiri^^iS'^ limi 

liOMft, ?«^« ^yo mai^^, j. ^::ar€ii^. 



Ute nim* «a4 at^lii of t^« 

s»i.a«.ao mm^ktss h^m, i 

*^u«|i. i 221 1. A. 654 

3ei. JtJStiat' e*3<;g»eK d«iiv»rtofi t>t« ^>,u^iB4«?n of 

r«9ev«r tooa^^e f^r p«r»e»M In^turi** •u»1ti«lSL«ii V ^y« 
!lf)i*r'» ««• ft ▼•v4i«t in ker fstHNir for |5d<j^/ $tn4 ««» a aiftt&oa 
f«r « ft«« iriikl e reaitlitur &f 41, C^^' w»» ^atcrr^^d «.n4 J«<t|!(» 
DUittt r«tKi»r«d «a tiw» ▼«r«si«t for #4500, to r*v*r«« *>ii«h 

grcuad »n^ v«>* ft«y«r«lji' injured* 1% wif^ft %lm th*«rjr vf ^1m* 
•f %i»* te •tt^l« U«r tir alitn^iiit ft*t!. %he m,T, On it>« v^iMjr 
hmr utrnt attw th^ "mr niapift>4. mn^ sAc a«t pt'&tf«i to ailidii 



tlwrrtrfroit until aii or ni)M»ut tlii> Um* it «t»fi««i «MB«i»« 

9»f«Kdtaata «otit«wft %»».% W&Are ift «» lift^li^ •« 
9J.AinUff*s evn Torsion of tte« ««»»« l»««giuiin«i, on %i%tt uAdisjhtttd 
fsetB th»:f 4i4 noi. 1cao« eyad in %m «»«r<ftlft« «f Ute dn^roo ef 
<t»»« rfrj^uir^^j of ts*m% wv>r.-i<« not obli^«4 i^ Mtmit ib«t i>lAia» . 
Urf ifiie«A«4 to oO-i^M fw9m %}» mfm if plaintiff woo 03f*m 
oielttfi or^isuftiy «Artt 8>sk^ «U.li4#Hi#o i^r ik«r e«fls safoijr in ali£-hi«» 
iof from U»o ««iy. tlem ^ofon-^nto^ «ou4(i Vio liable if ^imy knov 
•r otettid trnvo k;ie«R iMt )ih» w«» ftttAia^Uais to i^li^^rht, of 
«o«ur»o» tho^ ««uid not l>« li&M# unl^^ot* U^jr Jm^nt oiiMr «oW 
aall^" or eonotruotlvoS^ ite&t )?i^iA«lff w»» «ii,t'.^'(iB4l fveiB %£m 

«»*• B«^.m,„ ^„^f^<?,„f^-i,»:-t«^<!,„fe. .,^,ff, »• aai^* **» ^i^» »«• 

flM <l«foiiMiM»to» «M».rrior« ef ]pBff««fii^9«, ore itoi Ineuroro^^of 
ilfo Of »«f«ti|r of tlioir 9iMiso^«r», ¥mt Mr* jrofttijro^ i^ mmrm 
9i»« "iho itlKMiot or hli^JMOt 4t«»gr«« «f «»iNi« $lki%X imi$. 4U.X!^)t^0tt 
for Um oofoty «f Utio 0iMi»4»n#«r» ii»At i« ooHoietont triih Uto 
MOdo of mmfjtmavf •«9loy««.'* Sort^ aMf»i«o £^»rooi ay« <3e. t« 
Q fo|| , . f , ui»yt « «rayithor» ix-^ ih# «&«« iMf^jro wo* ilMt ti«>f«A4o4i%o 
oxoroiooA &^ 4««^ro« of «ir« \»Hi<Ai tli« Ism i«>i»60*«l iai^« 
tiMRa i« (£m qiitootlon t« )ie 4«t>ox«svnt»ii« 

the »vi4(7n'3e t«lk(l«-i! to »!»«' titsnt ttiy)Ott«r.H ^leiittiff 
«»a ovor 9(. jr«ar« eld ovw ««• ¥«r^ «ot&Y* »«Mi e«.a<i got off 
oiroot oarei *v«rj <$ui<3kiy« opyy, Iik« $ ^^^ouni;^ givl*; %Jm% 
mi%» «mo ^ia« fr^^a Iftoir )aono to Ti»ii i&or <t«ii«^t«r And tbot 
oho had ri44on on A»f9n-isin%m* 9mttm for ttiio givcn^so on • 
amahor of prior oo^^oiono. . m« know tim% ih« ei«.r, os whiok 
oho ro4o woot Lu 79th olr««t« %mvn*4 %mrth in C«3ioo avoiuio 
•«(l ihoi it ot«9^o4 to Aiaohojriro aewtt r«9<!>ivo |»«o»ooiror» »'.■ 
thftt 90i«t. 7ho <9«kr woo ef th« pKjro»««/</i4* oritur tjry* tkua when 


of i.h» tiro 0tJr*ei« ila«» wm&uniant, wnw w«» 1m M» pTVp«:r 
plaice on i)i« r««i^9' j^lMtfom* iK*^ <^ff ^^in'^ ««:Ri t9rmi>^.r4 a.hont 
flTf re«i iB froat of tjat« aat«.r to lift %h0 vwiteli eo vjmt %hm 

wur would turn north in Oe,l«n «).v^i^«2 <^^^ ^'^*^ i>Xftintlff iiii<»»f4>- 
•d to Rli&rht tram iH« 'tt&m M&t^fem &fi'4 «» ffh« di4 oo «!>« foil 
or «@lO ihrovn to ^im ^prt^^nd »8d iK^y«r«iy 'injur«4* ^ «ati^i*iat 

is »aoo t)a«t xhtt ^imm^99 aiHardei «tr« «x.«oi»siv« for U»» inj^ur* 
ioo ououin^a if %n» <t#f4ma%at« ftjr» Il»^# «ii ts^ll* 

Plft3j»tlff w»0 el i Unit on tli# ivortji r^^r ••«% wMoli 
raao longitMrioo of U%^< a«.r nna wkloSk ^ik»« ,|«k«t in8i<=:o th« 
r««r oxii door. Sho '3e-.:id noi ep««lt; iiM .Kisigiiel} istt^^iium* 
tout t«t';tJLfl«4 ituroujsh cttt iiiit<(»r|ir«%#r tlaat wtion eh-^ otin!r$>«(t 
to gmi. off ete* took iml4 of il^«> ir«n %mr »-m »t09p04 "Amm 
on th« last otOjp <s»)vm ti^ osir otKrtM «t|» »!j»<i oI^mr :^oll &t 
Vfto ti'uro'oa to %hn £jmun4$ tlKiit stw» 0«^itl«l not otato v^othor 
th« oendaeter get off tite otur vluUo it ie»i sl«fcft«iline otili 
buttlmt oho *goi out to«rOi« i»tt g«t off**; th^t ih« ooud.«et«r 
41M1904I off} tlsftt wte«f» ho 414 00 oteo etooA tti^i to leoiTo tho 
oor K«ul whtfn ohA «AXk<?4 thro^h t]^ ttoor tlno ovn4uot«r who 
rl^ht below bor caid t^m.t tM Xhma ivmpoiA off. A]i!i«ro«a, o 
«ltn«oe for %Hc ^l»intirf, t> etifi«Mt tii»i h* ««o o p«»»«««:*r 
00 tM ^r »n<l thot wnf^n it ste^ijpoid h« got off tte» froAt 
•nd; tiMt ftt tiMit tlmo th*$ ot^ntlttotor »»• in front of ttae otir 
tia th« A«% of roioinc th« owitoli; tiMt ib« war ot«rt*4 ferwnrd 
maA ttft«r it Had run lO or 16 f««t it wnto M«iA oto^oil »ii<l 
ko o«« pliolntiff lyinn on th<» tiroimct About o,i#«oite ti^ roiur 
• t09 of tlM osr. flM «ritnooo itCT«k t«etifi*4 for Mo^ntlff 
tlwt ii«fofo U)« «0T a,iTiv«Mi at tl»» oto^fing, ^l*K<nf ho won In tHo 
etro«t waitia« to boara l% mttA thAt vIioa it »topi>4>H!t H* t;ot on^ 


U»t &« dies rtot ««« t)i» «»n«Lu«tor • *ih« oontfuflter i.u all 

th* Im^ plaifsm tte* plaintiff «»» «Iiro on t}.'i« l»«.«iie filiii* 

f»n»; 1^h!».t Ui« a(»x vim »ii»rt«<i mn^ mf%«r iv tod ]^re«<»«d»4 
Iti or IS f*«t. .0la.inUff, «3'ie was io %b« ^^i of «li^h%in^* 
fttll «r ««;• throws to ttie jg^round »siA injttf«4. '!')%« evi#4?ne« 
fartiicr sh*** that tH«rft w«r« «nljr lilMut IS .9«»»«rag<!rrs on 

^laintirr 41<l net m»iify hiw ilwat 8H« 4l«i«ir<Ni t« tet •fl' tb* 
a»r wtiten ^ t r«tti)^M»4 CKilve stwruas Vimt *«» »(»»ii «mi th« wot 
•%0pp%4. he leoled toBctt if ftfiiy«n« «a« getting aj} i.« !««▼# tli« 
•ftv »»ii v^t "m »«m ao on***; th9.t «v«ry1»o<ty ««« ««ttt«tt ftad 
tiMit hm U!i<m £(it off ttn«ii ««Xk«4 fenmrd »t an ttr<llsmfy ftftit 
te tlM VNltfila xrbieh tmt about six f««t i^i frant of the c»r; timt 
h* tj)*n ie«k«4 tmei<-^; fce ««» if anyei!»>i? «fto ^otUiti; <>ff "but ttniir 
ae ea* Ait«t^tiiiis ^«> ssll^bt fr«>EK tiiff m,ri itmt he litftotf up 
%h» Xewn «f the ««it«li ftnd »i»i» i0«lc(t4 irtifft tovard Ut« rttwr 
•f tteo oftr And at tl»«t titt« t>ior« vas natwftdjr <»n tl»» roar sU^g 
tiiat tho oar thvn stari«4 t^btrtmr4 Rlowl/ and aftor it imd gent 
aVoat halfvagr «r«s»4 tlk* mitoli • S$ fo«t, i^ialntiff at^i^iMNl 
dewA and «a« iiijur«4i that th« oar mia noviag vi^i^i alw fttfiH»a« 
•ft and Uiat Ui« vitaasc »6tifi«Mi %hm emtnvwBm Ui etop tii^o oar 
vMoii «ao done ia tour «r fii^o foat. and t^t hm tli#n ««ttt ta 
9l«iBtiff*o aaoiotatiaa, Ih^ ootarataa, who at tha ii»» of Uia 
trial vaa aa l(«g«r ia d^fandaata* tuplojf, tastifiwd that ma 
aooa aa )m at0|^»pa«t th« 9«r a pRaBOtt|;«r who waa on tho froat 
j»latfor» aolc»d hl» v> opon u»» ioar ae DmiV h» aaald «:ot effj 
that tte* witaaao «U.d aa and tha yaaaaasar (at off; ttot aft«r» 
«ar4« tha eonduotar aao at tita avitdb in froat at Una ear and 

than th* v2Uk»»it lft«k«»(i ^gk thr«h.i,gh th« t^tr to ><•« If bnyen* 
WAS tf#iU«c off; Uukt ]M» ft«w lie otm sttt^id^Ui^; to 1«<%y«! vh^- omr} 
that* Uttt <M»»4ttot0r t)M»n «l|p)Alli»d ta Hl« to ^ tthomi. wHioh lat* 
4iA» aa4 «ift«t> ttu» «Mr hiMt j^R« j»¥«vit 2$ f»«i tb«! (9&^{MtM0t«r 

»iettiill«4 him %» ete9 ih» «af ^ioj^ h« 4ii wil/tin torn or five 
f«9%, {{• fttrttofff t»«Ufl#<ii luteal %!»« <^jr »tts Ki&niSing ftlill «% 
Ui« il«e th« «ftadu4»U>r gei. off %h« b^ek (»:i(»ifem Ami UMi 

•timtltai/ *11 ef VM »rltl0ti!i!0 timding 1» k^w hew plaintiff 

tiuf iuty w«i:V' iti»i»rui<;t04 tlmt It th«> found fa^on 
iia* «vid«a<3i» j^laintifr tiit«j!«i^t«i« fce ^nil di^ iai«^.}n fr«».'^ &iw 
eskr aflr»r it •torWd 1s^^ nad irMILe i% «&« in i^Uon* i^lAintiff 
MttlA ROi re<M»T«r «.iid &h« 'w«v<Aiot e]!teal«» biS' for ii%.« <!i«fettuftat», 
ilaw th» 4tuQr feuii4 for {^XaiaUff it swot V« {»r««unod they 
f 01014 Uaot obA did not. Att«*^t to alxj^ht tro» %iMf oor aftor 
ii etarvctf uy. Zlie ovldonoo ieiiA#d to show that »J»« woo uoiR§ 
duo tfilitfosaoo In icottlag off th^ cmr. ¥it»ooe«o for dofendonM 
tootifiod to o«^Ttaia eire«mot«t$«eo »hi«i3a «eal<i t«a4 to ouotoia 
the oontrar/. 2'h«r« i» t««tiE»enar fc^^t i.h« osndMotor ditf not 
«ot off ^h(^ htiQk i^latferm until th« «^r etoi^9«4 oati tb«n trolketi 
ttao loastli of thw <mr, &c foot, on^i « foot boyond to tii« imit«ii» 
Wt thor<« woo olieo othor toottaeiqr tte&t tondwd io ohow tlMt viMn 
tho poooongor 0O% off %h» front >;lj»tfont« whioh h* did mo «oe» oo 
tlw aor otoppoa* tho ^nttuotor mo olrooOy At tho ovltoh* Ytiio 
■iglit roAoonaV)!/ Imvo lood Uto Juxy to boliovo tlntt th« oor «m> 
not oto»po«i m oufflolont longth of U»ff to pezwit tho plaintiff 
to oliiiht. O^n o eor*ftti oon«id;«r»Uon of oil tno 9Yi«on«o 

m thiak ii Ql«wr liti»t all r4>A»&n«tM«» ttiittMt «(«Mii4l not r«ftate 

l«iM(th of ii»« tc p«rs»it plisilntiff W i»lli,Ht» asd* i^nreforw^ 

th* ott»c WM » ,;iro»er on* f»r W»« jury. ,y,^^^,t JMf ^J^,^„ r^ M ^M 

t, ^^f>^ , ti2U ill. 20«. Sttr 40 «« ihiidc ihtf fiMinj; of ih<f 

wGe^pl«iAt 1» Bt«idi« U^ ii'ie giving of iat»U'i4ctios 7 
•u\Mlti#d b/ plftltttirf. fhlA iaetru^iien vmm «s follow* i *lf 
you l»*li«r« tit^in th» «7i3<»n3e, una^^r t!»<»^* i»»ix'uoilon«« iStuiV 
tte« $*lAlRibiff w«n ^liji^htittg fr«e. t.a« «trciif>t. 9&3t i« <$tt«tti&a 

lag sUll, th^a 1% bt'oma* aad «««• ih« 4ai» «f Use attf^imSaata 
to *x«roi«« th» Mjfchaai dn^re'tf of «ajr« r^tffirwmvkljr «s^n»i«l'«a1> 
vlth kh« f;«4« of mnit«^mnQ^ »&op%«>4 a-ttdi («»iiRi«t % 4«f«'fj^<mt» »jr4 
Use 9r*otie«l oj^vrailoa «f ii«siid nal]r«a<l» l« •t«r|i wniA iilr«et 
«ar ft r«t«»««alil« l«agth »f tla* i« 9«rwli. XJem ^ittlnUff, &a 
th* •x«r«l»« «f erdiaarjT oar*, io iai4i;Sal. tr&m tmia giir*«i e«hr 
•ftfoljT Bflid noi t» KUiriaaii »ijr«#i >9a»jp wltit^iia nuoh r«as«itiftbla 
%la«." s«T«ral ehj««tioa« ar« ursad U> trM« ia»%ru0tl«at tba 
9x>lB«i98il on« ol' wtiii>ah is ttfeAt it amlit^a %hm »ltmmnl ef kno«l« 
•4<a» aetaal or ooaotraotiira* on i:^« ;mri of a«f«nu«katfi» i>hAt 
plalaUff pjrei>oo»() to allgttt. froie tUi« (Mr, In r^rljr {>l»intlff 

r«iioa •n tl» e»o« of jgasyC *• ,M«Sf,.i,^I^Vy„.%ft,M'^,>.» »3» ^H' 
S68, «li«ro oubotMBiiftiljr th# «aaa ia»irtt«tloa «»» itM»liS ie )»• 
uwili^oetlcna^lo* Sui ia Utnt oaao tii» oriilolMi new urg«4 «»• 
w»i iaad« or Qoa«i-^»r»<i. In t»»e (^r<^t , fM>f( t-^« &bj|«<}tiea vaa 
Uaat tho iaeUiiotlea traato^ tSw quosiion of no^li^imm ao oaa 
of law ahen li abould imr^ baon %r«ai««l a« «a<9 of faoi. If iHD* 
ctraetlca f 41rectaiS « Tardietc ii <^sbt \m ravorslKl/ orjroa* 
aaua. Ii da«a nat, iaeaavor. ilraot a vardiot, anti ^ iaatruo* 


tl9n 22 ite iury wrre %«X4 thet ii«fi»Bui»ats vvuitS not "&• 
li^VIc util«8c« III %lm ciurrttis* of tto« 4^iir«e ef <»ure w^ii«dk 
i]eM» Xtw Iskpoa^d apoa t^ta ik^ 9e%a4 )smr« t«ren»9n »nA pr«<» 

%e this inetTH^stic/B bat thiiyc twa« of t,him 90ulc imrr«nt u« 
la filsittrbii^ iMa v«r4tiet of tne iwcy, 

^hi»lf of plttiatiff tm» orroae^us' &ii«t 9Jioai4 »ot fe&v« b««a 
givva. fhie iastjpuetion iold tii<* iury %iw% "Uasier thf«o 
iastrustioae. /ou «« t^t^ Jurors. sr« t,h» xolo emi4 «9c»la»iT« 
Jtt^gec of th» «re4ibiiitjr of tli# wite«ee«e inaiS th^ ««ight 
ia \nt g&vott io %k«ir toetiisi^ttir.'* A mmlbitT of ApfeXlat« Seurt 
eases »r« tsiWA ia »u^^M of a«f«R4«nts* eimi^«atioa l^i u|»oa 
aa «X£»iaMUan ef ib#«» it will %>• fouad tlinw &b«< iiw^iruaU^^as 
voro a»i il« »«ao aa Us« oa* l»efor« «<»• A sl^aXsjr iastrueUoa, 
tovever. vae ajj^iyoT^i fey e sr{ir«asie 0»uri ia t^ ^ae« of 
^.4 A« gy» vO « ▼. yiBaer^ 141 ill. 614, aa^ «*« eie«aiaatloa 
of ito aaihoriiioB fails to alios lU»ti> i)i«> o^iaioa la tha% me* 
has ba«a b.% all df'st^z^ec frojn, ?b& rascalas ia vh^x ckso la 
ai»pllo»bli to th«- <3»£0 before ua» 

ftaa Jtt^Mat ef tbe Qirault Ooort ef ::ook Oeuatjr 
le sffira«4. 


i aa uaa»l« to eoaeiur la the faresoii^ 

The vitaeee Aaderaoa, tcatif/lae for the A&iatiff, 
eaid no get off the sar at thv fit>at ead, wh^r; it, «aa atiuutias 


still. Xi Xii m?s^f^r^n% from %iv^ r«>«»r(i t>h«t tn^ h»a «,i)ft» t* 
^mXk iroat blie <e^r ^ the »i4*«mlk ami H^d "•t&rted tc» walic 
>»»«'' vhsA he j!i««rd *he plaintiff's <»ttte]qr «• «H« fall, flM» 
i^taee-'. iSovak, teatlfylas for tto« plalnUff. said hs ,get ea 
th^ <».r && th« r«sjr t^lntifeni wh«n it %%• ai^sdint^ still 
ao^ Uiat th«tt ti3« oiur •tartad ait4 Um pXelfttlff got off ismd 
tint she £6t off l>aek«iur«l«. Xh« lattftr faet i« d^ffijaantrntf^d 
^ the fa«t that th» o^^r whs geia^ ««et an4 thfi^ plaiatiff 
C«t off ea the aortd side of tht^ oetr anil foXi on her ri(g.h% 

Wh%a ih» «^ «iM«e to « ote^ aned t)»?e« \.»e stae&ei^sers 
bo^rdod aoU l«ft the eiur o» indicsat«d« t)3t« r«»r ef th^ o«jr 
w&t» 5S f^et tr&m th« ««iteh. ftiwrn Uie pXtsiatiff «t«pf»«d frMi 
ih« oar* ftooordk^g U- tisLi" etrnductor'e t,f %%iL^anjf , h.'^ «*«« hold* 
iag the strltoh lovor «ad *••»• obeat xn thf- oe-u'it?? of this nmr," 
BO thftt th« re»r of tJie %r »8s then S9 fet^t frcjui the evitcjai 
and the enr had ttoved 30 feet frets th» ^oint at whteh it h»d 
•te^pod tc ^ar^ait i>«a^on£oro ta get off or !;;«'• on. %h» t«tstinosy 
of the eoioztAsiit who w»o suit in th« oeplo^r of th« defendant at 
tli« tide of th« trial, wao t& tli« samo eff«ot» It t>vu« ooa»« 
to he dearly oetabliehfr^ by tho OTi^fftioo thet tk« unfortunato 
iMjOTjr ettff«^red h^ t)|i8 plaintiff «ae duo euXmly te the faot 
that aftor the c»x kad 0OIBM to a stop aac had 00 renainod for 
a langth ef timo «affiol«?at to omiblo a paoe^n^or to board 
the ear at tho roar ;>lstfom aad snothr^r to learo tho far at 
th« front platfom anti to enable the ooaduetor te got off th« 
oar at th« rear platfom and ^o b diBta»ae of 55 x>f^t to lift 
th« ovit^ l&Tor BTiii ffftor ih» oar hnd thr f^apon Ktrrted up 
aaa proo«»d«d « di»t-<no« of tw«rt;r»fi"»e to ViUrVj foet, sho 
delihoratoljT o top pod off th<> our b«i.akwEirda. In mg opiaioa 


euctt (3ontri'buw>)ry n«sJii;.eace 0hc;u:i«t Ksar her rKooveiy, 

th» tiuestiaa of whether the our r^^eiiiied ni. the 
etoppiag plft««, truffiolsntly loag to give 1^« ji>l«intlff <t 
rHNSonable oyuortimity to «llj;^iit, is not h^re i»YolT*d, '?▼«» 
if It b« ftS9u»ed tA»i^ it dJLti not, Uie rilaintlff nhoulci bo hf*14 
to h«iT« been gtait^ of euntrlbutory aeglitscaee in deliberately 
stopping off t^^i« «ar ( nnd th«t batinmrds) wh<tn it %&« in 
aotioB and aftor It had saoifod thirty f<»et frost the (utopping 
plooo. iit» ei:^n490tor*e «bB*fn«j* frojs Ms &ecit»td»0d pl«e« 
on t^« xmrnr platfora at that txao, imii nooosBsuriljr oeoitiBionftd 
Vgr hlo 4totios with tlm «vltohi«^ oi>eratlen« whi^h ^a® within 
tlie ox^roioo Igr the d«f«mdnni8, of th« Iti^lMtsi d«^gr»« of «Eur« 
roAOonobljr ocnsiotAni with th# modo of oonYe>'r>j»oo ndopt«d «?jr*(i 
ttoed by tbe^. and %hf praotioal op<»retion of tit? onr. 

,i 9i<» furth«r of the ;jpial':a tb&t Ut« |(iviKjit of 
plaintiff** inetruction 7 wae r«T«roibl« oner* Kvon it' it 
voro ap^li usable to t^i^ t'KOts ( vMoti I beli«v« lib was not) 
it «es ^ft(\ in th«%t it f&il«<i to inolude Uie eoittingonfigr tJbot 
tlw dofoatlnat knew or iu the ex^reiso of a reasonable degree 
•f <»re ehoald loare knoen that th*^ plaintiff «ae alit^nting 
frcn th' car or was abo i v tc do so. 

i^^mik mm 

221I.A. 6B4 

«H, .mg%X^ l»»#«»lto 4*iiv«r*tjli %m m'^Lmim of 

r««iv«v ii«si»g«« fur «. «k«liai«^t!i« tr«»««Mti(»s« A iri«iiL ««« 

th* r««er<t ^teal «&««•« in»* ii4».t»tlif'f «»» eon^afftlng 

for eiftlur MaitNi ilM» A4t»* ^aej^NMir on lte» i«l«|»lM»tt« nad •rtiftr* 
«4 « anwiMV mt ituum» Oor^m «11«nS f«r tiM Iumm Wt <t&d »»% 

XjMVftaid )»• «*iti I* rltklntlff H.M r»v«<k«*»i«Hfl to his or •n*' of 

hi* •is»lojr««», iia«^ r^lmhat wh» « ir*r* t« Ak^d with !•*««• tm'A effftr* 

priM f«i4 «»• l•ll..^ tkhfta ife* w*rk»t vrl** unA tJtMi darn* mmI* 

Aft r<e»iutm to Kkeisat tiffth» ».%!« Imt ««Mt>«ft8l.«(l th«> ,i^»«i»«iHM*» 

• ilwr iMneii.nta «f i;eG4», etij}^e««>4il|r for r,l«hr« ^i(tpo»«d of 
ili*£» is liic« »«.n8«r, ftna »ii»piropri«(.fc4r4 b<iM^ .{>r«ee«4Mi to M.11 
•vci ttiMT* (Jer«t^ wmm «i»trr«)Mm4«4 8i»4 iait^n into a«isti«4iy V 
S«ani» ax>*»tloa» it oiv 94iii««nMii» on Jir>.nu@ti3r 4» 1^17, iu 

Hm Um) «Mimiii« «f tl^AiiiiAisr 6 -ir^v^itm tttT«»i«ii J%«»Vi»«<ii fi.ii4 

lEM^l^r sifin»4 vUe ^«ii$l«iai «l»«K^Mt ^^aiaii^'f wlti^ ireeaiv* 

l(iece««i an benA, tja^ «m»« w«^» imllQ4 fttw tfUal in &^ kttajU 
9ip«l ^urt 'Oa J^MiMtttXar S* ^im» i»io« <i&ftUitu«<d ttnt&I «r«nu*ry 

Jim pl»lnti ft ftr»i 0»«Wfk4« iiiRt t^ ▼•jrHiei Af ilt* 

hm 3r«fcnie4. Vit^ ttai* «»iit»aiieic£ «• iittstnoii ftgjrc*. it «>»• 
itt«a»^«tii ujH»ii j^lnittUff i» pmv* %)m% ^^t* «n» ae j9r«^i»i« 
«Mft*« ftr hiK •riN»tti tta4 (J»fti t)i« j^r«iii«»aU(»n «iaMP swiioiottti* 
It i* irti* thai atftlid* «a«» iM iitf»rr»«l fvofii iMini of prolmtol* 
(Muvot tmt w« tMitit ihft iury »«• »«rf'Ani«Nt i« fi,n«lin« %im% 
thr,rtr wnm pr<»lMkltl« mu»»» thmrm ««« •ir|4«»ei«» t«a<UM t» adMiv 
timt jr*Mlni««i |Ma?9t»«««t th« Imhui for tt%«ui «hn«wthirtf of xhitiw 
Murk*i Yoiuo And ^Mti }C»il«r knew or tiS^i^^raWttA tJ^o i* y Ui« 
f««t. . PlAittiif f , i%ia»«lf « t«6tijri«d ii^i ^.* j^niA tJM aMfHot 
i^rie« for i>w> ak«*t but iitai ii v^o *1iiiied oiMirt*. Eoliof «ot 
liio iiif«vi&»tifta fvcw ilroo4o« mim «<»• pr«o«nt wlaon 'Soron osai* 
fo»««4« «o Uuiak v^t ihiit f»«t bIoib* «ni« iF«»ffiei«at to o*tit» 
fy tto» ro4|uir«3sont of proteVio «oit«o matf iho«, if oooopt«4 Iqr 


liM Jury* it acnaUtatAd « &iQA d«f)8n»e to >»l»ii$iiirf*» eila&n* 
7te g»»4« wmro set $wr«haft«4eL ^ J«e»)ni««i 1h i^iMi umui]. and 

lea»«a ia 4*f«»(i«»t»» T$^«, v» iMidc« res.fiOttel>3Ljr ^rovia^il 

itt f«v»r of ^Mtftm^^nXm ie as»ii4l'««t>ljr ft^inet ^i^io w«i«;.i^i 9g %3m 
«vid«ne«. la J^aadlms'Si v. Ott^iptwtelJi, $«». S!«« SSI^7« i»» 

volviag ?raatifi]ia.l|r tke nmae f«^«%s «« t)^ <3«s« at iKtr. &aoiH«r 
4lTii»ioa of Ustis iseurt ti^Iil &^i & fmv&iat fer 4.^'f«a^«te mm 

fMr«ii«>«4 the «i !««»». l:«l I«r« te toatil^ ttoi ar»«4»a toI4 
kia C*7«a bad ««a^«f«»*4 %» hi» «• to iMis lt«« <3ar«a« tod 
e'ot6ia«d Uift hamm «a4 Uuni iM wold tlMm to plaintiff f«r 
ab04i oR<Nith&rd 9t U»«ijr aA]iie«i vftla*. 1^ »r&Mm^mi. Xr i^t 
iiUs wsft alccurljr HaanHgr «jid, wad*? w> i>L«si«Atai9 rul* of 
•videao«, iaadsaisoiVlo. this io a adLa«»a«opiioa of IA« l;>bM»s7 
oa vhltzln iii« «-«i4«i3t«e «aa eff«r«id. ¥Ms t>ma ]»XNp>?«rljr MiMltiod 
aa ioadlag vb mm^ Uukt tlM ^feadanto Aid tiot aot aalieiotfW- 
Ijr hux thai %tob<i(>^^ wid» an iav(»atitf«tlo« of tit* f»et« toofojre 
aligaiag Ui« !3B«iplAia4 aad vaa pxv^et t« lt« «K>a«i<^«'r#d Iqr the 
ikuej mm laadiag %» mkmw itei t^«r« vaa i»r«lMs.btl* «»uaa »ad namt 
of aaliooa 

Sotcttocl aaxt ooateadc that t&* aeurfc «rrod la ia» 
atruetlag V^e Jurjf. Hm abotraoi of raoord does itoi centaia 


all Of th* issirtt«tioo« ^iven asiu r^fuji^d. 1% luks h99n 

tAKLc^, m« ISM wsmm, ^* ii^aiatiB, 

994 • 2M56 


aaxoAOO city fuii^Ay cmB^t, 

221 1.A, 654 

mu Kmim 6*GmMm ^axir»m4 %im opiAion •r 

th« 00 ar%, 

mllvAy ao«i»aitl6» t» tr't»-w^r <&tam{g9m for ]i»«r»«nal inJtirivK 
«]L*lm*4 to hfftVft b««*n austsine^ ^ Ihtm^ 'lh«r# «»»««. TerHlot 
and Jvid^«nt 1» hin) f«v»r far 43&C>G to jr^vtm* wni<& 4*f«»l» 
aat proaseut^s (Ma ftp<s!««&* 

At 9b«at 1S;30 9i*<il9ck ttn Ukei .-.itirttiaa of Se«9i«n)i«]r 
1, 191tt* 9lftinii.#f, who «ui » poili$««uia «fli|>lciy«4 V ih« Oltgr 
of C}»ioaco« voit en Ms way to m^ll ttla fanily ylgralolMi aad 
vlian ha arrived ai ihi» Infceraoetion of H9r%h and f^aiam avo* 
iraoo h0 9aa told thai a oparit ilr^ hu4 b««m otelon fr«a an 
autoao>ila vhloh «aa t)i«tn otoa^ag ia iiaot»ni avoaaa ai fch« 
nortnoavt oomor of tho two otraata. So iaa]^«et«d ih« auto* 
aiolilla and wao in tlw sot of w«^iik£ ooaift i»attOvaada oitan a 
otroat oar ea»o fr«» thti north in Voatam arflBaa e» tho voot 
iraoic, tlw front otoy of vhioto otraok plaintiff on tho l«f% 
l«g^ 4« wao tnrova to th<» sreuad and laJaro4. li i» to ro» 
oovor 4awmoo for th(»oo iajorioo tliat th« toatanf. eaao la 

S«f««d«Aift Mnt*«<i timi Ui« trial oourt •rT«4 in 
rcfvaing to dir««t * viurdlet in t^Kir fav«r f«r Ui« r«»«Bii 
Uiat th« «Ti4en3« s^v* th&t pXalntiff ««» injur«4 tqr reft«»« 
•f lilm ova a««Xifi«n«*, »wi UmI ih« ttvidenon aIao «h»vB iBttt 
<|»f«A!isAtB v«r4» in no wajr itVKl ii;«nt. >').«lnUff t»aUfi«4 
Usat *% Ute Um« iM mui inJttJnKi IM w«b ftb»ui tUrtjr*«i<(M 
y«ttr« 0l4 and ««iKiMHt «1s«ai 840 poimtf*} Mmt h» l»t% tei« 
tmm9 «»>orUy aftvr «gldini«.hi to oaII his fMtiJLy tkursioiMi t» 
•tti<»atf a wMdMr of hi* fimlljrs Uuit *»]b«a ha r««<^«4 th* ia» 
tarsesvioa &t mtth and fe>«t«ra «r«ifui*ft ^^ »«* a^^ auiaflwli^lla 
at ih* itffx-tlnHiat aornar of ih«> two oireai*; i)mt th^ ««>ta* 
sBwMio wfta otaflHiiiii; at th« vast eurlb in Vaatom nvottua a 
»h«rt tfiotaaaa north of norm atratma: that th® ©waor of tha 
aatoato^iia »aid tj»at a Kpmre tira teed l6««ii otelaa} and olaoiihi 
•A feitt vHore it )iH«i 'b«>en olippatf off witli »«»• sort of a 
alMurp in«trvus«»t{ Uiat lim vitnaoo otood wiUt hi^^ ba^ to 
the aaot »aa aa he Vmt ovor to omiHino tbo ear aoro alaaaly 
ho WAO fttradk on Uw loft 1«4£ li^r the etraot «Mr -«tna ihrova 
deim{ "Aa I boat OT«r to look at %hm autoMAbila I olttuld 
think X stood about tao foot ar m» ftitm irhn* »tr««i mr trade. 
Xho ati^ of tj»t oar tkit aa on tk« loft las araand thv aalf 
maa dovB on %hm alda of tho log * « * wIma thw «tar bit «« 1 aaa 
tbrova fer«»rd on th« pav«»«nt. i de»*t kno« what part of aqr 
badj atru«k. I aaaeiad t« fall on mv atoaaah, I gaaaa.* tto 
farther t*etifia4 that b« did not kno^ that th» o«r vaa appreaol^ 
ia« bofara it hit bin aad that ha did not haar aa; boll although 
hi a beariJic ««a geadj that itm did not a^^e any light an ih« strait 
•art that ha vaa r«ad»rad unaenaaiaoa far a ahart tina* aad 
ahortl/ thorenftor fouB« h« aaa »ittin« ia th« automobilat that 
ha icaav atraot <mra ran ta ttmt atraot and kaa» that the mrt 
atoppad at that Int^raaetioa on aoooiuit aC th» «ro8a»toaa tratiia 

in Korth ATtstiw«t thai ha> fitoo4 tAote i9 the tr«^ b«MWr« Im 
tMul U) do W3 in 9r4*sT %9 •xtkmin« ih)» autmseliiX*; thai b<» thougtoi 
h« vouldi •«« a f !«»)»• h«»Ar » Wll or ««t%e thing in o«a« «x 9^1* «»« 
«(»iniC» lio further t««tlfi«4, "I was fikolng w<»»t. TMk <s«r 
«»• oe:'^ing oouth* Ao to how it pckos^d. m^ right leg aM Mt lagr 
loft, I hni4 «y ria^i A Ilttlo in front of my ieft* I* 
Ao i t»<mt OT«r X |iut HQT l*ft iofs \n»«dt.* An to wh<^n 1 f«t ayr 
X«ft log 1»ohiad« it oMst h«iVO ^o«n Juot Wfo^e thf» osr hit 8M«*{ 
that oft«r ho who put in the auV F&ol»ii«> »omo |»olioo offio«»r« 
oomo ana ho woo t^on hctao; thot olMtut the tino ho got v<«n« ho 
felt poiao in hi« •lHl«naon an4 ot^sAoh. hut th«^ ivoro not «• 
sovero until » eouplo of toyo itftonrerftoi tint th« <toet»ir o«»« 
to 000 hi>:4 thot ai^lit £»i4 ho told the liootor ho hK<i tho i>»| 
thot tho^ ot^iinuod to ftot voroo} thitit ho irtto in hod throo or 
four owiriKn una th»t nhout tho thtrct wo«k « diootor for th« oitr 
owRO orna wo4o nn owknanotion to »«o whuftt ho «« .1. «« b^r^ aHo to 
voport for ituljr) tiMt ho otill ••enoionall/ hno tnt> ^aJLtto; 
that hir wont hook to work nhout four «t«ko of tor tho aeoia nt 
hut wao rofttiroA to Is^ off « 4njr or %«• »t 4iff«ront tiaoo o« 
nooovoit •f ih9 poino in hi«> oMoaion} that nho .1 two dt^o oftor 
tho ao444ont tho do.etor oallod hi* ottflntion to tho oholly^ 
buvtoa* o^aoh hi«an to ovoll and got lorgor; th»t Wfor« tho 
nooiddnt ho had noTor had stny ouoh trc.ihlo; thftt at tho tino of 
tho trial ho had an umhilienl homia which wno ahout oao and 
oao»half ineh<o in.dianotor an«; protmdod ohout ono*h«Af on 
ittdhs ^^^ ^^ \ioth»ro hin off ana on at timoa alMOi ho ooughn. 
and at oth<*r llnoos that ho uood to wdajr an ai>piia»o«> Iwit wno 
not woaring at th<j< tiaw of thn trial hooauoo it i^et hot and wna 
wiaoyiac; ^^t \h9 injfttxy to hio loft log did nottrouhle bi« 
▼ory long but hoalod uyj *Xt wao Juoi a littlo thing." Ca 


att«iitlon Ui %h(f h«»rni« about UN» dxjrs »rt«r Ihft «««itl«nts 

vbioh vtoi fliboat « atontifi «fi«r ih« «t««i<i«Ri} that he ««r« it 
•ft and on; that aftannir^a h« •topsail vcarlag it >mt wer* « 
tl«ltet b<»lt »r»u8(t his trott»«rs{ tJtitti )&« was fiT« f«»t «uri(l 
tm in^ea t«ll sat! waighcA 246 90ia»<l«s that ha was tJMm 
(ravel ins a baat aa a alty poli«e«HiA «n4 hci«. trorka^ aM>ct af 
th» tlma aiaaa iha aa«l<i9nt althsugH ba ivict baaii »a^«llHk %tt 
iMjr *ft « f*w aajira at a tima an aaaeunt of tl4# harnim, 

Saetojp Vail ta»tlfi«4 far iha s>Uiutif ih»x h» »«m 
Uia aa9i<i«ttt| tJaat b« IlTad in %h« nai^hbaz-hooa but did ntot 
kaav plain tiff paraontBll^ bnfara tita £ieai«i«>nt| thai h» Mi Jttat 
«at aff a IfarVh atemai* *mT aa4 vaa WAitln^ far a ssoutJbboiMMA 
waatara avanua oaxj tk^t wh«! ha gat th«?r» thor» «v;e ^m «tut«« 
aabila atajidins at the want <mr1i la waatam AT«nua about fifty 
faat narth of Harth aYmua} that plaintiff aaa atandinc with 
hi(< fa«a to tha w«at axatfiains ih* ^tOMObilas that Ui« front 
atay of th« ctraat oar atrutde plaintiff; that thara «a« a* h«n4* 
U<hi an tha atraat aasr and that tea 4X4 not hfi»r m^ baU} that 
whan tha atraat oar atru^ric hln M«l»tiff falij thiit ih« witnaaa 
ran OT«r to him nwi plaintiff saamad to ba unoonaoioua tm4 dlA 
net aaawar but Jaat lay there « alBttta or tica; thRt ««aaen« 
oalIa4 tha »olioe atation and too of flo^^ra oana, ^ut plaintiff 
in the autonobilo and taok hin heaa; that about en«»half an 
hanr thrraaf'tar irltw^'aB went over te plaintiff's houee and ouadt 
an axaninatim of hl«s that he found brulaea and aontualono 
on th« baok fart of the anlf of tha lag; that at Ui«" tdaM s^laia- 
tlff «eam»lninad of terrifio abdanianl paina at th« unbilleal 
region*} that he ntfwiea4 plaintiff to yut on loo bo«o and to 
atajr in be4; that he droaaad th» wound «• the log} that ih«>re 

«all«d on pXndnl^lff ftffikltt %h» »«xt .KMUmini} tJtiaH j»l«i»t.llT 
Atf«ia eca^Xftin«<l of icrrlfitf «M«Nla«l jpt^ins Vttt ihAt tfeu«ro 
vtf>r« no olijeeilTo «i^8; t3b«t ]|s»^«jtBtiff stAi«d l»« ttmal^ n»% 
•lo#9 «11 nlg.]i!kt en ftsooiuit of &h« i»alii»{ that Itj^'-^ ^<i)iim««K 
Uwn r*«dr«'«f$«4 th» wound in tkfi log siki ooniinu*d tr^aiiae 
for «tM»ut four w««4eo; that h0 viBiWidi Mat (l»lly for A^ut. 
tmt df!gr» or two «;o«ik:8 «»<! Uiat during Itat U^o i9i«iKtiff 
Mn]|)lftiii«^ of ftbd«»ltt«l pfllno; «h»:t about tU)e i(4M «««k tli« 
vltnooo aotie«4 th» tfnl»T&^^iA of tiK>«» utablli^ml r«jg;ioa« 
"a pmiruotoii ef tlwt l;l«»tt«s out of ih» ^mMlieuw*; tJisikt ilMi 
tlMm told i»liRijntlff tl»t k« iuMi an unMlieal M9rni« 'H.m <ft4» 
vi*«4 tl»* ««Arla«. of «. ikKdlt} thst ih^ r^e-^l^Msitlono h» WiA 9im» 
•erib«d did not itnmn xa tetxap tha paia: th«tt tJs«>- .hfrnin ^ovolenK 
04 im4 ««• tisoiii about %k« sltto of r smiIIX nvti (%n<i ««»«i»'@«l to 
Itot Imjtgmti th«t about tl%« o«4MmA m»mth pl»,i»titt ^t tw «m» 
lilllool Volt ««4 ttakt «ft»r t,ha% tiM<« tH« «viin<«i»s Imti setm 
plaintiff AliOttt ono« « atontlft for &boat o jr«Mur, «tn4 thai pliMLti* 
tiff had s 'fttlljr d«ir<rle9«d tmliilioiil homift*'; tlsot tmiO^ * 
iMimio night 1B« ourod by «n epwrotion* but thjit 6«^ «]r«>»» 
tiono «#r« not aVwajro ouoeootiful} ilMt U)« inJJMrjr %c th* log 
Mftdo A aos^leto r^rooTcxy is Kh<>ut a wooic; ths^t i-n hl« opinlctn 
th« hornia vftw ouo tc "inmaatio oondiltioa, iAjlvury to tlio 
obdOMon**; that tk* witacNia vaa a gimdtwto of Bort)»ir«si«x« ^«ii« 
Tersity Modioal S«l»ol ftn4 h&d bo<m pmotioinn a« a yl^oioiMi 
ajid ouTffOoa for about taalYo joarv} that ha i9ss alM oonaeeiad 
with KortlnreAtoni and Loyola oadioal oohaola aa a t^a<sh(rr 
oiiio«> h« h d boon prctoticing. Gn «r»aa»oxa»l nation ho tooti* 
flo4 tbat k« hftd nm^r o^'^ratod an v»tbil loal homia; thai ho 
had knotm of oo«o opamtieao thAi wtrm aaoo*a«ful aaa o«bo thai 


««r« a«t. It further Anfflopttd thai lh« witaM* adlgtit Ht^v* 
•i,w f««liii« a^lBiit defena«int« be<7«u^« his mother hMl >>#im 
iajitr«d V ilMA] "it. After ihat, (r«ferri»« U> .-«th«'»»» 
0KC«) 4e ^ou r«' «ab«r Mr. &aai«rsea £«iiie ie yeu »n<i ye» Mgr» 
iae ttastk «hffn«v«r Uie •tr»«t mf ooaqNuiy wna involT«^d, jfou 
vOiil4 eti.^ i V in Juftt rii )»Mr4 ft* yeu oo 14« «iia /^'.t «T»r e«ar 
ti^t? A» y«8, nfte* )i« pr«»i««4 to ?s*y «•— I dl^»t WRy 
ttei t« My. Aaderfton. I n«v«ir »&id ibai. X die mx c*ii<l 
this ;»»« t& ut. Spen<j«r «ad Mr. M9u»«. 1 h»T9 h«« a nunlwr 
of «»••• «lth t^MM. X did t»% fton^ tNLs «M»« dir^^tly.** 

Sr. Wellla %«»tifi«d tlMt hK w«c gredsmteti In 
190? tx^m XM UniT*r«ity of JLllineis aetS %«» » iiritoU^iBg 
p)iyel<ri«a3i Qonn0Qt»4 wiih t}M» <si1^s ^^^^ ^* 0«pt«m^jr SI, ]>9i6, 
hs ««nt to plAintiff*!! )M3h« «m4 mmssin^A Mts to &s0«rt«la «r|i»tt 
ylAiatiff aitfltt b« aibl» tc r«tura t» «orkj th»t at tbmt tis« 
b9 fouad plaintiff «ttff»?rii»« from a <s»nta«ii>ii on th« l«rt !•«• 
•ad tl<mt he alee feuad 4rri<;i«n<3« of rm imMlieal huraia} th«t 
thPrw ymn • slight i>oaah or protwsieri of the? gut the ns Abe-t 
th* sis* ef » button. 

J»« Bmith t«>«tifi«<jl thRt hie waa a icra4itttta of th» 
BMNliaal 4e^rt>tent of tn« Univeraity^ of Xlliaoi^a «a«i vaa prao- 
tl^as hi« profeasion} that h* wue the $>)^tFioiaa for two lifo 
iaauraaoo «»@paalaa and oaminc-U p«raonB api»Iying ftor ineursaoot 
that h* «c^!dB»4 plaiatiff Jbiy 19. 1914, aoti fouaA ao ovidABOC 4 
of aay taaraia* 

SaorifO LaMiaa waa 6n ooourrwno* witn^ea* And aa to 
how tha acoideat haosxfBwd h« t»«ttifi*»^ th«a ho eaw plainUf^ 
with one foot on th" ereund aaa th<» oth»r on tte runnisft hoard 
• f uto atttooohilo bandiag OYor aakiag aoaw notatioaa oa ao«o 


ptifmr whiidi fe« )w|d ia Itio toand; th«t tit* •ir««i «Mr ean* friai 
tte MrUi tta4 atruA jilftintiff; tint iate f«ll tm<^ &«Riii»t tli« 
••r and tb«i it Birtttic hk& cgHin ind k;no<dr«>4 hi-: 4ova aaii tlwt 
th« viUi'MM and RiiGK otter i»«rson piidcMd pltiintitt u» «nd ]|^i 
klM ea th^ sidcwttllr; t)a»t th« c t.%i>r j»«r»oa oiaiasfli l>o b« a 
daoior aac: a(tvl»«d tJmt plAlnUff b« irf^«m Itaaw; th«t plai-atiff 
«aa ihf^a j>:ia«<i»d In %im tantosmhilm $m^ wut talcaa awajr; t^at th» 
«lt«»aa did nat h«ar aay hmll seuna^d. Oa ttre«c-«»xft>%i.iiatic>a 
k« stated iiKi hit 8a«i » frland ef his «(»re altt&ng oa a »«»»• 
ataad at tlk«> aartlnwat earner of tlie t«a striMtta aad ttet »<n« 
•an aak«»d th«n if thflv liad aa«n Mtyoaa tak« a tiva aff t)M 
4Mt690l»ilas tlait th«»r« aaa a lady ia tl«R aatei»»%il«, and Unt 
Ui«re «aa <titit« a eratMl around it, about twalTa ar fiftcas 
paaj^aj that the itap and th« badjr of tha a«^ aU'aek j^lalntiff 
and i^t the witacaa ma 8t«B41i^ about thraa fe«t fre» tJto 
affio«r at t^'? tisa, 

f. a, Seakar. Jr. vitji^aaedi t&r aaaideat aad iaatt- 
fled ihctt b^ia attaation «aa firat aiir&eted liy » eroad atasd* 
ias ar;a»d th« autonoMl* aad aaisaatta aj^ake «boat s Lira; that 
ha a«« pl«intlff tn«r«; tiiat ^aaiatiff was i« tmifom and 
kad a nota^boek in hia hand gettii^ lafonRatioa; tkat tka 
atr*«t o»ir «m« frtm U» north, atradk i>laintlff and thrav 
hia agaiaat tka aiaariiBa; tiMt a aaufila af mvm i»iekad plaintiff 
a? and put hia in Ui« nai^iiaa; Utat lie baiiaved thf>r*> v»» a 
liftht an tkre front nf Vxm etraat mar altkaaali he wma net pasi* 
Uva, bat tlwt he did not baliave ibat % bell was rang; that 
the aateiaobile aaa a aoTan pm»»mkg<»T ear. Oa <troaa*axMiitt»* 
iian be testified that he aan plaintiff, aha wae staadinc 
with ana faat on thr Kroand and Uif? other on the nuMiag board 
mt the naahine, with a nota»bo«k and peaeil in hie hand taking 
do«i ittfomatlon; thst the autoaabila «aa aboot thirtar»fiva 

•r fprty f««i nertlt of th« Serth ftY«mi« «ir«!««a«JLk, Tat 
{»ollo« effi9«r« i<?etifi«4 ituit thi>s Arriv«4 on kh« ae*!!* 
•horily After plaintiff ««• injttr«d nna took MLm hon« la 
ih« ttutOftnoMlo, On* of ih«! ^clloiMMn t»wiifl»d tl»i »li«a 
ho ayrlToA ai tha ,ilao«> of iho aeoidoni th<- r« w9r» ion or 
taMlTO pooplo i;iath»rod t)>!»y<»* 

for %ivi> d«f«nd»ntR, John Hlsooii, vho »t Vh» iiaw 
of t)ic aeat(3.9nt, was t.h« laotocman of %,}%» 8tro<^i ««.r la «aoo» 
tloB. but at xh« tint A of Ui»» trlftl nao oaplojrwd 1|> %t» Ovaao 
Coa^anjr. tootlflod that t)i« hoadXlght of the iitro<^t 9m3t «Mi 
lUaMittC v)WB tkfi^ lofi tJbA e»x> barn* witloh «ao «Uout oix alloa 
fxoati tli« plftoe of th<» fte<3l4«int; tbat mrs cMtalag ooutiit ia 
VOOtora «v«au« aIvajto etoi? at north avofmo 'booatieo )t.lirr« lo «m 
Ints-t-sectizig Rtroet oajr llao tla«>r«; tJMtt wh«n ilio eir^o^t cMt 
aaa About ICC f««i iwrtli of north a^vtig^o ho noUo«a an oata* 
mobile at th«f voot ourb noar th« aortli erooavalk of north 
fiYoauot titat tb«nr« v«ro a aour>la of people Bttta^ng tH«r«} 
tbfit Im nmg the bell a eouplo of times ac the eer peaeed 
aa<ter the elfi'Tated* vMoh «a« about l&c feet north of the 
plaee 1^ qu«^»tloa; tbat th^ et70«t «ar wn» running slow And 
at t)M» tiste the from step e trade plaintiff the ot^r wa» goln^ 
about four allofl per hour} tbot •• eocn «» plaintiff vao 
etruedc tlw e«r aaa otopped, elt>dn four or five foot} thet the 
oar woo of the pa/*aoo|toa» enter typo, bat the etep vae etotlen* 
aryj that bo ok« plaintiff Btfljndln« nnftr the rear of the auto* 
aeblle, whioh «ae foolac ooath, and id)l^ the wltnoao thought, 
wao four or five foot fre:;i the vest rail of th«> traok} that ho 
tbotttfht hO had a lot of olearsnee end that Juot a» h- ««e 
about to paos *thla offlaor he etepped rl«hi ba^, aajrbe too 
otopo, tmKi th«» freat etep Juat hit hla !<«. I ffot Off tha 
oar and oakod hln If ho «ao hart, and he said 'Ko*. Shea ho 

'■»1H«A ftretad ih« «ttioM»%il« tatA s«t in ii nn«t 4r«>v« ftvigr. 
8» «ii<l net ll9q;» ▼•ly »u<di. R«liitqMNI ft littl*. Th« ooadueter 
90t hifi Bttmfavr** On «r«e»»«xnniaatioii he ic«Ufi«d "t ftXwagr* 
ring li^ ^AlX tt^ut oorang up to «^ «]r«s«ine ftnymgr***: th&t h» 
rttsui It fcr»j<r or flT« fclis»e whilo aiig^ivftoiblne: th* lioriJst avaiw* 
«re»clii« ni Um% Uao; thttt ho <li<S R»t ring It oil tii« tlMO 
for th>^r''' veto mn t}»c»ft«itjr{ ihot h» own tbh* sikutotsoldilo otondi* 
ins iher« »adi « number of p<M»pla oj^un^ lt{ <*I ko?t oa rlnc" 
lag It »o tliot thoo* poo:^lM »oalel k<;iO« Vtei X woo approsohlag* 
S ooo juot oboui too pAOoo ft&M tiuf offloor wh«i m otODtMNl 
IteA la front of tua ocur* Ho otojpitod o»ot> olwut tl^roo stoiM* 
o o o 1 ««• not ringing Utc boll tX^ht when X Mi hi«. 1 
T»m It loud « litUo oOi/a frtxet »li»*r« ho «t«pi>«>d ht^dic. • « * 
Bio 'bKok voo VoimyAo ko« » • * fh« <mr «»o running febout 
four nlleo an ioeur vh/tn. It hit thlo mm • * » Hhm-il ooar t^ 
effle«r ho «ao stAnillag oi th<^ rooir on4 of th« outorao^ilo* 
It «oo heoAlng oouth.* thtf aonsucttor t<»»tlfled ih»t h« iMt<l 
about tMrtgr or thlrtjr»flTO ipaaooagoro on th« oar; th&t tea 
dlA not oo« tho aool^Ant; that ho imo «t hlo aeoitetottoA plaoo 
on th» ha^ platfona «Bd ao tho <i»r api>roaah»(i the erosslng 
IM leokoA out to ooo hew waigr ^oooa^oro wp>t« to l»oar4 th« 
oar at !7orth Kir«»attO{ that h« aa« pXaistlfrats^ndinit has^ of 
tho atttoiMhllO} *Xt lookod to a« that h« «ae «ajr nle^r of 
tho oar thoa* A»4 X tttrao4 tior ^"Ck to th« platform* iaot 
•0 ttoaal, to reoolTo tho poe;>lo*o faro jotting on"; that ho 
goTO the jootorwon th«> boll to c^ ahoatf, but that «h«a he did 
not da oa ko Xookod around and o»« that thoro ho^i boon aa 
aooici<^nts that ha took plalntiff*a numhor* antf that th«r«nv«ro 
a ooujilo aaro aoa th«r«; Thooo woro tho only toe vltneaaoo 
oho toatlflag oa hohalf of dofttn<!aBto aa to mm the aeoidont 
ha»foaog« Dro. Loaalng* dehuoolor and Yomiar qualified ao 


•xgMnrts aa4 if^*Ufi«4 tgrpstiwtioalljr ttiRt in UwAr ofilniea 
itie Iwrmis <toA,A not )»v« 1»^«a «i«fMnl 1t|r %1m» a««L4«ai. £a^« 

%i*fl^ht «e bjT Ylel<»ae(»« ii v» 14 ^ « *fttr«tii^iAr «M«*j itet 
»l»iaUff «eul^ not >« Abl« is imilr Aft^r fe» IumI •» lt*l* 
l»aBeli»tf tisreugb his ^<lljr vail"; i^t m^ &b»««(» of nmy 

in 1>iii<- ^lljr w»ll bo«fi4i«« thrr^ w^ald Imi » g^d 4@«JL ftl lalood 
«i4«ar t^ skia «s veil as avollij^ mm> r«>«(i«e«« if i&» teOTttlA 
Itotf taNW lKr«««kt o» CttMwiajr* aHt* ^oiMUffl^r i» giving t}» 
cwMmi f«> ia« ftfiaion t««Ufie4 %kmt a •taraiHtaiis h^ftrsis" 
«oul«i ooi ««v«ie9 tlir«« or four Aagra af%«v ilt« iiMtt«3rs ^^ 
w»ul4 d»v»ie9 iaM«4i«t«i|rS Utat «tmm»» tmummt^ of tmbiliaal 
iMWwla in a awa af B««di wrl^ht m»4 hmi&m ax« WMOcii^fta of 
ilMt aMn^mil «aii, inersfteo^ »3t»»mtr« «l%hin ite abdmniwdL 
oavitir, tmA atzmiaj itet aoy of thmtm «iU eosaUsw «««hi« 
a tearoAa. !». tansM^ %«^aUfi»4 tltot wtsum & fe#na« i» <»itt»e4 
ty tnwmfctiaa, *tb« ttiatmaa U»i pwmit ih« ii«ntia i» ap9<M^r 
mwm ionu* fboaa daators fttr%iMir t^otifieci isgriWlltfrUeaiijr 
tHai aadi a liiairttia oov^ld t»o r«adiljr e«ar«<l V an ojMnratiott, 
alttett«lft UMgr fvrthBria«tin«d t«e>t all Of «tt<^ 0i>«rati6sa 
«or« set •«e90»«fttl. dr. Lowilag Viotifio^ ttaat> it »«■« a 
saricuo s^araiion. 

fido io ottteiAAUailjr all of tfe* aatarial oviaeaoo 
in Uw «iMa A»e fr«a a aaraful oonsidemtioa of ii, »• oro of 
ilM 0|iittio« ttafti Uke «»«ri yreperljr r«ftta«4 to Airoei a twp* 
4iotr for ttai d«^fen>2ASta» Vor it ap)>«aro, aatt t^<'r<' i» litUa 
«»aU»oittUott on Uiis fimmm of tint oao«, t)»i {aaiaUff wMi 
ota»4ifl« viUi ^io 1»«ic io Oio oti«oi oar aed the «Tid»ao« 
sho«o tlHti tii«r« ti&9 ateat t»« or tfaroo foot bottrooti tl» 

9%r9*fi, mr a»4 tbe WitoaoMl«, « mthsr Mtmv )»i«Q« f»r & 
MM ttf ]^laia tiff's pT9p^t%L9i» tci etoisud a« ac to |^vc»it ihm 
•%jr««i »ur U> |i»«!^« 7to» 4rild«^a9« also tenKlii t« e-i»if that 
plaiallff did r;»t kaoar Of t^ iM^pXiMQik ftf Um» «ctx<«N»t «ur« 
aa^ is iteea oir«iauit«aaa« «« «o l«li ik> i b« sannuiiad is ««y» 
iac Uast plaintiff «»« gui^tjr «f ai^Ii4S«ac« a* a aaitar «f 
la». l^r altlsoacli t)i«r« «a» lilila 4i«^aUt in Mm faata^ 
yt dlfferaat eeaeLasioaa algi^ r«MLa&tt«cbljr W dvaifli fjr«a aaA 
faats aad in moii eirsunaUaiacs it ««a prep^r i^tt«r for Uat 

Sttf «N^k&at a«act Mataada tNi>t tlMi dwnasaa ara «3e- 
aaaaiva» «n4 ^ic argawrai is iiradidtiNI aa %hts mtamiiitm 
taai iha beraia 4i4 fiat saaalt fin»m t^ aasi^aat. ist cauraa. 
if tilie ia t)i« fa«t» t^ jadgpawit aeoLd Ih» vxaaaaiva far it 
la iwt alaisMrit that the injuty to $>lftiatiff*8 laft l«e aiMi 
at all Mrieaa, tet ea f^« watraiy. it i« a4Mitt«4 that tt 
baala4 ip aithia a r*rr f«a aa^ke. ?)ia eiilaf arg»»«at aa tMa 
yaiat i» tJiat ti^e ^mla ymm bxau^M a%aut Igr a ia.a«r ^ tlMi 
afcdw—a, asu ttat elaoa tl&« aiAdeaea «b»wa iMrc aftr« se 
a^JvotiTa sigwi at tJto tla<> of U«^ aaoideet ar stertly fciwfa* 
aftaar, it feliava tluit tii^ h«mia waa aat aai»ad Iqr Uwaaa. 
It a#i^aan( that pialatlff*e po-itiaa is Uiat thia iMKrnia «fta 
tea tB tfaaaa, jrat w thiidt th« Jazar aoxa foiijr aarraatad ia 
fla4ii« aa tlM7 MMt taava fotontf, tliat tint toeraia aaa ettaaad 
aa or, sataaaal«r t««tiri«a a haraia mXghx. ^ oaa«»4, Iqr atiraia* 
Opaa a •Qaai(i«ratio» af Um> aaiira raaftrd* a* thlaic tlM iaigr 
•iCiit fiaA tkat im«n pl«iatiff wtia tbraaa AitmA vtea etruA 
Igr tlM» «tra»t aas>, aad wliaa 1m afterwarda aoaplaiiMd af a 
Wtnmr* pan ia tbc aMiailaal re^iaa* th«t this aan omisad ty 
atrais of U» tiaa«w»» tl^o* tlM vhoi* raoard. aa 
>t aaar tlMt Um« fiadiag af Um* iary tlwt cha tv^rsda aaa 


il»» rMtflt ef ih« Koeidwnt is ai^pbiast t^ msnif—t vmkght 
of tM* evidMiae* 

SMvlslai is kIm wmAe %» the i^vias •' Iseinuf 
U»a« Stt«. 7, 8, 9, 10. l9JA«a(t 15. th» ehi»f •bjeaiios is 

4wry t^at if t^^ foiaiKl tii« d«f«n««nit gRlIty* %i^m la d*» 
t«n»l«ls« the luaeant of d«acL«<Hi t]te JWQr te«4 a rigbt to cad 
id»ttl4 tiOitt iato e^asi(i4fdraUMi ail t2i« fa«t« <utd «!?««■• %*%««• 
att«a4ii% th« in^axy «• stean lagr ^-^ «irid«»<.>«i Ana Uiet ttioy 
alioul^ Rllo* fslr oo«tp«ntB«Uoa for t&o &a#arift» oa»t4&ia#4 \^ 
plaiatiff «« sho«n 1^ tk<? «vi<i«aaa, no far ae euoh ««»«««» 
Mid iajazy a^re olftiaod in lh« dDvoaatatioa nad i^rsvoa V ^^ 
•i^dotteo. Tlw e)M««U^ii to Uiie iastmotioa i» tltot it tiA4 
Ut« ^ttxsr tfeN^ Mlgtet award daaagoo ia okko ttayr fouad fttr 
tlM plaiatiff, for all of th« injarioa i^laiaUff reoaivod. 
«hotl»ir UMy fe<jaii tiMt tli* hernia a«« csuHed ligr the ftoel4oat 
or noU V« thiak thio o1ii*«U«n is »ot aell tak«B. li ia 
fartl»B>r olaiaod thnt thlo iaolaraeti^i warn area* b<»Q:';M«« it 
did aot aalMit to ih* iazy Die ^aasUon ahathor Xlm h^aia 
oauld laave W«a rftsullljr oarad aad th«> riaaaigo* thu» rodue«»4* 
There aui ao avldinaoo t&at eayaaa adviaad plaintiff to oid^ 
adt ta aaoii mi o^aratloa. Bo &i«a a daator taking caro af 
kia ami tktora aaa aa aug^otlea tlkat mi oporatlea 1M4 baaa 
ad<ria«°4* a»r ia ta«r<> aajr oYldoaee tltat aa op«ratloa «o Id 
cara plalatiff. %M» lar Id 1m» a aajar aparatioa. a R«rlcms 
ooa, aad aa da aot Wliava w aauld Iw aarraatod la boldlac 
tlmt plaiaUff aaat oaiadlt to it or looa anQr daaasas lio ka« 
oaatalaod V reaaoa of tlap Sientia aad^r %hm foots aa dia<dawMl 
Igr tha ovidoaeo ia tJ^o aaaa, ¥^ objooUon tc lastructloa t 

in visni ilt %9li %>»p jury ttes.t in <l«»imrii9iiiifit s ^tt««UdO of 

l«v 4c that t^«^ Hsuet «• ao u.is4«r titn Imw mi X^id 4Miini In tiM i»» 
Kiri«atlft«» 1»y tit* at>ari« £n«irt»eU»R n9, 10 tolti Vh« Ittyy Vimt 
tiMgr iNim illfc* Ml* ftod «x«lik«lv« J«4g»« «f i^« «r«4i1»ility «f 

th« vlt»#»iMHk em& vf the •m0iig}%% %» ^e gl,v«wi ilMPlr fr«»tlaNi«gr* fHlK 

ioRtruoticn •«« »jiijs«t»v*rt In ^.Jfc A. J^r.. pa. t. lilljas,. 141 111. 614, 
MKi iNt hev« title «ygr IM14 t^« haem iRetJruoilan af<tobJ«s%i<»iM»)}l« t» 

tl«« 14 teld ihi* j»y? ^Afti if, MMUMir tte «visl9igio«, tiwRy f»ui^ iht 

%lff*« de&MMSot) la «9<nr4«ne<? wi%^ tJ^mtt lnBina«%iotui* ** InBtruff* 

ClT«n in wRjr «>• «L0 It ««rt».ledL7 w«»ui4 »et «ii««i»i tim juyy i» 
«rrlvlnf At » 9rop«» v«rdi9i* fh<» juvy v«jr'' tol4 in etksr inatruo* 
tiftiw tJUkt tfewjr Mttttt fifKl ih9ir v#r<(lat frena ^k^!* «»yl<»«n«i« mnA undvr 
(h» instmotlens «r %]am e»u]rt« «n<i w* ihlak iw ft|)ftelml Isjlwrjr iM* 
lw«n 4«iui t» tkw 4«f*A«UMi%» ia glYi«tf tft««« IttKtmQtioii* lift 
ihift <MR«. Inetruot&en 7 t*l4 th^ Jtar^r tli»t if ih«^ fdunil for tlM 
plaintiff vad that if h» had •o«telit«d imtm^ifB % r^asen vf p^yslMl 
pain aadt auffitriJiiic w)ii«%i r4*m»lt«4l fvcja th* ni«gligMi«« ef ih« «L<if«iiMk> 
•at as ehar««4, than to «aa1»l« %h« 4ttry t« «etiiMit« tha aMaunt of. 
•uah daflMga* so eattsad ^ nMntal injuxy ftad pl^aioal iNiln «a4 saf* 
fariiic* it wta not nmwmsty tba% any»a« t«etif;f to tlko aJMimt «f 
a«A daaMkffaa. tim aarda "aaatal iajuiy** af eeuraa, hava na ^laa* 
la tlM iaatruoiioa, tntt alii«« «a liav« iMl4 ttwt tha vardlat ama mI%| 
axaaaalva wa think ihla ayrar waa aat of auoh a aarioua otiaraotar 
•a ««uld aarraat a rarvraal. Inatmitiaii f tald taa jvy'jr that plaJnj 
tiff waa aaljpr ra^uirad to exareiaa r«**«aaltl» oara for hi* awn oaf^M 
tor* Wt that h* waa inat ra^ulrad to oxoralao mxtTmardlnATy o&jro f«f 
hi* ova aafat^. 9^ think th«;'« a&a ;» aa aerioaa ahjaotioa ta 
ihla iaatruotiOB. 9r infttruetiaa 13 tha Jaxy ««.].« ^^il ttei 

«*r after i% wn9 r«a4t «nd i% im» tippnrmntl^ wm^ld^nA proper, 
fh« point in, ti}««r«.f«r», net ^rop^^rljr bttfor« u», 

tt la «l»e ttr$<»4 th<%t li «*» crrftr iA yerMt &r* 
Ml til, who wuminsA pl«inUff for lii«ttr»in«M» si^ 10 * 1914, W 
t«»tlfy- that lift fOH«(i no 9Tia»a«« of }^«>r!xi« at tk«t ««»aiflw<» 
tloa, for t^ rc»*«ii thai it «i!»$)«a]r«4 llt« <A» «««>«• )»»4 tt» |ire» 
• at r«ooll«otioa of hi» «X(uaia«bioa b«ti tl^t him i*t «tiaM»«ijr 
WM ba««d ftiitirvly ea tls«> f«iBt th«t lt« i»A x-e««ntl.y «aM(»ittflNt 
a vriti^n r*^or% .^dtt hy hl« at tit,« tiii»« of th«; «»x«uai»4i.iiti)ii« 
flaio d«Y«l»9«a on re*oi*ot^»*«a({»»l.]|«tioa« flM^rouy-eii 4«f«i'»4M!tt» 
aaT«d Ml strilEO out tb» <^eter*e t«>$«tliS3ftm' w]a.i«^ laeiion imm 
OTorrulftd. INif»ndAiito th>^ «x-o«*>ox&i»iiie4 tHc dootoi* m» to 
th« ixsturo of tho ozR»iaatioa )m» smmIo of j^teintiff «t that 
timo, M« twfttifi«4, *I l>«lp«t«4 th« ft'MiOMon to ««« if ^«vr« 
mio An|r «Ti(tm«« of on MaAMkUttol Stomio. Ih«n l intJFO^aetNi 
^r finff«r ttp into the oerotuHt tHicoagli ttao rin^m, I li»<t Ma 
ooutfli. oRd tb ir« »*• sic ovia@no»» of ^torni*** Ihrota this it 
•9;>ft«ro thAt th« vitaooo t««tifi«({ as thoug^h }t« li«i«i m i^rco* 
•ni r«oellootiorn of th« #«jrtieuler tMag» h« Aid in linking 
tho ox«uain«tioii. So o1»Jootioa that Ui« vrittoa re{»»7t Mulo 
by tlio <t03t«>r at oy noar th« tin* of tDo «ac«yttin«tioD «a« 
aotia oDurt* In tl»»RO olrouaiBt«ii<M»o wo <Mu}fiot oajr ihat suW 
otontial or»r vao ooHMittod. <<;« iuive r#<;«^ntly ^iiroa voxgr 
oaroful ooooid "ration to a wvmmvfimt oimilftr pre pool tioa in 
%h0 oaoo Of Koob ▼. ^>*mrtf^, Qvn, Ho. S6M9, ati4 i»o tb«ro 
hold Uiat viioro a yarljf a«fc,«ii writ ton nonoraiite of faoto 
vJtoa thojr aro anffiotontly frmmh in bio alaA and aftorwaHia 
on thn trial t«>«tifieo to thin «ff<»ot «nd iAmt tho ropert 
ttten ««<i'^ V )^!tia vao aooarato, Wi that «&9on an ox«a»iaatiea 
Of it liff hAO no pr'^oont roeoll»etloa of th« mfttt«ro tli-'roia 

Mnt.«iin*at %TMm tiM <to«iui«i»% lt««Xf iMiy li« y«UI or iatnk* 

X% la alM «ilala«^A !]«»% i« wtm «r7«r to j^vmit 
plAinUff to •xfeiMi th« hernia W %km ^uxy »• it aeuJLA 
Imf h9mk r«»4ily d«e«rilN»d; thiit %3»« onXjr puv^eice of oac* 
hibltiac ii to tlw iutf ««» t« nrouoo ilaii»lF pAOoioa «^ 
iqravotlgr* «Mi it io «x>stt94 tlMit tbe r««tat of t^4o *xbil4« 
Uo« «ao tlMi til* jiuy Allovttd dana^oo fOr ottcife )k«rai4iu 
In vio« of v)»«iii V* 1mv« aniti in r«^.rli to Vm mm<fan% of tilt« 
▼oT41oi vo (lULnk tiM» jwint 1r of aoaintftl iMportosfiw only* 

X% io nloo oonUtntod tlmi %tM»r« w»o pr«ji\t<ii@iti3, 
•rr*r in i,h» arfwaent of oeunftel for pl«inUff io thit JjurrS 
%lm% la Mo olooisK MPgitnioni onn »f |kl(ittt%iff*e eot:ii»o«l mmiA 
UMtt 4«foa'iaato* ooonsol 416 no<. ilko iBr* ^11 1»#«ntte« h» 
•ii«^pto to onro #001^0 ih« otroot onr oMi^nloe laJtunMl* 
wMlo i>ro, Loovalnc mm! tonMqr <l»*Oto<A tlt^iJ* tiano to » gr«NK% 
oxtoni nei In onriiifi ololc yoople ^t in ovoftrias «o«gr thmir 
rish%»* Of eouroo, thlo orgMgwrat* ««o MMlld>jr li«i»rej»«r »»& 
vlttout murrasi in fAoi* no ti»r« vmm noiiaijs^ In tho iootl* 
aonir of »ith«r of ^« Aootoro that noatf onrrsnt najr auah 
ointOBonU On \h* aontoaury, ij^iy IwUt aspiioMr to «»«'• sItmi 
to ih« jttiy th«lx> >Mat Jtt4etsoai ao to wnAitMr th» IqrpetlMiUo* 
nl onoo of h*rnl« oubnittod to thon aAglut htev Imor oonooA 
Iqr tvnnnn. "ariaie «o tevo r«c«flUjr iwv«roo4 n JtMMpooiit yrinel* 
p«ll]r In th« (sroottO tli«t tJM» nygwi«it of oovmooI «ui Inproiiov* 
fisaiSM »• Moiyy im. 00.. Ooa. Io. 8UtS. i» »r« of too 
opinion iteni in tte in«tsiii onno «Im ncgiMont, «ltfa»uch im* 
frojMHr. dofo not oeaoU^io rovoroiklo orrer. 

fAr2.eH, f,j. ma tnm&mt J^« v^o^^-m«« 

403 • 2&«64 


wiLLiAtf MAmsxum, 

ROSA 02JUCH» '»• »«ftliii#tr»trix 
of tJM <^«itnt« of 20MMI 

- \ 221I.A. 654 

im* mmim. e*$Ciai«M deUTer#4 t.h« opinl&n of 

ths Qourt. 

Oft llMr«fe !•• 19XS, e%t« Sohulc r«<M>Y«rr»4 « ju«i|p«»itt 
^ oenfets. si on ti«&iiiat Willi mk B« S««ul.ftig^ An oxootuUea wm 
laoitfMl on Majroh IB »n<J rewrnod %^ th» iKaillff of thw t'anlei* 
yttl Coari en 2£ftren 86 »• part MtUefl^A. fw« (togro th^^rvaftttr. 
la tb« MUM MJM, on offtdoTit for gamiolment ounttono woo 
fUe4 &ad "KolMLiio (3. ^«i«h wm 8«rvo«t. Aftor ieoao ioln«« 
tloo oono WM iiftArdi mi«i ilw «iimieli»o aioahnriKOd, ie rororoo 
«)ilid» plaintiff proooeuVMi iM* appoeil. 

fiof«nd«uii oonton^a tiiat itao Judfinont abOild bo af* 
finBo4 boooMoo X)m r«mr4 tmiXu to oi«o« tfa*t on oxooutlom «»• 
iositod, m doMUi4 MMtOt »fid tbo rotum of tiio oxooutloa prior 
to uio gMrniotaoat proo«odlaco. In thi« wo think tho defondont 
io in orror. «ltil« the ex«e«itlofi do«FO not »ppo«r oithor in 
tlio itemtmn lav reoord or in th» Ull of oxooptiono, tteo rooor* 
affiraatiTcljr a.tova thnt tho oxoeutiea nad tho rottuni »oro 


•fferMl in «Tidca«i 4i«a th« 4«t«« ^f tiN* i»«tt»RM ««<> th« 
r«%um 4Kiv*A* V« NM»t pr'nratt«, sf <K>ura«, tMt the henlktt 
p^rtttrmmA i !• duly aad (i«aMflMI«4 paysent of vh<) Judip^^Mii. 
Vliil» U»« Mil af «x»»|»Uc»a» e«rfcifi«a thAi ii oDat&Jifte isll of 
tn« «vid«fl<}«, » irweiial id it s^'W* tlml «ii«dt itt mX. th« ««••• 
V« nuiiit %h0r*sror*, prt$mA« Uw% mn «xt^mi%i(>n m)U i8fru«4» « 
<J*»And Am »T&3^0r r «»tttra js^de, {|yyy^<^ ▼. ii»m\mrat«.r .m, » 13« 
III, 49«. 

So Tmr •• it. 1» "'^t«rlRl to «t&ie? ih<! f»et«» ihior 
Mr*} that Itt*l*l4}a ««• « tmmX «Rt«t« brokffr «n(i Umv tobi«« 
0« ai«i4to •wii«4 aoB* !7Mo«teo niftl, 4»»tf4t.« tmsJ tidivissa th» b2«)c«r 
tlutt b« veuld ••li or Mcaiiiiiss* tla« $mmm f«r •Uaer j^ropffrtjr; t>wt 
aft«r«ard« tli<» brok«r f«t in t^uttk with tKfiotiMsr DArtgr. »n« 
llf»iunro«, wlM ewncid von* reta ««tat« in •::»etsadA* imA Wou^lftt Sf»i> 
r»« ftjid Ql«io)i Ui({«tti«r, thfty {mttfjc^d inte «t vritttm ftfir*(MM«t 
wlMrvty i^«»' w«r« to exehimg* thuir pr^pmrty stn*i «(e«d» vere iif^* 
p«r«<l to «rfv9t thff 9t9RTfl3r»no«>»* eicidh «x«eut«4 hie ture* 
tMtmn ai4BKr«««tiiis 47&00 wHi dki w«r« to b* tumcd ftyer i& ^mtkl^igh 
•« hi« 3«Mwi«8i(»n whtttft tn# d«Al vac aenaattRUit**. Th« notes 
w*r« fMit d«iiv«r»4« YIm 4««de ana •ttor desHMflntNi w«r« plAttAd 
1« coMrvw vith th« Qbieago fiti* & ^ftt«t Sto, tiktirm wub & third 
w»rt«««« en ttur cyUtot^c* preix^rty for #3^&,00G ivMtift vouXd "h* duo 
•hortl/ and it ««• provided in tb« «»««ff«v a«re«M«ai thot u»> 
!«■• t'>parrow oouid haIw mmi ttrmumoBMtti whc'rolur tikis aM»rt«M* 
oduld V« oxtoodod within « otipulatod tia* th« d'>»l we^id b* 
•»Xl«d Off fto 6»«nNi« oouid not harndlo the 01»iw«o i^rop^rty 
«GBl«a8 thio aortgfigo wmi ta)K««i o«r« of* Xlio ooorov ftgreottnt 
furtkior proTidod tliot At tit* oxj^iratioa of ib» tiao aMnUenod, 
if i>p«rre« had not offootod amiag«H«nto vlth r»fcr«n^ to tho 
tlO.OCC nert^imo, all of Ui* payors laould bo r«tumod to tho 


t)M> ixortoiBii* And Vy tt€:r*«M'^i of itll ilk« j^rU««, ftftmr ih9 
lajHi« of ih« •pftAifi««i Une, tli« paj>^r» v<i>r« r#tum«tf ana Uste 
it«Al «ms off. A f«>« <£•/• «ft«rw<4rda «nf)th#r br«k«T» ; i»H«nak, 
who Ks<i 9*rUei.p«iite«l in the itrerieus n«£oU«Uoifi«, ftij^eilB «»% 

4UL4 ^ p^urohiudiig ih« ctortgag* sntf ext«n4i««; ihe U»* ef jt»«ar«> 

tiff*e QOimcsl, amd fen fiunf{tt«« titai althougJi& ]»«< f«U«<i t« stm* 
•woMt* %h«f imXt /«( 9&B99 iri« «»« ih« 1»rok«r nHne orljginftlljr 
lntrociua«4 the fitttiive m.ui h<^<ss>ims> %.1M <$ml man afXtTxrax^n 
Q&rri»d out h» im« AatltX«d to M« eoist^iireitm^ Of eours*, 
tbl£ «&nt«ntioa i* unAiUiiut* ^^o&uft* %hm '>i>i4«tn^i^ olearljr siAw 
that pl&laUff ««• not to 1»« p»tA a«Qr ttroJeviTAg* fours unleroc 
tni» dooJ. whlah 1m» nfl^^etlatod vmo (Km»%»«aM.t«d. Plaintiff oiksiu 
ibfRt thlo AdtmX fftUod of aoffi,)lotitm iMoctoeo ef th« litftlillll^ 
Of B^mrrvm U> noeuro a rnloaoo or oxteneloa of ti» aertfogo. 
la tli«9« elrovmotoaooo h9 wms neH, o»U.U«;rl to aaijr ot<«Baie«loa. 

Xh» Jiid«n«a% of tho MtMioijial ^urt io affimod, 
TAij.oa« y.J. AMD xiiQifttiear, J. ac«tnm. 

4^a • aM9fi 

\ ) Ai^#^.AL mm 

t« viittukitd £XA3»\ 


aocK sc».jwf«. 

/ 221 I.A. 654 

1£K. JfQSiraLQK «*C^liii AQiiVdS'iNi tdtik» opinion »£ 

of t^ aomanm »^m%» tut »^x^im» 'i"em4»r«^ tm^ ^tin«sf e3p«»)94«4 
>qr plaintiff «» hm}mXt ©f «i*8f«m4*»nt Hn »i*r*n« f«4" two Jr>r«®B. 
tfe«rr wHkS o rindAa« «n4 JnAssswo^ in f*vwjr of ^l*i»tiff for 
#469*110 to r #▼««-»• wblala 4#f«n*iaiat pro«>«mjt^e vhte .!a^?>«»»J.. 
On tlMe triiia of tli« <men %mt»n* th« <t04*rt wltNeut « ivry iMv^^ 
mo no wri<I«»o« i»*r©awe«MJ m>ne«miai; tte** <3%t%f««nt t» l«mkt 

yrow t^M erT&d«'no« iA ftp|j«oy« timt on itarotk K-. X^XJ, 
UHB j^nrU«ii 0ttt*r«i4 i»ti» n t^ritten n^irtr^M^nt vn«?jretqr i^lninUff 
«n» to Uieo ohsarKft «f ouit tmia £^r molng 9ttr.0o»«ii two norooo 
boi online te tfofenaMit frea tlant a«i« until July 4 f»llc«« 
Th* nerc«» v«]?e »«»i 1»^ a«f<mu»nt to jjininUff at J^xyovllln* sio* 
li is 80«oo<to4 tn»t i,m vrltten oontrAoi of ^tursh dC ««» iTuXijr 
perloflo^tf* On Jul/ 4 4«f«nu«nt mnt toMiHsuuri fta<i 4mi« plnia* 
tiff. One Oi th^' f«r»oa h«»a boon kii. i«4 in t^ mwmxtlism* 

Plni«tiff*» position i» iim% nt tteMt Uno, Julj^ 4, 
1«17, t)M ^nrUoo «ttt«r«4 into nn ornl ««r«OK«nt vH«r«l^ «i9f<«nd» 

m««i4 Hta far « i^ajrifl'-l af itu-«»» zn=!stt'ii.s»« fwy »M !«fe, :»» fSiaiKsui 

i»tii»ftti*9n %J*»* this }»if9« we.« .>ttrt»)»«!4 A& X»isisk, &m^ ml'i m 

!)«f«ni<i(Wti^*e ^cviUoa Itt tJiAt iriaitm te*' »(tiW ^1 
jji lasK^us'l en S.^l;^ 4 ha did sei^ 4a«;T«w t« |»v FlainUff |100 
p«r sboaUi for inkii^ s«i>jr« of th& iiors*. ^I> o» Ui« nGnlvmrft 

veuat «» ««li hl», tii^m ii i» «w to jreu «« Mil* 1 «'!« iiure«ig^» 

«^«>r«l« y»<i ^lM:>»%i4ri' «»44t ■mQ»i& 9^iAmr ^lAxm^t v^i ^ «mti^«4, 

pXtkl^titt t9r taking mtm ef iJbtt Itei'e* AiT^or »«*i./ 4. fi»w 'i«i.l«r 
iite.t94. *'ito A«4 l>i«4,i*jr «4Eir»« »n U)W IbaIass* ^'^tr 1 mM% k% w "^ 
HAUafftt^cis? «itil& jrott« and «r« hi*u taui n^'mmi»nt> ota yik« bJUM ofl^y 
JuXy 4tDi, W<^ 1 A«mtr« jrcu tiM«.L X «U1 tM tmXt aad ri^sM*" Little, 

itdaik JL% s^rttflitfijr t»n4« u> vm* Uw« 4Krf »»>«&« dii<l iu«t. n^r^n U» 
MjT pXalaUn' .(^XC^ 9»r tSiOMlh «fib«jr JiUy 4, He AiMatpi «»• «ii.4« 
U) «;i^Iaia iito Xe.-tt«r «J»U in vbt^^* a&jr«aM«Wno««» w« think U»« 


««ir» ttOi full;/ 9S>«»«t»t«4 to i^«$ ifist,! ^ur1>« '^« w|,i:i. i»»ir^« 
wUl r't»sM'& 1i&<? «j»iS9 fas- «e iv&% i<rlMl.« 

XAifLCtH* ?*jr» A»i> ■m^mtrc^t 4'» o?cii£i« 


48S • 29713 \ 


CITS c? oaiJAsoA 

e9 £«tt3Aa(^« 

221 I.A. 655 

Xa* /US^Jt^ iSi*<!^samk <i«li9ere4 i^ «j«ii»l<»» sf 

fiEtelM^, •#3MKkr«4 in tlsMr MttRie}i|itti Ofturt »r July 31. Ifl9» 
•• WluBlf of pl«ittUff« mMt4 fr^m^nU'ti a mwra «e«^»lAJLat ia«4e 

»«»• of (h« dLtgr iM»l»4 l«ttv« Ve fU« ^)m^ «o«y;»2.«iini.. Upcm 
iaati»a of tli* eoaipliiijiv fttt4 «)ca%l»i%U6» im^stt p«ih «f Ui* 
«ffifl*r, i^ QBurt «&B 8aa«fl«4 l^aei tlk«r« wr*ft |)rol»».ldL« 4MMMI 

«Mdb »aui ftCooraingXjr 4Qa«, U«f«ati^t <uc«<ittt«4 ^ «rit.i«tt 
«AlTer ct * jax7 triAl asie %iif ^fmmm mm heard ^ Uh» a»ur% «1» 
f#MU 4«f«tt48a« «Ettilty sm4 A»e«««eii a fifl» of #£&<» jN^ftiast lOau 
Zfc aa* afdi^ratf 1»k«i in ti«fault ef psgm*^^ k« ^ «Mtnlt%«< ta tlaw 
aoaca of darr«eUott for a pvriJo4 aoi ta •xo««4 oix tsoatho, 

ti»kn «taa io ia oil res^ftota aiaJLlar to Ua» oaoa of 
SIW Of CMe^^ ». i^St?^.ft<^ja> Saa. to. »»n», *hicte o.>ial«fi hoo 
i)^« <tay tto<m fUtt4« .'sao vhait ao Uv^ro oaiel ie con Urol Hag 

flM ia4ca«at of ib« etAioipal C»»urt of Ctol »«B is 


XAYLCa, l».J, ami; TIKHSCV, J, 

493 • 29n4 \ 


iis, mm 


et ^MiCAfiC. 

*^"'T ' 2 21 1.A. 655 

iou swmm «*mtmsk A«iiv«r«(£ tiw e^isi«n •t 

On July sa. 31919. O^Mrloe $«iiB«t(, « pelie« offieer 
•f tan* eitf •t OliiQ^NS** «FJM»AX«4 S.» tiMi Muniei$»&l Oeurt* ea 
iMteaf «f ih« Citijf of Cltlea«»« And |>r<»«<9«iv & » aMQOLMiiit »««x« 

iio« of •••. SQia of %Sm M)fla«l|i»l ^«« of aM«a«», 191X. Xto* 
•Tfittt^, ift ito twa« of ttas CiW"* «fti£«d l«sv« to fU» the aan> 
pi*iBt and tiM oeurt w^ea •jswai»ailcn 9f it &fi£ upon «3aMla»» 
%i«» «tt4«r OAth of th« offloer. »&« wstiefieit ilMt l%i«r« wm 
proteM* «ftU£« f«r f 11 las the eo«|»l4tint aad leav* w^atus i^iv«B t« 
fix* th* «»•• vMoh «ee dcR«« jjef^ttoat ia vritlas iniiT«4 a 
J«>3r trial 8a4 tlMi oaaaa »r» }«»«r4. i^cf^'ateat was found sallty 
aa« a flaa af |S06 aaa aaaaaaad a<aiast Mte. It vaa •r4«rm€. 
that ia d'fawlt af gmgmnt i^ b« atanaittail to tte :»ae« of 
Oorreoti«« for a parioii aot to «xcoe4 eix u^atho. 

Th» aaa« la ia idl remftftm aiallar to Jlto 01 ^■■W^'^^*' 
▼• aiokeoa , Saa. lo. 85715 • vbioh eplaKm haa tMo 4ajr ^t*m fUad, 
aatf wiMt v« thoro aaid i« oocatrolllac h^ro, 

ffea ia4s»«nt of tho mmi. ftipatk %urt of OklMiio fta af* 
fimod. AWrumMS, 


mim&o iikimAtts eilmmt. 

mim ^ff&Sim e*Qmmu 4«llv«r««4 ih«» 0!»>i»i&a at 
tl^ eeurt* 

^•i««»a six And wc^f*!! i^^urs cf »4£«» urma i»JLflgrin« or ifji^^ «ti«t 

Ktr«(»t oMre i» ti^fc fttr««i. About «tCO e*<ta<»el( in im «fi«r» 
BOOS }}l«in%lff «»• •pinning « »«« t09** whiah r«ll«<i oiiit ini* 
tnc stradt miKi in front of « nartldbeund aar. iUainiiff ran 
nftar tha inp, ataa airuiA liqr %hr say a«h« rae»iir«»d injttrica 
«hl ah naoaaaitatad th# a&^^iutatiafi «f lUe right arm abe^t 
faur in^<»a fraa tu« Bhoulder, 

l>Xaintiff e<»nt«nda ttet ha hM aaiabliahi-'d dafinaantn* 
linliiLit/ wuiar %«a joounta of u»« tf^olaraUon, ana ainrging 
dafan!..nt« »tu» nagliganil/ baMcing th« oar aftar plaintiff 
nna ctruak am) ih» avh<»r that d^fand^mta fail<;d to m^u^p fcha 

Mr in «iu«iitidn witJi • pw»ti9 f»m4%r m» r^iiiv«4f iigf mn 
ife* 0fi«r«Uo« of &h* ffiir until mftf^r Hkh lM>y ««» etradK, 

north on ta« <»act tmtok b«tvo«s S€t^ tmd 66ik oiy^oi* «.t 
»]Mut fttceC o'tLle^ in itH* ov«aiiig ml m «»mal rmi^ of «j»««tf« 
It van \>nnA da^Xla'^l mm4 plA&nUff «a4 «n «l4»r ¥«>y ^«r« 
en th9 «««t «ii«i«visiUfc tt^ui oAimt^ hmtmt^n i&th maA $i%h 
•trif«i«. I'lftintiff ia»4 |«i*t piiro)!NM»ft<i » now ttt|» om «»« 
•Bdoobvoriac to «$>!« iH wh«n li rall«4 Into tii^i i»trfttti in 
fro«( of tl3« «.»m'0».9!nfim ^^^^i^* ^^ ^^^n nfi^r tik» %»» «tta 
«ii)ii«T foil •« %im otnpAt e<>i° trAOic in tr«n% ttf iMi> mr »r 
ima Btrucdt l^r the nertitoaot oox««r of ii« 4s »06b «« tbo 
sMtorssttti OAv th« Xittlo h&y rwmitag %»m>iit<6 t,hm &nw, im 
brought it t« • otop «* '^vAtMLy »,» ]^#sll>I«. 

flwro i« A (i^is^nto in tSem «via<»n3« a» to t%M» p«ti$,m 
tioa ©f i»l Air: tiff Aft«r tfco owr «•• AtOisy^fd. «f«»i of t*»« 
«iU»#«»«o for th«i {»l,Mintlff t«f«tifi#«( th«itt hA ««« lyimg mm 
hitt hutk with ttie hAft4 W iho KOttli^ unmr iM onjr wttir^ hio 
ri^Kbt Am Axt«pt4«et ««et of \Jbie ««•% mli »A<d thftt «^w otai 
«AA cm«4)it Ar piaoiMNA tM»t«*«m tht fir«nt wl»««1l of t&w omp An4 
Um r«ii» ¥liA^ «iee t«Atlfl«(l ths^ k* «m« «A4gc« ay AAU^jtit 
in ojr »k>OMt %h0 front trtt<^ of thm onr. C^a ti'^c* otl^r hawtA, 

wii»AO«AA fAf thA d^r<«Sk4tAKt« tOAtifl«4 t)k«t UA W»« ijriltR AH 

HAa lMt«ii witiiMai* hmtkA to tlw nArtit* AASt Af th^ AAst Ttikl, 
vitik him ri^kt Atn AxtAAdAA tt«d«r tho aav, wna that the ara 
AAO pi««li«4 Ar AMi«lit Iqr tlto front vh«t«l, Th«^ •vt^ontjo fur* 

tlt-^r AllAAA thAi AA AOA« AA tltA AAV AAA OlAJNIA^ the SiOtAtlMM 
A»4 «A«4l«AtAr AIM SMIM Af t^A ^OAAflcArA ^A t Off tn« OAT ARd 

vont to UMf> fenmrd ak« wharo jplAlAtlff «a« am^ IaaHacI tA saa 

and tlv»r« was <soi»9i4«rikM« 9X«it««iir;'!%t{ t'imt ^Im-intitt vm$s 

(tuoi«r tiMn %«ld %i)(^ {Mtttrgaan i« bnok ih« <e«kr iinci ilti&t ih« 
aotemnn thvn «;0t •n th» i^lnU'oni ».«<$ Ii#«k9tt i)ie oar whiali 

• n««r)i9r drtic atar^ una i»herU.jr th»r*i*f%«t r^mortit^ to « h»«j;>i<* 
titt wb«>r« ij»e sttjr|[«oa», »tt»r «» «iX»i!«d nation of th« )j«jr*B 

i» tl» evi(i««a* Ml to mw tuts Uv» mts- vma Hmcdc^i* wiyi«e«#« 
f»7 tlsi* pXAintifrr t«i?Ufl«<^ %tm% Urn 4liBit«.n«e «»« frosi 1ft t« 
SC f««i irislX« t 'tt«« f»r £i«f«it»ai»ii» |»lft»e4 Ui^. d|«i«a«« «t 
frtNtt S to b f«i«i. f*vt4iw»sgr of •««• «f t]^«< >«iia«ffi««» f^rtsa^r 
t»nil«4 i* sisQiw tl'wt wHttr« %h» mr ■mm ^wtci^^g tt|i %h» plmimtift 
was 4nMSi«<t «l««g irliji. i» itftd t)»^% M« i.3ff'64 «m« teuifie^»« us> 
ntwL iianm on tb« igr«ait« WLvatk pttytimimni, of !}%«(■ Kt^xt^t; ihftt 
•wm of tho «itet«»»*» •)iftui«<i. %n t}m £M>tonMu» to ctosi i)i« amut 
Ml h« wttft tMiriiis tn# %>e]r to pioo««« Oth«r i!i'ito«tiH«« t«»tl* 
fi«<i to %im «ff«ai xiuit tbo iMjr vao not (tr(k£K«4 i«)i»»n th« 
•or teOkod uy, 

Hio ovitfonoA furthor ehewod timt tit« oat wimi o^uipp«d 
with o fOMlor knevn ab ttio 8* * B« W«« th9 f#n<$or io loo»i*4 
olwui 4A inoiMo ^olc of o trip icoto o«»po«d«4 Aorooo ti»o troA 
•ii4 ttsa«nioftUi vti^ from pttrt of ttao aor. Xoir»Ally th«^ fondor 
io oorrloi nbout 7 iB«h<»« aImto tho roil mmi «h<«^n an objeet 
oaoMo la oootttot mith %\m tolp t«t« it o«i«so bookwarA ob¥ 
triM the foiM«r oaualng tlto lo^ttor to troy to ih« roil, tho 
tfro;}9iac of lib* foiKi«r io oeoolorotod 1^ « ooil opring foetott* 
«4 to %h« liottoai of liM* ^Xittfora, vhvn th« o«r otoppo4 tlto 


fen<l«r k»4 not b««n trip9«d Imt vft* in Ibi CMjmal peoiiien. 

la «;*»d working srdftr* 

Tb« or4iiiaiie» of Mm eitijr wiiish ]r*^ulr«4 Ua« f«nci«r 

•a th« cnjr «iaii •« vMeti liaVliit/ 1« |>r«^diMiit«(i $^r«>Tid«4 iJamt 

fipiidcr i)«irlo««." li'lAiatJLff^a i^eiUen t« Umt h« f»ll in 
front of th*i ottr* tlmi t^« f«siiidl«r fall Ad Vo worts aati, tit»y>«N 
f«r«, th«r« wiisa » Tlol«tion Of t^« or^inftnon. 

Mfead«nt*o pooiuen i« Uuit {tlointiff 4U4 noi f»ll 
•» tho traok in front Of th* m» hvtt %}im% 1m (»«&• in «cnt«e% 
wiUi ib« norihoRot oora^r Of !« bsi-oic of th« ffoto fi^nd» 
tlsorofojOt ««• la ao ^ooltien to «^s» ia eeauiet with thf> ij^to 
onil thoi it «»o forlhis rmmmtm %hm% t«M f(»B<iftr 4i<t net 09«>mto« 

fflBfO ordiMMioo wtiieh ro^ulroa «9rvie<<«Uo foa«l«Te oa 
•tro«t oiuro or^otoo a body kne^-a eie tho jBoojnd c»f 6«|»orrlalag 
Xagiaoera, on «rhi4h Board th« Sitjr ie r«|>rooont,t w , aatl iHO 
evi<i#n(H» ahow» iJ^t, after oeaijp>oUtiTO taaia h»6 1»o«n ifodo, 
th» parUoular foadwr «$m adeptod and ai»proT«d hy UJL* Beard 
aa th« boat ol^tainablo* fiof^Mnato woro ro^uir««ill by tho yropor 
«it> offielaXa to oquip th^ir saro with ti^id ijnM» of foador* 
Aad if it lio oon««d<rd iimt plaiatiff'a evid«nao »ado out a 
f^riw^ faeif oaao of n%-ligonao a^iaat 4»fon<$»ata for tmiX'* 
aro to atttlp thoir oajra with oftrrieoablo tmnAt^rm, thio waa ovor» 
•OMa liar ttto oTldoBOO wo havo Jaat aiatod. thoro io no dioj»uto 
bat that tao foa«2or wao ia good workabla order* Xn t>M»oo oir» 
ouBatiuio<»a wo tblak it oloar that dofendnato w«>r« gailtj af ao 
aogligoaoo ia thin r«8poot. It aertaialjr would b« aoat un* 
roaaoaaUo to held that tho ctroot oar ooapaatoa had wialatod 


^h« ordlnuao* r«quiriiig aerYieeftbI«» fsndcFrs on their «^a ia 
tb« •¥«»( thftt a f«3tit6r taLXmi V» 'work in «¥«r;^ oae«, erhere 
tho •vld>eae« «i)Oit«4 timi, ae im^ia f«nd«r ooakd hm h»d. 'ib* 
1«« doee tteb raqulr« iho ia^o^'eil>l«, nncs aiyf Ikw or orainanoe 
thati a^ai^ia^d « ^roTisioa requiring tke |>«rform«tio« of sone* 
thins that VMS iii^««»i1»le of j^erferseitnes, ebvi uely sould b« 
null and void* But plaintiff argues that teaeuKe the fend«r 
in Queatien o«ui»s no it be tripp«4 fr6« tJi?^ plntfora of the 
ear it 'Biis not »udb » s»rvi««abl<> fencer h9 U\p or^iaaaoe 
required. 'Ib«r* ie no 4i«pute tH»t th^" f#n4« r in queatlca 
ooald not b« ao tripp«d, and plaintiff* s ooat«nticn its that 
8iae«' it wfts shown frosa the annual report of f^«^ Board of 
Superrisiac mgineara, of fe ed in «yi<l<md«» that the B« It B* 
f«»ttd«r. vhidh «»s in KXtonaivo uao« aa,^' b« tripp«d and r«« 
aat froa the jlatfom, that tiiie ahowa titfi fender was not 
aervieoa^lo aa required; that if it mis so oquipped, th^ in* 
Jury to plaintiff Might }ikt« b««n avoided. A ^itneas for 
d<!feaiiant», who ee««ed U be well qusXifi^d* testified that 
IM wna fjoailiar wjlth fendf^xe, and that the H. k B. fender 
could not he operated by nnyene ettcniiing on the front j^iat* 
forau Whatever th<<> faot em^ he on this point, il ie usdia* 
pttt«>d that the K, ft B. fender approved hy the Board of Cuper^ 
viaias Kngiaeera end the eitjr and required to be in uao in 
Ihien^ oould not b<? tripped fnm the platfona and that the 
feader oa the ear in nueatioa wna of the approved type. la 
theae eirounataaeea we think thnt no liahilltjr oan be predieat<^d 
oa the eouat of the declaration charging a violation of tho 
fender ordinanoe. Mort^over, we do not believe that in the 
state of the reoord* we w&uld be Justified in aaying tt'i^t « fen* 
d«^r T»^ieh oo id b«» tri;V)ed fr;« th«» latfom wo Id be more eer- 
lioeable than oa<^ whi^ oould not he eo tripped. 


fttt plaiatlff*s main ooni<*ation is: th«t vhe T9r> 
diet is Juatiflttd b«<»u6« the 4«feauAnl>B v^r» guilty of aegili- 
g«tto«. (1) in ^ekiac the aiT without firat Kftkiai; » reeeoa* 
«bl« effort to cxtriaato the ^jr; (^') in l»%^flifein|| th^^ s^r aa 
uaa<^o««Bery 4i5t.T,n3e, nni (3) in failing m di^ ocatiaue th* 
bi^^im after it &-as api}ar«nt to iiif^ lo^raftn tlmt it vsn in«ffeo- 
tlT« ikn4 vraa iajurlng t^m boy nor«. :?• ihiak the eiritten<$« ••• 
tAblishoa %h&% as eoon ae th^' ear was stopped Ui<» ^aotomaa suui 
a>nduotor got off, «« t to t!*« boy and looked tc ee^ what th« 
«>itU8tica waa; tii«t a nuaber ef oth<^r pfirBcner dia likeaiaa; 
tbat tha plaintiff's rxgai »rsi w%s pinn^^d betw««»a th#^ front 
vhaal and tite rail and th»t he irae eau^ht asd ttwdgeii in and 
about th« front tin* cic; thisi h« was las^Jein^ mn outory «md that 
eTeryoaa wae utors or It-aa azoitad; th^t th@ aonduoter after 
this inap<!!Qti B told the r^otcraan to ti&ck thp a&ri t>i9t no 
oae sagsaoted thAt thl« ahoulu sot be dene; i,h«t t?v yupoa 
ib« jsotoraaa got on th? ear and b^^ekad it up. Saturslly erary* 
oae was aaxious to r^seue th*s little bey from hig pariloas posi* 
tlon. <4^iok aetion was rett^ired. Meithar %h» straet e>:^r aan 
nor tlie bystanders oojld 'bi? txpaatad to r ason out th« isattar 
calsdy and eoldly. In th«'e« olrcumetaneas »• think it el«ar 
that th<*r< was no n«i^lig»noc aa a t9att«»r of law nor aa a nattar 
of fact in baling the ear, for th@ uadisputad aTldprnc« is that 
by the baokins the boy vas loesanad or r«>leasad so thnt he ooul4 
b« ri>>aoTad, 

The resutining question Ie whether the o^r was booked 
an uaneaaaaary distance. The testlsMiiy of eoiae aitaesees tend* 
ed to show th?!it after the oar had started tc badic it was a;jparw 
•at thub thr boy was being aawaraly injured and that they osll* 
ad to the aotoriitan to stop tha ear whioh he did. Cn the ether 


)Matf« t&9 notors«A dsnied t^t there «a« aay c«<ft r«m0nei%t»na 
and tkat baeklag the eajr aay diatttt^e weuXd sot Injure the 
hoy further heoaaee the h%«klBg elnply released hia. We 
thlak the liahlXlty of the d<sf«adm)te tmder this aount, «8 
ahava tqr the evidenee, le extrewely d«mhtful, hut upen & 
oarefal omtelder&tloa ef it -^e are soaetraSned sot to rarer ee 
the ^dgseat ^Ith a fiacilag of f%ct» Uit to reverse the 
JadfPMAt aad to raaaad the sauee for a nea trial under thia 
eharge of aeit^igeaoe oaly, vis: whether there «ae aagllgenoa 
la hikckiag the e»r too far. 

The jud^nast of the Circuit Court of Ck>ok County la 
reversed aad the OHuae raaaadaa for & n«v trial. 

t&flmtt P.J. oocioura. 
Thasaoay J. diaaenting: 

X aa uaahle to concur in tha foragolac 
opinioa. Aa I ujaderat«Bd it« there is ao contention that up 
to the point ^hste the c%r oasse to a atop the first time Mith 
the plaiatiff*a ara planed dowa h«t»een the wheel sni the 
rail there oould ha a reoovery. Suoh aeeaa olaarly to ha tha 

Iha queation of whether what hajs ened 
after that, a»aely the baoking of the ear the diatanoe it 
waa haeked, aaa aasllg^mkce contributing la whole or in part 
to the loea of the hoy* a era, «aa om« of the qusationa aub- 
aitted to the Jury. If the Jury* a verdict la baaed on thtsir 
coaeluaioB that it ««a aagllgeaea to hack the oar ae It «aa 
haeked, and that auoh aegligenoe did eontribute to the loaa 
of the plaintiff* e ara, thaa la ay opinion it is not supported 
by the evldeaee. 

I have searched diligently but oaa 


timd ia t^ t909tiX no •vi4e»o« wlMt«v«r Blth«r atevl&i^ «r 
t«n<iiBt «• sho* «»»t the injury to tUls feoy' 3 ar» h>*4 sot 
feeen fally sttat&lBod b«foy« ih9 oar w«» feiRolt?^ at all, 
Witbottt tmA tk *ho*Um I a* of tfe« o^lnlo» that 3 ^Ifssent 
for the plaintiff lAJ^oald not otnndi, b&iie4 ^9t ttot a.3.1dg<Kl 
n«gllg«Boo» tmd «iiat« tteeroforo, tii« jitAjpgsi'Ct «feewi<J b« 
rev^rsod. I »p roel&to tfeo difflouitieo surrov»<llng tb« 
wUins of sttob a shoving fejr the «ri«teno#, «nd the eerlottniiesB 
of the iajory a*ff«r<ad by this young pi»iatiff, bat thoeo 
wro oonaiddTatieao that ahoald not Interfero with ^ho 
operation of tha Kkie raf arred to« 


22II.A0 655 

m^ 39aifim e*mamm ««iiv«r«4 tn* ejiiniott of 

•CatliMit def«»«i)mts to ««t«tt»l.lfli)i iHsir Li«i)iility en a fl* 
tf«ilV lM>Ad t»nd io for«el«ft« « Uiist di»«d fiven i^or iiMa 
t9 ••«ur* th« littblltty cm %3am twnd. ih«re v«,« » findJUif 
Uuit 0{%plfliiaiiat*« diiMAg<»e oxei»(»d«d the p«nulV ^f ^^*f tend* 
Vist INI«0(H^» «MHd li vAjt t^«r*«d ilu^t tml«^cii> dnfendnais iMkid 
•OMi>l>Als«it« 9S,iX)G within SCi 4«y» iii« 9Jrop«rtjr aoirr*y«d Iqr 
th« UruBt d«4»d t« veld, to r«v«r»« vhloh d9f4md«at« pin*** 
«it« tMs ftppttAl. 

fi»» r«>««jrd 4i««l.eB«« ttmx wts^lAins-nt is «« llll* 
BOi* Mrporniioa eondueting « «lwi«d«le «r«0*«y )moin«»« ia 
CatioM^Ot ^^^ ^^ ^<1 ^" ^^* •t»;>lcy «• « Ma«»»An on* TlMMMi* 
A* Kl«MlI, vho waa related to d<»f«n<Miit«s tlwit fro)^. alH»ut 
tti« jF«Mr 190C (Uaaoll iMd liaan in •ompl&iaani'a oiapXay aalX* 
ing ita produeta; that about lS09t«MlMiV* 1.91S, it waa found 
that ho had oolloot^d for «ooda ho had aold mero than •4,T0O« 
ahiolt ttaoant ho failed «o tarn ovoy to ooaplainaatj that 
tharoujpoa oong^iainant oauoad a 9oaij»XaiDt to 1»« f Hod a«Lainat hJa 
la tho Kxmioipal Qoart of dhloaiia and aoarraat waa iaaaad for 

his aj'r««tt ^3sm% •n Sepi«Hter e6» I0i;i« %im o^fttaoAnt, Antoa 
il«el1»«At •si«r«'i into r «ritt«n ft9HtT««t vith twaiplAiiiAnt 
vh«r«%t)r it wi>ie a«r««dt fn»«r ftllB . ihfti in 9&n»iA«Tmtion sf 

OM^^laiJMUit |S»000 to apftljf e» U»b«11*» lAd«bi«aa«»8. Cn 
th« tt«xt 4ihr sea9Jl«inRa% entftred lai* « «6atr««i of r«»«}!t^l0jr* 
m»n% vlth lllce«ll vnltd stelMMl t>ait in «eneid»v»Ucn of i>)i« 
•atpl0j^«nt ni»c!«il aiErveitc «h«fl eo reqtt«»t«^ b|r otasiyXftinftat* 
*to a«isisi la «o3,l««iting sll ^pubtful iiad «l«iittttt*Rt »«<»»«ttUt 
«liicb BHJi^ ttric* in ;ti» territory «ii«teut erai^eneAtion and with* 
•wt ftiiy i»F«iw«* to eoai^iftii»»at. At ih« s«a» time i:iae«ll, &» 
priii«ipfil, a]i4 i0tmi^mn%9, ft» eiur«ti#s« eji««tti«4 ih« fi4«lii^ 
lN>ml ia ^•stim* vli«r«ia it i» «iaii«4 tlmt «(a(#lftiimnt im4 

of Uie b<m4, «!>i«h vkh ia tlie mtn of IS^DOC)* «■« Uiftt if 
iUoooll ejwiild lioa»«tly i»i4 iji (f»«4 foltli disefeMrgo hi* (ta14«« 
*•« oiitth satleMMba sstf mll«<tUtt mn^ whjAX oXo* aeootmi ^r oil 
a»»«jro« i^roiwrtlos oxd eUi«r iMago ^lioh mo^ ooom lato ^« 
poooootien or t»a«r hln oontroX. t)i«n iJio oMisoiiea to 1M- 
oaoio void, •ihorvioo to r«aaia ia faXl fore* Mtd of foot." 
Ooiober 9 folloviac ih« <i«f«ndeate on^oatod «ii4 doIiYoro4 
1^0 iruef. 4««d ia i|M««tion aonTagriag ««rtftin j»ro9«rt^ i» truoi 
to oooHro Majr oMi^tioa iimt might be isoujrr«4i en tiur bond* 
thkm truot dood rooitod tlao ox'^oution of ttao boaA aad the 
oaplojmoat )(gr ooa^lolaoat of lOLsooll •*&• a oalviaaa and oelloai- 
or ia ito bitoiaoov as wholooalo greoero**, and ti»at if IXioooIl 
obould perform his datios itoasotly and in «ood faltb *ao oaeb 
•alOMHm and oollootor and nlmll also aooooat for all noasgro* 
whioh sMjr onao into his iM»ssossion, th«a thf» oMi«atien to )>e 
▼old. fito proooodiaso brour^ht in th« Munielpal Court agsiast 
Ctoooll aaro dianlsood. Ho h^gtn bis datiss aa salOMum and 


27, If IS* »r4 «Bntiait€4 t« ^«rforHi ff«i<^ tfuU«e imt;i ttb«vit 
«Mr«A 1, 1916>. Ateut F«%riif«jry S2* 1915, h« «cll«»Gt«4 f»r 
flMr^MiiKils* ^ h&i. »£;14 $'148«79» «n4<^ i%e ae»nv«rt<est t«> M» 

fftil«^ to tara in ttti«*r ft«s«--nt>« sa4 it -eRe to r««eT»r (!»« 
«aeiai( of defftle«ti&nit, ti»t. h«w«T«r« «tx««(!(ii»K the aifa»ttst 
of Um» bon4« 1^,000 tl»i t^ pr^9i*nt 8«it waft bM»tt#>%« 

%«4MHMMi» taitfor y|4s «&tt%r«':^i ^«>»inR«B 0»e«ll snd Qcw^lAiaaunit, 
)!• iw« attiherise^ ti> «»l]?««t e«ajr dtmi^tful »oi& a«liit^«i«at 
•««»«»«•; iDai ilMr* van »6 9r»«f timi t^:sp «oll««t.i0ji« si«tf« 
bjf rJl»8«ll vmr« ftf a«aevmi» irM«^ ««ir« 49u)>tful o» 4«lla» 
<3'tt«ai« *iit iimtt 91% %im «c»tjmiy ii «^|M»«r« from ilm- «'»l(««««e 

in^ on %is^ e&i&9 sitbj «^43W«i»ti«r t)se>' steuld ^ «teiimx}nim4 i»* 
aether; t,2»tt tb« u»d«r taking of %ym <i«»f«»atuatli«, t3»gr ^«Asm 
ettritU««, sbo^aa !»« etritfily aeikBir««4, «a<i (tet upon ft «««• 
•lrv*UQ« of tot «t»«trftat of e«^pl07««at, tontf bikI tsisot a«^4 
i% «U1 i^^oiur fcint E:i«««ll «&« eatherlsM to eollooi eit2jr 
doMtitfta fm4 d«litt<}a«»t aooftiMito. trmm If thc> rul* of mwf 
• irueiion oost«»4i»4i for %• oone«4«>U, ^«v vo tlkink ii i» not 
ft|iplioo)»lo lwr« for th« roooos tiMt th« \mi>A witd »ortt£«e£«, 
vliiA v«(0 ftx^^^ted y^ tlM A<»fofi<teiiitai, «xpr««pl]r ototod viMt 
CloftOll ofto <»^lejrod mi « *oftl<*aiMui and oelloetor'* tuid th^ rm 
v»u no iLMltatloii Ml V> thr? obMNMrtor of oooeunte h«^s to 
oolXvot* n4 XSta ov&A^ioo snows tlMt Sef«»iante k»e« ootiiias 
of ih« (provisions of tim oontrset ef ee^loyafwi* in these 
olrowootsao^s v« taink It ttlmmr ttast Aofoosaiite •xprcosljr 


««r««4 %m aftk* ff»«d way I*** AQeruinf to «tiM|ilfti.n«n^ isgr r^'eft** 
•f am 4<^f««lt on that guirt of ttl«««ll in failing t« ftvoouni for 

t9T9*d laico»u«« it HA* wliheui 9«fiei4#raUcnj %h»% altkiou^.b ii 
feaeUtnts, ih« «vidiciio« «)3i«w» ih^ti thc^rt^a'-ivflA netiiiitit} ita»t 

if ibff>-« va« non«« Um iMrt(B»«« ii» imi4 &H(t tm<«Rfor«>«nb]i«s tUtAi 
•in 9* i)i« HMfertcaigt «»• «x«««it«<3i ftW-t 12 d«3r« ttft«r the ImsA 
it r«i|ulr«d ft n«w €«affi«temtie» itud iiumt Vb«» «>rlgi»«l oo»Bi4«y)» 
•tion cf Ui« bond w«ul<i not v&li4aio %h» %rvm% 4»«A, In »Mipp»t% 
•f ihio it Is BMi4 tit&t « ««al«4 ins tanwRMi'Rt «lli not b« onforcNtd 
in o^ulty 'mh»r* Ui«»ro io no O0ttffid.#r»tion kikI %h<^ oAsoe of 
OrandaJ-X ▼• Wlliic. l«e Sll» SM, &B6 ,:^f}„i ^«>tt ▼, ^mnkhli* . 
299 111. 10, are oito4« In both of tb«e« (»«»« it «n»b sought 
to oomiol opoolfio porforetottoe of «mntr«et« uoder »oal, Mid ii 
wmm bold th&t th^- truo oonoi^orotion «e /X4 b« Rhovn and if 
thor«i vao nono, as»«eifia it^rfonnaooA «o«tld noi 1«o doorood. #o 
think aoittecr of tk«»o oikmbo &ro in point* in the inotani oo«« 
it io ooo^ht to \m aiiooift tluit thero <mto no a«it«i«:<»r«tion for tiM 
Mortgofo w^oli i^rpertod to » nvoy oortoin proioiooe «Nd iM^ieli 
rooitod • oonoi<i«rfttion of 91<»» It boo loaff "boon %h« fiyaity 
««to¥Xi«l»»d Xmm in l^io tAto ttiot th« rooital of titti pajrMont of 
s oortoia oonoidorotion in o dood undor oool »oif 1»e ooniamdiotod 
for ooMo purpo»*» lay p«*ol but oa(A ot»ntro<ii9ti&n will not l^e 
ponoitiod for th# purpeoo of invmll doting th« Inotrumont oo o 
dood of ooaTojroaoo. 2g£ t. Ulr»jr . aas Hi* 57j Stomior4 t. 
A« «. ft 0. »y. 00.. SSC ill. 40«; 111, 3ewt. Int. 00. V. WO^f . 

at 111, »8»j msTjM t, liyjaa, 8i iii. <&67i gsfe«j»b»jriftiM ▼• 

y»r«b#«H . ll« Hi, A9i». l*»i ^Jicffait CJ«>»,1 .;»« v. MilS£» ^^* 
111, Ap;{>. 401, In %m »9^ ftttm i% mm tmu&m %» ••% fist<l« 
A 1»SB« smatitr c-«al Viaidft r^oitftti « «i»»eiaerftiioA 4»f $1*00 
Iqr shovins that tteer^^ «»• iii fAOt »e 8c!ii»l(l<»rfttlefv i^Aia. flM 
«euri $.la«r« a»i<i, (]^9*4St*65)t *7h«y {»p|>ell»)»i«} ««gr ih»i 
Qourts «f •fttiV will «lv»jr« in«iulr«» in%o Hvn r«teil eeaciia««]r»» 
tion of «in intttrusMat, smd will e«t It ajiloi* If tli«r« »»•• in 
faot* t«> 9«Kuii(i«7%iloR paid. It i« truft tteAt for i?^« 9urii«»<F 
of uppljrlns «KiuJLiiitM« yriKelitlttft «m<t ii;r«nUil$ e^vi>i tAM « rtmum 
<Li«* • Mart of ttquitjr vill iR(|ulr« into ti%» tm,l mn»idtimn^ 
vion of ». eoBtraet* AlilNtO'agh it Is uistUir »io»l K»i ]i>«eit«» ft 
ooneltl*raUoa, if tli«9 «ff«3% is; not ti» Iit9«ir %h« in«%»m«at 
»• (» eonT«yana«, flwi is A(»ii« In «irO« «li«se« es»«e|fi9 pot^ 
fonsoAec of • eo»tr»ot is »sle#s for, CJiaSigsUL ^« Wil , U<t. 166 
III, 3S3) Mid ouiftv mffioo rotift^i on liko princji|i'l»ii. But 
vhil« tho rooital of tim pa^iMmt of %h* oBnoidei^tion in tm 
Xn9%ra»^nt i%a^ W« oonta>ft<Siot«4 for ou^ yiuryooom* •« ftdknowl* 
edgntent of tsutSa pmjftaftnl <mnm>t tM» «oiitnh4iot«<i Iqr parol for 
the pori^oeo of iniraili(Utiatf th^n iHoirunoni or i»9«iiytai; ito 
local of foot «o tt mnf^Knm, (8t» ▼• Awrot^. «Xttin oatf 

giaQ>>..o i^iiwa> 00.. 3»c ai. 4«t),)« m ui^ h^mmii mss. 

tJi« oourt o«i<l, (y«475}t "fhilo Um rooiWl of ih« yajnaont of 
the Qonsidi^Tatian in m iloo4 Mft/ %i« oontradli stod for oortaim 
parpeotfo, yet ouoiJi aokaawloAcoNmt of pajratent eannottin oeatnH* 
dloted lay parol for tho ^tutpoeo of wholly iavolidoting tho 
4ood or iapairing ito lo^al of foot oa a oo»T^a«oo«* Oador 
ilM authoritico oitod aad «taay ottivro w)ii*r«?tho caao rul« io 
aaaauaood, vo think i% oloar thai tho dofoadant* ao»ld not 
akav tlMt thoro wao o© oonoio^rattoa for tho wortgogo, for tho 
roaooB tbat ttetv pari^ooo in dciiig w w»» %c cic^etroy ito of* 


t»9% «• an iBatrun«nt Af aonv«]r«a(M», ij^urttoin^r** «• iMnk 
th»Ttt ini» oensidf'rJMition fleving to ih4> d«f«ft4sAi». wKll« It it 
til* £tn#ral rule of law thvt ft bona* •x«««io4 Ht tM'* tiA« of th» 
ttMOtttien of xhf Qontmot pmrtTmmntm of wMah %h« Dwa^ s««ur«o, 
r»quir*« ao addltiorml eon»id«r)!k%io»* xhtf «on«i4<»r»iloQ ruBtting 
to th« prinoipal bolng tuffieient, y»t it baiqmi to bo th« l>ft«r 
that ftftor the priaoi^Rl hna fttlljr oxooutoft hi* eeatiMiiOt ft4di* 
tioiikl eonsid»r»tioa io aoeoenory to i;iTo l9g«l «ff«ot to ttto 
\t^n4 to l»la4 tin* surety. i;t«ld v. MSilifili^. ac 111. A^p. 3«l>, 
In tlmt oa«o, Ur. J^etlo« Bui ley, ftftvrvorilo o e«&bor of tko 
fht^rmtm Oouri of thl« CUtte, (t«rliT«ring the opiaion of ihs' <so»rt 
•B o oonovhAt olaiXar pro^oition, ff«i4, (]>«39&}s '*Ua<i>»Hl»to^ 
ly o eon«i(l«rAtion ruaniag to ^!fi« prji.riei)»«tl aXeno oo«t«Hii>ora»» 
oouo vith or oultooftuoat to tim pr«mi»« in Ottffieittnt, %«t tteo 
nilo 4c dlfforoai wher^ ihn onljr aea«ii£i«r»tioft jrunniae to tho 
priaoipal is one oiiidti io «lroa<$jr fully *Jcoaut«4. i^oo BinuiA 
oa f^urotythip* oo«r, 6 • 16. ** la Iht iaetaat ORro tiie <»ntrftet 
Wtwoon ruieooll and ooM9l»inftat «•• aot fully «xoouio4 at 
iko timo tho JBortcago was givoa. for nioc^oll oontiaucd &o «er)r 
for ooaqi^Xalnaat cuid vao paid hio oalaxy or eosaalooioae for 
alwut ooYoatoon nenthe oftor the oxooutioa of tho awrica^* 
fkerf^ w»B, theroforo, oaffloioat oonaideratioa uad#r ttoo n»io 
Bimouaeoa ia tl» :g;:^o:^,d <wni>f . 

Safoadaat* n«xt arcao that their oiotloa. «upport«4 
V offiiittTit, for ft Jary trial otaould taave boon ollovod. It 
aypoar* that boforo t)ui oaoo woo at ioouo d*f«nc;aato filod a 
MOtioa, oapportoil by affidavit, aottin« ay varioae rooooao 
vlty thoy ««ro oatitlod to a Jury trial, vhiob taoiion tMi« d«ni*d* 
Ivoa if wo aaouao tbat eortain nattoro inrolrod ia %h0 emun voro 
proj^or for tlu» ooaoiiiaratiea of r* Jury, /*t it ir«« within tbo 

A triaa ¥3r iwrj in aitcdi <»«•• is rwt a st«lt«r of ri^ht, 

894. w» think tho oeurt ^d oi err in denying t>h» ntDtlen, It 

!• further «rg««d th*t th^^ oourt •rr««l in •<teittins i» •iridcaec 

e«nri«in mooiptnA iarttiemm f«r »«r«hiin4i»« sold Ibgr tiCAcll 

•ad titT «}ii<li ynjTMKmt «&• ftil«s»^<l tcr have b««n (M»il«eted tgr 

hitt. fh« iiiv«i««s VT9 fit»a9«4 9*iA with a roblMir ataup mmI 

)iar« Elsa«ll*a aignatttra. Aa va uatiarstRnd thiv «vid«tt«« idaaelJ. 

oollaot«>d etuia af mentegr fron »airfir»l of •eimplisiinant** auateawira 

•ad c»V8 tk«a r^^aaijptcd 1»illa. fhaaa vera affarwa in cvid«no* 

to pi\>Ta tlsia ft!7.eant of riiaisall*!» 4«?fRJlo»tioaa, 1% ia eistiaiaA 

that ih<^r« «a« no preef of tb« aigitaturo on eoito of Ui* in- 

voioaa. «« tMnk th re wat8/«<irror in ti)^i»*dni »»!««( of th« in* 

v»ia«ia aino» th»r* waa taatiaMny to thi» «f iOct that th« eig* 

ruitvuraa on tha iavoiooo were i;iaBoll*s, {Km^Ter. it «•« a4» 

Mittod that hia gamiina aignAtura ma in ovi<laisi « a»d th» 

oeurt VK8, tt(»rofora» juatifiod in findii^ wo n f»ot that all 

of tha aigneturaa «r«ir« KOfuino. 

l»afantlaat« further arsuo that th«r« i& prajuciioiai 
•rror in tha raoord for tha ranoon that en fvhrwixy 34, 1910, 
eoaplainaat firot ianmod that Kiaaall vaa net turning la 
■onas/ ho ooXlaetrd; that tha avidan'w ohovo that he oollootod 
|14t*79 frOM ono of ooaiplainant'a eufttoaaro on 7abruar]r 29 and 
that tha knoaXadgo of thic faot oassio to oenylainaat t«o dajro 
Xntor{ that laoat of Xix* awouata eollcotad Vy him and whieh ha 
failad to aenaoMt for but a aTortad te hia oan moo «oro 
oolleotad and ooaTortad h> hist after yuhrw^ry 34; that ia thaa« 
oirotoMitaaoaa it waa tho «aty of eca^l«im»nt to dioohargo Ma 
at onoo and that ite failura ta da ao relleTod dofandanta of 

lUlilllt/ for defalonUcii* BtM4* mt%$9 %im% dnt** irr«n 
If w ma»\xako Uwt the Intr 1» »• ac»unR«l <»at«iKi«» v» tMnk 
H e«ald s>ot b« ATAil**! ttf in th« InstMit «»«• fox* th* 
r«^«son t]3u»V ihc eivldeKM t«ttaii t« »iiO« thai vMle <K»^l»ia» 
aai did ««▼• •««« kn««l«dc« en y«>)ru«r/ 24 thai fits* 11 IwA 
failed %B turn in nil ^« menwy eellR0t«4 V him, y«t tfei* 
•vl<i«n«» show* tl»t uoon r'-fieipt •f lttf©r«s«U©n tc t -is ef- 
f«»9t th« cK>tfi»X«inABi i9n«illAt«ly i»«£Kn te «bR«^' u^ ead a»» 
e«ri«in ilMs fftet. flM^ qu«ctlon«4 r;ia««).I mM hft tl«iii«4 

and* aB4 9(»a^l«t#4 »l90aV ;^roli 1. at a^i^i^t Ua« it wib^ ii«fUti«»- 
ly l«Ani4Nl t^t jaaaell wna «i (i«»f aal t«r* About this t4w« 
Ciaa*!! 4ift»pj^mir«4 tind lama net ^««ii Mtm mit hoamt fr«)« aioe** 
In thesa «irauMBt»n««« «a think it saneat %• mia \,imi aeai* 
9lainK»t kne» Slats ail »»a «, <l«f«ttltar «b ?»1»ruoiry M fti«l t^t 
it AiA nat *ot proriptly in dii««Mr«i«4i M«. We tJiink the »vi* 
a«n(3« varrftdUi th« <3(kn«luai,en tiaet Ui«g^ «et«d f^rezsj^tljr «ia4 
yeeeeikabljir . 

S«f »ntiaat» fua-tlutr argue thnt th« truat aesd 
ahaulil )iava baan ralnusaa far Ihf n'&t'a'i thav it i»reiriA«4 
in tiMt '^v'^nt ef thi" tansinatien ef thr neai.raiat 9t aaspiejr* 
«ant iprior to JanuMrjr let* 191ft, it anauld )i« ralaA»*4 aad 
thai th«* oontraat wna ae temaiaataiis that tfe« dAfantfanta 
teii<l»ra4 tHa uau^l r«la«ae faa to tbn vruRtae ftn4 rci^ttaeted 
Um releaaa. ClBViQualjp, t^kia peint tea ne aarit far, ef 
•euraa, tto« tmet 4e«di alMuId nat be ralea.»a4 on JeraiAjqr Xnt, 
•T aa^ eUaar aata until aay llAbilitgr «m4ar Uhk bond iiuiA )»aaa 

Xiie alee elaiMKi that the aeurt erred In parwittinc 
a »itn<»Ba %o taatif/ ta the «eeoant tiatireaa lUaaei.1 and 9m^ 

S»li«i»sii%, «ina« thf^ vitavae was n«t Vm \»9k!k<if«ptr, '«« 

•Y9r Vhft flgar«» mi find ih&t iH<« •e^r«iit««B iiiT»ie^»^ aMw* 
ing ««iou»t« vhidh Ki«e«ll ooli««te4 nnA failed %9 t^tt^Mmt 

• f 'vit elM)«ie» whish wftB <.'^rthX<«», for $64S.d$, tuaa ftXta* 
thB SmwOtm ft««f»«at <»f 9l4a.?9. fh«Be it«ais isiokt « iouai of 
SlS9ft,Tfd V« ttslnk this is tfe« •wm %»tiA %im%. %im «via«n<t» 
vliovt £iB««lI «ell«et«4 an«i 4i(i n«t Aa0»uiii t» •»si|^laliuuii 

f«r* f)w <i««r<»i» will, tj&«:<>r»f<»t<»t ¥« i»«4ifi«4 Anii Jia^mtat 
vill iM •iit«r«4 in ihis eourt In fftvor ef eotis^laiantti And 
a^lnst th« 4ftf<m«iftiiis for |189&«79. l»«h iiaytgr vill W 
requiri*^ to ;pA/ thfi^s own ooate la tM« ooart* 


486 - SS747 

\ ! 

^ mm, 
SASSLt Asaasms'smi h jjins&i /) w ^ytKSAm, 

*^ 221I.A. 656 

SiU ^UStim &^&S»m 4mlkr9r»4 %^ apiaiea ttf 

tte <ioart« 

fenjr C^aeiffiEailli^ bre^^hi an ft«Uion &g»iii)ei drfentj- 
suttm on « r« l«Tia bond. U^»« &ef«t)dfta% mtm i»b6 net. «erTe4 
a»ii dia net «ni«r ^e «q^e«r«flo«* Ike a«r«n<iAiii ••rv*4» «Jw 
»«• tlw wlaQ:ipal 1 Um replrvla tend, filad aa ttjw»ni»4 «iffi* 

9d leAV* te fll* » further «uMO(t«4 &ftii^tt% of ^mrlUt whi^ 
«0iioa «&• d<mi»4 «ad 4t«f<s^i«fit ««8 4mtnHi%*^, 'Shttr^mttmr 
tiw «aurt ft«r««ned itosH^sMi i^pUlMsi t)i« «i«f«ti(lAat in %lom ston 
•f #S91.5€. A J««SBi«Ri i» debt of t6CC, t)»F» Mte nt of t]s« 
boirti, ir«ta •at«r»d te be dis«harg«d apun payaMmt of ttwc da;aa|t««» 
to r9T«]ii« via ah th« two defena»ato opp«Rl . 

Tlw roaord dl«<diesoB thst on MmoAiHt Id, 191«, tho 
dofeadont, Babol, Antbruoior & L*r««ai Somposjra l^o i^iaeijNkl 
la iJM roplovla bosd aad the oc4jr d«f«a^iifit oorvod. fllod iio 
OMondod o/fidBTit of aoriia. Thia «•• oiriekon ea Boiloo of 
idaiBtiff. Aftorvarda on U^stnhmr 87 d«ff«aa«nt aovod to v««iko 
ib6 ordtir atriklag tho affitfavlt, vnieh atetioa a«i« denied* aad 
OB the folleviag dogr it aaked leave to file «uiot^r iKaejodod 
at^fldavit vhidi the ooirt alaa deaiod. It aaa aft«r«ftrdB da- 



fAult«4l AAd on Vrnhnmrr A* 1919, on <w«ii.(»n of lad^intiff «,11 
p«l^ri la t)M •»•• wer« AnMntfo4 Isty «u)>«tlUiiin« tim Iwiliff 
•f iho itiaiioip»l Court. Aaton J* Ooratik* «• ^liUatiff ia li«it 
of lonjr CAaoiaailla. thm eft»« imv tiiMi SsftarA and pliiinilff*B 
4«aaco« v*!** a»ooa««d fit|l97«$0« imd Jtttf«tt«at of ^ftOC in 4<»l!rt 
«a« «at«r«(i to b« aatlitfictf upon paywmi af th« d«««tjK*o, Aa 
appoal to th« App'ollata dourt vma p»ijr»4 aa«i allomrd both 4a» 
ron^^oata, the «L9P«al bend and Mil of «x^?ti«n» %@ W filad 
within tsilrtgr daya* Thi« boad waa approved and filod Fokruarjr 
87* 1919. (>n UMtoh S fellowlag tH<> <ioajrt, on jmotiea af pl«la» 
tiff* Taaatad th« Judii^ent of Fa'bruaxy 3 »mt ralnat^tad th# 
aaaa. Aftor««rda on Jua« 19 tii«r« w«a a r«*trial 9t tha eaaaa 
a»d plaintiff *e aaaa^aa war*' aaaaaaad at $391«fiti« aiM a Ju4fi« 
»a«t in debt for $dOO to b« aatiefi«dt tt|ia« payman^ of i,lm 
dana^aa aaa aatarad. ^bia waa on 3vm« SC, T}|« bill af axaiqiN* 
tiaaa a'neva th«t daf«a(iant, Babal, Ambmetar & l>araen 0e«fMn|r, 
yrayad aa apj»aal to thio eourt «>deh vaa alloaa^i. Ihe rtroord* 
toa««tr«r, aa writtaa hf Lh» elarlt ahomrad fchat.tha jud^saaai waa 
afairmt both d«f*ndaata and that thogr both piiy/ad an appaal* 
Tha tljBO for filing th<f wppaal bend waa fixed at thirty daya 
asd fof the bill af axeaptioaj* aixty dn^a. ih« plaintiff hav* 
ing diaoavarad that %hm ja4e»ant af J»na 80 mui aj^einfit bath 
defaadanta, althout^ih Blu» h&d n^y^r bean aorred* an July 9 iMTdd 
that the ju^^taant ba earra«t«d aa aa to aliHUnata Mim. Thia 
■atiaa aaa aatarad and eoatinuad an aet^unt af th« abaanae af 
the trial Jadca aha llYad in aeathar aounty. On Aoftuat 5 the 
■atian «sa allow«^ and th« Jadoaant aerreotad. In th* ftaaa» 
time, a a July 10, dadr««<uuita had thoir iMipeal band approTad 
and filed. 

Safeauaata amitaiM that th« oeurt erred in striking 
the aMttded affidavit fraio the fllaa «Ad in refaaiatf !•«▼♦ ta 


25747 «3» 

fil* Um •%imr mm$tt»4 itffi«iavit aui«itt«d. It it 0tAt»4 

ibis KTfldMVlt M»ii rsfuAlag %u ^«nKit tl«r ••<MMd »a* M» iM 
fllvd ««• thsi a«lth«r ttf thcst sinftea » l««sX d«f<NUi«, tlt« 
4«««tios before as. ttbj»r»f»r9, 1« «t»eii«Rr fliih«r iif %&»•• 
tiM afft^viU slntcd a l«®el d«f«WNi to M«l»urf*8 «l«iJB. 
TJm «iwitd«d affiitevit «tiTldc«n vet o^ t)»a% 4«fe^4;^it 'itod it 
g»^4 4et(tmmm to l^« wis^Xm of |^liiiaiiff*o oIkUh tl»&t th* 4o* 
f«ao« v&« itei th» «d«fen^js»t »t «1^ ii»oo ite^l « vtkLii «ort» 
j^ftg* t^poa ti»0 pgt*p*Tt^ rmf«rF^A to i« tlHi ii>2.&iiii4ff*s 8t&i4»» 
3Mi»t Of <a«i<»; %im% tktts ro^lovia «ult B«t •«( ia ii^ ylala* 
%itt*m mttktmmfint of «acii» <ii4 not a^adiottto tiw r^i^t^ of 
tiko tsorigss* •' tUM» (ief«»dt»ni ujMS saiii ;^r@pertjr; t^laat folloi** 
lac ^*> «<^<> r*£ilttvi« wait s»4 %h« lati^pumt tber«la, iHis «•» 
foat&aat. toa^rod to tiio m&li plukntitf tim matl4 pvninirtf «««• 
tflboii In Uut oaltt ^ialaUf(*e atatOH^t of oiaia, »jsd off«^r* 
«4 Ut rowxa t^Ni mtm^tt ^t ^t^^t 6^ wUli^ plaiaUff ri»fu»e«t to 
aaoopt tia* rotora of Ui« ealii pjr^j^ortsr] %.i»% f&llmisiita oadk 
rofaoal of th# K^ast j^islaiiff to ao^iii i)i» r«t»m of tti« 
oat4 property* tlilc 6ttf»:n<£«»t »&14 tlto okI^ i»r^]^rtj)r Isar vl»* 
t«o of Ui« povor of Oiiilo aoataiA««S In tliR oaid ^aitol aiort* 
IPHP»« <t^t tb« t«JLm« af aal<l pn>p«rijr »o ool^ «ao not the oaa 
of «ix )sM«ljro4 4ollora» Iwt ima lo«» Uaai tJi« MMtuit dM« to 
iMo 4l«rea«laa% «»dor oftl4 aortcago,* Slw other anoadoA affl« 
datrli vhlob Uw ooturt aflwoaKria rmtn»»4 d^tStm&nmt loairo to 
fUo, oot up OttlMitaatlttlljr tlK mom dofonao $m4 %im »<Adlti.cnal 
avamoat t)»at plalatiff*s uaaasoo, other tlMa for fallaro to 
rotam tiM pro^^rty^ raplovlod, aaA ao ftitora«|r*cr fooo, oootOa 
cto* 4i4i not «xoo«4 #3d. «fe waiift It dL@«r th«t aoitlM»r Bffl«iAT» 
It oot ap a looped 4of«aa« ta pljtlatiff*> olaJLa* ifhil^' It ie traa 
tbat after a vrlt of rotorao fcabf^a^a. lo ««ar4a4 in » roplovla 

V ^7 : 

25747 «4» 

»uit tb* 9lftinViff in tto*t «««« i* enUUed 1.0 reiura U!i« govUs 
tMkk«ti in HitiKAtioa 9t Amamfm, ]r«i mm titXnk it <3lMir upMi at 
oarcfol ooa9ivi<»r«tii«n Af Ui«- two •ffidnvii* ilmt iits (l«f«t!i«&)it*» 
j)«#iii»n «&• vhai it JmA » ris:iiki Ut etll ih« (Koed* d««i»ii« %b» 
^nri^ *f t %' ^J^ ^ virtu* of lh*i almttifX ntcortjrac^ mttd tho.t ti 
nlM )mi4 n ri^lii io rffinia %h<f> pre<M^«4« ftf ih« tsia«, ^<tv«n if 
defsndsnt hA4 Af oriHl Ia r«iuiti th« £*od.ft it voaXtf R«t to« wki^ 
£-ftiit*4 in cAllinc t)Mm and «4Pi?rot»rlAtinm tli« jpro9«(>«ds in th« 
•v«nt •f ia.Aintil'r*» r«fiM<ai to aQenpi ihmi. th« affidnvitn 
««r« fttrih«r iA«ttffloi<>nt ^o»u»« t^y failetl te »«% up irtijr 
tlM TAlitfity »f tbsr mor(#i^e ^a« nst d«t«rHi,a«<i in %h« r^tflavlit 
(nait. s»atl(^» S« »f tti« »«i»l«vin Aat i!$ na foliewat "VlsHm tha 
nariia af ib# oaaa )!*▼« aat 1>««n datorminad in thi«> trial af vha 
aetion in wtiioli tha Iwad la givan, ti)« ci«f«n(ii%»t, in ah aatim 
an ilia ra^lavin Itantt, su^ pl.aa4 that faat a«ci hie titla ta tba 
proiwrty in 41»i>uta in aaiit aetian af r*iaavin.* i'h« a«f«i»taat 
att«Ki9tad to bring itaalf viihia Uiit; eaot^on hst »Il«{$ln« tJMit 
tna Talidity of th« oaaital »4ortira«a« vhieia it at aXI ti»(»8 
iMAd 9» tb« iE:aoita in qvaatian* h»4 aat beaa daterrainedi |n ihm 
raplavia aatlea* Xhia aiXagation waa «lMurl|r ineuffioiont. 
X t waa a K«ra ganaral av«rH«nt, «Sneui4Sift af tJte ii»roo«a4inaa 
in iba r« latla auit ahauld haira baaa atat««l i» tNa affiaavita 
ta anabla %h^ oaurt in tha auit an the bea^ to datnywina vhatfear 
tha aarita af tita auit in raplaria had b(fmi adjadiaatad. It 
atoaalA )Mtn ahova iAm.\ tha iaaaaa in that oaaa ver* an4 lOmt 
«ia»aaitioa «aa a>a4a af than. Ki»« v« RaaMMUr . iS III* 619. 
tha r.i.n^ y|i [ f f van a auit aa a ra^aavin bona, in 9iaa»ia« tn the 
attfrieiaa<gr af tha faurth piaa, vhiQh alla^aa thst tHa yre^^rt^r 
ra^Iaviad v tha pr»p«frty af plain iif fa in the raplavia auit 
aatf that fch# aarita of tha eaaa yn^fs nab fulXjr (Setanaiaatf on tha 
trial 9f that aetion* tha oaurt said, (p.ftSS)} "Yha plaa a«M» 


25747 -&• 

«l*«rl]r 4«f«QtiT« la not «ho«ln|t vhjf th«> «i«rit« fff thft <»•• ««rtt 
Aoi (l*t«y!nln«d in %h» moUoa of replevin, a pttrK,/ elnlMiag Um 
Ibmiefit mT Vtm stat4ai« «u«% afflraicttiTwly fi^i«« ^y M« plfts tttfti 
%b« «»»£ !• viihin its ^rarlRiens* l^i^re i.tnnffml ttVffjrnitimtc will 
tt»i aaffiM* ^QMttjsli of ih« ]pr<»o««alng» in the f«3<»er Aeiioa 
•II9V1IA lb« Mit fttrtte to •itabltt t.'h« m>uri t«j tfedL^e Oii ^i^iurrer 
vh«th»r uhc! right of pr0ipi««rty i)at ^i*ondiy )»ffi«»n 4«'tiiiix«tiin«4« If 
tlM». i>uit MUSI «Jii«»iBB«d, • fi&et «2»«»%il.i$ 't»«» fsteti«4. It tlMt"r« 
fMi.0 R trial, tHo ^ioa Ott^hi to Js^t&w iricukt w«?r« U'^« iR»u#«, »«i8 
h»« thogr v»r« di«|!6e<3«ii of.* Frei^ this rulo, whi"^ h«ft a«T«r 
^«« 4$«p9rt«4 fr<>at »$ tft,r «« w« h»<r« ¥««ft «>^«» to l««m« i;. Id . 
ol«»r thot botkk affl4«;'ritH of norito «<»r« olimrljr ingulf 4 <!i«nt* 
Q« tis« txlitl %lm iimfe»4mR% utf*v^ In »riAwnm ih« oii«i.ti«l aort* 
gatfo ond th«» note ^U«h 1^ oourt eacolu<ii«<i . Uf ooure«, irsdo 
«mo tbo only j|i»r^«r rullae &n oue^ of «r oiae« tHo affi^AVlt 
ted boon atri<^«n. 

Oo^plaint i» ftlBo isi«ao t« (>^« •r4or of oourt «uV» 
ottiutiBtf t)io ''Aiiftrf of the MuBioipKl court in wlmm of 
7««y Ctutoiaadllo, tim «iooe, in tiMf lioad. Ih« reoord foil* 
to oti09 t^t tl«f«i««i«nto n«4o any objoatio «h»n thie ordftr 
«a« oatorod. im4, ovim If thcqr tfi<t* thoir oeatontion «oul4l 
otlll ¥o ttsooifaid for Uio bailiff «ao tlto preptr pmp^ to 
aaiataia th« »tit, Yho point i« vithout worii. 

IMfon^aato alao argo that th« oourt errod cm aMTCh 
S* wkon it oot aoido th« judgaoat ont«redi j'obraaijr 3 for tiM 
roaaon tbat ia tbo iatoria an appeal had b««nEt prajrad to t&io 
«ourt aa^ tlio appeal porfootad Igr th« filiac •f *» appoal bond. 
Yhio ord»r wao netb ooatplaiaod of bjr tteo «ii«f«»a»ate or aithor 
of tbon, wad Vho d«f ookioat proooodod witL'r a rc»triftl of ttio 


25747 »Gm 

aeif b« heard t» ^^ai^lals. Shojf Twr%ht>f inieist t^t th« otmrt 
■i^ain «B9witt«4 Arrer ea A»£a»tt S «fe»a it ms»f^*^ %}*9 Jiu^g* 
tt*«t of <?im« 30 b^sRiute t;h«\r«e6rd 41»(3i<»seR %tmt es iSFaJjf 16 
tb* 49f«m4i^i« iMMt filed •» »p#««i ¥dad peHNitttiae »n ».o0<»a:11 
to this <»url. In vai? ori »f i^^is iv is «xti^«4 Uiat «h«r« 
«B *^ti«al iff pr«»y«r)d, »lio««d miA p9Wt09%94. \Qf %h« f iliac ^^ 
aa a9^^«ai boaa th«> trial e»art is -^t^sieai J«irliedt«iion t« 
»nt«r «a/ fiirii»»r oirii«>fe is ihit ^s«> fhie is %hm $,imetwX 
rule af i«v Wt it biMi iL« «3ie»^ii8a «hiai» j^«r^$>it iiie ts-iel 
<9»ur(. 4ttriB« ibo l«za at «hii^ tl^ JaClipr«ai imi» 4^qi»#7«^ %« ■wm» 
«i%« th« ar^er allawia^ tm a^p&ak m»& tt.'^p3emvive the «ipp«e2 
beii4 4sd tc ^raat fst se% trial ar 9at.«r tm»'\ otiaex- •r4#r8 ae 
M«y b« p«)p«r. ; ri^i^^iet«iB Y » l ^g^^ S6€ ili, 2tj ^iggg »• 
SSSt* ^^ ^^^* ^* "^'^ «7der af Ji«g«i«it 9 i^rr«atlnit ilw Ju^s* 
aaat af Judsa 20 A14 itat fazmB^lar ««t %»i4i4» ih# Qx-«i«rr aII«v» 
ia^ %h0> 9^g>*»X <m«i tti^x«vi«^ Ui# lpaa4« jr«t aa i^iat w«a «a4« 
•f ihic ia tha trial. osturX emd it «a» tmt en iyracal^rity* 
to«Q«tt«« this wae th« «ffaei af the ortfar. tet 4«f»»^«ata 
r*irtlM»r aar tMt ahila tl»» plaiatiff*« aAiiea tma ta aaaai 
tit« itt^^cHMRBt af Jsma 2C tiM «r«i«r i%«lHi»lly aaioraa aaaatfa4 
a JadciMRt •f J«M« 19. W1U1» the rmmr* tiatvm tiati tha 
Ja<iS»«ai •aaght ta ¥« aaaadad waa «a tared on J^tme 2G« it i« 
ateitt«<l t&at ttoera vaa bat ana jadiffaaat oad altteaKh tba 
%ill af aawaptiawi aaana io iadiaaia ttet this vaa antar«4 
aa Juaa 19 it aetoalljr «aa aataradi V thf^ oiartc •& J&A* 2C, 
It 1»aiBC a»aaada4 tiuit ib«>r» aat WV eB» Judeaant th« <ief«Mtouiita 
ara la aa paaitica to Qcaqplaia. 

tiM jiMl£ia«ttt 9f th<t UMiiaipal >urt af Obiai«{^ ia 
affi]na«d« A]9SlliPQI* 



\pi«inUff in ISrror, ) ^ 



B»f«n4«ttt in i^ror. } 

iamOH. so 


221 I.A. 656 

MB. JUSJX,r? ©•30H^0A df'iiverwa |js« vjiiiiicn of 

the i^oarV. 

Plaintiff, xivf j>»f»«i of » rmte fcr $lft^« 4{it«(i 
colober 12, 1916, brcuichi fuit ft^fti»et Jaoeb &, Voinbtfrg, 
th» aaker, ixnd Braili3a»ait««>W«iab«r£ Oe., a geriiomtiea, 
gnarantar. i«inla«rtf mum uefaiilied for va»t ef an affidftvit 
of MMjriia ttna JiuAge&^nt vam ent«>r«4 KgHiKst hl» fer t>h« ftiaouat 
A»laed, 11581* (^. t&^ oaius* vfts sev^reU aaa «eni ie iriid. 
«^»inftfc tfi«? oinisr d«f^» »»i. At ih** ^o«» of pl-^iaUfr*e 
oaee thoro was a fiaiiing ana Ju(i^L%<rnt is t&w9r of tttio defend* 
ant to r«v0r»9 vUitm tM» writ »f error i» proK«aut«<i. 

Flainiiff*n ot«t«»iesi of <iLalsi d««lar<^<S on th« 
proaiSKory note and \ipon th« ^Uiuri>ij»t(/ en the im<k of it, 
«a,B ao follatre; *9or Taltio r*»<amkin^4t ve Mu&rHnt«»o pxgfiieat 
of witbia noto at Maturitjr •• HraiUafaito*-'einbor« Ce,, SQr 

Jaaob £, ieiitbcrg, ii»r*j»,* 

tlsw ai'fidaYit of aortta fll«Ml lity tho gaarantor sot 
«9 tliat tho fiuaraMtijr on the no to ««o tho pteroonel guaraaV of 
Jacob t, Wolabors; that the "no to wae 4[iv»a aa part purohaao 
prioo of ofrrtaia an&rmm of eerperato otetdc bought V> onid 


«*lafb«vi r«r fel« vtm u«« froM il»«> j>lHi»Uff ftn« %^m% pltitln* 
ilff kntirv si ih^ Ua« •! «tt«h 9aJr<;^fai».«« tlifti tf^tifl u-»iitl>«ir|e 
Wm^ia* sni^i •t«aAE for Me 0'»o asM»»j 4fe«&... %im ^tMsrsMHl^ »«• 
effvor ftaiborls*d 'ii^ lb(« «i«f«mc^i<»it1^ aiitts^ vtn» mt it« nai* ^% 
%m MiMm%i«rl»«4 »»« of iia nmm* 

of Urn si%»idt {^l «iHi«v#«} In t\w» $$k%i(»vmX iimis^l* M ^'X'l9t iUm^^smjf, 

W«ittlMMnt MiKteatvd %hM,T teusiii«et» to$«iH«ir* ^lainUff «i e&« 

U»« %H»lftg •«c»r«t%r3r of th« 4«f«»^««t '»M^«nt]r. Afi<!>jr«fi)r4s 

]ii»intif'f t«g'^tl&9r 'vlijii it»« !!»rlt%«n stt^rcmV* At ^« ««:»• 
U»«, ji»lainill':^'» t«i»b«r)K (ana tiMt 4ortt«»(^Hi»i msi^k»jt «%•«(» t«4 

t«iBb«rit atiti (h« ««f«ai^ikni «& )r*>c miion trma. »li tAnimn wixM 
tii« •x««^ti»a of %h* piimiBeorjr 2ioi« l» stilt, aimI fur&iM^r 

art*in£ out of U»i» triusofor of proper t^jr of a*ifcis«ol. &«aq»lo 
A Oolor OMVMtir either to oold w«i«b«»g ojr j^raiiliooii**' ?oiBtMvr( 
CI«M»ttJa^.* 7i3« «i«jr«otiieat, further prcvi494 Ut»v ^.h*' %«« AOf^nA* 
wnio r«Xo«o«<i )»laiailfl froa oil «&«!■• oxooy*i »bo 4e«aM«|o 
«iWr«d lute of •▼«« 4b to. a% tlM eono Umo tho «tof«»aiiiai 


90rp&T%ti * «X4Ha«<F«d ftn fts«l«|iia«ot to 'iiB«» ef a Ruii «iMLete 

t«nas i< si-irew ihai at ill* jumh; Usm and ae jpitrt of the «Mtt» 
•i4«miioa »oTln^ u> ^aiatiff yiex% «&» Sttrr«i3«i«r«<i te him 
hi* aoi« for ^ftCO iri^tii:^ tlt« 4«fentiiint> eR«t>«ktqr h«!l<l, tli« 
r«Qor4 ale« 4i»«lo»«s$ ilust ea or at»out C^uiWr 12, 1917, %hm 
jiM«ri«SBa :^:ai»pl« aa4 printing ^o»pMi||r ms iacorp«r6ied imuer 
tit« lave of %i«ls at(%t«» soetti In live jpnper* filfd «it>i thf^ &m9» 
reuury «f &tete X% was raeltad tiait all fcbR prep^rly b«lea#ing 
to ii«f*ailasi aastvoration had beeis tura«4 in in panfaiuMt al eag^iial 
ata«lE ajT ^mi »«w «!<m]^aaj». 

riM trial Qourt ia «»ff«$l. h«Xd Xhai if the t9WM»» 
•«i&««i «aa the aala of tha 91 Bhasemn of utacic Ifgr pl»kn%itf 
%o t^ 4«femi»at» ^Nsiabafs* t^n ti»t aet of th^ aeri^&ratiott 
in guaraataaii^ the no to ia ^uaaiida «aa ^|k^ yjy^ oasi voiA 
ana tiaav .^'ftlal»«rg« sm f^jr as tH« «7l.i«a.'^ (Siwolo^ad, ti:--s} ae 
aati^rltgr to atunraadar t)^ $900 so to ieasd aasii^ tii<^ »at iA 
Um a.r^it mutt to plaiatiff. tte oeuri fartb^r Jaold thai 
it tSMi txaaaaatiott be aotiai<ier«d aa t^oeii Use B«il« of the 
Rxoek in t^x^ Satioaal ^aaplo wst4 3lor Oneyaasr Iqr plsiatiff 
v^m ttaiie to tbe dof e*a wnat «»n»oratie«» tbe traneaoiion aould 
be void 1»#d!»aae wKMr tli* Xawe of thio } tato oao eerperatioa 
ffiusRot hold otofik la aaobher oorporatioiu Vo l«f« bo fsult 
to find witlk the proiHieltioas of lav ftaaoaao«4 I9 the les«a«d 
trial JuGg* ia IdK iiceidioa of xiaif j&a9, wtiieti appears la the 
reeord* Imt 00 thiirii tlMy are net ap.;lioahle to tn« faota 
la tJbo eaeo Wfore ua« the only defease eet uy la tte« affl* 
davit of iKorlte aaa that tlie giiaraaty arit^a *m tike teak of 
tfee aato wae ti&« iadleldata ^UbrKaty of eialtors aad »aa aot 
autitoilsed Vy tlM defeBdaat 40a#aMr« 

Suit in &n^ »v«mt, if iw mppmtkrm fr^'A tM «nri4«n«ii %i»% tlM 

•ry ttf Us* olbtit*!* of tK<» Jial^loiiftl 0e«#X« k Qoloar tJotspiUQr 

W tn*? 4«f#adft»t ^er^ujrftil^n, th^'n, of Aour^e, fc)Uf giMrwalgr 
«mftJL4 1»« Mading /&ad tr&* fb« «ourt will lf><»k i« ih« «u1m» 
Bt»no« 0f (tie irti.nettO'iioa aati it ii it:^r.j^^«.'rai thji^t vhe (S«f«atf(» 
«at eoaq^ttt^r r«««iv««l iJs«iF <^a6t«X» of ilt« HttU«>a«JL i.^«mj»lf^ -^ 
C«lar ;ex|MMgr» then li would b« l»«uitt4 liy i]b« writ1>«n guj!»r»a%y. 

tfew •vid4m«9 do«ik not «X«arly eiiow this ^iiuati -n. it. is 

ayi^curont th»v tJa'^- footi) »«?« no'<k woll ]^r'.v««nti»4» itut ihv 
«1ri1^n«« det"* olte* Uiat tho d^frntdaat oowiMHy hv^^ |>oe6<?»tsion 
of tti* obaitols of the Sffktioiua i^^aavl* & Ooior :enpibajr but 
4a«t »liia% th» irfta»w«ti«a ««» 'riu)«t tow 4 il imn« )^ th«ai ««• 
•ot full/ 4ovelep*d. <!Vll of thlK onii )m» oiMiwn «n a r«»trial 

•f tlM <MMMI» 

f'ltti^atiff c^iXX^A » witaeo» ttn<i«r s««stioa 3S of tho 
lnniel|»&l ^:«aJ'% Aot for orooo-exftniaMiioa tmd os elijo^stloa 
of <l#f Oft ^Mst th« murt r«*f«»?o4 v» {toraitt tb« «xii«ia»tiia ualoa* 
it woo ohova tte»t th« vitaoot ««a »n tb^ont of tito AmrmntitMt 
otapanyi aoua«ol for plaiatiff oontontfo thut thio oait orror 
for tho r«aooa that tiM «itn«OR oooro to t^ affLmvlt of 
aorlvo fU«4 liy th^ d«f«^n'^aat «ad» tlierofoi-** 1m» boooao o 
wltaooo la tMo oaoo. Of ooaroo, thio orgwioat lo aa«ouB4, 
Wt «o thiak the «j.rt ol^ult^ b^vo poraitioa ih» aro»c*oaoaia** 
tl«R of th« i«lta«o» ua.^or nootion 59 for tho offica^vii of 
aorlto rooltoa thai the wita«»B woo ooorotAyjr of thft <lofOBA* 
oat oottpaay aa«t ho t^otifiod tiwt h« oc»nt)LaM«4 to »9t «o It* 
•oorotKJtjr until ito "liquldoti^.a". If ihln m<»ano vwtU tho 
otoooa to do buolaoo* wo think tho wita«>oo o«ao with* 

in th» pr«"rl»i«n« oJf ««9tt<jn US. 

r«mr*i 9f vh« w»»vii^ wnt the .^«st 9irid«ii@9. th» cbj^^tion 
V* ^^'Hli ft ^^^ '^•^^ ^^^« **«• ^^y* S f)Ki«|^»«ii o» u«rj>vrftUfttt» 

fAXi.<U«!, i'.J', AfliS tiieBS>*.!«, J. iStf^a^ffia, 

47 • SMll 

mmR Tie 

221 1.A. 656 

jiH, ^SflOK e^omsm d«liY«r«d U>t» e>'iQi<»a ♦f UM 

»y tJaift writ of «rwr a»yl<l »ftr«a«m »«#k» te r*r«r»# 

•f o&rrjr&iic «iii««i«l*d ui^en lait »«>««» a lftad«4 r«v«lv«y *«ith-> 
oat firi»% baYliitf »r9aur«A * «rl4t«B llo«a«« fr«Mft tta« Q^mtnl 

•r ^toUoA 4 of 8«Boio »iU 02 in foroo aiktl effeoi ».t%mt 
July I, If Id.** Aft#T f inline 4»f#«aftai ffW^lty th» nwuri i»« 
yoootf • fiao of |>00e aii4 oonftoaooA liiw to Mix etenitM Xm \m 
Mftttoo of G«rrf»«U«n» 

iniil«* Uu* imfer ukUoft oh»vs»o 4lof«»<lnnt viiM tlkO 
▼ioloUos of aooUofk 4 Of drnmU SiU »8 iMtfo j>»rU*o teoirtt 
%r«»%«4 IMo OR ilaougk ilM eterno ««• iitu»% Oic» d#f«ti(tttat 
iHMl TiolotoA oooiioa 4 of on Aet io r«vi«o Um litm in flmm 
Uo« to eaJT9ri«« i»o41y vooyono, (I«wo of mf, p*43ll.) »o 
•hoUL, tli'*r*for«. oo&iumi ilioi ib«> iftferanitiOtt «)mrg«« a Yiolo* 
iion of Um »t4iit«t«« 

MfoBiiHilt ooaienot that th* T«nuo wnu doi. prcroii} 
Umi% %h« ^to on vhi4ii tlir offoooo woo oilo««4 m bovo liotB 
>itOi 4ooo aot «9fH»«r» ofKil iHitt on ih<^ «tiel« %hm eridmeo 

Molt. OftiqMtysk iffi»iifi«4l !.](««% *f»^ut ««« •*fidL«4li 
in th« i»rniag »a 9Sn<t »tr««%, on %M» muM» »i.4» «ir kj^«» 
•%!>«•%• lMKt««Mti w*lmtM» iiir«n«»« <Hn<l &i«)4.|ii»«i «)V«nti«* I t»t,k9»4 
%h» 9ikr ih-.'?r« maA Iitev9 ««?# to we »m» in it (»»4 «• »%»»9<it4 
ftWut icc f»«i fron it*} tbat.% tim^ i^X*i4 *k» tM» 'Urn mit MRd 
%»9k four Mmt etit ttf ii» ox)« vf iviMm iini» iiew tt«f«n4«nt* 
Xlii» «rl«ae«a ftt.^tJ^r %e»Ufi««s *t found tiul« 1 ta» ^ipm 
vii^t in fir«n% ttf ti^ f«)jitfinit u^ K4Mit* iti iiw rmr vtn4,, «ii 
ilM rl^kt hAiDd *ias of yai« «Ktir» ftad UM» liig «><« right »n %fi» 
9om«r ef ih« •««( ia %l!i<>» 8ft«e (wsr^j t3sMi y»« Wig r«T«l¥«r 

i» fjroa% tff foutgr*** Ca i»roift»«ex«k«sltt(iUeii her &«ir<Htifl«i^ t^t 

ant Wt ».loQ«(ei<ii» «f hi» ftn t^><> »«»%{ y)«ti h&ti^ rtmtlv^x* 
««y« i«ttd9^« j£ia)«M»i iiyah9» t«>«t.ifi«a tt^i i^« smrh «. |i«»ii4« 
effi<?«> «f ih« Qity ttf '2M«A|EB cMtmit^dWd viti» th9 *d«ri«eUv« 
htt«<l>(jiu«rt«r««" 8« i#»Ufi«4 %mit,t k« fen** i<««»»sil 3li»n^ft, 
•M* of ike four a«tt iftl»e ea trial* «»• *9»nff*ttt«<i «iU> « 

off*r«il tkffkinMt «(^f«»tf«tii Kmtmmm iMtt wu* •ff«3'«<t snA r** 
«»&v«4 «>ifti««% iJMi «Ui«r 4»r«»d«ai« «}ao ««r« »ppur*aUy tric-4 
»t th* mmam ii««« tlMi <i«f*nK;ant« IftirMMa. i««Ufi«<£ %hmt h« 
«M « i»ber«r Mi9»i^«d %ar i&« Oiijr of tfki«)#et iiwtt »«ni >»«i 
wlMMi lie ksM* VAr« •iitlns in th« «tti«n«ViS.t in ^uMtios «ftd k* 
«»t in Uioi aMi,«hitt« vitii thmm Aa4 » tmm min»tPB %h0r*>a.t%(»v m» 
Bnr«>t«4{ UMt IM 414 net hav« ite» r«vclr«r in qusstieii uij^«i 
iaitt pwrMB and UMt i i«ae net nlii Vut tlKRi It »»o taJten frcw 
WB(t«nMMit)i tte» anskion ef tlMs v«<dic ••«% ef liw war, SM» in 


Xt la »p|H»rant from a r«&4iag ef t^ ^niir« v«sx)v€ 
%.i»% liui t»Q%* vere v«r^ ]s«$as«rljr »r«««at«d. In xhn oaa&e of 
geoiale *• 0«i %iij^ . 271 ilX. 138, wftere t1a« $b»xg« was £tvur4«rt 

illlueis. t^ only preot ot this «Mk^» *%!»% t^ klllitts ef 
flinaJd ft««ttrr«ti Jtt Haxn«gf Sr»«.* sftl^en* 2f43 i^srasuH el^re^t 

MittTi tfa®r« ft9JL4, (p.l4S^: •fhs'r-^ iff ne IwuUssotljr in tJs« 
r9mr4 9mmlft(t, Iqr ii«<s«»8«X7 laf»r«a<t«, t^i t.h« str^ieiK au(n» 
Uoaeil ar* ia UMt Citjr of i:%i«»s» t^* «l«««lMr« i» Cook Oenatjr, 
th«Tc i« as ral* 9f Ia« %ba% r<»i|»ir«e this taeuri to jttdiet^ly 

knttw ih^t liia«« •tr«*ts n.n4 m»\mr» <»r« in CM^fO «r «i.fl9r« 
v)aere la %ok ^tmt^. Wh*r« i^ eiritiisR^e ia tbe r»Qordi «Mi«« 

ia %h0 ammtjr iftll«sc4 in th(» iii4i««is«fit n J«ui«a«ii sf «>»- 
▼ioU«a sKMt Ito r«T«ra«4, as ban %««»ii fr«<{tt«aUjr d«eljura« 
tgr tMs 4oart«* ^taui«r ih« law a* iUHsetttt««4 ia Umt tm— «w 
ar« waatralaed to hel4 Uu»i iH« ▼•tnis «»e n«v suffioi«tiU# 
9t»v«a ia the esea b«fore ua, IMr da«» ik« AttXe of tise 
i&la^4 avaaJloaioa of ih« «ff«R«a appaar* Mar da we ihli^K. 
frass Um «i«it« 9tt iiiKt r««ord. that ttaiif »Tlaw«aa «err!&nt««t ib» 
flB4iBs of th^ ODMjrt ttK^t aaf«a^<^t tma hmnn proven s^tilt^ 
bayott^ all r««aoaa^l<» deubt, it {io«e net »pp»9ir boa maojr 
faaaaasava %hm aatoamblio la wiklsb 4efaa4Hat a*» ftrrvetod 
aattl4 aaa«BHateM, aar wbora O^ faar ««oa tiAo aere taliatt 
frea it v^^re aittia® at th« tia«. All Of tMa, teHMrrar* aaa 
1M ol«ara4 «# aa a ratrial of tiia oaoa, 

r»r tlM» arroro iaUieatad tte Jatf«n«at af tba ttaaialjiml 
Oaart af 9Ulaa«a la raroraod aad the oaaaa r««Mmdft4 for & aaa 
tn«l. SXVJHMBa Affi RMUOOKtt. 

fAfLfrnt, F.J. Ai» ncKsev. J. :csc»it. 

95 • 2f»ft66 

SOU XAOlAfi mnA Scn^tiOmm 



\ } AFMiO. sum 

0? CMICAaC, 

QSUMSJUJUm, 40198, MciaasA / 

mJ^J,.\ 221I.A. 656 

mt* im&tiCS^ 0*CCaBO^ d«I.iv«r«i Uu» opijii(m of 

i*ltLlntif fs torcrf^t^t suit. s#^cai«gt> aefesdAnts olai^ag 
a btULanoe 4a« for «i9«it» 8«ld &nd 4ntXi'9ff'«4 u» (l«i>mt&nt» of 
$7&9«&7. Zhsr« »taO a trial bofero thn «»wri vlittout a jiuxy 
M^ ft fia^lAg «a<t ia40t»n*» ia laai&tiffs* f&ver for #6C3*7S» 

to reT«3r»« »his^ doi^onaaais prosoout* tMs appeal. 

The re<»r<i dla^oaaa Usav plttinUffa ver^^ eii^a^«(t 
in tlK> j&«mt WalBoaa ami tliAt the (t«f«na«st» <»oadttet«<i t*o 
rostaunmlui la ^SaXcm4B»i Usat plalatlffo sold «aat« to def»B«UuEita 
OB a xuzaULns aoooust. XlMre la a* (Uaimta se to ike aNsuat of 
ylalatiffa* elain bat tJao defease iatorpoMMt was that it imd 
boaa paia Ity oao of tJae dofeaoimts ejieeutiag aoti <leliT«riBC 
to plalatlffa /tie yzonlnsorjr aotoa aoourod by '^ olu&ttel aort* 
9BC«. S)» teetlacasr on behalf of dof^atiaata waa to this offeot. 
flalatlff* deaied %ja»% th<«^ ba4 over re«eivo4 the netee or 
•liattal oort^aco ana t«etlfl«d tbat tbey Jcae« nothing of thoeu 
Ihe OBurt fOttBd In fsvor cf tbe plaintiffa ou tM» Issuo and 
eXtor a oareful ocnelderation of tbe eirldenoe la the reoord 
ve are ua»ble to aay tbat lixe fiaiJiag of ihe ooart le a^alaoi 


9C>rkiS - v}« 


th» amait^Bt ««itii^t of Ww evld«»nc«, in fth«Be cln 
of course, «• annaot diaturV %tie .lu<lc?»<mt. 

tixB 4«f«B<laiit« aaJce ih« furtlswr point v1m)l U)9 

that tbey «er« imrtners in tii« aondudt of Uiir«lr 1i»tt«in«ei^, th« 
OBBt^atioii being that otte of tAxe^ €tefe»^u:i»i« was msml92f«^ Mif 
tke otii9r and *»e, therefors, not li«WLe Uj tlie plaiaiiffe 
for ihm Volsnce reas-ialnf due for the 8S«;i!(t»* ^h« evidenco 
•i30«» that th«> oe^tB v«>re >;cld t,c th<» 4«fe»a»ittfi; th»t tboy 
v«re billed for tb« gooilo aad tlui^t ihejr ver* teth eo i)» 
loasoo for the prtnaioos oecupiod V th« ir«o reotAturaAts. It 
»«8 fury&er slaoiirn Uiat, th* ^laiatiffo 4c«lt T^itta tit*- t-»« d^ 
fences ts atad exteaded eredit to tetfe of Uitm, jyhetfeer the 
d«fefi>^«nts, fto bet«o«a theesoelvee, w«re pnrtnere is ls»At«ri«tl 
ia tlsis ease for it le sl«»ftr to ue t'nat pLaiatiff* seld this 
Qi*ats u> Vn€m» 

1% is ap0«reitt to us fros the svgwaeat presented 
•a boialf of the defaaciaats (uid fro^a aii exaisilaatioa of the e»» 
tiro r<?aori that this »p9maX is proseouted a#rely lex tielsjr, 
OS yl&inttffs ocntettd. in th »e 2ir«Mi8V^.no' » we sre nmk«A 
to of firm the judgaeat «i tin dsa^es. Beiog of the c^iaiua 
that the api?e«l w*s proseouted mt^rmly for dolojr. the Jud«* 
iMmt of the jftMioipal Oourt of StiMfi* vill. therefore, be 
affirmed with d«:aa<ea ia the mam of five per oenV of $dOS.7&, 
or »»0.19, 

XAXLf^, J^.J. 421^3 ISWSOa. J. ^X-»OQI« 


144 • SS815 

Aj^p^lXant af ) 

221 1.A. 656 

UK. Jf9S¥ZC~ ©•G<^»Ch 4«liir»r«4 th« yiittlon 

$1?4«13 for l«-bar perfoia"^ iBtta D4s%«rl«lfc fur«lwis«a, f* 4«« 

m »«U4»tf ^L&tainis tJaai pl&intiff •t»«?4 ^fwo^ant ^gt^.^c. i.«- 
f«a^8«t»» aala !»• f»r elcetrtc lit^bjt fttml»H«'d by Mis Ws plain- 
tiff ai ilt* mUt •f $ per aoaUt. t© .i<»t>!t*ant*« ©eUoff 
^l^iaUff tLle4 «n Jvffidftirit ©f ««rits B«tUi[Hi 09 tJwtt* 6ef»»i« 
ant*s elflla wmi b«,»«di upea a- oral •oatraot iwi to he |^erfom«4 
vlthia « y«?ar «»4 im«, tfeK-'refore, wl uiin tJtt-'- &tf,,i»t« ef fr&«i.4». 
th» otise »«■ trl«4 before tJM oeari viUsout a Jury asA Uk«^r« 
«■,« ft fiiuUas mnd JiMi^sfmt «mt(;r»!;i in d«'fenu?iint*8 fat^r mnd 
•CftltMt Wmi j>lji»i»tiff t9r $S9»at, U> r*^T«r»« »bi ?h altiintitf 
prea«attt»fl !«!• «pi>#al. 

T)M fttets aa dle^loaed b/ v)v' avidenaa* aa far B« 
It Ic aatarial to etata inas. are theaas plikiBtlf^ ««c a 
taaaat ftf <Laf«a '.Mat aa«vt»jrln« two fit<oras under a laaae vM^ 
•xplre-J in 1923, aftar li had o«eupie4 tr.. utaraa far aoaa 
tisa th« 9&rtlea cinteraul lata an oral ««re«»<>nv thereby tk« 
l&ttdlor4 acraedl to laatall aartaln Imt^ fm»Xm in front of 

k4)9p4r»: VJunl ii^ i«ni»ai of Aiioh st&re ««<» to pttjf hi* g.fg , g^|» 
•tiftr« of Va*> oeet of iakUilliiiB Ui« pooW nJie furtusfdns Umh 
li<$k%; that plsinttff oox-rupiea t^v r»tor«-e ^m^ >4i,fi U> jisgir S4«O0 
yor Hoatli »• its pro^^rilcii&t« tsiMMre of Ui«> ««x:2»eas«. 

tht GSkly iiiM^liit strgMed in M(ilstiff*i» ib»i#f l» viwtiMMr 
* l»tt»r wriit«a 1^ ;>iaiati.ff t^-. dP^ «-. i^mt 5>«a tn*' I&tt»r*ft 
ro^Xjr ii»^fOt« oo^oiitttte • Aufrioifrnt Hto»or«ttduR i» trritiag to 
oxsluiio tJn« e«u»o froa tti« 0|H»rAttoa «'< eeotioa 1, oh. 59 » !«•&•• 
oJadc?'. $r«vi4oo ta.-itao aeti<r>ii ka^ii 1»» 'brouji'^it to elMMrgo oagr 
porsoft u^dM 3>a/ oral oKre^aetit 4Sii<^ ie ooi to be ^«rfejn»e«i 
witixia 0U0 >oikr imlo^v ui^/« is ^^cwc Mfli»i»jraiMltm or not*' ia 
writitti; elgaod 1»jr tjam j^orty to h» ohor)g«a or ^;y s?a^ s»artdr*o 
ditly »tth8Tiso4 ««;««it* 

Xof tiM viow «• toko of \ti« m.f?9 wo tiiink iv Ib «»» 
nesooo&rjr to 4««l4o tjstio peimi, for it 1>ao \temi twld thot «hil« 
oa orol QOtotroci vhioh it; not te iie iH»rforsjt^(i witMn £i >«Mr 
90»«e oitaia Usie *t»lMt« %n;^ in Mi«nforQJll»L«* ^ei ita««r« oiioii 
««»tr«et kao boon falljr perforoMd v^s tSi« p«rt of tbo ;»lniii» 
tiff «itt<!i aet'nitts roHtolno to b«» «tott» 1v '^^ ii«i'9niifMX exoogtt 
to |i«jr noaojT, ia cuoik oaso the otatato af t»imt.» <lo^o sot nt^pVf 
«ad ia aaoTailias ao a d«f«»a»a. |mo^^|| ▼. Jroo^. Ua Hi, 

T, js.l H t g 4. 2c7 ;i;, •.pp.X39. Sut oauaooi for pXtiietlff • opipfiV)* 
oatljr oatlaipoiias tidat taa dofatutoat veuld aDat«»d tbin^t )i« 
lte4 |»arfanoo4 aio p&rt of tte^' «i>n(.raaia sad thai* tltt'rofaro. 
tli« •t^tttto oouid not oppijra Kao tuttPfA itaot th<» ocntraot bciag 
ynifi ua«tor tho ot«tuto ae rooevorjr «»ui(t it« ht^ii «xoopt upan » 
yi^n tMw aortti| for tbo lobar aad ■at<>^riolo ootuolly fttrni«<i«d. 

In •Mp,9r% •{ this %h» mm9 9f l^^^m ^^%m9^«n% cul.. ▼• 
IHTif JB nt M% wa nx. 184, m^ •xh^r •*••• <aua, m tj«t 

r4«i far n i«yn 4«irJLn<( Dtoiotii Uk« |)irn»l»«f» w*r» MOi «eiw>aiy 

•ad t;^» ««• en* of tlft« i^r«uii4« on w))i4^ «li« aevurit th»r« 41.»» 
titigul«b«4 tn«i <•»»• froii ilfc» ««.«« •? ^1>«»*"f ▼• SLssfiXl* 
&u ;.iu }.6-c>, vltile la UMt <»«»• »^ imr %n« iiowoff 9l»iw» 
H«CO »«r matiiki for ii«)K% aotttAll^ furai«^<l. in tH« ^^S... 
ft8>i|»l4 SiS$» iw***-^ wMi » »«i^ tewuMJht o« o» oral oonirooi 
«h€r«l)|]r i^i»« ii«foii4iikai( yreMiMd Vo r«*9«y £»&ttinUff $]14,0C«» 

«o« ]gHi|4 Utttit* Uk« ifibiitlut* 6r trmfA* ftia net appIj^* fb* o&uri 
()»»f^ tt*&4« (p»BA9){ •!* io itt»i«it«4 thitt ihe aeurt «rr#d 

of TvondbB* fh« firei vt<Mf &«• ^^i^^'' ^« j»r«« (ifxaajr*^ tt9i»fi 
«»• «•% to b« p^rtottfA wiiiiikn imm yeojr • • •» Aft to th» tirnt 
(9l*ft}« ilii« domirror mm prejMirljr ftoetitiiiooi en t.h« i^r^uiul 

fonM4 Hpo0 Ui« p«rt of tiae )^atiaUff« !s»()i notMniS temminm 
io )»» 4oft« \fjf t^ <i»f«nd»n%.9 ^u% to pjgr vis« mono/. ^S££M& ^* 
tmam m 34 ill* as), V« do not untio'rttlMmdi, undi#y^ ih« x^le im 
iM« ctftie, fclsftt ijnm ^^tfttuto of 'Frimaa omu b>» int^ri^o )!!«(£ ftO 
o doftt'ite* «h<<.» ijftft eoi\tr>ft«t le fuiljr smrfnru^A en the ^»jpt 
of Mm {>l«iaiiff • in oUi«r «or4o« tlw& i«%ttte of Fmude msaant 
1m o'VttiXM of for Umf in^rpooo of porpetrciiinie o frtot^.* Siaoo 
itee l«nttlor4*e olaiA wtto %ha^ ho )»»<{ fai-ninhoa %k<i> li^^hi uikdor 
iho oral imrfmt*m% n se v lux ircoiAiAO^ U- V* iatn» \m% tho 
yoyaeai of i%M Nortuit duo Igr th* i««Mii, vo tei«i>« luidor tfao 
rule l».i(t dews'j la Ihe JtpaM;. aittl<f ^j p^of » th:';t ti-r sifttuto Of 

tia» Jua«i»«nt of the ..unlai{^«t aeurt of Chit»spt 

uxim, »«^, Avs yagw&w, j* mnam. 

197 • 2596f 



CCMPAHY, a corpuratlpn, et al 
On appeal of Erwin 6%«er Aute- 
BMbile ConpanQT. a ^a^oration,^ 


'ciRCaJlX (XiURT, 


21I.A. 657 

MR. JUSTICE 0*C0N80H dellrered the opinion of 

the eo ur t« 

Plaintiff l>routjht suit against the Srwln Greer 
Atttomo1>il«» Company, a corporation* The Sr«er College of 
Itotoring, a corporation* and Paul G. Itoineraann to recover 
damages for personal injuries. The suit was dieoissed as 
to the two last naaed defen>;.'int8 and there was a ▼erdict and 
Judgaent against the ISrwin Greer Autosiebile Company for 
|llSd»oo, to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted. 

The evidence tends to shew that Hftinemami* who 
lived in Weodwerth* Wis. cpjae to ?JaXang» in June, 1918, to 
buy an autozaobile and for this purpose drove in his .-'ord 
ear to the place of busines;: of the (^ality Rebuilt Car Co. 
on Mi chigan orenue near S4th street. He vas there shown a 
eecond*h;ind liudson car. Per the purpose of inducing a sale 
one Burnett, a demonstrator of ears, took Heinemann in the 
Hudson and drove hia around for a siiort tine deneastrating 
the quality and condition of the oar. Aft<?r th(>y r^^turned 
Heineraann statea that he «c ui d look aro ad at ether sale*- 

reoas but «ould probably r^^tum. Later on h«> did return and 

told the saleBoan in charge, one Carle, that he would buy 


the UudsoB ear for the price asked, $75C.cO, upo» thf con- 
dition that the seller would proYide him isrith an instructor 
to teaeh hia how to run the ear as he was unfamiliar vith 
the operation ef that particular make of autoBiobile. This 
wm» agreed to and eineraann gave Carle his check for $450.00. 
The halance of the purchase price was to lie ^^aid by Heinemann 
turning in his Ford at an ai;reed Taluation of ;^300. OC. 
Carle gare Heinemann a receipt or inroice in which it vas 
stated that the "(quality Hehuilt Car Co., Unincorporated, 
sold to iieinei«ann*> th' car in quoRtion. Carle stated that 
he had not then an instructor but that if Heinemann vouid return 
an hour later one wo Id be at hie serTice. Heinemann left and 
returned at about 5:00 e*ckodc in the evening. Thereupon Carle 
told hiB to go with Burnett to th^ir other place of business 
on Ir'abasH aveflue near 15th street. Burnett droTC the Hudson 
and Ueineniana the 70 rd to the Wabash avenue address. Heinemann 
there sai^ iSrwin Greer, pr<='sldent of the defendant eoapaay, 
who asked him where he had purehas>'d the ord and upon being 
adTised Greer inTOStigated to asoertaia whether Heinemann was 
the rightful owner, lie also looked into his financial stand* 
ing. He satisfied himself that Heinemann owned thf Ferd and 
then O.K«*d. ths ct^dc for $450.00 which Mineraann had previoaa- 
I7 giwen to Carle. Greer th«>reupon executed and delivered te 
Heinemann a receipted iaveice showing that "The Eirwin Greer 
Automobile Oompanjr isold to i\ c. Heineiaana* the TSadsea Car. 
It was also recited la the invoice that all tales were eubjo^ct 
to acceptance by Krwla Greer. A few days thereafter, when 
the ehedc had gone through the banks, Greer, in accordance 
with their custom, made out arrather sales invoice in Bubstan- 
tially thp same language and mailed it to Heincmana at «ood- 
warth. Wis. Immediately after Ureer had ^.K. *« th' cheek and 


satlsflcd hia8«lf that H«in«iMtnn vas the vimer of the ford 
Burnett changed the Uiaoonein lieense from the Ford to the 
BudsoB and Ureer told Burnett to take Holnemann out In the 
Hudson and instruct him in the operation of it. Burnett 
drore th« oar to a residential oeetion of th« eitjr and then 
Heinemana took the wheel. Undc v the direetione of Burnett 
he drove around for about 30 minutes and waa instructed in the 
operation of it. After they had been driving for aoae tioa 
Heiaemann endeavored to turn the oar around in Calomet av«i«e 
but apparently last oontrol of it. It ran up on the side* 
waUe and struck snd injured plaintiff. Bhe was taken to a hos- 
pital and Heinotann was placed under arrest. •\fter tlile suit 
had been filed Heinemann paid plaintiff I1158.CC and received 
from her a covenant not to sue. 

fbere is a dispute In ^e evidence as to whether 
the sale was made i^n ci nditien that inetruetion in operating 
the oar would be given Heinemann, and else as to what took 
place Just prior to the accident. Heinnaarm tf'stifi^^d that 
he was to have moh inetruetion « and that he was uifaaailiar 
with the city* and that there w«8 a street oar trade and a 
considerable auaber of persons in the street near whe^e the 
turn waft to be laade; that he requested Burnett to take the 
wheel as he was afraid he could net aake the turn* but that 
Baraatt told him how to shift th? gears and hew to laake the 
turn. On th'^ther hand there was teetiaoqy to the effect that 
the sal* was made without any promise to furnish Heinemann 
instruction and tnat after the sale was made 3urnett went 
with iif'ineiaann, at the letter's request, to show him how to 
operate the oaohiae as a aere favor. Burnett testified that 
when thHy reached the place wh"re the turn wes tr be made 


in CaluBAt areRu* he requested Heinemann to let his make the 
turn but that tne latter refused. 

It vas stipulated thst no question wo Id be raised 
ia this court as to the amount of th** daissges. Defendent, how* 
erer, erm^ee that the cs=le of the autoawbile was m».de by the 
QiHRlity uebuilt lar Z'.JKpejxy and not Vy the defendp.nt; ti»t the 
v^ttfillty Cowpany wp? uainoorpc rated and ewned by Krwin Greer, the 
president of the defenuant corporation; that the Imsinese was 
separate and dietinet fre«i thet of defendant except that the 
books of acooust of the <ia«lity Coispany were kept by the de- 
fendant at its pace of busineee on v:ahaeh avenue; that in 
these cireuiaetaneec defendant wo -Id be in no way liable for 
the injurlee susteined by plaintiff. 

We think the eviuenee would not warrant the con* 
elusion drawn It^ the defendant, and after a careful eoneider^ 
ation of all the evidence we think that, in the view oost favor* 
able to the defenaant, the most that ean be oaid is that 
whether the ear was sold by the defendant was a question for 
tho Jury. But wo are also of the cpinit.n that the {»ntea* 
tioB now made is an afterthought, for upon an ezamiaaticn of 
the reoord it appears that at no time during the trial was it 
oontend«>d that the enle of the sCudson ear was not made by 
the dcfenr'ant. Xiiie appears; thro«i«';hout the trial, in the ta]t» 
inc oT evidPnoe, in the raotione of the d«f«»ndtant tc inEtruct 
at the close of plaintiff *8 evidence and again at the dloso of 
all the evidenne, and fron the instructions aski»d by d^/'enciant, 
s<^e of which were given and ttcuo refused. At the dLoso of 
plaintiff's ease oounscl for defendant moved to disaiss be* 
eaiaa* there was a variance between tho allesatioas of the d»» 
elaratioa and the evidence. Counsel stated that the "evidence 


shftwa that the car was being operated hy the owner, Xher* 
was no relatittnship of mastttr and serrnnt. Mr. Heinffiaaim 
vac entirely indepena<='nt. Th* owner of the ear had a right 
to do as h« aaw fit. Ha paid for it. The oar was no longer 
uader our dircetioa and the evidence shovs dearly that he 
vaa opcratiag the ear and that our eerrant was not operating 
the car. * * » The eyidoaee shows thjit this ear ««s operated 
at the time of ih. aeeideat y»y one aeiaemaim. vhile the d»» 
elaratien alleges it waa operated hy the Brwin Greer Auto- 
aobile ;;oK|>aay. * Ihis motion vas ren«nred at the done of all 
the fvidexi as. It is ohvicue, therefore , th«,t on the trial 
•f the eaea there was no eontenticn made the^i defendant did ziet 
sell th. cur to ieinemann, nnd it fellevs that such a point 
oannet be urged in this court for the first tiiae. We are 
further of the opinion that xrhether l^e sale was tr^de en een-> 
dition that Hein«%ann be furnished inotruetions in th*? opera* 
tion ef the maeilne was a question for Uie inxjr and we thistle 
the eridenee vae sufficient to sustain their finding. 

Defendant also argues that it, is not liable beeanse the 
demonstrator er iastruoter, Burnett, was net its agent but was 
esEpleyed 1^ the ()pality Unbuilt Oar ximpaigr* Jtnd \.hnt there 
could be BO liability in any event for the reason that at and 
before the tine ef the aoddent the &;r belonged to and was 
under the eaeeLusiT* eontrol ef Heinenaan* and cren if there wrs 
any negligence en the part ef Burnett* it could net be attributed 
te defendant even if it were held that Burnett was in its em- 
ploy. Upea a oonsideration ef the eridenoe «e think that the 
■set that «in be aaid is that whetner Burnett was in the eB^>loy 
ef the defendant er ef the (Quality Rebuilt Car Ccmpany vas also 
a question for the Jury. Ihey found in farer of the plaintiff 
sad we think the finding is fully varruited by the eridenM. 

• 6- 

We are alM ef tbe opinion that whetlier Burnett was negli* 
gent at and before the time of the accident and whether 
he was th«i engaged in the furtherance ef his master* e, the 
defendant* ■> business were questions of fact for the Jury 
to determine, I'he eTidenoe tends te shew that the defend** 
ant agreed in consideration of the purchase of the car by 
Heinemarm to furnish him instructions in the operation ef 
it. In these circumstances ve think ve would not be at all 
warranted in disturbing the finding of the jury to the effect 
that at and before the time of the accident Burnett was a 
serrant ef the defenaant and that he was engaged in the 
furtherance ef the master's business. Such being the case 
defendant vould be liable for Burnett's negligence. This 
is an elementary rule of lav. 

It is also said that the court mrrmi in giTing 
iastructicne submitted on behalf of plaintiff and refusing 
memm of those sulmiitted by defendant. So error ie pointed 
out and In these eiroumstanceo, of course, it is not our 
dtt^ to go through the record in search of erroneous irulings 
on the instruetioas. That is the duty ef counsel. HoweTer« 
we hare examined the instructions and find the contention 
untenable. Defendant does point out, howerer. that there 
vas error in glring instruction 6 on behalf of plaintiff. 
This instruction was on the question of damages and we think 
it was proper. City of Ohioa^ v,. Baboook| 143 m. 3Sd. 

The Judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County 
is affizved. 


y4;j_tv: frx.. 3 s 

119 - 2U7^ 




221 1.A. 65T 

MH. /USYXS^S IHO&SOS deliv«r»d %h0 opiaioa of %,ht> 


Iliivwaews aeti a of 1^» t&ur%h ela«e in tii« Muniei- 
pml Court ttf CMeAg*« wk»robjr ih«? j^lminiiff, jtmltI C. WrimnA, 
m«ug}i% %o v^Qormr w-mnages tx9m thf- ^«fen<isnt» &4»org« Kenneker, 
vhieh Bh« alleged Imd 1i««n outset \^ th<> n«igIi(iAnc<? of Wh 
li^fen aat»« e]3&uff«iur, in ro eperatlnif hie autcoebil* »» t» 
eellidc vith hers ana pt^rti&lljr wreck it. Th« i»ftu«8 «er« 
irlftct Vefero vh«> oourt wituoat a Juzy reeulting in r fisd* 
log for th» plaintiff and « Judgs^nt in her fcrer for £1*6, 
to r^r<*r— vhi<^ vlt^ d«f eadaoit laas perfooted this appeal. 

Ttoo oisljK 9oijii urgod V V)»; def«aiiMat in supv^ort 
of th<> appeal i« tlmi th? finding asd Jttdtamii of the trial 
oeurt ar« againot ttk* Bttnlfeat woighi of %hi>f •rtdmnae. h« 
plaintiff waa driTing her ear aoatn in Uiehigan Boulevard 
ia the dt/ df Cnlcago. Her mother was la thA oar vith har 
aad aloe iae aallora in vmifena. The df'feadaai waa coins 
north In «ltthi<aa Boulevard vith hie ehauffaar who vae drlv* 
lag. Ihe eollioieo vhioh gave riae to thia aetion oecurred 
jast Borih of 42ad atreet, vhioh araaaee Michigan Boulevard 
at right aaglea. Xhe plaintiff t«otifled th&t *a Bi» approach- 
ed 4£ad atreet ahe vaa driving jaet vaat of th'^ omter of 

2937S -^ 

lUehlgAn Boul«tnurA; that x,h»r« ««• m. ear m liiilv aiWMl »f 

to»r, «lii«ti «»» «boat to turn »t 42»4 street aaa as «he did 

aot kaov vMiA wajr It ma £oiBg iu tun shs stop>p«u h«r otir; 

th&v »h(' «»« t«t« c:<iT8 ooainjfs i»rtM In ;-j.elEug&B Boul«T«rd an<l Ap- 

proaebias 42ikI street; one smr 1»eiae as«r th^eurb of ^^iichicsa 

nvs&ue «nd the ether «ur paS£-iB«; it on th« outside; tk^t th« 

•sr ttlM«4 «f tor tura«4 e^st ea AZn4 str««t $m4 Vtmi. tixf^ sat- 

side esr eoMlns nertk (tJas defendsdat's ear) p&ased ftreoad the 

ma vtai^ WM tomlas <NMit ea 42Rd street tma then ran lata 

the plaiatifi'^fr ear; iis&t h«r s&r w&s et&^{»«<i »4 y^c &is;« ef 

the ^llisiis; b&at^ bar siether vas aitting next te hki- tmA 

th« aailara v«r«- alttiag in tit* Wi^ Ka&t. It ftppcwra fxtm 

tki« ftvlii^ae thjkt «*i4»rtJl^ ^f4&r<.- th;*: U&^« cf y*s tt<&t3l.dt?at« 

tJba ylaiatif if pstased *Vt«e« atiilarb triic «er($ «^ in Ihm 

aasM air«F«itiaH eHe ^caa clriTi^ an4 atie aak«4 ■ihm. Ut avt ia 

sad ride, tms f/^tdMlii* fMi^iHAn i6«s*ifi«d tJ^i i^ttmr %"&» 

aellisioa tiia d«f«atiant i$at uut af hie «ar &ii«^ tmXie«d STt^r 

to bar aer aRs aware at ^er; tkmi ai'te^ the <l.#f«ad(iRt*8 ear 

stru^ bars, the latter apparantlj slipj^d toward th<* aeater 

af tjoA Btraat wad that the <. tlMr ear 4x0rm to the aarli stone 

en the east aide 9t t)»!t street and sto.j^ed; that, at n t^e 

preri as tu the aeeitiffat was she dririas her oar east of the 

aeater af the street, cu Orosa^azaainatica she testified 

that as she approaehed 42nd street atts was is^ittc alevly*- 

prehahljT i:^ to 15 ailea p^r iwur am& th .t she ossm tc a dead 

stAD Jttst north af 4Sad street to see whioh wajr the oar vhidh 

waa gaiag s^uth ahead of her w^is coiad; to torn ia 42ad street 

aad that it tamed eaat. The |»laiaUff*s aK»th«r testified 

substantially ae the |>laiatiff did. She ataiad that whaa 

the dafaadant*s enr atrude the plalatiff*«« th« <lofendaat*s 

«ar «sa waat of th» e«nt*r iiaa •t Michigan aveaua; tBat 


i» ^it. 

■^t©9t lfc*W 

ife« plaintiff* e a»T mum mt no timm •cist of thf isentes* 
of jiilsMgxn aTwsue. On ««se««xftiaiABtlott the r»l»intiff*e 
■oUMr 1^iitifi«4 tiutt tJ»»ir «ir im« »beut ic fe«t, fx-ea ike 
««st aurb lijB« At th* tttue of U^<» eolllsion sua tlHit thvy 
vero *9raotlOAlljr etftndiag still". €«« of th« sailoro 
tootifi«d Ui&t the plaintiff hsid pi^«d hla Anti his lri«i%di 
m^ m* tlMrjT were mU-Jcisg on aidilfitm Soulorox^ unA &)iat tlugr 
««re soiisii^ about 12 or IS adle* pet ttoar until tYvf^/ reo^ftd 
42Bd street; th».t nt that ti»« ih^re h&b ^ sar shosd of t^Moi, 
the arlTer of ivliioh algnnllod thai he ^mo i^oing to tara «»et, 
v^Areu^oa tiu> . laiatif f otoppeii hsjr <Mur «m Va^ lei^hi, ei4e; 
Uiot tltere w«r« tin» eoro nortb ttmi tmt oao of i'{)i«a 
l«s»«4 th« osT whloh «ao Warning oaet ana rmn into tbo ^l«i»* 
tlff*e mr «hio]& woe ihen 10 fe«t frMi th«) ««et earb liao; 
that >i« first •«» tb* aof«Raant*» esr when it umm 6 or 8 
foot avoy, oaiftiiag abeut 2C lailoo j»*r beur or fHnter; tk»t it 
flrot otrttflk: tbo iil«intlff*e «« o^pooito the driving; seat 
aad the>n aorapod alonK «h« Kido of %h^ oar* taJciag off tlw 
badk bttb; th^t th« pluintiff*H omt «ao net «aBt of the o««Btojr 
liao of ifciohigAD aT«nuo aiid wao at a doao otop at th<»^ tisaui 
•f tiko oolIiaioB, 

fho dofoadaat* Hmimtiik«tr, toatifiod that bo vao in 
tho printing and pobllehins bueineae and that en tb« day in 
qaoatioa he waa driving to th« depot* having about an inour 
to reaota fch<*r«; it vaa raining anu ne nis -mr was <zroa«ins 
4aaUl atroot* going north, ho eiur tvo naebinoe about in vho 
■iddlo of th« MHMct block, atmXn^ south; ihnt tn<!r« vero 
throa wtehinoa going north, including iiie onn; one 5C or 76 
foot ahoaA of hiM ana another about 1<)0 faot bohind bin; 
thai ho oallod his drivor'a attention u< th<!> foot thet tho 
sooond ear e«wing cotith vaa sttaing fast; th^&t his stm ear 

iM« e:e^BS 00% over d tailtse as hiojTi t»h@i ih« plaintiff, 
vJnose car tnts VJ»^ s«eon<S on« eoMiag south* tri«d to out 
•JhmA of th« oar alteftd «f h«r; thsLt sii(» t^rovn out to p««s 
aiKi tlMn apparently ••» tb« «ir« oonii^ B»rth sad th«a 
8lM tried te turn baok ^hinti th^^ oar •he wmi feilewring 
aa4 as stia did e« {ivr Q»r *•!»»% eoetpleteljr aeraas, fasiag; 
the esct aad -wast* «i£id<i«4 arilamdred feat to««tr<di us, iuat 
e« casing tiie ear thow vaa ia fraat of uii*; that Qia rear 
ead ef the plaiatiff'a ear *BliuBieti u? agaiaat 1^ car on 
tbe siae and beuaded off about ten feet. M«r oar vaa vhaXly 
•a Our ri^ht of oay» elur vac driving wt ^ Aili^e {»«r hour. 
^M» tooJcc the «hol0 aide of m^ liJMusine, all tHe glas» in 
ii« Vrelce the feadera off, broke the wutf Qw^rdBt lioth rear 
and froAt feador. kaoolced off the hah eai»e« hri^e tajf radiator » 
broke the hea^ight and bouad«>d Off the rear te th*? aide*; 
that after the oollieicn te get out of hie sar and veat ay 
to the alaintiff And aaid, ''you are a. ciuaee, doa't you kae« 
you are exoeedia^^ all epeed lioite h^ref Vlqr do you drive 
a« you are oa a day like this? l}eit*t you know you ah8u.lda*t 
IP* at the aost, over ten or ttirelTe ailee per hour?* Xh« 
defenuant further testified th»t the plaiatiff*e ear vae east 
of the eeater line of ^lehigen Boulevard sad thf«t Me own oar 
vaa eithia eae foot of the eaet eurh line vhera it »a« »topi>ed. 
Cn are ee^exMai nation the defeadaat testified tttat when the 
plaintiff first hagan to skid she «as ahout lc( fe<«t avjgr; 
that if ahe had not run into hi* oar* her ear weuld have 
tamed oeapletely around and faoed aortheaat; that hie ear 
aas up agaiiMt the oast earb as olose as he dared to got and 
that it was ooapletoly etopped «h«n it was hit; that the 
plaintiff vas oa the eaet siae of Uiokdkgaa houlerard vhea 

abm trlffd ta go ssrovaid th» car aia«^d of ht.>r. "M nlmi iL«f6%itl^ii\ LA'S ear wiaioiiwRS goiag south ah«a4 of thr plaintiff's 
ear, nevor turned ma.fX to 4^nd «tr«et Wt vMit otraJk«;hi eeutb 
la kiohigaa Boulovard «na that «ft«r the Acoid^nt tlte pl&intiff*e 
9mr lay «1>out 12 f«et froiai the ^n»% c^rh of :;iQhi«Eoii Soul»TAr4 
utd full/ 5 fe«t «»8t of thi° <9ftnt«r of th^ sXr^ttt, the <l^^ftm4» 
aBi*o ohaoffour g»v« t^»;tl.^oi!^ mm to Xhe osQurr«nQ«, K/'hi^ «&* 
la <»}rro bo ratios of tas t«feiinoay of %lm d«>:fenanRt. H* tf>e» 
tlflod that oo imo driving net erer e«Ten or olght ttll«s ha 
ikour aad tltet plaintiff** ear vas goioK about 35 sell os an t^ur; 
that It v%e ft wot nlii^pory day and aa Vhje plstiatiff drove her 
9aa out. in BB effort to paae tfe« of«r «he«d of hmr, %lm rt-mr 
«Rd of har @si.r avuas areancl ao^ ekldtiea into the 4iaf«»d»at*a 
ear and boundad off about tan faai j%»d ec^na te s^ Rtop; tlia^t 
tba defaii.jani*a ear was about & foot froa tha ea»t eurb lltte 
of sUohigaa Bo.ilarard. n crosaaexaisiaation thi?. r^tnesct tea* 
Uflad tkat the plaintiff itast baTe baan abaui 79 feat ava^r 
T^htn aha started to skid, when ahe tri«d vo paae \lm sax 
ahead of huri that when aha first started to skid she aras In 
the eanter of t)M street and akldtied aouthaaat iitt the defend* 
aat*» ear. One Banke, a j^ollee officer, teetificd thai at the 
tiae of t^MS aeoldaat he was »t,^>nain0 at th^ com#r of 47th 
street and JiiiriUsBtt Boulevard sad upon learalng of the aoei* 
deat he vent up to 42ad street wh«re h^ saw the defendant* a 
ear faelas aorthMuit, tm> or three feet trmt the east oiarb 
line and the plaintiff 'e oor faoiiuf aouth withla six or 
eight feet of the eoat eurb line and ORtlrely east of the 
•eatar of ulohlsaa Boulevard; that it was "about 4 C to 42 feet* 
betveea the plaiaUff'e ear and the vest ourb liae. One 
^alllvaa teatified th/it h« vas eredlt aaaasor for the laland 
Steel ConjHuqr: that at th'^ tiae of the oolllslon la i)tt«etioa 
be vas etanding at tha Siaelnir Cil statloa whi dh «aa looated 

•n R Ti^osnt lot at ttu^ aoribeast comer of 4S>ntt iitr«et mad 
Kiohigiu) •▼«nu»; thai ta» sav tfa« plftintiff** car eoaUim ••utb* 
"going prstty fast, between £6 aa«t SO sile« per heur*; that 
ib»r^ «aa a ear o little shead ef the plftintlff and the plala* 
tiff started to «« *e«rt of eoutbeiuii nnd thum. it ooul(iii*t c^t 
^ beoauee there «»r« other ours eoa^ag, mtti then started ia 
the ether dlreeti<m lutu it sideaeliMtd iato th« ear jt^ing 
aorth* th*> tail end ef the ear geiag south due to the nlippery 
parewent, 1»»as«d iat* the oar geii^ &orth. Miee Friend* e car 
was e»et of the center ef MiehigMS avetme. After the nceident 
I vent deva to th^• curb and both eare vere oa the east eide of 
KiebiSim aveaae, oae mr feeing straight iMirth &n<i the other 
ear faelag southwest. Both «»rs sere e&at of %im sinter liae 
•f Miehisea ereaue. Mi as :^rie»<i*e ear vn.m & to 6 feet east ef 
the eeater ef i^i<dii4;an aveitue. ¥He tail end ef thie sirl*e 
ear aae about 12 feet or ee fr«>a the east curb*" Cn eroaa* 
exaaiaatioa this witaeae testified that «hes he first ea« the 
plaiatiff*8 ear it aaa geiag eeuih rii^ht ia th>v oenter of the 
street «ad that &t ttot tiae the d»fend^at*e ear was at 42ad 
•traet aad about 6 feet frea t^ east ourb; that ahea the 
I»l%iatiff*» oar eicidaed it went *imy\ie tvettty^fire or thirtjr 
feet. 7he back cwuaK areuad aad akidded eouth aad eact; it 
warn east of the oenter of ^iehtipBO ereaae before it started 
to skid. The out «ae still skiddinc when the oollieioa 
oeourred; 1 d^w't beliere thp (d«f«na?u5t»s) oar stopped it; 
it skidded seae uere. * 

Xhe plainUff, her neihar aad the tailor, testified 
th»t plaiatiff aad her aother vere sittiag ia the froat seat 
aad tn9 sailers in the Te»r, lh« (i#feRv<«Bt testified that 
he spoke te the plaintiff's ate ther when she vaa in the rear 
•f the oar aad before sByea<> had ig»X oat of it« 


It will b« ••«'» tlmi ihc!r« i» hO|pl«»B QOafllet in 
tMn tcsiimoay. XtMt plaintiff u&& h»r ne%h«^r t<i»iifi«<i t« 
onm set «f fjiota ftad Um <l«f •&<!£«% ftM Ms ehauff^ur to a 
totally diff*r«nt ••«. Of fa«t«i. 7)i« plcilBtiff «»• oorrolwrfttvd 
tor tlM «ftXlor, »)3oa «e do not oosBider »» &a eaiirely din* 
iBier«ist«ct Bitnei»£. H« »«« ridiss is th« pialntlff's eair 
as h«r gu»»t at th«; tlia* of ihia aoel^«nt and It voald not 
Iw uimeturel If h« iMid« ©very effort to aupu»ri her T«r»ioa 
of thfe ocourrenQ«. 

flw oaljr really 4ieiiit«>re«t«d ixitnoasft la tbi» sas* 
«r« ttm |H»llo« offlo«r a&4 ih« witness Sullivan. We augr 
osasic^er that th« t«sU«oii)r of tibe police officer Is n&i. of 
partieular iJi}»ort«tae« iaasnae^ as h* «»» i»et an eym wi t-nftss 
and B^r^'ljr 4esoril»ed th» conditions nn h« aav i.hvsi waen he 
arrlYOfit at the se»no of ich«f aofiideat t«n or fift««n a&iauteR 
aftor it had oacarr«d a.n^ it ata^ b« ikut t'n^re he^ h«en «o«« 
efeattge ia th« poeitieii of the oars dur2.a« %.t»t tiQ.e» although 
ao i»u«h olala is aad», tet as far as tho offiee!r*o toatiamijr 
COaa it eorrol>erat«e th«> defenasnt. The t^^tiaaony of ths 
vitaess SulliTaa, vhiO sav th« two osirs hnftUB Ukcwi ;.'^^« to* 
SStter* amt ote^rred tl»» entire eemirren'^, is in entiro 
ascerd vith th« doseriptioas of %h0 aeoid^^at «^iven 1>gr tte 
dofsBdaat aad his ahaaffsur. 

It is ajtparoat froa th« raoord that thc> trial court* 
ia dodding this oasa for thK plaintiff* adoptsd the plaia* 
tiff*s thvory that at th« tiao of th@ colllsioa hor ear aas 
aaat of th« csntar lia* of Midiisan Beularard aad that at ao 
tiaa aas hor ctur aast of tm o««t«r lino. In our o^iaioa th« 
yrepoaAsraaoe of Oie «Tidt^no« was el«arljr toe oth<>r vey. 
Tha r«eojrd alae 8^o«s taat th>» plaiatlff w^m driviag a 


«flM|MMratiT«X]r light 9BT «nd IrHai th9 d«fend<mt*s wx» n «<»a»» 
IMAttlYftly iMNivy 3*\ir. 9MIe th» pl&intitf testified limt 
aft^r th? cwllieion the ilefi»ndaBt dror« /sia ear ©ver t©w*Pd 
the «»ei eurb line, i^ defemisat testified that Me e&r n^s 
eoaptleiely «tepp«rii «h«!i it was etrudc £iit4 after thf H^laln* 
tiff** *r odlli<i«»d wiy» M« it eisidded ^oun ta Uf^ so.jtH for 
a dlfftanec ef nbeut 10 f9«t a&d th^ vltn^tn &%tlIiT@n eerrobexw 
eted th# dttfend&nt ia giTia^ bie u«saripti£« ef «h^tt o@ourre^ 
at t^« of the «eel<i««it. 

i^ this 6tait« ef the r^ioord aa<l ^%0T a e«^#fal 
eoneiderati&9 df all ti^ testi^OAjT* ir9 ar« of iiie opinion 
th»t tbs fiBdinf of tits trifOL @»uf t vae ngsiaat tibkt^ autaifeet 
««i^ht of thfi cvi4eno« snd thst t^ slaar ^reponc@reae« of 
th«i erideac^ s^wi tlMtt the def«adsat*s (Mmttttmr ims gailtjr 
of so aeirXig«noo «m(i th« aeoi^ent waa dtto wl^olly to tts«' eare* 
lo8« dJriTias of th« plj^atiff and th« Judgment of vh» Muaiei* 
iral viourt wilX ther<*f©r« \tm revwrefrd with a fiadini; of fact, 

Vo find ao a faot \im% the dKsm^ to plaintiff *a 
Otttoaobilo was not mue^d by the aei^lig^Tiee of Uik d«f«n'iant 
or hlo chauffour but rather bjr ir^r e?»n B«Klig«n9«. 

0*Oe«Bior, J. CoBSurs. 
Taylor, J. JQioaaato. 

IM - 254ia 




AprsAL tarn 

221 1.A. 657 

&n^ JM&tia^ TiiKMiAiiS a<iO,iv«r«4 thm opinion of (»i« 


¥h« jdlAiaUff «««l«1ty •ni''r«d IttU a :: »||f«<it with 
tiMi pl«i»Uff Jttr<»«it«« a •«al^W3r« wImk wV i^ lftit«r lUKtwrtovk 
•«• i»iiie« « plasiio «M}tf«l in »i.nlAiur« x>«{>r«^^ff«nURS iltitni V»o)i«v 
•••ted ui^«n « no7ft» i&oo^Miiif te (.!»« ]«<id#l ef cauXfUtr >'^aif'<Ai 
•f i>rai«««» ]B«)i«niA*" art^^ if thi» •»• tkPpre-vHL Iqt • «outtMltt«i«« 
to >• «i^^int«« ligr ttt" •e«i4»Dr, lt« «gr«)?^4 ie> f^a^e «n •nlaripMl 
ai«(t»l to b« •ttbttit&«4 f«r «|»i>rttY»l cdui if tho o««»-;JL»»ion ttp* 
pitiT«4 tlK ft«lairc«4 wed#l, \m mcTttmii to •••i th« sifttHe in 
lNr»iui« aad plaa« ti «a • ba«« to b* •r«et«d lijr iHi' ^ioQiet^ in 
• o»^^%mif At Nil«», llllMi«. Sbt ilM iMnM ol' iH<!> oentraei 
ih« ••oi«t]r •cr^«4 *%• yajr to tne s«ttli»tor fer Vbm saiii x»«i^, 
tli« •»• 9f Uix Xtaeuaaad ($6,0C«) atllare. In tiM» fellewln« 
■uuMi«r« %D«it( FiT« >i\mdr9& (f&CQ) Dollar* «a«h witnim fiy^ 
4lajr^ of ilKt 4a t« h«r««fs ?ifi«»tt 8im4r«4 ($1,5<€) JOelXar* i» 
to ^« ncycnAMt fey iwi'i •orporation in isuikiag |M»rt payaMmta ujpfftt 
a X»t« •a4 tim <»r*«U.oa witiiin a r««»«iMl)a^ Ubui, af a •uitabl* 
¥«ii4ijii tkAc^wn te ¥• 1MM4 »• an at«U«r tgr the •waytor, titl* 
!• •al4 lot aM4 i«vr»T«i«ato th«r«*R to rmmin in o^id ••rpcjra* 

iien, •r lU «««0ttt «• h«re>inEftft«r |tr«)Yiii«>(Ss |r |«»»£ timo 

porttUoa in p«K#tt«n% »t ftt^ia l«i 'i^nd «T»«t%l»n «f e^id b»il<l» 

inn, t&»« ti»e iy»i«sa«« Is ie ^« p^sld t*» tm nmXpUtr, m% %m 

to %h« m9mX9%»9 «• h<r«inKft«r ]^r«iri<i«4; ;''ir%««n l^*iisr«»4i 
(llfSC'G} StUiair* U %<» ^at^ irll«» mft44 Bt«ti*« i» «in.«t to 
%aw»t« fttt4 ie e<j««p%«<l fey ffi«44 «»ri*«rsfcU®ii * * *J Wiffm, 
m»Ajrti4i ($l,&00) mtlXmm U %m $ml4 «^m ttki*^ ^^ni-ttn i» 
pXt)^9m4 vip»n tmH l»a«« * « *, suM %^^ ^Imtiem •t C;n« %'}»umm 

finished and d«iliT«rcdi ot«t i« »al4 «ojP|>c,ir*U&a»* Bar tlMS 
t«r.«i6 of U\i» «entr««t It ««« furthtt* »mt^M teat ^^^ <s«gr» 
•.ftey th« «ca«i>l«tl«m of ^h* fit«ttt« mnd it« iS^liwry te Ut« 
plianilff, *'ih« UU« to %hm lot «M'^ ic to h* ^ur«^as»4 «• 
Ja«»r«liib«f«r* «t«t*<i» a« woll «« «a4« &«9r&T«^«nt« tMr««>» 
• hall r«a*»i» ▼«Bt«a in nuid wi^oTAtion or i*» «te«t «ia4 
tte.t thf^roupQB y3« oaia sef^iomtioa »}««ill «iNiv<i^ yt* (mm«! to 
%h» oAid ooiaptor, »a1»4oet to tJai« itfijwftnt of Any «»i9«a.d Iwl* 
*«oo th»t. !M^y ¥• tfuo «]^«»n »«ld lot mn<t titstt Ui# »»ffiH» fro* 
tlKnoo on «l»ai Vo tbo pro^^rtf of tho aoldi ooul^tor** 

VollooSn^i t^«^ «%«««Uon of tr4« oc>ntjt«,<3t« ttiiv oooly* 
tor giiY«r th* i>laintiff ma l»4«MRii>lxic 1wa<i ^iih (Jie dof^nd- 
a«t, i'toplno. Aft 0urt»iijf, tMo iMni y«fowo4 to ti»« oontraet* 
«ii4 iLii (tonditlen «ao ihot •it tte «ald qjrril JTurooko oImiII 
fr^ji tlmi* io tisw, d«f«Rd» OMTO, koep feMiina«e» ««i4 indosiBlflad, 
th« oaid o1»lic»o« of nnd froM oil ootiono. «uit»« ooftto, ef)»r«oo, 
4o«ac«s, leoo and ox^onoafi •')wti»o*»T«r iaoludinc attorncgr'a fm—, 
♦hltth «v ot any tiao horoaftor Happon or or.»« to it tey r«a«oa 
Of tHo failttro or rofuaal tc perfom OM doliv«r oaid «erk 


104 • 2541S •«• 

»6oer(ilng %a tto» terms of kil* oentraot vlth ««id «}eri;«rttU^« 
UMTS thi* ot^i^tion to 1»« vQia; oiU«r«ls« t« rtauiin in full 
f«rce emd «ff««i.* 

X)9(if plxdntiff IsroiigM %Hn ii,«|.i«n in the .Mttni«i|i«3. 

bOB'i but 6h« (^ur^tjf- only imts 0»rv«4 and a|»pn(^rc)4* lh« ituwi* 
w«r« »ulsttitt«d U) Uw- murX, r ^wary >»»;ng wAiT«^» «nd tlw? 
f»urt 8£fed« a fliidtBg fey tfe« ?l<aiEilf.f and enVerw^ Jud^nwat 
«tip&in»i tf^v« i3ur«t.jr for ^S,9Sl*38i t«> r^ir^riin ttkifi^ i.'m' dwf^sA* 
Mfti IMS 9«9f«oi«d t^iiiR iiip^eia. 

Xt i» «»nt«nd«d first tiMit %h# |>liiitttiff*» »%««•> 
i««ai of olaies <ioe» not 99*. v^ « aftt««« 9f ««tien tm€ %h»,%, the 
irita oourt «rr«(;i in ovorrulinis def«'&ci»)t*s 9»tl«n in iiry#at 
of Jutig}»«at« bdsod on that erounti, tim »tat«»mi«ni of c^laiB ro» 
oito4 UMtt t&» plaiiitiff** oloi^ ««« for tsonwy due on on in* 
dWBlfyiag bend, "Co|)^ of vhieli oatid inatroment or inaatmttjrirut 
honA io borote attiieliod tmd autifeed ?ixhibii A*t <>^% ^^ dofoaA* 
iisto did not kooy aad porfom ibo obligations of oaid bonA 
but td^oroin aoido dofnult in thitt oa MttpMt «• 1914 * th» dof«radf» 
«at JUroofeo ontorod Into a ooatr&oi with tho i»lAi«itiff« urttiidfe 
1« tfeo «*»« oontraot n«ntloai»d in tlM» bond* *• ooitjr of whieh 
OAid ooBtntot ie Also ftttaebrnt oad isMrkod Ixhibii U*; tbai tlio 
plaintiff porfomed ito pert of th« oontr«et luad tho dofondi* 
ojit **Wlioll/ failod oad r#ftt«o« U> yorfora** hi» port of Uh« 
OMiiraet] tbot *tho j^Ioiatiff • in pwrfojooinc its port of tho 
ooatroot, laid oat diToro otaui, to«ii» «3,0C0, in tbo yuroJEwoo 
of a oortaia lot. oroetion of a baildiac th^r»OB• iaoaranoo, 
taxoa. iaatallaticno of gas pipoo, upkeep, eto. , end advftnoo 
to Jttrooka la aoaor4aaoo vitki ttw ionui of the oontraet.* and 

i«4 • 2S4IS -«• 

ious it«aut HMikin^ ««p Un^ klisstt^ <isu«k««i ir«r« »•% f«rth in « 
bill «f j»&rVleulsrs« %^ oopii^e Af ih« Wad and t^ e«niraoi« 
refnrretg to, «er« aiia^u^d to ttte etet«»«ai «f « XH^gr 
wvr* s«c»eMu7 9«Mrts of tjse s.i&t«££«ax e r dLais* ajid «««»•% b» r«k 
i;Krd«<t ft» tbflQT Bii iit bo if thejr verc Aepi^s «tf iawitt^eais »«r«* 
1^ »tmmx»d to a 4«alAmii9ii •• widi^bite* wh^r« tlt« ^awmi of «i«tioa 
is eVjit«4 in U» <l«tetlMr&UeB itti<rlf. gliy v« m»r4 » 2'H III. £32. 
the fie tare of tho tdiogod broa^ of ^uroalsa i« m«% forth ooffi* 
el«atljr for tm m\»t^i<fn\ of dUisi allogos itet i&« "Klseiijr fail«4 
aad r«r^Be4 te p«rfoa» msuk &*liftfT •ai4 nork.* In our 0£>iaioa 
tho «tot«M«at of Aoia 1* aoi defeotlvo, «» dofoaaoeit «ls^i«MB. 

tlMi ^oConikkjit fturttier oletimo \3sm%. y»o ^lAiatift i^ro* 
▼oniod porforoaaao af iho i^airaot. th» first 9«jra«a« of $SC^, 
aaii,lo4 for bjr tJi« Qoatraoi, aas m»4* io 3taMttim byr Uaio ^ftlntiff. 
aa tlM aeatraet pr«vi4*4* 91 th tl» «eaattrr»n<t« imi^ »i^^r«VRl of 
Jarotf», the pleiatifT p>ar@]teMi«dl a lot in Sevaya* » ealmrb of 
CiiiCKgo. aa<i «roetMi ^ Wilding ttieroea, to b« uffO«i aa « Btadia 
^ Juridca, ia (iM cjieeuiloa of th« «Gfic» oallod for by the ^a* 
tzaet. iMrforct t>x« etaAio wao oe»]^l«t«4 Joraoka euffpfAd £t fall 
«n^ breito oaa of liie haada* 8ia laioaltli aao ao affastod ikm% ba 
Bald bio yfegrsielaa a4viaa4 U«i to co to C^iforaia* vhi«b ba <ad* 
Before ho «oni» bo tamod ovor a aaall br«iftaa asadal of tha otatuo 
ia quae ti OB to ana of tbo offiovro of tbe plaintiff aooiet^. 
Xbara aaa avltleaoo freai wbi^ tbct trial aourt aicht prapnrljf hterm 
oosaladad timt thio aaa a poraoaal gift bgr AuroidEO* to tb» of floor 
raforrod to. laraaka tooUfiod, by dapooitloa. that ba bad awda 
t'lio tooaaa aodcl la .?tt3ro:^ oovwral /oara bofe<» tba oostraet aao 
entftrftd into, and that aa mm miin»ist«:4 «it ib* plftiatiff had ]i^aa«B 
tbot it oxiot«d. 6t49iiM taatiflad that ba told tbe attorao|r ro» 



pr^9«intiag piitinxitf ttot J«r»«d(ai «&« vllliat^ m prommii with tim 

mrk In ^^*Hf<»mim if &ll9«*d to «&»ic» %Ji« ma^ml tk9£« Imt %.hft% 

ttff*« &mmi%%»», hal tl^i |tifti»tiff r^^fii^eiS 1^ c#0^ S.i« mi^ €«• 
f«8dsaii «cin%«n£s (Hat in iH^ r*fu«8l, plslatiff ^rev^atiNft p^orfexM* 
iM3&« ef ih«^ <a»nt;r&«t ^ Surfmkm* In Ms t#stl»^CQr Jsreeir^ did 
not take Uie fie«tiioa t^m.% h? is*b p?i?v*?at«<i freat ^m?-:4im th« 
£iAiattur« ?l«»lle »ocl«l, :!sll»4 f9r b^ th^ c«atr«et, hy r««Mt«m 
ef th«> r@fn»£l ef p^laiaiiff ie e«nd lil» U%« )«f9i»s:« »e»d«3.* lie 
I^T* wK trl» r««««flt IH! I»a«i. aft* ^r©oe«^*e^ wil^ 4ii« wark, iih» ,f«,oi 
t)at "I a»ir»r rs9«?lY«d an;? aotla© froa %Ji#«« fn^gil* im Shimm* 
ipXminti tt) tiuitt th^^f «!JLt,her a|>p3«v»<t »r 4i«M»ppr«T«4 tint es«t4#l..'' 

ta, fttrf^rica was n«t fulfmii^ »ii^ l^»ri «f Vhr. ae«trft<9t. in* 

«it a Urease @ajS«1 timm in «3ci»t«ne-#, t^m 'S^mtr&et piTm-9i404 thui 

aittad *gr /ttrwctoik te li**? xlainUff. IfH* plaiHtiff k^oir tlie f»««t» 
iias Uife tit was inettabent oa Juraaica ta axeea&e lii^ werk In tint 
•t«dl« «hl9lx i»4 h^ma «r«Qt^4 far Mm, «fad«r Ma ca^crvieiott, 
«i4«r ilie tarms 9t %h« aontraei, uass, »e t in C^allferaia. i^trfffiiA* 
ant oonic«4ft that Utl« ««a fioi Beseaeajcx UKder thi^ i^-rtsa ef tlxa 
aaniraat unA Vami, J«r««dc« ateul4 hava bean ¥Nimiti»ti %<; proo««4 
vitti ite vaA aititar i^ ^S&lifonxla or aayvlaere cle<» ttet M« ari> 
l»iie taaia oigint diotata. ^e da iwt doav tMs >elRt lni»art«at 
tmr th« «vid«ad« eho>»a timt m faot Jar«>al» 4i4 ?«i i^arfem ih« 
firvt thJLDis to tea daaa ligr hta imdar tbe oontrnet. nasaaX^, aaka 
a»d oubnii a stXaatlo imiml %n Mliiiat««r«, ^icJeiRr in '^litmrnim 
•r aigrwlMra alaa nn^ wa oaanat aajr from Uuk avici«noe thnt tMs 

f«Uur* •» lBi» pari «Ml dwi l« »:^iki4a{s «!!« pl«l«Uft diA «r 
fftU«4 W «•• 

tTcm llabilitgr ttB %im beiut b««au»«. in «r«c»ting in«i •tttdii«« tli« 

plaintiff «X9«a(ft<Hl m(tr9 tMarn i^ts uw» of iilaft<<}0, £s»»bi)»n#ii in %k» 
ovatraoU In «av opiaion iMc «eai«$Btion lt> net i«ntt)!'l.». ^h« 

f««tB iAToiyed in vaJl^v ^airAei «)r« «uo9» ita«i it w»rs ao »n«l«^ 
to t.h» IsrttildiBg ioeinuaeiw iavte^lv^ in %im dne^s i« wM^h the 4«f«n4» 
ant hac eallMl •we mtim^timu tim t^mmuini. pAifS ^ut V i^# £»l«.iii« 
Uff in profidiag y!i« loi *Bd WulKtiiiiiff %Jft# «iu<lltt« in «xf»cie of 
ilMi ^IfftCiOf n«at>i6»«l in %l^« CM»nW«i«t* oniiiiv'^ b« «»»tt»IH#r<Ni *M 
A^jr ^ri «f th« $6tC'0& ooH^s^mtien thsii mktt lMi» g0 U> ^^urm^JR. f«v 
ia« vork to be a«iie %gr M» tmd^r ttie aentraet* fh«< o»» timet it* 
c«lf s.r«w« ik«l t)i« parU«8 o»»i.«ei|»}«tt«4 \im% %h& »r#o'il,&n ftf Mm 
stu<Sio ai^rtt itiYoiTt Kxsrt> th»«> ii,&CO* fer i<» pi'6iTi4«4 thatt ih« 
tiU« U» the- i«i, *»• ««ll «*.» th« itspT&fmii^Hi* yio'r'son*, *»» t» 
r«iK«iik in 1^« {rlitiatiff w&ix\ 60 liMfu aft^r i>^««t 36ni>l«»U»n et' tt» 

fajraiftat sf tmjf mij^tti^ baitt^oto* ilaat <i»iyr h^ sue «)^n e&i^ l«t** 
Itm wcrda *»»i<i lat*. a« ib«rc %»»4, smst V« «i»ii«i4«rad aa in* 
clttdinc the ispraf amenta* If, inat«a4 ef aXlowisil fM!)jrm«nta that 
««ra au« to rawais uapaid. Um aeaiatjr eltiaac te m.i^» vhfM, <m aaa 
aa reaaen vliy it «aul4 not ptop**rXy <ia aa* ladaad the »Tid»nea 
6mm* ttaav if Ch£ aaaiatjr hati nai iSeaa aa, th« aontraaiara wha 
»'r» eraatiac tha atttdia t(i«ula aat liava aoiapiat.a4 it anii it aauld 
have re««i.Ba4 viUtout a roaf an4 «xpa8a4 to tba ai«$«*i:itB, nad 
tiius vwaJiast. fur Uto i^uT]»o«e aontai«;^Xatatf »nd aubiaat ta asrieua 
4a«aea ana uatayloruiioa. &ut, altkaue^B th« a»ciaat paiti aut Tgf 
tJM 9JLtiintiff« in )Miiyiac tha lat aatii araatiac th« atiiAia. ia a»> 

imi» 9t |l,,ft06« ««.<tft<»i 1^ QO]>«r«ii am pmjtmm^x. hy x% t» 

3hKtm'dkm» «>f «njr p»ri of ti$<» ®«)«s^«»fl«)tioa to b« p«tl4 jyw 

In Uttoh «« AoU«» «« Vi^l* fer 11^ l» # jM&rti of U)« '*4aiM£«i* 
l«»« Add •xi»«»i«9C** i»(!»blott#a in ihi« Hii4, «li4^ m»» Ut 
plAinMtt h)f fmvpn of i>m f»iitir« of JufwcAcK to pwrfioni 
tlMi oestirikot* fKbus whi^ lt« M^ fM»i km^^ ha«nd.«»» «fi4 in4«n« 
nifljr lh« ^lAiatiff • ns tb« Iwiut pwH4»A im ie <!&• in 
er4*y -^ r»a.4«r ii fi^. It Juredia )m4 fa^fl3.1«<9i tli« <»»• 
tr«e% 6a4 At iti« ii»« j^ir«»Ti4««i la bh^ oftBirAOi, IM lot «i»4 
iiipr«T«««faiti •r««t«4 ih<!ni»ttn ImA Imt^h acavwyffid io Hiotc 

ttttd^r « rffia0esmbl« mwi proj^r i3o»«tYuaiion ftf (Js.*^ >a0it1,r«9&* 
UM»i oanT«^»Boe i«iM»i hair* 1N«« csitde »ft%J«eb $« gl3. 9«jnK«ni» 
thm plAinUff h«td ma4o e» iiw* }i*«i»*rty» with tli« «»»««»* emA 
«9preT«l 0i' J^ureoiHi, Irs «%««t$ies of $lc&oe. 

Tinttiljr* <^« 4«f*na4ffi»t o«iii#ml« t]bt*% if ihm ffttutie 
9M9«rV* ^>^6^ ii(i« ipl»intifi iMia. *«• worijt «frir« visum i\ imA 
|Mii4 «ut ttn(t«r ti^^ (lenfcrAoi, ^i h«4 Bttff«]r«Mi m> dMBii^« mMI i# 
eoiild I* oeT«r i»»ihisig in %h%» suit «ii tli« baatf, th» ^«f*nd«at 
M»U8ht «• i>rPT« %h«i tmtkvi viil«i<» of l^<^ Xo% itM buiimnNB in 
^u««tri»a« ia en effort t« i»].«« %ht*t «tt«lt wak th«< c»««« iMt 
th« floux't •tt«i«in<Mi 9^4«ati(riui in i>li(% affnr of i»r»«f «a4 ia 
Viii«« tlM 4l«f«ni2*ai «ewit.«!a(i« %h» o«wrt e<»»»iti«4 •rr«X'* Aloa 
it i« oeniendcd Umt ikim jiwi|^«iii oannet b)» 0u»ttt4n«<l, b««K«UNi 
i% »»• in«uMil»«Bi oo tb« plalniifr to |>n»T« it* 4Mia««ii« «itA 
no •Ti4«tae« ««■ iatmduectf by it «• to tho vftla«> of %h« let 
•a4 otadie. ¥li« 4»f«ati«at arges tiitti ia an KOtioa foy breaab 
of ooatraot for th« saI* of v*ml •?»ti».to, thA trao Mf^acraro of 
da««<O0 is tjH» aiff•r«^ao« buiwovn the ooairikot priee »e«i Uw 

9rl$« MSRi still rotftlA f«>»8«8aieii ef tm4. i'i<^e ^ &&« #r<»)j#]rtar» 

But i%»s.t ^i^dattioa i« qiaito 1»«fi|.(|« t&« f«i®:t i8iroXv*4 in 
thi» «8M>« si SMiur* ^ir« i9« tj^ sioi Mv« « ^^atra-Gi tar %h« nftl* 

w»« t© Tctaia tiUe «» tS» p»«p»yliy in %ws?«tl©M for l,h« !««*• 
i^«« of sftiRirii^ si«rf» ]!»»»«« ef «J!« «&iiir»«%, ena i»i»oa euelt 
]i«rf«r%aa«ft ^iir«^kai m^vim4 to tftk« th^ land, mt $l^6m, sttls* 

t9r Hie -««rk to thai «xteat. f^ ^l^eilatiff nsM xm&*'T ne ebXi«> 
igpfttloa to ^ te yt«^ treabl« of ?;ftliii^ Ui0 i^rop^rlgr* ia tlM!» 
«v«at «f i,^ f&iluy« «f ;3'ur«e^k% %& p^s§»xm, mnd »wi th^ tmrt^^ 
for t%« ^le.aQ»c if )Magr« 1»6i«««a ih« p>if«efi««|» «f %^- asuXm em^ 
tm «ggr4^^t* of tlio «nt« it ke;«l ^^sM oat tat-il'fr th# ^Ht», 
W»t la ita rtgkt ta «aa or ti>« «xt«at »f ita pa is «i Ma r«0oy«ry« 
«fcffoete<di %ar ih« ralativa «rH}untf! v^.prmtfnting, th-^ e«uHB pa,iii oat 
by it Gtt t^« 9rot>-T^, ai»«i tta j^raaaat searkat vaiaa, ^t it ia 
aatitlad to r«eov«r of tlw auxots^ en tim ^a4, tlte« doaRgea It 
faas auff«rj?^, tiraatiac th« fro^tty aa Itaion^ia^t to tl[N» tmrmi^^ 
•wbjaet to (.)ae li»« of thie ^oeiat^ for aaah 4&s&m$em* f jta ^aft|ay»iar 

iaU-.»- S^f „.^^«^^«y l»*>ff^lffH .YOt.i i«» iii. -^i*- *1«J M U f JE »• 
JQaaUI. 8t>e 111. App. 1S9; ^raar t. WuH* ^^^ ^^^- ^^* Cngood ▼• 
Slcinao»>> . 211 111. 2S9, flMt th«* plaintiff haa offar«H«l lo «nvey 
tba ^rapAr^r to t^e defeatJiisAt s%urety, uj^oa hi» pay»9Bt of Uie 
4iid4PB«it tc oltaim Iqr tJa*' I'^oard* 

Va find ae •rmr ia uh^ r»oor^ nna ih' refora tlM 
iaoi^oat of tlift lt»aiollHa Caturt ia afflma«. 

iii».ASs Qj^Mi,Tt Qm^mt* 

B«)PiTAayi ««ai^3» 

..•«.. 2 2-t I. A. 65 7 

KB. mSSXQ^: tnmsm 4eliT«3^<l y%0 cplnlon »f 

tlM «»»rft. 

tlM Ki41«kad Cteaudltar Oeaii|»«t^ imm saa ii llneia ::oirp&rak» 
tlftn, •reanls*4 to d« « eft««i%lt> ijieiir»a«f> W«lJi«s», Ifc 1»«iebk 
WiA««i« JaauMry I, 1911. in %hs^ f»ll<mi«9 i!$«i>t«s«b«r t>3is «oan» 
yuugr frRier^^ intc a «oa«ra«t with ai« {»#t>i%iett«r ^hii*» Wti» «k» 
•IIC«C«4 In Ui« lmsift»«» •f ft«lli»g llr4it»d ift««id«al, 4Ui^ tie«JLUl 
iB»«r«A0ft p»iisl«»« >y viMLcli li ««»• |tr«»Tid«<S tiis.i, for «t ^«rri«4 
of t«tt f«tuf, UEi9 ««B#mrjgr treul£ cvlJi exolttelvAljr t£ tchlte. ^'all 
ooii9«a finn S9e9i«l liMit<Ml ••<9i<i4^B% aa4 health Lmie^r*.nm !pell«i*« 
iSMMd tijF %h« a&Mq^Mqr«* h&Tir^ a«rt*iQ »]>eeif4«4t «nmi»l jtreniioti 
rfti«», «rhi^ iH»lieJL«« mt* w^^d hKV« th« rigbi. te r««*ll, 7)m 
flo«ir«8% alflo <MiT«r»d ih* prlomi at w^ifJai min^ »all9i.«tt ««r« %• 

im«i ¥ltii« beuB'i ItiittMilf to ^r«lwk»« yoli«i»B, wrth «n K^ggr** 
i^te of #&,CC;C Curiae tJw fir«t /*«»• t6,cc« tit* ••«oiid /•?•», 
•t.OM %k» third y»«, ««,000 Wi« feurih ymr and ft.oco tiw 
fif Ik wU OftA Mtttftotfl^K ||«ur of tkic oMtroet Mrio4* it wko 


25476 -a- 

fartJM>r pi«Ti4»<t ia Uvt Qostra»t Xi»% ih» oNsiMinjr «%» U pcgr 
WMia 1& p«r cent «f its profit en th« lmsitt»se •« «rltt«B 
and tlmt th« eo^sc^ims wmm te qualify in cw^rtain nt«t*» mtA nlse 
%im.t tivti ]>oli<gr holders «4^<«red )^ <^liit« irere to \tm «0£isidi«rtt4 
ma «tiste»crft sand «»r« not to iHt selieitff4 li^ %bm ^lompmeQfm 

tlm «Ma\>wi9r ai^ uniite Ai4. ll«i«ij»««» uadb^r thi» coat* 
tx«9t until Jiiijr !• 1915. ».t, whleh &it3« t!!)« kidlasui t^AiMmity 
ffliHymy reiasuri^d ttll of lie ifuoincss with tto Bi«l||«3r OMtusatjr 
<>s«9aHar« • ti««easia eeTDomtlsa. tM« reifteortute^ Qi»att»at 
iaclu<i«tf all instaraace oontrAofai of th« ui<Jls>)Mi QKMiisltjr -jumm 
9^^ ttnd uBi^fT it th« B&4g@r C^citssltir 3ea^&«9r tmmmnti^ all 11«* 
billty i^eorrffd Bu1»«*^v«at to <?uljr 1, 191S st-m to i^a^- etll 
!••««• t<vsre«f t«r suet«ia4»4 :r:nii @I1 t)!«e> *X9«s»«r8 of e|>«rstilis 
tk« te •!»«••• Si3« gatds:^^ -.;^Miuslt|r '::2e«iH»ijr r«s»T<Kl it« i»rl»«i^nl 
i^«e« ef >»«laesii! freti CiriNBa ^jr, '?le«9n«la to ':^i«aag«, ottaupjr* 
log the ftfflc e «hlQ9& !i»d i^«'ret«fer« 1»«#n •«fl»a9i««l V th« lilt* 
••la oerparfttloa, taking OTwr «11 ttf its «Mpl«jr**« amd r«ettrd« 
uM dMActag ita n^ma te vh« AidliM^ CatHtoilty ocMHNKajr of Wl«* 
«eaai»« Xka ¥kit« eoatraat wmb tttmeU ev«r i« the ti»«i»aeia 
aaiMpaay mmA r*Xmiu94 Vgr it Intt r» ferawl aienlipBiaai of it «»a 
•xaauted* a\t)Mm«)i auelt ia» ammXt^-^^nx 9a» prapArad 1»j liMta 
•arly ie 1916 aB^i dti. iT«reU te Ui<f ^iaaeaaia siampaa^ far Ita 
axaau tiaa* Issnihllataljr Aft«-r th* ^Iftaemetln scapAiss^ taok av«r 
Ui« bualaaaa of Ukf ill^ttoia oarpomti^ voider \M« raiaKamaaa 
eoatraat, Wltit«^ ^rejt&red foraa of liaitad aaoi^iani «»d health 
iralieiea ta be iaaued b> tue ^immnmin •eaq^aay, vkieh ymra f»ra4K 
tloalljr «at>liaHt«a of thaaa ahlife had V«ea iaaued by tiia llli* 
aala aeaiMajr* *ea<i in tfwe ti.r.ip th'^'ae eera fumiehad by the «ia» 
aaaaia a<«q^Mgr *ad »ar« aeld bgr «bite in piaoe of tte poiiaiaa 



of ihi> illineis CTcwpoa^. PendiBg \.h«» furnltuULKK of ttvstM SMw 

8<::sp»^;r te 4e lMftSin*«e in ih^- e^UtUfm in wM*^ ihff lllineis 

^lioi^a af it^« II ImtLm Qempmtf, this v(«« ^>jiovi6«4 f«r )^ 
«})• tcraui vf tk«> r«in«urasf3« eBatjr««%. All irenBaetlewi W 
9lid%m a« to ma^to ^Ii«i«a» vfiTf hx& viih ih» Wieoeasitt ooa^Maqr* 

Is isigr 11^1.7 » t^ .^iqiui tmlil* S««»U!'l%i«« Coai{»atflgr» A. M. 
Sari* 8fi4 J. 1m aBtsllten. z%ot^aoX&ttr» ta Uke EJL^»i«i C^Kuiitjr 
Otmfua^ filed titeir ^111 iAga^inat, ip.e 9&^miif, uit<ier ifeo pr»* 
▼ieloa« ef i^ Aet r«l«tiii^ fco inoux-^n*'^ ^:iCjS).^4mift« is-au; ih<»lr 
disaeltttioa. askiag for tfe«^ r.^syein^t^t ©f a reis*=^lTr«r for ih« 

la^ iUt {uiB«t« ^»ag lis st>o<dtaielft«3rii. ¥b« solveatgr of ^« 
eoayany «»• aei «ws8iioii*a moA, ia aa nn^* lnTolT«»ii. $hc ««»- 
pwqr laaediatoljr fil^d ii« mnsw^r, ft«ittdtiii9^ il&« all«»gat3,oa« 
of Umi bill aad OBAsonlrii^ to Ut^^ ap^inteORt of o r#eeiir«tr* 
7lMe 00 Art 4ttljr ai^^iointoil ^raid: t, So'^nmr »« r«e«»lv«r. 

In Au«|ttot 19i.7, throo i^atiio aftor tJi« fMro«e«4iae« 

for tBo 41f<»«l«ition of tlu? XUlaoio o&apoflgr ««r« iaoU latent 

tlM lfloooaftij|/aotifie<i »hit« In writuic ^^^ ^^ ^^^ <»^ <">>- 

ol««r hio oeatraot villi t^« Illlaelio ouM|Mngr# bladiv^ itpoa it* 

A aoath lator tfliito filod Me poiitioa* by 1«ot« of 
oourif ookia^ tJ»i bis qI«1is for 4aMi«;«« grewlag out of tko 
allocoA br<t««li of klo watraot luf tho iliiaoie oeog^ongr, b* 
allo«o4 ojiaiaot Um r#c«iTer. TMo ^titioa allOti,«d iHoi too 
Illlaoia eeap^ozKy to^4 aooood to te on ia«»r«ae« baotaooo oad 
that by r'-oooa Utsrirof, it 40 i <! aoi «or«y oat its ooatract 
witb' t^o potitleacr naa thot tko latter *ia n^yt »nA will bo 

5^1"?; 65 

fuurlfeKir *th«i th<!< )»^'9flt* t«» jrour snid p«ti%iQn»r front ilw 
bttftiavss 4l»n« ^ hist tinti^r Mtld ftontroot were in «xd«»« of 

>• all«ve4 In Xh9 mm» «f $140, Cco «a4 ti«K% £ia« ]*«9«iiv<»r tnt 
dir*ai»d t» j^ajr- ih« potitl(m«r mutf^ •«» •««. «f tto« a»««i» to 

lais littii4«» Til* rvetfiver wa^ i))*" onX^ •»« whtt in»« «a4« a pari/ 
r»«|Mm4«nt to U)« ;)«t>ltii,a« 

he sulniliiad • n^pari fiadiniK ih»i th* p«&iu»a«r* »hlt«, hA4 

4«f«n4Mii» ih« ll^iaol* «ecii^anjr« te %h« •x^imi ttf^ sottf 

9«iiii0it*r Utti nnOM»i« fhjcetloas «)iAd 9X0«pti«ti« w»r« duljr 
flX»d %• Vitft 'iaiiii«r*a tr@f>'.;7t lijr iHi>' roesivar «liish ir«ra avar^ 
rttXa4, fallavia^ irtiiok« mi> ar<i*fr ar diaor#« waa «(nt<!«r«ii in aaaarA* 
m»m wivh &h« M«atar*a findinsa and reoe«n»nilN.iions. 'fe x-trrairaa 
ilMi dawraa, tha acwtftlalnfoii aVaaltlM»l<t«ra «n4 tha dafandoiti Mid* 
lamt tSaattaltjr Qaavangr, ( ltt« llllnaia otsski^any) , bai;tv the r»»p«oUTa 
yarUaa ia i)i« aridfinAl auit, iuiYa parf«ei«^ fchia spj^aal. 

Apfallaa aeni««da thai iha «afti«Ma«wia of array filad 
tgr a9F*ll«^t« pir«a«at oa quaatlos far U^*? oanaiti ration af iitia 
aottrif iMMOMtH •• tlKyr filad sa a^Jwationi; or 4ixo«piiona ia Uia 
Kaat«r*a raport. nana af tha api>ail?uiia war* aada roajMBdi^ata 
to tbtt patitlaa Ity ap{»«ai»a. jha only raapaiKit'nt v&a bh» ra» 
•alTar. In Uia arisliua ral antary diaaeXvtloa ^roecfHlir^, Um 
Tee*irar «aa a iieiatQd aa th auatedian of Uia prat>»rty and 


•a tta» r«9r«»»tttAtlvc ef nay «r«»diter9 t^ ^wiic^t r»iij»n »i^ iMVt 

•orporttUon «»« alse of its »io^fkl»t)ld«r«, «)w !ir«r& entitled t« 
•aen A«»«t« 4M> ««>j^ld r tannin In iU« re-Mlver^e it^nde* afi«r thm 
pm^p»«n% of fill d«l^t« 'Utai Ki^ht 1>« .atreveii to «9c|st una all (dr.tti»a 
ttet night li« AllewAd. XSm red«iTi»r tiltf^ his 0bi««ti«»« it t)M 

JUM^or and asi^ o1»J«etl.ens v#r» «rd«r«4 !» stan* »« exwtpiiomi %» 
iauf ^mBttir^K r«3Wfy%« v%ioh v<»r« (lul/ d0n8id«r«d &nd ftv<»rv»I«d 
ligr tlb* eluMKHiilttr. In tfe delng* %im rmmirine iMkH r«9rft*«ntiRs 
ihA 9»rpomi,k9n «n£ through lt« its «todkitt>l(l4Br«. g<i^^lft^, v« 
fi^fftir tt»rk» Oosj^ jn ^ , 134 ill. 6^11, <8ST, <{W»ti«(i ^^*^^ o^pfffVidL 
(EliiA and 8«dt«r »a R«9«iT«r»t 1^* 1tT7. A9jp«ll«« ie hitr€ljr la • 
l^»itleii ie eoiit«>nd oth«r«riii« Ai thi« ti»«« a* «!»•« to mak* 
the raaAiT*!* uXon*, jptarty r«cp9n4«nt te M« ^ tit ion and hi 
aAd« BO qu«»tioa «f t}»«t riglait of ti}« r«(S«iv«r to fli* «t»J*«iiMM 
and «x«ir?tl«a* to tb« Mfu»t*r*» r«|M>ri mr did im oont^fid %im% 
•ueta »«tien ahould bav* V««n Iqr tli» (fty^ellMatB )a«r«a axtd fuurtluir 
h* do«« iMt d««yr th« right af «i»^i»llRnta te th« a^ptml v«rr««ti» 
•d lay tluni tr«m Urn 4««rtt« aps^roving tha %«at«r*t rvport and 
dirvetinc tha s>a«»iv«r te vagr ai^aliaa tha mm af #S,0€0« TiMgf 
ay« tha onljr anaa wha aauld apjHNtl fran titi* erdar in ^uaatieM* 
Zha rooaivar aa^Id hava na uttcAi riitht af a|»{>aAi iwuamtSu aa tha 
ardnr in aa wm^ affaotad hi» f«aa •r dislwraauaiitii ar th^ aattla* 
■•ttt af hia aaa^uata. W»fmmn, ftaaaJvar. »t aA ▼. jjff.fyaaf , Jf^.fa 
# M^HFi ^»0 "1. AFP. 4M, Ay^ n i2££Sfiii., 197 III. Wa.wa hald 
ttet en tha raaard aada in thia eaaa aa pr^^aaatad h«ra, «p]p*ll&nta 
hftva tha richt ta a-rail thataaalvaa af tha a^Jaatioaa ttna axaaptieaa 


^^•« *tH to Snnn 
at Mult •xU •v/' 

iaOMQioatttf \f xhs ra^^kftir in Whir trlcil tMurt. 

• paittgriM?)! in whioh ih« iii4a«m<l OAKuiULtar OertjMua/ a^r<$f>ti Ihat 
Curiae th« p«rio4 af tHA ooniraai it ««ulLd n«»ll «xi3ltttisly«I|r t«» 
V|iit« «ad t« no on* •!••» all «ea|w»» (ina stll »]»«alfiii liaitM 
••oidffnt and h«alth ini«Aj».]Q<3«^ i;?<iliai«« i»«rtt«t! h;y it, hftYlne 
Ml »nnttal prmmlvm mt^ of 1«»« ihsoi o»« dollar pfr on« tIsouRafld 
dollftira {>ritiot|»al 9im 9r fixr* dollar* vmM^ imnmfit, At^yollant 
oeatondis that thio o&ntraot lapcy»«d no obXi^catlon on th« Gcm^Awy 
to i«e\t« 8U3h |»eli9l»» or ooatinue dei»g oo a»!£^ that it h^^ %h» 
right to abftB4ott th« isruaiic« of mtc^i jpolieifts am tl%« oontntot 
ooYor»«l.» at aoy tiian. With timX o«nt(^f3iioa «« «lo fte t «!igr««* 
1^ the toma of thic oontTaot* lim a|^p«lIao, Wbit*« eMi^at«4 
todtaaolf to puro^eo ;«olioiee from tlio 3£idLai»d Ciaaualt/ Qo-teptmy 
to t)M ikmoxmt of |&,OCC Avxlng th« f irat y«ar of %hm ooatraoi 
j>orio4» |^6«660 diuriiM; tho oooond jrtar* |)7,0€0 4iurla« %M VnirA 
yoar« #8, COO ituring tiw foiurth yaar and |9»C00 <lurlc«: tho fifth 
and oaoii of th« auooooding yoara. Wo nuot aoouw* that the part* 
loa iRtoad'^d slTing that laR^pwi^o it« normal off rot. It wuld 
ho wi ttio .< t aagr offeot vhat«v«r, if t>t« oDntraet iia|>e«frd no 
ehli^atioa on the ooM^anjr to iooue the polieioo whl <i^ tht a|)p«lloo 
ehll^atod hiHoelf to ^roljaeo. If ho war hound te purohaao ta 
tho axtont iadie«t«d, duriatf th«» oontraot p#riod, th« ooatsiattjr 
«a« houaa tn ooll to that extant and that ohli|;atif)n« of oDuroOa 
involTod tho fturthor ahllgatioa to iaana tho polioioa whioh *«ro 
tho ouh4o«t»B»ttar of tho <»ntraot« Iho thine «)ii<dit apitolioa 
•hlil^atod himoolf to do, hlT tho tomo of tho eoatraot* (btgrinc 
tha FOlioi«a) oauld only h«! doao upon a oarroopondinc thing 
hoiac 4ono hgr tho oonpanar. (ioeuing tho polioioc an4 oolllnc thaa 
to ayyallaa) and thfr*for«, th« oontraot nuot bR oonoidorod aa 

UHM^M^ing An oblliptUoa on ih«^ pmrt of ih« <»(m#»ny tc (k» ittiti 
thing, iiMet whs ^ TttuMuil aonir&Qt an<s«>r fhm tmn^m 9t vhlok 
«9f«Xl«« «»• obliged %e pt)rob«s« poli<»i«ff to ih«r extent «]»««l« 
fit^tf in itt« watriKOt lii^d ih« Q^mpnt^ was eWligffiji te> iv&uo tmd 

aaaator Fvurtwot go. v, MJit-iCiXX . XCB .m, 6&<i, shttn thw liiai«ft4 
SASual^ Sompaoi/ ^nt^f^^ into !,!')« f«»in»Ma-m»m mntit»a% with 
the B%48«r OAMualtjr iim&pmny &n^ e««tt.B«<i u> eoeiltKifi i.t« inrurftneo 
buKia9»» 9,m froot@-»4«<l to win4 uj» it* tiffaiirfi, it th«>r«>tQr t^iit* 
•l»l»<i lta«lf trem ^erfornones ef i te ttx«eutorjr aontmot ytiih 
White Ana tliier«up«na In Uih« al3«@n^ «f ««ty neviktion* i^liitfi had 
tbft rl^tet to tr«*At th« 9C;ntr&et «• «md«d tt^wsi miXn%»ln tt^i^rojtrifttft 
px« o»e<iiiig» for th<» ir««>ov«if3r «f stt<3b daG9*.g0» &m he <s»'Ul<t i»jr«>'V« 
««r<^ ceoAislOBiNl V ^^•i a^tl oi^Mklovy tirsfteh of %m matsm&t ^ 
tto« «idl«Bd Cftauttltjf ,^c3si»«n3f. Mxail** ;^t. I^ui» la1m»l. Uf.» 
folfft., ^«* ill 0.®. 2<W, 874J 8ff.t|?i ». Mgll4 l*?® «•««♦ l» »1 

MJL* &99, In thi^ir hriift, mp\^9i\An%» tuVfSM tU^t thffi Imr is « 
|wrt of ere»y a»ntrACi%, fciia the iaw 'pi-ovidoa that the lff,Ki»l«- 
ture isiglit {»roMVlt t>4« isnutuio* «f (nii«h fevmi ef i>oli«iy •« 
iMMl« up tue «^ubj««i»auitt<»r of tifiit «»«t9*«i, and tttstt thl«* ia 
fftot, ia what «aa don*, f«3 th« latialntcura of this 6t»t*« Iqr 
an A«t ttppjravad June 8f, 1919. px«hi%it4Mi the iesuanee of th* 
feme proTlded tor m thie oentraet. in «ean<»ation with thia 
mrgmntnt ne refereaee ie «Mlda either to the al»atr«ei ar the 
r99»T4t n9r ia it 9ointa4 out ia wtet miir tl&e Tarlotta poliniea 
iasued by Vh« Jlidland ::Aauiiltjr Coarpajnjr under thie eontraot* 
oanfXieted wixin the state Im« to whioh referaaae ia Kiade. In 
tbe sbeffaoe of further yreaentatien ef the matter, thie oourt 

«•«• «ei <inA»id«r Urn {»»la<. s^re^pmrXy » •»« «• «• noi jiimnb 
«»on It. H©T«iv«r. tl»* A«t in «i*i«»tl©n ]>r«»«rlV«i» e^ri^iin XiM%» 
nti9m^ on h%1 Ml4«i«»» of knmatmnta^ ft.-;ia,«H-i lo»» er «Jft««i|5» fWMt 
th9 «i«kn«»«, or tram Vf%« bodily iniury or 4mith of tb« inwturoA 

•to unr jjorooii ia tl»l« -to to", wad l»8r oooUen IC of Uie A«t 1% 
i« !»r<^Tt«od UjoI. •%!»» poJltoiAtt of iaeeymnoo mmi^w»t *.99i4m%mX 
>odily lajttry or oioknoso iosttod Iqt <tii itiewror or£;«niso4 ua<i«r 
th« Xmm of this eiAio noy «!&n««iin, whim looatMl «y ci«'llv«r«4 
in unr o«b»r otjitft, twrrltory, <Jlstjrlot or ae^-.nvr^, Ray i?»vt« 
ftion r«<j«lro4 l»y th* Xo^^e- of %h» stHto, t«rriti?«y distiriot oy 
ciountry in vhiah thr asm« «ro loouoti, (uQrihlnii; in thitt a«% t« 
th« aontroty wBt»it>*«t«wi<ii»t?.* itof*ro»o« fco Ui# winiraot i»- 
▼olT44 in thi e aivi^o shew* ttwt %i^- tt« 4<<tT«ui th♦^ 0q»yiftny oMigitt* 
<>d itaolf to riimUfy t© traaooet Vu»iii«»» ia tv«ftlv« i>>t«t«», 
rsMeh ar« mmoil, '^ A?ril 1„ IVIS nnA In onoiMr stoto (itaiso* 
nelMMitta) iqr July 1, 191». Whmt offoot, if iuiy, tiw 4«t 
Ajpjirovod 4to« ^>9« 1919, tai»<df «poa «h« 1o»iioa«mf of 9«li«i»» Iqr 
th# c»}n!^arqr to porsoao in Uiooo o«Rto«, i» n«lti%o2' i»oii»to<l OKi 
nor inti«gkt»d. It wooild furtiaor o««n fy«r« tfew jtooojNI* tfoot 
tiM ro»iaour«ao« oontxwot ont«reiit into «lth iho Bn4«tr ^Imn* 
ttolty i3fl«9«ny miio noi eeoaoicnnd V tiM louiolation to wisii^ 
niipolliMito rofT in thoir brlof, tho flmt «ritt«a eoeentaionf* 
tion r«f*rrin« to ttao e0nt««i^l«to4 eStsAgo in th«» or«ftniwitioii 
of th* Kidlanit Onottalty 3o«poay ««o r»fli«lTod 1^ ahitc boforo 
th* logiolntiTo A«t ia quoeticn woo ?ao»«d, txxey^m}^ on Juno S2« 
1918. Ttaio lottor vao introoue^'d in •YiO<!>neo mm j>«tiiloa«r*o 
SnhiWi V, Imt wo do not find it oot forth ia tho rooord. It 
ooomi tlmt this olMuiffe vao eontonplotod oimm a»ii|ho loofore 


25476 .g* 

this Aot warn pm»B94t for of ri nets of tb« •MipMqr HmI talkiNI 
«l«f% «hii« «>oui it, «LS ««Lr].jr «» ^•^ruHrjr l«is. 

In fariH«r vup^ert of tiiiB ft«itpffAl, »9{>«XiMai» 
ooatf^nd VH&i th«r« «<(« a n6VA.U6R of th« ii^t« ttoniraai with 
ih« ia<ilftAd Q«att«lty CaiAt^aiiy^ («r llliaei*} and hkIs^ tlmi, »v«b 
if th«r9 «»• DO vallA aovaUtm of tK%t doatraot, WMie, V l*^* 
aotione, •iiew*^ th£«i h« ^ma R\j)^B4on«»<l it, so far ft« tn« illlnoiB 
eoMpsn^ WK« oone^ynod. X» our 6|)»iiil«Ki fit eitmrlif iitj^p«iure fr«n 
t)M «vld<^!io» tMt iiver* WAS no no^aUon of t%« Whit« 0Oii%r»«t. 
Xt vinad bo ••ocntlftl to sueH » jr«»ttlt tt^t tho •vi4«A«« ••• 
taUiwh t]»e fnot ttei mil tlte p&rtloa ittvolvoil, «i^re««l i& tl%« 
new oontroet. ihn ^9^ i^oyg i-lew , a<t>« v. ;,,<j.*r , fe.^.f . IS* i^3.i» App. 
•2 J ^iajrwrd ▼. au.rlco . 181 III, %»%, IMto «*.» uults \fjf ©»• of 
the offitM^ro of th« Mldlamd Cm»%tnl%y Cenpiuayc %^^ BO^otimUona 
«*r« p"»£ing boturo^B tiM.i afmpa.njf mmi ti)« ^•4s«r ££R«i»klty -Stm^ 
paajr. InfolYlng & eiaMago in th«> foresor eKtf^MKnsr** fiffftlro tmA 
tta&t hi« ceair««t would bo t«lc«ii OTor bjr t)M »«w ^iflipMiy mKUHr 
the akrroa^s^RMrn t to bo oow^uwotoi, Yb)^ r«»iiieurfti)o« oontmot 
botvoom the t«N» eoMpaaieo im» finally ox««tuto<i, off»otiiro *.• of 
July 1, inft, but tbito t«RUfio4 h« ««e not toltf vbftt th# t«nM 
of that oentraot w«ro, until Juno 1918. Xh«<- r«*ln»«ui>an«* ooatmot 
■a4o BO opoolfio »«ittloa of tho 9bito Soatraet, »to«.«-«bir tho 
moiand OoovMlty 'Zim^majf tr»n*t*rr»4 ndi of Ito buainoao to tbo 
B«4gor Caouolty 'io«paa|r, ih« liittor talcing ov«r all tlio aoaoto 
and aoaunlng all tho obliffKtiono of thf fojrnar. Vhltw prapnrod 
a writton ao«isnn«nt and aoeoptanoo of hin ooatraot wiiioh }io 
owbnlttod te tn* llad^^r Oaoualty ^avaajr for afiproral and omm 
eutioa b/ ita offioaro but It w«o novor oxo«ut«d and ultir^toly 
tbat o«a^NUiy aotifi«d ffb&to ibat it did no k ta»n»id»r his «««• 


25476 •^°" ■ 

iraet in fer«« •• t»r ar it «m» eoi>a<frii«4* t>ffioi»l« ef th« 

oentraot «iiK VMi«. It ApptwirK tlwt, »f6«r Juiy 1. X91B, 
pending thJ> prcyamtien af feiwt »f poli«i«» to hm Ivsuw^ >»jr 
th« BAdgrnr Cvmjraigr ts b« »oId Iqr thlte, iv «»« »j|r«»<l tlamt 
h» »ish\ dcoUtiu« th» ««1« •f Mldlftud |9eli9i#«» li»bil&tj|r 
und«r «hi«aa intuXd b« aasuaed V ^^ H&^e^ir C'«!a«»aiv mn& fur* 
tlMir ihi»t »^r> th« l«liV«r oase^itnj Imd eoipyittml |^r«ywmUott 
•f ii« s>oli«i9«« ';rMi« Vock u]^ tH« s«l« of ti»vm $«Xiei«» aad 
«H>ntifra4Ml to ««ll tJiMM up tc t,h>^ \i.»9 of ih« J^Miriiie of %M» 
eaoo but in o nu»b«y of r««p«eta ilto S«4|!er ]»eli«i«» difforod 
fiiMi ilMoa w.^ieh hftd %oon io«u«ci V ^^« ^^idlaiuS vaautKlty wOM* 
^oqr* VMli*** eoatifaot with %.lm ^i41«iui ^txfmiff laol«id»(l a« 
ti^ig^immnt on lis port* to aoll t)i« {>eliot«» ef tk« W« sev««>» 
•4 )iy ifew o&Btraoi« to WMt« oxQluotveljr* in ibo torritory ia* 
▼olTOd, btti that fcatttro vao not prooont in th« salo of tho 
B»4gor polioioo toy that ocMy^aagr to v}Klt«« Althoufilt tho Vitito 
ooatvaot «ao ctolivorod V thn Midland Oaoualt^ Joetpany to tif 
S*ds«y Ooa#«agr and ttao lattov rotainod poaooooioa of it» it 
dooo not apfoar tbat in «tolli«^g j>oi,ioi»o to WMto, it vao aot* 
inn UBdor that oontmot. Altbostgla tlw ovldoaoo ia not froo 
from ooMO oonfliot, «o bollofo it varraato tl>« oonolaaio* tlaat 
tJM faoto ««r« ato f*bovo oet forth. lh««« faoto do net ootat»liih 
tho aoeoptaaoo of tho Vhito ooatraot or a tMnr acroootont lagr tlw 
lodger dmpmnjr* l^ ovtwr worda, tlMQr fail to oatAliiiioh o nova- 
tion, mttamn ▼. J^taior^iO Uowiauo flodl gluto. 195 iU. A|is>. a4«, 
Xha r«>a«ivor iMid tJ»o bturdon of proof on thrtt ionuo. TI^<b Jota> 

DoTo flow do . T, fco»por . l»4 ill. Aj>p« »2; j^o t toy » trow ▼ . 

fialliatol. lie niy/SSS, *« aro furthor o* thi* oplnim t^uni 

tito OTidenow failod tc eatablish thmX ffhito liad abaadenftd tho 



e»n%raot«8» far u» %i»» lXlim»i» mdhpmqt «•» <aone«(]r««4« Iten f««% 

tlMit IM cold ^»lialm» i«8w«Nl 1^ llt<f liMl(i«r jeM^Munar i» itfti lii«e«K 

•iei«ffit viih Xhrnt «on<iAu»lo}|* WMt* a«»iu»t ^mk imiil te >»▼• ailMii* 

4m«it \hm aentr«oi wiwa, in 19I.*, h« «n4«)«ir«r«d li«i ••our* « foffmhl 

lani Oe«qi«^]r(«f llllnoiB) 4«urinK «ixia)» s>«riod, ^MUf haa l»e«n 
••llinc SftdK«r Qotapmia^ poXi^kvumt t« «ir« iisi«bi«» %e »«« tHiit iuai/t)iiiBg 

dOT*r frpss %im Ulimtim oMapAi^* anjr <tiw.«c«» )m> '<i»u14 ei'«w )i# 

in tb« tUrlBJL oouri in flxias th* cfli!m|i;«Ni i»ll«w«4 t)»« j$nUtl«n«r* 
It i* Uifftr o»ttt*tttloii« ft0 «« iiaa ntif^nft i%, thm% ^t^e »vid«m9« 
•JbH»w« ihni '»hit9 im« •«lli»K l^iMlt»(t tt<!)«|^#nt iawuriinaii {M»lioi«a 
i»*u94 hf t«a ftr tteriMi «oa»9«ni«« •tl«»y %ht^m %h» uiiAl»nA OoMf^uidV 
SkmpMqr durifijg ih« 9 trio d hs w«tt e^vratlnf; und*? tJals «i»nir»9t 
«r4 «uV««i|ttWit i« ta»t tl»« anil Um,% 9» «Tid«ncR ««• pvedttowd t« 
th« «fr««t iiu&t Ita wald iMt «1it«in fraat th*tt« «r •thtfr «iiR9a»» 
!•«, th« •«»• ]poll4t7 forcM h* WKR ie h v* ttn«icr hii» 9eaii««t imn 
iarelvtd, ar foms bett«r thwa ti]oa«» @t ii»» tfmttkff ptitxtt im mm* !• 
fiky th* IdiAjid CMipvny ^mdcr Hl» «»niz«e% ar « !••« vriM* ar 
that ha hud cMt. la f«at« den* aa, tha aantoaUon Wlae that If 
tha aaaw ^r « 1»aitar i^llagr tbaon ha had a»tttVAet«d for with tha 
Midland ::an9ahir« aaald ha pwrahaaad in tha Ofntn naxtcat* fran •• 
Coad •T a hattar imwtanirj at tha aaiM ^r a lea* prlaa* than 
Vhita Rbiat ba hald ta tmr* auatalnad no da^naga h> rfraaon af 
tha faiittra af tha itldlaad >M»»9maj U furnlah tha {>allalaa 0o»m 
traatad f»r. In ather verda^ tha ftppallaata aentaad that «hita*a 
yrai^r GM«a«ra 9t daaacaa «aa tn« dLlff«raAa» batweea th<.> ecntraat 




9ri««, «t vhioJi H* \ni0 i« o^teia tliMW* {»«li<if«« tr^m %,im Midi* 

b«tt«r p«Iiol«s fr«di «tte«r «'>et|»«j»i«>« »t Ih^ |itl«« ai vMab hM 
ooul4 hakv* •l)t«.iB«4 tlMK in th* &p*n «Aric«i« Ttafii JS«i»i*»Ucm 

i« not i»fia.^«. Xk0 s»ali(ii«> of i,nftUjr«D«« involTitd In t'4e 

e«iitraei Oftrtnet htt a»nai<iet94 $k» x«r«>.h«mdi»« vhi^ o«»al4 V« 

•f th« <K»ot|>iiay fi«ui4S hay* veauithlait to do wiik llift K«lliii|t 
v«l«« of ihiume: polioi9«, Mor«»v«v« i.mtf» |it<»lioi«« rideh tibM 
Midiimtf aoBpAngr Itoun^ itaolf io fuml«b afiiii« at Vn« i^rlooo 
fixod V ih« QonV««t, w«r« (fiir«n a pArtleuli^.r valtifco by vir* 
ttto of ih« proTioitm in tlM ««iiir«ot «lk(^r<»li«y ih» ^4&^l.»nA oe»- 
ponjr ««r«od to f»raiitli %i%irim peiiQies t^? irniio «x9l.uslv«ly» 
tbJLn feftturo of th« ooju'vmat ontitltid Hm t« th« Wwsf At te 
If <l«riT«rd frota th» //itst vhftt iv «(n«(M04 Mm tK &«li. iJrtr^^sw 
p«riioular pelioi0B in iw«>ly« or fcuriosa 4ifforont otKi^o vith« 
oat ooa]»oii tlott, if tm &ot wtsto tlHOt Vhito, follovinn tko 
breaoh ooo9i«ia«<d of, BnokJi)r(»d or ao olti h^v* »«<Htro4 thi» caiM 
or bottwr {>olioi«« ttrem « oeactAnar or «KviKi;»%)ii«« k« go»4 »• t)M> 
iiAtfl«n4 OoHfMay or bat tor* «t t:u«? priooe fixed ia Ui* ooatrftot, 
or «t i^riooo l«a« thi^ t)^«o ««« to th« t^aoius^on of ali x»k'mtm 
ia tlk# territory oovorod ^ hi* ooativot vltit tlto ;v;idl«^tt« 
aoivaay* it wao iaow^lMmt on th» r«<»oivor to ohov ii« Xo aaoli 
proof wn» !%«tdo or off»r«tf, $ltit« trvtifi^td timi. aim traoinote 
«»» ruined ia ttw torritory r«f»t'r««l to, tiy rtfunon of tttf* foot 
tliat tho uldlaad $:oM«>«ny of Xlliaoio vioiaio4 tiM aittth para*> 
ffroph of the oontroQt, tgr tlio tormo of wni #> ilMt «mvfim.wtr a«roo4 
that all porooao to aMm niita aoiil polloioa atio.iA k« «ea»iit»y<^ 
o4 hia aattaaMro aad thmir aaaoa oJMuld lio tr«ata4 tgr 1>iw> •*«• 
l^aay aa <30Dfl4«ntial ana it wouid uaa Bttoli nanoa for no yarfoao 


ii ««uld not <ii«ia3.«it« such tttttava t>« im; «th«r )i»«rcD9«i* flrv 
•r oor»>orAtioii m»4 furtli^r, ilni th« 4!!,{»M9|r ii«»ul4 n#v*r 
««k« »«y tt«9 «f «tt<i>i aeM«» wuiali veald ift kxi^' mttimaf In* 
Jur* Wkii«*« V«t«t%««* «i»o %lmi it vould mmtmr selleit or 
«Aia»« »hli#*« jM»Xi«^ iMil4«r« to b# »ojliei%*ti, 41r«eUj« «r 
lAdir«oUy* f«r iMiy i>«eunif(le« and. M fiari)a«? t«f(tifi<»i|. t}mt not- 

Q9Msw^ {of illiaaiul *iusn^4 my \m»innttB eirmr %& ih« Mi<i^ 
IttiMl ^mitdl^ ^»s^«iur «f 'afi««eiuiin» «$«▼« t^s<!^ i^ ^»»iirX«'%* 
of nil ngr i^lioiy heltforo mnA ofontft", foli&win^ wl»ioh tido 
l.%ii«r wmpmmjf, *lMtd gono l^to ilMt %ii'tt»i»#s« itself iu!(4 di»» 
orffftnisod em in mf l)>»ais»«« fts4 as«eii»«** Cn ftualn lir««t«li« 
«uti4or tbo oTldono* to vMoki «« h«iv« rmS«H!iF»&, wiiitti** mtnaurti 
of tfnmmoo VRO hit !»•» of j^v«fli«* 1% mtmm eXmtx fsmt tim 
•vid(me« timt« in attkiae thio (Mmtrnot. ti^o ji^s%rti«R «o»t«i%}»l!ht» 
•A lh» profit* '«»Mto ««uK 8»tJto in iim yo»»«a« of tlt««« ^«ii» 
oioo as ««Xl ao tJao j?«r<»mt«4so tho oe«si|i«fiKgr w&o to j^a^ liisi on 
•««h jr««r*a fcualnoiro. "jtiitOtt profits nro %im e)»^o«t *ftd in« 
dtio«siont of \iM <mn.%r((k&% And Aaro known to 1}« otiolb >y %h» eoi;!* 
traotiaf ]Mrti««» loos of ouoi^ prof i to »mjf iN» atr^vmn a« tlato 
aiooBttro of 4«uu«;oo for « bre«elia of li&e aontr«ot if thAt 9«a 
be sJwtm with raiMiowiblo oortAintjr* %,. <Sm j; , ., ,j fe Ut, t« , Ky« !»»..«. 
▼• »••<' l»9 All. ssa; gwrft*tt t. Qi»X4v«11 F«mitttr« ;»>, K77 
111. 3»«i j^Saith yuraituro Co. ▼, v^\», 2C» ill, A>f|>, 31^. 
Aypoilitato further contend uwtt tlw ^mmtftm lOilt* •OMj>iAi«o4 of 
ia Mo tootiaoair vor* not tlwoo bo ho4 •lio^'OA i« Ms 9«titi«-<ii« 
la our epiaiea tho oiloeatioao in tho potitloa voro brood 
•atuch to ooTor \hm proof* l^irthcrtsero •pp«llwnt« or<» not ia 
m pooitioB to urgo tteo point U«r« ao ii ima not r»io(»A «h«B 



tlM promt mm» •ff*r«d« 

It i« mn%»nAm4 f^rt.h»r» in vui^peri ef thin «i»{>««kL« 
ilMt ih« 9«Utioii«r did ii»i pm'*» Mk «i»i»!ii^«fi 'by e«.«9*t4»fit «vl* 
^"^991, 1% Rpi>«Ara fs!«a« ih* «tviil#n9« tlwt. n r«»«»r4 of the |»»1« 

« il>eli«|r ll«i(ittt«y n«i«t tliffi thic ««» tjh« origiRcil i»nti7 of th* 
Ml« •/ ill* ]^oliel«» »n WMttfU book*} tliAi mntrimt m«r^ i^4« 
ia this Jl«ici«t«r bgr tix 97 misht illff«r«ni girls during tfe* 
i«ri«4 «Mtr» WM fr»]ilii|g tli«tt« i»«liei«« vak4t<f>r Ukts wntmet ia 
<|ii«»iieB, one Xokraon, vim ««• %?hit«*« }»tMsm«p*Jf» t^^sUfiod 
Ml Ui U»R iMtlwdl ftf k««pinc ihi* ]r««ir4 Ami %i»%. h« xa«« «f ]ni» 
9vft le»«iil«<lig« tbtkX ft r«Qer€ of 96li<ti«« of ih« .aidlanfcl Ooo^pttngr 
wu kopt ia this felitiQr ifl««iat«r ima UMti ilwriim tlio «ntlr« 
9oHe4. he hii4 «>wurgo of tho iMoko, iai«l l.hi» Ro«i»ior «>>«« leofit 
iHi4«T -ae »up«yrii»icn nod Ut^i ii« i:n«v of >>!« «i'<m k^towl •4ir«' 
ilMii %h-f Atidlftiul i^oiioieo ««r«> «<'ni«T«4 on ihi» mi^mtmr for ho 
iM4 9i>Bt«4 (h« ii«m8 fr^M tho Hogiotor to tho iodgor *«nd 1 
•hoakotl oroiry it**}.* thie witaeoa jproduootf th« ^olioy Mo^iotor 
•howlnf th0 }>oll«i»« of %)m Mi4l»nA doapimjf whish m*rn iocuod 
fvtto IOTOBi%«v 1.911 U> Au«tMit 1917« ooBoiciUnK of 46a loooo 0H««t6 
vlii^ 1m» t^^oiifio^ WmA hmtm roMOTod from t<h«« (tov<^r» or blndlaga 
ia ithl^ Ui«jr ««r« kopt ia %i» effioo tm4 h« hii4 hmmIo a 
oorrooi ooavutatioa ffoa tlM»oo taooto, Bho«lR«|; thet th* gvoaa 
r*e«ipta tram thm mIoo of Itti41aa4 90.vioi«o, (torinfE iho p«rio4 
in (ittOfltlon waa fSlft«ltl6»c>0 and th^t tn** Qomklasloaa psici Iqr 
Vkito on tisooo poliidloo aaa $127,316.67 oati xim% h# ted further 
ooa9ttio4 froa thaao ahowte aha olno %h« 6us>lia«t« roporia Rwcto 
Igr ^tfhito to tho itiidlaad Company, vhi^ oftro in trtl^ttnoa, that 
iho Jtmouato ilvito ka6 paid Uto «onaNnqgr •» u»a» polioioa ttttxiaf 



di«1wr»«a«fil; totok aliovlfig mil «xp«iui«ft inettrr^ lay whit« in 
««ti<itt9tiii« hl» ia«ttr«ae« bu«in«#«i« »n<i b« te«Ufi«NSp %k»t ihi« 
VAB • r«oer4 •f vri^inMl vntry <Mi«i w«» oerreot, all iMM*, wlikH 
▼•v> f«« «xQ<>>ption», b«ing »iMi» t^ hin psrsenall/ »n<t thtti b* 
hud oenptttAd f*««K thai r«<»r<l tfaRt tJit« toMtl «%i»«n»nff r«f«)rr«Nl 
to, for th9 9«i'io4 in <)u««Uen, ««re $64,623. 7a. i>«<la3tlne 

te4 vela ih» «fiapiiny aot Me total •X9i«i»*tt from th« isrosa 
receipts, thotp-fui a profit tmr th«> p«rio4 in <|u«BtiLen« waoxmt* 
lac to 486«Aia*ftf* tn ou7 «|>inisn %im% «»« coiApetcnt proof 
•f ttutt f«9t« Tlmt oortaitt of th« rooor4» 9r«4u«e4 vern loeoo 
6h««to ^A(i n» i boun4 in pmrauamnX book fenti« f ev»o«( no 0ro]D«r 
olijootloa te th«ir vtoo by the wltnMB in aunkii^ tsin' (mleula* 
Wotto. »3rll« V, BuaHnoll . 2t7 111, 4t4, 4VS. tJ» »ita««B 
VluLto iio«4 Qortaid »«nor«n4« in th« mgr of er6%]iUAt»tioa« ho had 
aa4o frea Vliito** took* in «oifii«>otioa with Mir t««tlJBony «»4 
ho atAt*4 thai in pr«j»«jring tiMso aMstoranda snti iaakiHK iiis oom* 
stations tM tand; mi4«' ueo, t*ot oniy of th« 1>oelci>s antii ro««r4s 
whiofe h» to»4 i>ro4tt«»4 tooforo tit* scaator* but ey»ere viiioiti )mi 
lHi4 not torottglAi to ttio $«aot«r*a offieo. 4v»s>eli«nt« oontomi tbat 
it vaa orror to porvit th* wlta«e» u> t^etif^ a» to oDss^atetleaa 
ha had m<to froa tho hooku of Wlaito ual«iia iiaooo books wor» lall 
9yo4uoo4 a(i4 put in ovidaaoo. IM oearao puraaa4 iMfore tho 
Maator «ao quit* ^ropor. aa it «oal4 lia la was oaoa invoivia« 
auBioroao tfaaaaaato* baoka,papara or reaor4s vtii«}} aannot caa* 
▼aaiontlj %• CMMtiacd in oeurt and Ut«> faat to be prorad la 
tlio iK«noral roaolt of «in oxAMiaatiea of ail ar nany of iho«* 
Of ooaroa. tha aaator aifchv kavo raquirod tho produotloa af 
all tha arldaal teoko, aa far aa thigr wo»o aooaoaibla. aiul 


should ]«•▼« d«n« «•• Im4 %^ auwaiien lj««ia rMl««4 li^r MunMtl 

111. 448} |at»r»<iut,^ ^ i;j^itnm<^g v'»n>'.Tit-^ioj t| ▼• y.i^<» ^af»»r.qi , ^ 
iSaajQUaMaaBL. «»« ^H. li». i»«* Vh« ir»«©r«l In tl»# .*«• «t 
b«r «hev» no% only tluat cune^l dia not rttiaotiua »f»«alfle polnb 
Istti wh«a oouite«l A»r Whiir, ^t th<» slo«»« of th« 1»eok]e»«9«ar*e 
•xcu&lnatlon off«r«d *t« ti»V9 th» eyi«»r booko ikb»at wMcli 
tiM «ito«ttK i«!siifi»it. produced, '*<H»itnn«'l for lh» r«oaiT«r« 
vM io oo .aottl t9r ihe ftp^ollitnto 4n thi« @ourt, d«>oliao4 ilM 
offer Mgrlaii, *l itovo »o «»• f^r %h«Nk otifc this Um«.* 

' «« ooflio A09 to thF? aon«id#rMtlon of Vae .^sMjiQuni of 
dOMfOitoo Bllov«d ^Hlto on Dis potliios. ^- r«Mk«o» of ih# OMI* 
posqr** )>r«*^ of the oBRiroet. Slw* osaouavt of ^UHonfoOa mm flxod 
\lf iho .syMior* «•• «pp«reittljp Itiwod uvea tb« ii«oi«r*o ooneliioioA 
tlwt «)klio*o ottwnl looo of pretllm for th« four j^eom of liio 
oeatrooi |iorio4, follevinc ^oj^toidwr !• 191?, would l>o i8»CM[>€* 
SJM iftwtor lBdiQ«iod in hi» r«|iort %3mt ho r«ooliod tbi« <3o»> 
(dvoion i» thtif iellovime imHnn«r. fho «irid«»noo m» lo th« OMOuitt 
Of hito*o buoin#«o« o«i)»ait&«d )»/ Ms tooeUleo|i«r, eoYoriae the 
yoriod froM ih» bogiiminc of ihe fgontt-aot do^im to $»p%9m\tmv 1« 
ItlT, «J90v«d thftt Vhitr vtto iroyine; th^-' cstusoii^iMiy «iu1»etAnU&lly 
U 1/3 pojr e«mt of th<^ total rKo^iipt^ And h« »»» pAjrlne us hio 
•cottt*o oeawaaoioao ouWtoiitiolljr th« ooau» <prOi'ortion of hio 
total r«o«i9to and furthor that hio goaorttX »xp«ao«»« outoido 
of thooo vm iiOBNO ommo to »« por o»ni of liio total r«>eei(»to« 
fbo Jiiastor then noted tbnt trMte voo o%»ii«ed* under hie eon* 
tmot, to do a Weineoe ouffieient to enable UiM to pttjir the 
■nofoy #9, MO a /oar diurine the laot four jrears of the aon* 
traot yoriod end UMt ao Ui» evidenoc eiwvod ti»t )»o iMd boon 
9a/iaiE ilai« oeaq^ejqr one third of hie total r«'oeipVo« the kaeter 
oonolttded tJa«t in order t» oaahlo WMto to saoot hie eontreot 

25476 -lf» 

•bli««Uoa io Ufc* aom»mvf •i #9*000 9«r jr«)ftr f«r th« lasH fe«r 
/•«»» li «»a.l4 li« atto^Mttxy f*r lii« to 4» « )>u»inei« Rmcunt* 
iB« t« fS7.000 Mmually daring timt 9*ri»A, %hft SftAtfiftr ayyaur* 
*ntXjf iikwn ri««««d«4 •» ite) flMi»«KH]ptioa %im% WMt« wvuitk 4« « 
VttslB««s At le««t •off lolnat t» rtmt hl» mntmot »tili|t»U«ai> 
aad va thai aasuDntptitm th« i:««t4»r hmmmA M.* mlaulaUoas, 4«« 
daeUnc tm^^ tls* iotal Kanaia r#9ci:^t« «f 127, coe, itea «un af 
|9»CK>4, ahleiaL Whita a»ui4 i^ajr tte« o^mpany uad ths furthe^r aam 
•f |9,CC1> n^oin he «««14 b« eM,le»4 ie psgr hie •£ftntfi aan vh* 
furih«r •am af #7,0CO» ri»i>''0>*ntinc Mo otbiiv ax{Mia«aa» anatmt* 
iag te A6 9«r ««ni af th« taUil, and Uia* r*a«li«(l (h* oanala** 
laa tkafc on a bu«in«»«. 8affi«le»i ia velvma to «ftabla VMlta 
ta m»%% tela Muiraet etdlcatisa af $9,&0tt a ymr %» th« floayaajr. 
ffMta aouia oak* tin amt^Mtl profit af |S«CGO. la eur oplnioa, 
tlMra la no ImmIo in lih« raoojrd for any su^ alXawaaoa of 4a«*» 
agaa. w«> fia4i ao ari <)«»««, «it)iar a^^wia^t or taadiae U» alM)«« 
or frtm vhioJk raaaenabla Info'rcRoa e« d« \m drawn* tii»t, duriag 
the paried of tha fa<>r yaara raf erra4 ta, mA%« woald da aueto a 
Vaaiaeaa aa «aal4 mwbla hia to naat Jaat M» aaa traat aUlsa* 
tiaaa* tfa kaaw •t m rtila ef 4mm9tpn vmAttt whicb auaH a waeluaian 
aaulU 1»a aarraaUHt* 

Ordiaariljr, aj»oa tha br^aoh af a ooa traat auot* aa 
tha aaa iaralTad in ih<» -^iaa at 1»ar, tH<s pmri^ a($it^la«t viwa 
tha hreaoh aaa caaHtiittad «aal4 b« aatitlatf ta ui« laca af pra* 
fita far tha parieA of tha eaa traat, follewln« tha hr<»aah. 28 
#«tiMatiac tha 9laintiff*a loaa ia aaah a aitaatiaa* aaa tha 
aaart taka iata ooaaid<'nitiaa ih«' pro fita whieh ha aada aadar 
tlw eaatraat duriatf tha pario4 af iva falfillM«att la aaiM 
Juria4iationB tho oairta iwava aaawarad that ({uaatian ia tha aaga* 
tiTa, holding that fntvh avidaaaa aaald ha too sp>aeulatiTa ta ba 



25476 .Xa* 

lfit« i.n», , ■'i9^ , ». <HL lin. 634, lNi%, thw mntswey rittl« l««» bwwi 
followed in •imr JttrivdietiofJMi, in9lu4in« our ftwn* In t)i» 
0A»« •! g»«L^«^ ■». jjKitiNL * 10 H,y, 46®, «t l««iiiii!|«; o«t»« on 
tiii)> aabjtat* on« pt^rtner »u«-^ »noL'mr l^r a |tr«ntttar« ^ifi« 
•olutioa »i \^0 p»rtxfT»iiip in yloliatlon »f Uif-lr mn%rtk9t 
and iitd ooirt Iwlil iha% tUff p}.ttinUff*c ntmMKkte of (S«<«ci.|£«» 
v«* the proapootiv* prof 1 Mi ef th« |M&ir%n»r«Nlp te ito« and df 
thjn %mta, Viih rag^rd to ill* tttteteelon of •Tl<i«n«« «f th* 
•^^unt ef profit* «ium«4 V th« pnx'tiMrship p7#o«4iaif &h« 
41««olutlon* as toaarlag on Ui* qiteeilon of mbAi. ihB iprefiiM 
vould jaava bmm ha«l tta« «»»ti«ot of partnerfsl^p bcrao fulfill* 
•4i« tha vri^ar «f tha opinidtn in that <3a»tt naid, '*Ii e««$>i» 
to MM <|uit« olMrlotMa t^t« ntAtaide of a oouri of Jusiiea, aa 
■as «aul4 uaKwriaka to i'oim an opinion aa ie ti9i» proapactlT* 
profits of a btaalnaae, wlitsout, in th^ firat )>laa», inforalng 
hinaalf ae to ixm paoi prefita* if %im% fctOt «A>r« nooaaailiXA. 
Aa it is a f»ot in ita naUira, oatiraly aasMk^o of oarraet 
aao«rttiiii!ti3«at anri proof, I ann s«9 »o mTm r«aaoa wh/ it sha<ilA 
^o oxaIttdo4 froa i,hif ounaldt^ration ef a tribunai, ooXl^d upon 
to tfotormiaa, aottjlaotittnaiy. tke flmouat of proas^oetiva profits* 
ilMM proof ef «b» naturo of th<« Wainasa, or »nj ethwr oireuMi* 
ataaaaa oonnaati^d vith ita tranaaaticin. It i* vavy tma that 
thoro ia craat tiiffiouitjr in ttaieing an aeeurata antliuita of 
f«taro profita, avaa with th« aid of JK-owiag th** nmotmt of 
paatprofito, ihis diffie^ltjr is in)st«r«nt in iht* naturt of tua 
iac^airx; «• akall net laoaan it, \»j stottinic our oyao to tha 
li«bt vbioli Vbm prarit aa trapaaotiona af VVie partnarship thrav 
upon it. S9T ara «* th« »oro inotlinatf to r^fuoa to i^ak:« titm 
iaquifjr, ^ raaaoM pt ita diffietatjr, whan «a roMMbar, that It 
io tho aioaondttot af %>m dafc^naanta i«ka«li baa rmd»r9A ii naa* 



••f^nry.* la {?>w»M»i^ ▼« lOLyter* 4« III, Sdl, tm i>lMin%itf 

Btt«4 1^9 r««»ir«r tfiMM^Mi f«r the 4<»«tru<»tii»n «f iUn buftii»««» 
iQr r«Mioii vf itte «Jll«g«<t t«l»o«»»4ttot «if lh« «i«f«ci&«»i« in mn* 
««llinit (( l«fui« nn4. outUns of ^ Vh* pllft&niiff'e •%•«« ]»ttwMr 

4«f«Riiimnt«* h«Tinj; 9«8mitt*4 Ui« ^KV«[ie^, »i»«i ^« h«X4 IiaM« 
f«r All lea*** ihAfc fl»v froin it, la«i3udin« %Am l^»e 9f thtr 
plaintiff** lGttBin«»f<t nmA in ^if oeiin««tiftii %h« «6urt nftid* 
*Awt of vh«i 4««» tMii I9»«i nencieit ¥ut t^ i^'ofits ^h«t 
vottXd taftV* t»4ffn iMi4« teadi v)m» h9% m>t bovn 9«rf97««4 tqr it|»|>«ll«nti«? 
And* t« mammwrm »ua^ 4tm»titmt th@ Jury aa«'t !«».▼« »«mm '\s$mlm for 

far tk r«tta»tiftbX« j>«ried t3«xt pr«o»4i9£ th« tl£j.«e when the in** 
J1U7 «*• ittfll<»t«4i« X«»ir&ivi yt» 9ih«r m-ri^ t« 9i!)o<¥, th»t ^ 
d«|ir«saion i»T trft4«, ar nih^r «•«(»•• tb'%^ «a:'14 hs^v«» h«9n laeaT 
JIar oMi «« «at]H>«t tlMkt 1» »9U«n« af iM» aji9birtt«i|<^ iis<? :i^r«alaa 
•xiant af t,h» 4«iMM|aa aan !»« ftJMiwn Iqr 4««&ii«t»Ktl6R. % 1»M« 
iMwia tJi«y om Va aaaartnlnad vlth » ra«MK«««^« 4e|i;r«« af ««ir* 
^•inty,' han^iB ▼• J2JL£* ^^ 2^^« ^^* ^*<^* *^ ««Uon of 4«M 
ttpaa an injunatlon lM»ntf ia whiojk tha ^aintlff naugiii t»e r«a»T«r 
^aiwigaa far injury %9 h.i» btt«in«0' "^ r^aaen af th*) ttrfoi^fvl 
•«i«g aut of ihff iajuaotit n, Xt w»« olciscd oa %|^aal thftb tha 
trial aoart h«4 arr^fl ic. allawiag tti* ^aiatiff any <A».sm$mti. t^t 
iajury to M« liuaiaaaa and lana of yrafilta ih«r«ia« «Ml« Uia 
iajuaoiiea »«« in fare*, and &• ihwi aannoeiion th» eauri aitiil, 
*Zt ia wall a«iUa4 ttet, in au«h a«a<»», 4«MML|(«a, «hiah are r«« 
aaia, ayaaalaiiva and la«apaM.« af aaaertaianaRi* oaiwet. toa 
Alla«a4« 1m% viiara. Igr tha iaaaaaoa af wn iniuaeUaa, a intaiiiaaa 
ia uaaireidaUy auapaadad and thwrabjr injar««, 4anacM ««^ tea 
alXa«a4. It ma/ aai ba yoaaibXa u> ehav ^ daaaaaixaUaa tJta 





9r««ls* tatKit of %}m ^umigtm^ Wi profit* for a r«^»onKl>X« 

p«rlo4 ii»xi pr«««4iac ^^^ iim«« mhtm X^» Injury w»» inn low 

•d« ttay to* ialc0n «• iM ncMmr* 6f cu«^ 4«a«|{«c, and a« th» 

iMSiB Of MR ootUHito th«r«ef, X^ATlttg th« eUi«r ii»rtjr io 

m)a»w that. ^ 4«pre«sliOii in tmdn or ovncr causes Uicy wouli 

hat-o b««n looo.* In the «»»• of |M'^?^>,f ▼• ,M^^,fA,^ yifMliyi 

Co., 277 111* S96, th« }i>mTMim M4 ftntc^reil into « oontraat Ity 

vhloh ttoi* £sXa.iatiff ngaroxHi to sail llC^CifCOO, ^s-eee, pftr jratar, 

of the output of a«r«»dant*iK r«otory« f«r a ^orio4 of two 

ymru, th» ^nintlff bjreu«]&« Ottlt, dLisiialfii; that h# ho<i per» 

f9Tm«d tho Qontmot fov tits first /««jr» «t& »!d !di tim« thm 

dof«tta«at had o^vorod titeir oontraetsira,! r^ln^tien without JttSt 

oauoo* Ca tho quootion of tho piAintiff*« duuiHigoo tho eourt 

•aid, "A rooovory lu^ ^o h«d for .|)roo|)«etiv« j^rofitw vhon tlM»ro 

aro an; orltoria ¥> wMob tl!i« |>folMfel« fro fits ««n l»« eotimttod 

with reaooaatolo «»rt»intjr. On the trial of this eaoc tbo 

•moiuit of oaloo ]aad« ligr plaintiff for a oertain m«l>or of 

■entho yrior to hiu dieciuari|o« «a« preired aa a baoio upon ahioii 

to ootittato Mio |rrolMal»l« oamisut* In ifw futur*. * » * Xi io 

f«rliiv« tntn tlint alMolnto oortainty «« to th^ igaKcunt or looo 

or Amautg— In ouoia oao«o io unaitaiaaMo^ tout tlwt i» not ro» 

qiitlrod to juotify a r«eov«ry* Ml tMo Imv raquiroo io that it 

toe approxinatod toy ou«p«t«nt proof. I'hai jircof of ttoo oxnot 

aaionnt of th» looo io impoiKOitolo, will not ^notify r<»fnolng 

ooaoponoation. Zf khat voro %i» lav, eontraoto of tte«> kind 

bar* iavcilTod oouid too Tiolatod wita iapunity. All tlio lav ro* 

quiroo in oaaoo of Uiio otoametor ia that ttoo «Tidonoo otoall. 

vitn a fair dogroo of protoatoility, tond to oatatolioli a toaoia 

for tlie aoaoaottont of tiananeo.* Jud#Mmt ftor Vt* ;>laintiff 

nao affimod. 

In ilio «MO at toar ^o toroneh oosplain'd of ooonrrod 

<'> v.Mi r. 

!•• t«ek »ff«oti* awMOijr, l»ljr 1. 19XS. But, ih«> p«UU»iiiir 
•lillH*, ••fivimiimt that hXtt »cmtrA«t WM ^ing ttt b« ijkJKWa ^yntw 
V the B«4s«T CoM]pAi^, 9me»«A«4 Ut s«ll th«r |>oXi*iif^c «f tibi* 
XlliBOi* C9imiiagr« ead, urn mt^m »m ttengr «^i>« fr«9ftr«4« t}itt»« 
•f ih« Wlii«enttin OoM|p«i)9r» «!A4 thin «?ititiiitt«d de«a to Augttvi 
ItlT, «H«<n tKs" lAit«r wwi |H my, ImvIus |^T«n th« p^tiiioncv 
Tarl0ae ex0UD«« for th*lr fttllurv to axotfute •e««i»ia.n<M» pt 
hl» «oatz-e«i, a* r«i|«H»st«d V hiai* In fvlamRX-jr 191S, fianlljr 
i»f»ni*4 M» tltot th«ar 4id n«t a»»«i<il«ir Hl» laoniraet i» f«r«« 
an4 ««ul4 »•% t«k« it oTitr, vh^Tvujrtm Wliitc i»r<««diat«iljr fi.ltiA 
ht» petition a^inst the r«<3«iir«r of th« 111 lad is 2eaqla«||^» 
ia 'ii4« t^ttlaonQT ^Mt» «ti».t«4 t>m% t)u» U:tiitoi8 ^:;to»(pfitn(y kad 
tttm*tf iRife W«in««e •T«ir t« tit* WtewABin Q»im*^ %»<! iliv«M 
tli«» tlM knoviu'di^* of All his i^olicqr h»l A^rit and 4iig«ntB, «ii4l 
tte Ittttftr Qon^snor hnd ff<»B« into tne bu»i.n«»s its«lf« >»oth 
•• t» hit iMpmU and Mt» :i^oli4|r h«}li!i««rc. Ihlf; «»« en 0709* 
•xmaiitaticm Igr obi«««I for »;;i»«ll£ntii. 1h»r<? ie im> thing; ill 
tlM rooord to th^ ocRtyftiy. MAth«^v^ it i» eerreltomtod, at 
iooot te ••»« «xt«at» on* of Iko offiiaftro of tbo fiooonoin 
OmyoHy ioatifyiag tbat* to t]b« b«etof iiio rooollootien. ooao 
polioioo voaro eollA in th» t«rritor]r is qaffotieifk, through yor* 
«oa« eth«>r thAn «^to« 

yoJLiOvins th* autiMriiios alMTo r^f^rreti l«« w* 
iMlA tlMt i« tko rs«M at 'Nur WMto «»4 v.-iUtied to yooovor fyoii 
th» roooiTor ouofe yrof i to so wo a 4 bo r««ooao>bljr oortitiA of 
ooquiroRflot SmA tlM br^a^ eotiiplAiR«4 of not ooo»rro<i Vut tlao 
eoMtroot Itoon folfUloA in iU ontirotjr lay tito liliaoio Oonpoiur. 

oad tiMtt ouoii profito tugr 1»a a«ovrt«inotf V tokinc tH« mrmwf yiro. 

38474 •m* 

fits •am«4 Igr hia during th« j>«rio<l tf tlbw «»iit>F«ot irr^^iMi* 
tag ti'i* i»7<!*aeh« In Wtc «U»«n«« of taxy miMPt^wnB, ^^ ^^*'' pArt of 
thtt r«e«iT«7 &>»%, OS our ^iVLS^iMmm (Joujri t»B oxpr««»#d it, 
"tjgr d9i>jr«M«ien in tm4o or oiHMir oftucwo** tH« profits iroistXd 
hftvo \»«on loea Rftor ih* tir«*i»«33k tlissm th«)>> md h«^n yr«Yiou» 
ts thftV 41m«« TfeMs r«»Q«iT«r aMibd« no Mi.i«a!<t|>t to emn i^t lh« 
prof 1 to irouldi boro bo«>9 lo»» if thft oontrsot )!iie4 )»«>«» folf iJtl* 
94 1 nor •lia »t« »,(&▼«»«« o«)]r r'<r'.»«oA t«mvinii to -■ndioAift t)t«it 
•ttcli «o«i),4 twvo iMiftA Iho finet, «ui^ ia th« ttt»B«»«)« of muf outii 
«ritf«t)<J0, tovle»« fiec»rt«ii<i<9<l fhito** mTOi«mo proflto for iiut 
9«rlo4 pr«o«i31ne th« 1kir'>«.eii« hi a ^Mmg^m vmixlii torn maAfs up •t 
timut m-v^tng* profits for th» p«ri«<l following tho to««i^« 
lose, of 9«itro«« aaty profit :bo mt^ imrvs sfmA« in ooniittttins t* 
•oil tito i»oli9i*o *f tSvs BaBM?*mloo iwralf ««! , ftfi«*r iJ»« ferv**^ 
«a«l pomliag feio «ffort» to JmT« ih* Wiooottoin -?<»»s»«SQr tako 
•ir«r ittio «ontra««. the eviiientsp ehowe tSttot^ 1" ^<»et« Iw BMfe* 
■to profits of tor th« broateh. In our ojtiniont tho <»«»Ottro of 
iftonagoo «iM»«i.4 bo «• oMi-re otat«^t ael«ithotondin|t tito f*«t 
Vhat it ««« inm-m "b^ %im «Ti4«nOO tliot ^M.t«*« Imsinoos n«tt«4 
M» o o«n|MirotiVftl/ lorgo profit in 19X8 «i>4 oloo in 1918 nm} 
tt afftt«4 him m. v«r> onoll profit irs 1914 end « l«o» in 1919» 
ttoo jfoaor ia «hioh tbo broeoH oeoarrod. At boot, tlao futuro prcfltt 
oon only 1»o opproxinatod and %ii« «««Miion <^r ootiaMting tho 
tfOMAgoo boins ^* fault of ttoA one wbs hao briraobod tteo ooatraot* 
gaaagoo will not 1m d«ai#<l Itjr reason of that fa«t aor Itr 
roaaoB of ih« foot \,h»%- Vtit^ j^roflto oaraod «hil« th^- oontraot 
was in foroo oito« a dovtt««rd trond froft: Vw brgiaaing of tho 
oentraot poriod to tho tiia# of th« hr*ao)i, but tho oao vHo hao 
•«ffor«d tlio doMatfOs should bo porvittod to roooTnr hio p9oo» 
pootiTo profits for t>i* poried following tHo broa^, wHssiirod 
%r faio av«rago profits doriag tlM poriod prorieuo to tho 


to ahoy th-ai by r-~»tBofl of crtal t s bBaltt»c8 e.' oV>»;r aA»il«tr 
^ yw^ttieiw, .ti^'^ fatofr* grofita. wt;al4 net h»»# «><i^Hs3lAfta 1.^ 

^y»3n>A* prof if ef fft^ sagrto^ , of tii« acnt.itigfc ^^^^ wtid.^h ha4- 

n«ailHi la 1917 • during whi^ In; tms •cllias Ui««c ]^Qli8i«N», 
nad tb* ttpp«LlianU <»Rt«i^ ilsRi b|r ttmson ef %h»i f»ei ii 
«tonl4 W tel# Uiai tiie pfftiUeacr )^4 t»% only swff«r«4 w 
l.oas VaV ^4» in f«et, b«a«fit«^ 1^^ Ui» br^^acH in«ean^ a» 
IM «ft« t^rt'liQr r»lieT«tf froa us« oblijptiion of fulfillins 
a eoairaot vhi^ ibe «'vi<i«me» elwwa 6« 9&jil4 net falfili* 
flMii ax«m<lRl. is eoi tenable. A^p«ll^^at8 tamt»% time b« 
p«f«iit«4 to take atfranta^ of tb#lr awn «re«g, lb« petition- 
ar did net oaff^r a loaa la the oas^^at of bie buslacas aatil 
tba /«ar 191S, vMeb waa tim yaatr ia ^biah tb# br«««b oacttrrt^d. 
If^tlMi llliaoie Oaayaajr did turn »^«r v& the wieeoaala c^pM^tagr 
tba llata af tha 9#titloB<»r*» |»eUa]r iiold«ra «a4 If tba tfia* 
eon* la Caa#«ay did go lata tb« p«tit4enar*« territory end 
dioarg«Blsa bl« batb aa «« Mo a£«Bt.s »Mi bl» |K»ll<y boldara. 
ao ba te-<Uflaa tb«y did. and It Ic not diwlad, it Is aoi. 
bard to axplaia vb/ tb« ^atiiionar oaff^red a l^ve la hi» 
baalsmMi durlfie tbaoa yeara. If Me Icaa waa eeoaaloncd bjr 
•tbor roaaoas. It wia iaeuaibaat upon the r^c<>iver to aotab* 
Hob tbot faat. 

It lo apiMuraat t^t If tba ii«tltloa«r bod baa* 
avardod daaogaa aeoordinif to tb« Aoaaure va baTo rof»rrod fae ao 
thft eorraat ob«, ho aovd d hciTa bad a do«r«« for a largar •«■ 


tiam «as fix94 V ^^ irisl «0urt «tt4 %h.eTvt9ve Mm «|>p«Ilaata 
•r* ttfit in e |»e»iilim to eec^lain of th*^ d««r«« api:)««lf»4 .fx«aft« 

h^y lM«ti «urs«4 «r f il«4 bjf the 9«%itioaRr« 
Is &fflrK«id« 

TAXLOi. 7./. jn ii^eanmi. #v c^iarotfB. 

2M - 25491\ 




221 1.A. 658 

iJR. JUGTICE TEOKSGN del ivr-red the CT>i'^ion of the 


The rlpintiff IsrrUf^ht this action for office rent, 
allescpd te >>» (^tie from th«» iflfpndnnt for Vnf 'ncn^hs of 
itugust to Ko-?ea;l>cr inclusire, 1917. Bie iasues were submitted 
t« the court without a ,1ury nnri « fin^in^ -wae mscle for the 
plaintiff «nd .ludpirent entered in her faTor for HOO, from 
^ich the defendant has nppenl ed. 

The sin-fMrent of olnisi declared thnt the parties 
entered intc t*- written 1 e»R<» for the ppried of one year "be- 
rlnniwr toy 1, 1917. *t e ncnthl y rental of §50 and ttiat the 
defendant entered intc ponsesetcn of the pre'^ls^s »»nd peid 
rent up te nn'i including July ^ut not thereafter. 

The plaintiff testified that the defendant applied for 
the offlca eometime in ^rll, 1917, nnd aaid he would eipn a 
lease for cne year; that she told him she would hare the leas* 
drawn up b- her n«ph«w and that h«» eoul d ftet it fTTOm him and he 
said h#» would; that she had her nephew prepare the lease in du- 
plicate* iihe sifoned the lease and left both copies with her nerhew» 
ready for the defendant to sign. The deferidant toolt poeeession 


of the off lev on Magr Isi «md ]ii»Vf>d out lat* in July. 

The plitiiltlff *s nvphttv testified that he prej^arftd 
the l«a»« »t plaiatiff*0 dir^otion -^au tViat she BiKncd both 
aopi«s; that tb» defenoaat JLooketi over th« Imis* «a4t Mtid hm 
would Btetk it if s^rtftia ehaages v«<!r« «!tid(> nn he aais«;«8t»d; 
that th««« dtumtftt «Rr« mi&m bat th<it tJto defendaat a«nr«r 
•igaad the lefte«, both sopies of whidti hnd JBincft reaained ia 
the poas«esiOB of the witneea. A etenegrapher, vtie ««• not 
at the tiao of the trial, hut had heen in the «npl»jr of the 
plaintiff, teotified ac to tte otOBTttrsAtioa hetvoea the 
parties in April* in vhi ^ih the defenJaat a»id he weuVd eiftH 
a leaae for a /ear. She defendaat denied he h^d ever agraed 
to oi^B a Xoaao for a year hut eaid ho had refused to do so 
»n6 told plaintiff he wanted to rent th^^ of fl -^e lay the aoaUi. 
lo alao d»Bied that he Iwd aade aqjr auggeatioae ahoat oh-^ngen 
la the leaae or told plaiatiff*B nephow he would elgn it if 
eueh <3feHUis«a vore tiade. The plaiatiff waa ^i^kod what, if 
anything, the defeadant had aeid as to why he woulda*t sign 
the leaae and she aaawared, "he vmj^ ze druak he ooalda'ta* 
The OTidftnce ahowod thnt after th«» Inaeeo a«re prepared and 
eigaed hy the plaintiff, they rffitsaiaed in th«» plaintiff's 
offioea, one of ihcr rooae of whio^ was the mihjeet of the 
loaso, in the oaatody of her n«phev. It alao ahowed that the 
—oiMt tiie defendant i^id dnrimt the ilaa ho oeoupiod the offieo 
in queatioB was ^25 per awnth. 

The teetiaoay of the plaintiff anc her «i tneattos* 
although flatly oontradioted hy the d«^fen<iant, waa apparently 
belicTod hy the trial oourt. Oa that teatijaoaor, wo are of 
the opinioa that the oourt eorroetly fouad thst the pariiea 
had OB tared iatv a Talid writ ton leaaa. Aooording to the 
teati■B^y the dofoadaat agreed to aiga a lease for a year aad 


vhen plaintiff said Bh«» would have the lenses T^rsparpd and 
siifn th«n and 1 *av« there isrlth h*»r nephev Hvr\ that defimdfnt 
could get th«n frcm him, the (Iwfwi'lsnt aaiil h* tfould. "J^e 
leases w«r# sc Trepar*"^ pnri 1 pf t with plaintiff's nephew, 
which, under the defendant's apreen^jent, was a aiifficient 
delivery. Heyrmldf , v, Greenbaum . 80 111. 416, ]?ollowing 
this, the defendant actually toffk posiaession of the prejfises 
covered hv the It^ase and occupied them and paid rent for J'everal 
iDcnths. 2he lease tijen beoaiHe hinflinp en defendant, althou^ 
he never signed it. iaftragiano v. Villani, 117 III. App . 378. 

The lease was for a tew. heginrdng ^^y 1. 1917, and 
ending April 30, 1916, and was therefore sn agreespnt to he 
p<»rform*d within a y«^r and ia not within the statute of 
frauds, ae the defendant conten-ls. The fact that the de- 
fendant a<i:re»d to execute a 'vritten le^sf? for a vf^ar, some tioe 
in ^ril , dop8 not alt.°r th<» r^ltrjatlon. 'Hie plaintiff is 
seeking tc held the defendant on th«» vrrft^en l^eee, - net on 
his prtMlse to erecnte it. Whon the plaintiff had the lease 
prepared and ehp slpned it r>nA 1 pf t it with th«» p*>rsr«n, with 
whom the defendant agreed It might be 1 pf t, for him (the 
defendant) to secure -nd sign, and the defendant took possess- 
ion, the agreen<''nt which bwcsme binding on the defendant was the 
lease and not his agreement to enter into it. in effect, there 
was a delivery to the defendant r'nd the defendant h^»ving gone 
into possession it becaJse binding upon hiai though he never 
signed it. 

The defendant's liability is not altered b ' the fact 
that he naid |25 per month during th*- tima he occupied the office 
although the lea^e, as prernred, called for ^SC per month. If, 
as seeras to be intimated in the record, the defendant paid' only 

$25 per noBtb for the three moothe he occupied the cffic*:-, because 
that -rwe Rll the monev he hsd, prciniainp to -p^y the <?ther |5 ,00 
letPT, he w'-uid still be linhle fer the monthly rental etipulated 
In the 1 enee J»nd cannot oonplain beoRUse the JudsiBf^nt la for the 
•Mailer amount. 

Te find no errtir Vn the record and therefore the judgment 
of the Municlpnl court iu effirBsed, 

Tajior, I. J., nrtf: O'Connor, J., crncur. 

8t4^. 2SSlt 


■ A 

»• \ 


Appell«i«. ) 

COCK 3<.u1RtI. 

221I.A. 658 

im. mmi(Si tmrnsm dftllfered tlie opinion of 
Va» vsaTtm 

fhl« la att app^Al 197 ^^ aof^iidiant Silsen, frea sa 
•y4«! •f tiw CirtMlt Oourt, find lag Ms guiiltijr of oeaisapt 
•f Umt Oauvt Iqr rewson of hl« faiJLare to otwpljr vlth tJaai Wrta* 
ef a 9«rMAa«Rt lajunetlon d»er«« th#7«^tofor« watered , sn<i fia* 
Ins ^B 4900 ih<^r«>for. lb« d«ar«« referred ie vac never ap- 
p»alait froau PreTloaa to tnit oMar to »:»v aa»Be« vni^Ai ia 
iBVolTvd h«r«i, ik«re »»• ^tmUieT eu^ erder. «n vhloh the 
defanoant «a» found ipalltjr and fiia«4 llCC, w^oh h» pt^id. 

flw dfiarae p«r|ietu»lli «nJolii»d tta« dafcndani from 
iwlas tii« aa«a *l«lL»v Cab OoMpaqy*. or "yi^l-ov «»1>* ^'i' •imtla* 
ilea th#r9ef, ar a taxloab la Araais, flalah, aturl* or c«i»)i9. 
Identical wlt.%i or Ilk* the taiaeaba of the ooaiplainant, or aQ|r 
aalMtaatlal or rj;at«rlal pari th<>r<*of or aay alMulatloa th<>riH»f« 
la the patltioa to einov aauaa, oa whidh the ardar hnre appaalaA 
froM «aa •at«r«d« it «aa ahmrg^A that U»9 4ef<^naant aas eparatias 
oartaln ta:xiaab8 In tha City of '^loaigo and vbat he hnd oatMMSd 
thea to b« pain tod a paoullar plnklsb tint wtd ch. av algbt, 
i«d«r eleotrlo street lighta, aado thaa appear Idaatleal or 

and th«i on R*v«ral eoaacioaiR perecKne i«»4 «aK*K«4 imi4 •]•» 
Plo/«d 4«feadani*& tftxiouli* ftis ^mi for ifioeiA of the ««ns)lAi!t- 


0» tltd li««]piaa; before ik« e.b(aa«»Ilor, <K»»c^lftlnAitt*i» 
eouas«l |>i-@>eni9^ n ntmh*fr of affisfiviis, which em»pcrt«<l all 
thtt etwrc«« tot fortli IB ih« pvtiiioa. On %tA» app««2,, tla» 
4efenaant faaii a»slgii«d as itrrtttB %h» aotion af th« ah«n«ttller 
la roealviag ih«»a &ffi<iaTit« 1b evi6«?nw OTer hi« objection* 
tlia rooardi B.iiio«a thoA eertaln «£»«««• v^r-rn iv«&d<» In tW^e ef 
tMaa affltfavliK, apaa th» <i*>fe«i<^jKat laiar^aalag r«l9 a1ij«etiaa» 
arai that defonasat*!; abjaeiloa «a« tb9» wltHtdraim, I'hfti-^ la 
•affidsot in titso»a affitiaritB, ta«atlM»r *i th the tf^fftl'.4>ay tf 
aavaml wltneasaa irHw testified la «p«R eaiiri* t« warrisat the 
ekkaaollor la fladiag that th#< <l<»f«^QdaRt aa» in soat^apt, in 
faillas to ccmt^lj »1 Ust t]li« t^iroYlsione of t^i^ 9«]Wim«ni laajuae* 
tloB d««raa. ilia ttt*»ti»n af wb«th*r th« athnr affl«iaTlta 
•kould ar ahouia nat hftT« ^<iaa r«<»«lY««i therofaro beaan«» iiwa <t«r* 
lal. Aceuuaias that tiiejr elaeulii net 4tT« b4»«a r»a«lv»d, «e anat 
farther aasuaee that thcjy aere net wasl«l«red by th^ etmaeellar 
hat that iM eatc^rad the er^er a^yx'Rlad fre» on eni/ eudli oom* 
potent evlaoaea aa aaa hafor* hiau gyaillait ▼. Hoy trap . 215 
111. 10&. 

The defftaoaat farther etti»port af hlo 
appeal, that th« teyae af the iajuaetien deeree are aneer* 
tain oad iadeflalte aad that he efceuld therefore not noYO heaa 
flaed for ea allotted ▼ielAtl n ih^^reof, in the exeroloa af 
»ie Jad^ieat. the e«»e ^aeetlen «•» ralood me to a oiallar 
deeree. In yellow Qa > <?fteu»any ▼. 4hraiaaff . aaeo ^9. 8fi06l> la 


this Q(»ur^, oi.)liiio» til9d Oatiiber 27, 193.9 , net y«t r«p»rt«»(ft, 
«n4 for U}* r«««9n« ihore given, «« twld ilMt ihff prttTicien* 
of t.}M d«ar«« «*r« •ttffloientljr dAftnite sinii odtrtain. 

««• net hi • 4«4«iRM»at Imt hiffi Ingimuliy. ^ tk9p$i,wnily trl«d 

to sttus* Um puVli* U ittk« t^«m for Kollot* Jolio, «(idl At tfeo 
•o«« Ua« k»«p JttBi oat«i<i« ih« liaklts gtrohibited ti^y ih^ in* 
jtmeUoa dOAroo. ^Mvllaneo irit>i th^ iovna of Vnc d« or«e 
Ottllo for tbo ox«frelaio of Roit.>)eesr judfl^ni nor S.^t«nttity. Xf 
ttw 4«f one silt will fftirXjr «P!»lyf «t r^^toQaftlGilo auneunt of f^mmnn 
•onoo, h© will fi»<i no diffioulliy iu the M«tt«r. Xt in a vory 
•li^plo nuiittor t' Itov* his e»ta «,pp««r in Buffi<si«»t <3ontrm«t 
te thooo of ViM oovploinAnt to 02M.lal« the»o oVi^v ttam export* 
to dl«tln£uiob tJewn, 7ho d«9ro« vno iwt dosl«»«(i to pretoot 
OExporto in ooloro and dooigno, (mt tho ^uMio* inoludliic ttao 
ooroloco, tho unouepootins kiuI tho "vmmry puroh&oor*. Liobiit*o 
Sxtroet of Moot So.. htA, » r, t^ CShm9i>^tn* do«o9f^ r«itivo aooioty 
Ltd., 19 R.j^.C. (nei»«rto of Britioh f»toat ^o1«b ond 'i;rodo iUktk 
Ooooo) 65»-M4; floronoo iif^. i3o. ▼. J2ialiL^» • 1^ J^*** ^** 
Ibors nro nomborlooo oolor oehtmoo onci doolgno, &p«n \o d«f<>nd» 
•nt*o aoo, whieh will soot tlnot end. An ^aoot of fort on ti&o 
fort will onaeontor no diffioultios. 

Wo find no orror in tho r»oord w»vi tVKr«for« tho 
dooroo of th« drouit Oourt i« affimod* 


fAYLoa. i*.J. ASit o*Q&am, J. ccvcKm. 



mmioi»AL mum 

221I.A. 658 


V^ ^litlntiff liftnic Vjpti'Ji^M Xidv^ suit ea ft {>]rttMiit» 
»ory !Wie, clgiMNI 1^ t!w9 uef»ti4»at «)94 d>r«nm to Ui« or^fty of 

»«aie«i U> ft iuyy ]r«»ikuJkUiii8 in m v^rtllot for uie »4««tUff« 
JMiPHMt «n» <»nik«r«d «;piio«t th<? <j!9r«A:i,R»i for #3a7*«&, {■«>>]}r«N. 

|<l4ynw»» t]«r it«f9tttliknfc kMRS p«yf«ot«4 t;r!j,« a^.£M(al* 

f)»9 t«*Uj«»a)r of «ltua«B««fi for lh« pti«laUff »»• 

••«<l <rora fr^t ^mlMn SroliMra, f«f««ra, foi- which it o««<t 

lirttthffra wwr* pr^^catfttS *^ aOHi»a«}r far %h» ii!«iym«At af ihkt 
balaaoa aad Ui^ 9<mp»ny (na no% b«v« f«»4« with i^inh i« pay; 
Uukt ilia i&m^tMif had tsartain aia«Athoi(iara vtio w«r« aImi affiaaira 
•f iitn ;»I«liliiff Wnk; thai ih«> aeaij^aagr raqu^aia^ ihf> banJc to «A» 
Tanaa 0t la«« ite^iEiaa jiyawbera ^hm $a«t CO >ij%o t*k« inair «i»ia 
Ui«r«fajr» wMah tha bnok did; tilMit th« a»«4^aii|r a^raaA with 
ttigliaa luraiJMra thai it «eul<l pn^ ih« naia aiiaa ii «Mittr«a; 

Um% th.9 fifmfmtqr ««is unable ta ^ m miMi «i»n»«qtt«Atbl/ Ua« •ui«ae« 

tk«Ar et»i«» W ih« «xii«ii vf 18 j»ttr mnt of ate auHouiit «f 

ins t2i« l^ig^e gyi>%}^r9 »oi«$ tim% «11 tine »l««ltlMiildt<i>m oo«n> 

Omni* itei«« v«i^ Wr»«d •mey le u>« ib&Ak in lii|ultf»ti)»«i of tSam 
lt»g}»»9 %m^A»rm cwve an4 that »l.l of ^em Ihaq b»«»0 f»iti«« oacooyi 
tho ««« h«ro ottoA ui^a aJ.%l)Oai;)( 4l«aMMti» tor pm^mmxt MS lt««i 

CftV« (^ oOtmMMir hie nol>«« 1»« rASOivetit la r*tM.inK» im e^H^NMHQT** 
mitt, paiNiltiLo OA <i«t;»«i4 for t)m •«»» iksH»«uit« 

YlM %«ii|jM»4iy of ih« 4fff «>(«»««« w«« io %im 0tt«<ii% 
th»t OR tiw ooofeclaa of Mo civii^ tii« ma»4fmv ^^^ >v^* stt*4 
MjMNi* w« d« igWwarta «ih« w^o ih*n. i;.)w» {>r««id«jit of Um ht^fdt 
Mi4 oltto «n «ffici»r of Ut« mmsmngft iol4 kl« ^iostt tli» <K>Bi«MMair 
Mto ovororanm »« i^ \mfnki ttent h<» <nK|»««t4Mi iho Wisk «»«ld %• 
oaumiacKi oboril/ tmA %% «» ad ^t lock wtll to ikove t^ mmmm 
isoy flji4 tu«i ib« ^Mmk «»• «»«jrx3rljas mi evc^rftraf t of^ * oojtmtm^ 
tloa of vhloh tee otMt 14* tirotlwy, itm iv»l<f o aottirolllnc iiii«tH» 
oot i» lihe Wake VOX'* oatooaUYO offi<^rot %tml Uim e«>««jpttB|r imA 
OAOttiiii ••♦A oom on luuM «m ^v<?r tb» «v*r<U«Xt; ihmi. ho wontoA 
tho ^ofoiMtdftt. ikudi tte oi^r oWokMildoro (witw hnd •itro«d to tlM 
plan) to glvo t)Mijr no too to tho lMnk{ itetii ho voulA tJnon f» 
■ Iw d ottA ooll tH« oorBa tm^ \h0 no toe om^ jr»t»m ttton to ihtiir 
•okort} %tet te ooia tho (icfon<l«»t would novor Tom o«ll«>4 m^os 
to pigr th* notO{ iJMit. 4b tlM Bowaitiao tteo 4#fOHb0o«t ooulA 
taovo IJM oa«p«mr*« aotot w)i«i<otKi^o» tlio Hofonuant gAVo etowori 
%h9 no to ottod ttpoa o«tf roooitrod iho «»fli|MU9*o no to, 

la o«t9>>orfc of uUa wipoai, I3m 4of«)ifi«a% firot oo»» 

tmmm %imx %im v«r4i«t mm jii4gwMit far tiM i»l«Liiatirf *c» 

^ ^^fta<t ,f, 61 III. 94. Dm <l«Ain<f«»i «urstt«ff ii^l^ lai^HMtth »• ih>i» «oiAr% 
1» ]pr«»«at«d with tJb* toeUi^nQr of tiw irii»ft»«««, (W«i3i» l»t«nmrt 
•iMt tJM 4«f*iidi«.tt« It. 4m Ims^i^w) neither aoy]p«lM>r»t««t, \mti^ in* 
t«iw«i«l ta th/t fmA% «f t^)» suit, fui4 wm cur« in 4iir««t ««ii» 
fliat »i%^ 4M«^ »^«r* th» ^lA&aUff f»iX«<ii t« aMMi iU "i^wf* 
4i«n af 9nMif i»ii4 1 % «a» thanefore inotflKltNitnt «n tiste <(»ur% tio «;nui% 
fe&« iwiim f«r « (9iir(^(it«4 y«r<ti«%, »% t>i«« «&«&• «f nil ih« 
•irid>»s4«t «>r, Mi binrliig 4en« «e« anKii » ▼•v<ti«t for %h« »l.itiii<» 
tiff hHYiag h**n r«twrn«(i lijr vii« JttJQf* f>te «eurt «h«ul(i koftv* 
••% tit« T«r4io% «»i4« Kacl tf«:»aift4 ft »«« trlAi. 

in x'tk» first pitt«n»> «• i» »»t eonsi4«v tMt tli«« ««»<• 
•iiita is ftiitaftrity fer >»)AOi> & p^« «» ^^^ 4«f««Kiattt iRf%«ei9t« %m 
inTOka, aor i« it th« low of u*i^ »t^vt, ^« «llMr« to th« ntX* 
inc af tiji» oaurt a« aius»anQ*a in atttoiy v* Klaw, IfiS 111. Ap£k> 
f42« «• feil«w»{ 

*ISBIi9l£ *• i^iMH* *^ ^l^* ^« I****' cmm— in 
tkis oourt in wixi'^h !»«£«««• f»«»'*- thw* •:>»«!>« tme Wa« 
itttfttad tt.r* eit44 u^ u», cts ia«rjK of Ian ^^F^^ in »upp9r% 
•t %!m 9ti»i%i«m ttMkt w1»ttr4» plaintiff ft»4 d«f«<««i»»t 
AimatijT Q«nt9Mli«tmt aaah «tikMr «it»i«ut 9»tv9}»im» 
iiMt •» ailh^r •iitt> on tte« o«i«iiti«l tests of « ««««• 
tli«r« «ftii ^ no pr«fM«4«»rttii«N) of •vi'^««o« aoffieiatit 
t« iuatifjr a y«raioi for t^tA |»l«intlfr, hi«ili olewiil^ 
eeii«»<tu0ntl/ b« oot ositi*. #iMt«v«r &v^ ii«ftv» te«B 
At any tiUso «4U«i in upiniom of UULtf loo^rt appii«« 
to th» f«et« of UM i>arti«ul«T enoo* it i» Ql*Mur Us^t 
a«itbei> tlto oooiKii^B in ^ofiolfMi V* JUMUL* ^^ *'**" ^* 
dietttat af tb? loomod J|u<igft wt^o wrola tlw epiaioa, i* 
srawiA for tJtio ^ olArotion al aai/ e«9h ttoivoraai ruio* 
Vo oUii teld. «• JudfO Kojailator OAia i > mninx ▼« 
J>or|to . • Ul, A»|», »0»i 'It will not do %o tmgr •• a 
A4iit*cr of lorw tliuiit thcjTff onn bo no pr«pon4«'ranc» of tha 
OTid^noo in foTor of the ptw%jf ttoldinii; i^i nfiivnotlva 
wboa th«;f<; auro t«at t«a (ej»i.«oo«d) oiUioaBOo m^oa tko 
faata is iocua«* 

]Bv«a vli<T>ro tlao tootiaaay of lta« joiaintiff io vit^MUtt 
oorroaopotioa mmi tlist af Ui« dofoadoat i« oorroborotna tiy 

tlMt. « r«r4iol «^»4 J«ti^«ni for th« iiltiintiff will }m «•« 

lit 111. «0T, •^•n w«; e Ui» plaiaUff oeayp^tiieiod *«jr ttui 

But* la %i»0> (Mt^soiMt plAQVa %iii0 i» n»L a <!«.«• n^snr* 
««lvhar «f yi«» «i|h«tt«. «errttlM»r«ti6n* AlUkOu^h tli* U»i»ti* 

t«sti«?eny •' Oiber »ltn»«««» for tias ylftlatlff. iX 1« truo* 
%• iiM <i*f «adfmt mmimmdm» iim% in a ntmbei' of r#op«>ai» 
hi* WttUnoigr ttnti iJMiti of «* 5. €(%««r«iLr% i« fl»tljr CN»aty«4i«t* 
•ry» Si«t h* i« «o fl»i|/ «intnMliol«4 in •Xh^v r*tip99%M iqr 
e. 8« S» ttt«w«ri nmi £», UtrA, wtm, %n •«»• HAtt^re* niT* 
%««UM»mr «hl«k Motto %9 wrrobOTot* iiw ti>»iiaoQ3r «f ^« i>« 
•kmmri* in*. S<«r<l» Vmo 9x<fi4mnt of U«« iwi^* t«Kilfi«6 uiot 
whoa h* ««kll«4 oa %m 4«r9»<iHa% iMii rm^u«a%04i (Mijriftoiii of t)wi 
no to tiio ^mttm-.t-rmt o«ia ito aeui4 not taJco osiro of It J«»t Vum 
«o bo )m4 teuMS^t •» oi^firfaBoitt Intildias oftd woo ohert of roMtjr 
MOttojr Wt. ilioi h*f «ouid o»o itet it v«o toJfcon qhito of. *>r« 
Lor4 fitrilwr tootlfi»4 »ooitir«ly U»ot %1» d«f«»^«iii 4i4 not 
ohov IOm Vhe oem»oJV*o aoto kio li«l4« ot ttet tiao, m^ v^^t 
)M )Mi4 no reoeUootioA of Miythlng Wing ooid to tho offoot 
tlMt tho onl/ r^-aoon <;«fofi'i<int 41d not p»^ toi« ooto «io bo* 
OOM«l iM iukA on ik«rii«tattnt viUi ff. £>• Stovmrt ie the effoet 


ita»t ««f«ii^<'«i «»al4 R<Mr«r hm mXlm4 itfidn t» p»jf it, «m4 tlMt 

X«im And iiatkt k* did »J:)«« tiM •(MpMBQr** nfti* k«l4 ^ M«i tmi 
tiwt Sv* l«»«il t«i4 tM» )i»4 tt«Y«r kmiwift AWttt t^i »»i* mkK Im» 
«•«!& ••!( iM SWvmri iMjra ftlMMAit it* f1l« ^etmnAmmi, •!,•• t>«*ti>» 
ri*4 tJGHfti i^". JU»r4*i» «tnt««i»nt io tii»ft nff^ot t^hAt, »!»(» %h» 

«a14 1h» «9ui4l iMt tttfc* tfa^rtt af ii t.h#»M» H* «»• iiJh««<t af aaiOi 
tMi «»al4t 4a •• latar, «m ^iomimrII fixity uMti^tt*. <>•&•»• 
9t«Mirt t^ailflatf to a 4«w«» few im4« «n Ui» «i«f ent..»»t far «!&• 
|MM««tit 6f Viia n»i«» an «hi«h •^mmkpn tli» ««»f«iiv«jnt g»iF« « 
rtfuXy ala^Air i» i^^ ana 'i^r* IMird tn«Ufi«4 l»« ««4e mmn %M» 
»a«k»4o«i *t Vim ammtiA »ii4«» ^ Ma, flM 4i^im^m% Aeniad IMitt 
<l«e«t. iHffWKrt ts»4 «v«y 40Mmi4«« j^ttyiawttv of IOa «« tlw iMit»« 
Tliar* ««r9 aita <)«atrH«tiailon» in t^« t»«tia»)qr Ait il»* A«f«Mlp» 
«st Mtd of 1^ «i««M»ii««« f»y th« »l4iiiiiurf »iikJ^ r«fciriv»i«ii 
to flHMilaca «f t^isa attfakbeldara af th« aaflqHHqr «ttaa(l«4 tiy th« 
4«fatt(}«at. V. lu $t««ftrt t««tifi«d t* 4i«Mm&» h» ima mada an 
4af«iii«»t tcr 9ajr tta* it»t>9. 2h» 4«f9ita«illt i^etifiAd, *Sa«nim 
(«• fi. »t««ajrt) iKia ii«v«v aakad »•• nft9 )iav« atgr af Uw »ta«wrt 
iMjrt, ta yaj 1tl>ia aata** ¥li»f« ««¥• MrvaraH r«f^^ra»«<Hi wMt* 
U Uw £t«v«rto ^ tlM a«f*n«Mit m M» i«»ttoa«]r« «rt»iaii wuwX* 
iHu^ly Uava tfea affaet ^f aa«»ltt« tba Jnr/ U) 41a4V«<(it t^a* 
vlt«ia»a«a f»7 th* plain VifT. th» ^ntmndmmt t«»Ufted ilMt ba 
kMnr iha etaw*wr% tof* rttry »«U.« •»• hava 1»«an, »»a »aw ajra, aw 
fyi«ii41j, i«t4«»t« mjtA aardial t«mM.* A«ai« ha t^atifAa^ tli»t 
MLa raiftUaaa with «, ». Stafmrt «*ra v^-iy tOMiai and tlMti 
wh«ft«Y«r tlM lattar aMiia ta tawii !■• mm* t» •*• idm and vt*it 
wit^ Ma aad Ut»i %m Iwat tiaM ha talkad «t«. J»M«itt« Jatamrt 
alMNit tM mm9*mf*» affalm. tba i«tt«r atatad tm ««uid cat 

fi4Nk MtM ili«t tMM tim» tttwrnri irauici furtttiib vutfli » steWN 
MMmi** *Aii X lMAi«f»(t M» then ^mi m ■mw*i %Ibm% Buab » 

4«r«l«p« X k-n»« Uw a%«imr% teyn will ismk* '«t» «to«<»untii«MjC** 

i>i t«i «wi wii^«ttt^ r««««n that tii«^ fl»laiiff «»«• 
Wtius tnei if UH» sitrinc of th« «i«ret»«ftnt*» !%e v« wk* tol*^ 

•ItAttlii b» <stwmm to ih^- O0',:i9ft»i3r'*e ttv4«r foi»i« «« 4«f«i»ii«iii ttii* 
mX%*, llMi Mb ot>i|T«r»ftilan «vXii^ «, B, St«««jrt i»Sciouia Inalttdt 
the talk' of l>)v« QO'BiDiMisr* « tt«««t« emei it* «1»i:Jii^ to tautcft «Mur« 
•f tM emi||^ti(»«s (a) %3m.% llm d«f«ni&jsm% aueultl etrik* out 
the aeaf«»0l«tt of 4«ii|{>»«at elouoo i«l iti« nflt«, as h« di4i (1) 
ttet oil tho oW«khoi4«ro oiisiomI^ Im iaaiu««»S in tkh» pXaa* iH 
yxoyorUoii %» ihoir ttto«kiiol4i»eii, ao tfo« notft of on» ovo of 
tJfton would httvo (to»« OS ««I>1 odd oatto^d mmo^ looo trott)il«| 
(4) %lMt tli« ooR^ongr ulmuiA &kym ito no to to tlkftd<'foiu{«int for 
Um qomo OHtOttii o« tim notfi) glwwn \^ th# dof»]i4««iitt(6} tluit 
tliroo ycrooAs* rcftroowoUiiK i^ ^maic otaoald oeAl tt|»eii the 
4lofon4«at «t diff«r«nt tliROo n»« re^voot Mm to pa^ Mo ooto. 
All Of UI900 oirotMotanooo, witi^ tbn tootiioeiqr of th« ploin* 
tiff*« vitMo»«oo u9 %» thr making Of tt!ii« noto l»y tl»« (t«fttf44» 
ant ottO ito tomlirmty t« Sw *• Atowart fortlso <»»]^ai)t|r ooo ito 
•0««MM(toti(Hi« and not for ttoo aaooaeaooatloft of %i^ bonJc, ami 
tte tootiaoigpr of tho ^wfondaat to tho o&iitrar|r« mar^ all pt^o* 
enntao to Um ^axy. aad 1m vo Imob rj^tniraiino^i >|r th«Ht advoyooljr 
to tb« liAfon^MSlfli •«at<9ttJ.(Mrio. In our apiaioa tUff atato of 
tbio roooro io ma^ tiMt «• voulO not bo iuotifiao in diotuv1»* 
itm ih« v«r«ii«t of tea intjf ao oonfirAvd Iqt tito triftl oostrt. 

•%!• awnlK^r Af t^ bar sf look <i»unti|r «)9«t fvr Mtt* ]f9«v« hum 
b««ii » Iia0i«»r itt oiuuisMrjr of tix<?! uuf^rior 2«i«ri •f t-imX mmi1gr» 
mmtt %!m% ^ 1« mi« In' ifhAa* iniogrltiir w« )mv« «v«'r> wnf I4«n«9» 
B«t^ i)ui% fcot «uaji»% a>mng« i^*^ rule «f Xtm involiTfNt* Ik'he «(«• 
r«a4tt«t RMtt iJ»« %-i%.«t«ii«i»tt fttr m* pitdmUff %«iiufi*« o<miwy»» 
tnc iiatV»r» th»thMl »e(Mrr«4 aien* ]f««rc \}«»for«t !)»• jttxy <£•» 
aiU«4 %im% th» «^ef«iiKiitat ««• ^ifttAlcvn in tU« irervl^n of vlftt 
••itMlly 1«olc {il«e« aM«i wi aro tuift^le Mr ««i# bj»»i (h^^ v«r4Jk9i 
»»d Jtt^l|pit«s% «r« net ouipiNvrtvd Itjr «)m» naMiifost «oi|^^t> of Uskr 

XiM aofonfitMii n«Kt aonioado iblmfc ItM Vur^itoit rwotMNl 
•a im stlAinlitf %& oJisow thsl it «t%i» tihtf iml49T of iji«f«n<i8«t>*» 
aet.0 in «&9 oourso, Jlttt uM«i«r ih»«^ 99 of oujt !lii)go%i*>l»l« la»triif» 
■leako A«t, ih« {ilaintiff w»uJ.4 be pjr-- eujnuMl «« %« » i»l4«r 1» 
4tM ooumo* %tftl.9«8fitMt uaill It »»9 ohown Ihnt il»» inwimaont 

«• *»f ••«▼•. !;&«& ^. 1^ ,^» M,^Mwi.tJ%fi,* «i» *^i* *»P' *w. 

flM |il«iAUff a^KltO tim% vlkon it i(»ek i)t« n0t«r it bAit kiiowlotfg* 
•f iio aftiuro* flM (iof«adftnt ooi up no m drnTntmrn, iho oliogwt 
4of«et in th» not*, in ih<» aAnds of vhe plninUff* TMo ««• 
KB offixMitiTo 4«f«K*o OM v^oh y»» b«M«n Of jproof vwo «i 

iHo liofonviimi. &t t,smt Ux9X'« oom )»« no uo-jtbt. ^ j^^mll^^ ▼• 

tBOmSa^ 79 Zll, SSI} BBiMJr* faHMffiJlflnilla ^' ^i^« ApP* 
see* fho (iofoauMnt aiuai bo tkAld «o lutvo foilod (• ohov ligr 
• »r«9oa<t»ra»e« of Uio «nria«s«i« itet %hfi tiil« of tho irioia* 
ULff ia %tm jMte, vaii dof«o%iv«, Bloirinit rail«4 to »«oi Mis 
^r4or. of yroof ia ilMt r»«ttr4« %!»« ]^r<«OMMpUon tJutt %Hm 
plttintiff vaa iho bol<i«r ia Autt oeuroo. who aoi OT«ro««o« 

flM dofott^nni liloo ooai««4o that uaa trini oouri 
mMr94 ia tlio aiaiooicn of ««rt*in »Tl<ioaoo, t)no of ttw 

St«ir%ri« t«nUfl*4 that. in Ott« ef h&» toUcD wJlUt tkiM <l«f«HidN»i 

«ii* ifis« tHi.a iWKkpmKMl p«;prK«iii m»4 iiwii <i9f«»dfittit Mii.4 (itoi im 
ceul4 nfii 4ttk« «u« of ^i» miv tlaMH but maul^ a» so I«t«y Imi 
t^t <t9ftm<UAi Mkidi xwtiUne W Ut« •ff90i v&9»'. » ]^ro«l«« or 
•crooMOttt iuM \tm» u^A* %h«i >m «c»\ilti noi 1»* a«XI»d «i^on |^«jr 
his ao%«« VO' fty* oT tho o|»iaioa iJemi. mmrn- «»«« no o-rr^r itt 
•knitting tt^is ifinUaoQir. It t)m d»f«iicr(j!it*iii no w« ««» givon ao 
pari of « plim iiwoivijtji &h« j^iirlnc: of no^Mn V aH '^« »to«li« 
heltf^'ro, th« f«o% t)in\ id I tm o%h»n imd be«m 9WI4 tmA Ui»% 
4«f«niiifcat twa ti«tt(i Mlvi«i«^ %« %ite6 «ff«et« at vhietli iiao too 
tMdl «iir«a 09 r ttftoa for not tv^ine Mt imw* »x««$t lifiok of 
TvmAm, VAC oini^*%«at. »« tanoiag %» retniti ^ef^mos^t** olaiio 
tlMt ii toaa ¥««R «Mj(r«.<«<l h» mia nov*r <« V« 0«i>t.l«d »|»a« t.o iNigr 
iKio iioi«» In trng- oYoni, th# t»(iaiMi»n of ysis ovi«i»n««» ooultt 
not bt* «v««tf of \>jf tlw 4«ft»ei(tKnt, «ir«^ if it «me orror* m» 
%9titiMMi9 to ihff «uw» off«^«i «»o sivon l»gr »iwth«r witnoooa 
oo %• vhieto <lof«na«At luiftrposOiA no ebJvoUoti* Jt>iMMW||i ▼• 
SaXliiM* ^^ ^^^* Ap;>. 536i U3MSJL V* ^M r/ffffl^ffi, Jt> ,Jf.,fCf« 
2SSStSSBL* l^^ ^^^> A»»* i*<»> 

it io «lao «ent«aAo4 tJautt iiM» 40urt orro^ in oA* 
Mitiiiic o«»riititi oopioo of l«%i«ro «i»i(^ Ok* pl«i»tiff aUi««4 
to have ooa^ tlw 4lof«Bd«at Intt which thv ltttt«r oiUa ho hMl 
noTor reo«iTo4t »• t^oy w«r« ttouiuuto for jMigmeiit «ii<ii OMnMljr 
o«If*oorriiui <iooloratiea»« i)t« «rrer la iho lutmiooioa of thooo 
oopi*«, if luur, mto iaoDMio«t«oiiti«l «ii4 hoailooo •» thor* ««• . 
ooavotoat oiriaifii«<^ of » maml^r of 4l«»a»4o for pwysorat, «»4o of 
tho aofoi^Mit, ottavr thnn tio»BO lotioro una ony forihur outo* 
MMto tiM iottoro ooaiainod v>r«> mltto oiT«ro« Iqr othor t«»U* 


nenir in Hw isnmm, fm 4«f«n4«ni*« timml otmUm tl&& %is»\ Mi 
elain for eei»eff «»tii^l«iS hitt tB Jiidype*ttt n^aiaftt Uii» plsAop 

a© olMia for ««'t-«ff In hi« affi'ir.vlt of ja*>jrit«, 

«9 rind no «rror in %m renaoM mmi tlmrvtur* ilMi 

naOMS. Jr«l» AK& 0«3CMm, i. 


294 - 2S5S2 

DAISY H. ROTi^SSLL, fomerly 
Caisy M. Hart^. 

Appellant, J" ] AFPSAL FROM 


\ / 

JOHM L. TAYLOR, intiri dually / 
and as executor of the estate 

of ELIZABETH COHDSLL, deceased, S% Ct "% T h /^r'O 

Appellee. Zai \A. 65 O 

\ / 

The plaintiff brought this action of replevin against 
the defendsmt individually and as executor, to recover possession 
of two notes and two certificates of deposit idiich she claimed 
had been given to her hy the deeeased during her lifetisse* The 
action was later changed to trover* The issues were tried by 
the court without a Jury, resulting in a finding and Judgment 
for the defendant, to reverse triiich» Uie plaintiff has perfected 
this appeal. 

Elizabeth Condell was somewhat advanced in age and 
was in ill health, and during the last month or two of her life 
was cared for by the plaintiff, hHcm was her niece. Among other 
property she possessed the notes and certificates in question. 
One note was for $1300, in which the plaintiff's father and 
brother were the makers and the ether was for $300, in which 
the plaintiff's sister and her husband were the makers. Both 
notes were drawn to the order of the deceased and were my^r 
indorsed by her. The certificates of deposit, one for $465 
and the other for $100, were likewise never indorsed by the 

About July 1, 1917, the deceased, who l^esided at 
Libertyville, Illinois, sent for Mr. Benjamin Miller, a lawyer. 

•r.lifl iuo 


and requested him to prepare her will providing for the pajasent 
of her dehts and funeral expenses and the erection of a Bonaaent 
in the ceatetery lot, and leaving the halanee of her estate for 
the purpose of estahlishing and maintaining a hospital. He 
prepared the will accordingly and it was duly executed. The 
plaintiff came to care for her aunt about this time and ahout • 
month later the plaintiff called upon Killer at his office and 
•aid Iwr aunt wished him to come and soe her. When Miller saw 
Hias Condell at her homo she told him she wished him to change 
her will as she wished to leave her house and lot to her niece, 
the plaintiff, for her services in caring for her in her illness, 
and Chat she wished her will to remain as it then was in all 
other respects. Miller accordingly prepared another will, leaving 
the house and lot, valued at ahout $4,000sto the plaintiff, and 
except for that change the last will was identical with the first 
one. This was the will idiich was probated. At the time this will 
was exectflRsd Miller talked with Miss Condell and he says she 
specifically stated at that time that she wanted the house and lot 
to go to the plaintiff for her services and she wanted the two 
notes and the two certificates of deposit, together with other 
property she mentioned to go to the hospital fund» Miller then 
asked her where she kept these papers and she designated a buremu 
drawer. He asked her if she thought that was a safe place for 
then and she told him to take an |16,000 mortgage whiidi was there 
and place it in his vault with the will, but to leave the two 
notes and the two certificates of deposit because **I mi^t be sick 
and I might need the money that is in the bank, Z want to realize 
from those notes and I can get money from Mr, Hart if I need it 
and I can draw that money out of the bank there.** A few weeks 
later Miaa Condell died and at that time the notes and certificates 


■>•■ vtr... 

i4i hm 


in q[uesiion were in the plaintiff's j^ossession and ^e olaiaed 
that her aunt had giren thera to her. The defendant claimed 
that they helonged to the estate and he demanded that the plain- 
tiff deliver th^ to hia as executort threatening to apply for 
a citation against her in ease she did not do so. The plaintiff 

finally put them in the hands of a lawyer iustnteting him not to 

turn/oyer to defendant without an order of court. Lnter the 

lawyer did deliver them to the defendant without any order having 
he en entered by the court » taking the defendant's receipt for them 
in whi^ it was provided that the notes and certificates were de- 
livered without prejudice to any rights the complainant might have. 
Later the notes and certificates were duly inventoried hy the 
executor, the inventory setting forth that none of them was 
indorsed by the deceased, "by reason thereof title to the same re- 
mained in said Elizabeth Condell and the undersigned, as executor 
of her will, claims the same as property of her estate. Said notes 
and oertificates were in the possession of said Daisy Hart at th« 
time of the death of said Elizabeth Condell, but were turned over 
by her to the undersigned, aa executor, on demand, under protest." 
The defendant indorsed the certificates of deposit and deposited 
them in his bank account as executor, and he later started suit 
on the two notes against their respective makers. After demaad 
made on the defendant in the plaintiff's behalf, for the return 
of the notes and oertificates to her, she started this action. 

In support of her appeal, the plaintiff contends that 
the only q:uestion involved is idiether title to negotiable paper 
can pass by delivery without endorsement. Rather, the question 
is whether, under all the facts shown by the evidence, the title 
to the notes and certificates in question, did pass to the plain- 
tiff, though without the endorsement of tho deceased. Defendant 



dees net oontend that title ooald not pass without that sit- 
doTseaient, but that the evidenee shows that it did not* Th« 
<ia«8tion is " did the plaintiff come into possession of the 
notes and certificates hy Tirtue of a gift of the paper to her 
hy the deoeased - or did she not? Xhe trial court found sh« 
did not* 

The plaintiff contends that the trial court adnitted 
iaproper eyidenoe on whieh the Judgment appealed froB was based* 
The plaintiff cannot conplain of the testisony of the witness* 
Mrs. Fry, for hsr motinn to strike out that testimony was 
allowed, the court saying, "^hat she testified to, I will strila 
out*" Plaintiff objected to the testimony of the witness £/!iller 
^eceuse he was attorney for the estate of Elizabeth Condell and 
a trustee and director, under the will, of the hospital fUnd with 
eertain fees therein fixed for his serrices* In our opinion. 
Miller was a coaipetent witness. He did not come within the 
proTisions of see« 2 of the Eridenee Act, as the plaintiff 
contends . 

It is the opinion txt the majority of the court, that 
under the authority of Martin t* Martin, 174 111., 371, it haring 
been shown that the plaintiff had possession of the securities 
in question prerious to and at the time of the death of her aunt, 
such possession of the securities, though unendorsed, must be 
considered as prima facie evidence of her ovnership of them, and 
therefore the defendant had no right to disposBOss her and now 
has no right to retain the securities without orer-ceming that 
presumption by contrary proof* We do not consider that tke eases 
to which the defendant has called our attention, in contending 
the contrary, are in point* In »hea y* Doyle , 65 111* App., 471, 
citing Bamum y. Held, 136 111., 388, it appears that the one 
claiming ownership of an unendorsed note, as against the estate 

, ■ n gifsoieivoj 

ViMoJtvei-'- .'•••^■' • "■ 
. . -i-.J- 1:0 ao. ,. ■ ' 

•.'1 •MfrfJ- f 


of the d«e«ased payee, vas given poeseasien of it for the par- 
pose of collection* In that ease it was held that "the nere un- 
explained poBsession" of the note hy the claiamnt was insofficient 
to rehat the presumption of ownership in the estate. In holding 
that tho presumption of ownership is in the estate, the court in 
that ease followed the Barnam casoe Bat in that case the one 
elaiaing ownership of the securities ia question, as against 
the deeedent*8 estate, noTer had possession of th«si. The defendant 
has also called our attention to Millard t« Millard , 221 Ill.» 93* 
In that ease, it was also shown that the one nHno was claiming the 
securities in dispute, as against the estate, nerer had exclusiTO 
possession of them, hut that, on the contrary, the deceased had re- 
tained possession of them and had done a number of things on the 
basis of his exelusiTO ownership of the securities suhsequent to 
the time the claimant contended there had heen a gift to her. 

In the opinion of the majority of the court the 
presumption of ownership of these notes and certificates in the 
plaintiff was not OTercome hy the evidence submitted in behalf of 
the defendant. The only evidence that mig^t be considered as 
tending to overcome that presumption, was the evidence of Miller 
to the effect that the deceased had told him» at the time of the 
execution of the last will, that she wsnted these securities to 
go to the hospital fund* But this evidence could not be con- 
sidered sufficient to overcame the presumption of ownership in 
the plaintiff, it having been established that the securities had 
come into her possession before her aunt died* The remark of the 
deceased, testified to by Miller, was made seme three or four 
weeks prior to her death. It may well be that during that 
period she concluded to give these notes and certificates to her 
niece, the plaintiff* That her intention to have these securities 

. , iJiJazM^ I 

S« into the hospital fUad was not very definitely fixed, even 
at the tiae she aade the remark testified to by Miller, is 
shown by the fact that in the tame conversation Miller says that 
the deceased told him to take an $18,000 aortsage and place it 
in his vault for safe** leaping, hut to leave the notes and 
osrtificates in her hareau drawer, as she might want to realize 
on them. It should further be noted that the witness Hiller, 
who was called by the defendant, testified in his direct 
examination, in answer to questions put to him by counsel for 
the defendant, that before the will was admitted to probate the 
plaintiff had told him that these certificates had been given 
to her by her aunt and asked whether it was necessary to have 
them appear in the estate. The defendant, having brought out 
that testimony, is not in a position to complain of it and it 
furnishes BC»e evidence to explain the plaintiff's possession 
of these papers at the time of her aunt's death. 

The oontentions of the defendant in the case at bar 
might be tenable if it were shown that l^e plaintiff did not 
have possession of these papers until after the death of her 
aunt. It is clearly shown, however, that the plaintiff had 
complete possession of the papers some days b<r^fore her aunt 
died, for her sister testified that some time during the week 
previous to her aunt*s death, the plaintiff turned the papers 
ever to her and that she, in turn, gave them to her father for 

VoT the reasons stated, the judgment of the Municipal 
Court is reversed and Judgment will be entered in this court in 
favor of the plaintiff for #2, 165. 


Taylor^ P. J,, and O'Connor, J«, concur. 

- J HUB 
-XiS^ajB TtSit a©1i (,Jb»i 




ffBffjMPft lAKUM djptfiunr* J 

i / ^ 

^- ^*^ X ^ -frii* O O 5^1 

Hit. Minim. tnmmV i$«liv»r9«l irh« ei^lnicn •f 

Ui* •eurt* 

aM«t in ilki* sun of #340* OC obiikiawt in %iMi ii«taJLei^«a Court 
•f (%!«■«•• ^y ttM plaintiff • in aq aeiion Alleglns do^ioiage 
%» ia«9 pl«ifiilff*i> ftaiontbilo tntaac* »eoii«loned li^r th« n«e» 
llg«a«« of (»«rt«kin of the <i«f **»'a«!ifit*ii oet^kXojreeo ia tMktff op«r* 
•tioa of on« ef it* otttoiaobilMi, 

A tlur«o qttftrt<^r ton trudk, loo4«r<S with about 400 
powKlo of br«a4a bvloasine U> th« plaintiff aompntqf, wro 
baiag tfriran by on« of ito oat^leyoeo In an «t(«t«»rly diroelK 
iaa nnd alone %h« ri^lat hand or couth tsiii« of &Tth «tro«i 
in the Oitj^ of Ohi <m|^» At Um> iat«ro«etien of tiiot otroot 
wiib »tat« otroat th« oisplGjrao brou^at tiu« tru<dt t« a otop 
to yorait tho paasiait of « «tro«t oar aloa« Stato otr«ot aatf 
ba tbon prooo«4od oaotwurd. Xta« naxt int»rooetitt« »tro«t aaa 
ValMsb aTomia «mi4 wbon tl»« frent of th« yleiiatiff *» truok ka4 
r«aoh«4 a point Jaat aaat of ib« ulddlo lin« of t;«baoh aTonuo, 
a aovoB paoconsar touring oar, balonsing to tho dafan'^nt and 
oeatalainft a lar«(o baakot or box of broad. vhi')>i aaa being 

takAB to » 9«rt«lA trtkin ml » n»ilreft4 stotion in limX««m«4« 
in ite mxjf of Sill <)•«•« BtidiAtBiay arottntd in fr«B% «f th* 
trttok. fr»ai ibt north to the ooath, an^ th« front oprlac* 
of t)i(> trade ttai tbo r^ov, riis;liti»]Ml ir)ift«(l of th« toiuring; 
«Mr ooao to«oth«r« A» « r<»oult of %he ooll&eion %h» trudk 
voo ovtms ontiroXy areuad ajt^ l(&na<!^ mt iH« soatlMMiot aorn«r 
of vifofaosh «venuo nncs 57tte •%r««t, fti^^^nrfntl^ tumoH ov«r en 
ite »ido «nii hi»«d04l, finally, in m wooterljr <ftiroetlon oad 
th« tearing oor, & parfintljr on throo «rh*ole an4 tiu» null of 
tb« foujrih, ooniiBaod en s^obnoli in e. eouthorly ^iroetloa nad 
oloppod iifl«r tno OAOt ourt at » i^iotnaoo eoutii of 57th otrootj 
fizoA M 7C foot V t)><<^ ctirlToir of tho plaintiff* k tntok (»»d the 
yrceitSoat of ihm ftlolatiff ooM^iMMiijr, wltso r^oohi^A th« OiMiiio of 
tho »QOi<i«Bt A «)tort tiao tiftmr i% oeowrr<^a, nnd At Sft foot 
Igr a vitaoao for tho t0f9nAim%, mm mXm r'»oho<l Uio oeono 
of tlM> aooidont a oltort tiKO of tor it ooaurred. 

TlM <rivor of tho plolntiff** truk to»tifl««l that 
tho aottld«at )io> imposed on January 3, 1916 » »% steut 6tl& A.itl«t 
that tho Bomioc **^o <>o^ Yory oold ssitl vnna not frooty «a<a that 
tho otrooto «*r«> dry. Ho aloe t^otifiod that althou^ih it woo 
hoforo ounrioo it oao nov a dark morning r.n^ Uiat th« int«r» 
ooetioa o&a ooll Xightod hy ab olootris aro loMp* Ho forthor 
toatifiod that ho hoard no ooim^i or waraing of the aj^proaidi 
of th« aofoDd»Bt*o touring^ oar a.»«i t)i»t ^t« alts not ««« it 
*hoforo it tri*d to tum;* tkwt Mo oar «ao prooooding aoroao 
Vahaoh oTonuo at a rata of aiio>it oi^ht nilM an hour{ and 
that at tho tiaio of the oollioien h« woo en tho ri«ht hand 
oido of S7th otroot and tho front of Mo truek o«» aorooo tho 
aiddlo lino of ^abaoh avonuo; that ho noticed thr««> non in tho 
defendant* o oar an it panaod and after tho oollioion ho olinbod 
•«t of hie traok and then oav throe yowng follo»a approoohinK 


ttpm th« tfther «mr, v^ t^l'A htm xm^ v^vm tg^m Vm B9mXw» 
Bftkiais um9mnf onA t^sml th«Qr w»i^ «oif^ i<» 4«li.ver ^«<mI «t 
tlM dvpttt* )ii« alM i««Ufi«di itoi he mm t» Ivghts Wralnf 
OB th» «t«f«a4«ni*a «Kr uatil inftt^r tim 9«lllBien «rh«»a tot« 

lantern, hetigintf oa th«- itfft tvuid «id« ^f i»kM ittuvlac My,* 
tff«fi bfting «ttt«»li«S4Ht a» te th« li,<{i3t« on th<! d«rf9Ai$Mfti*» 

eeur. on 9ro»»>«XAminftU9B, ihi« wii4i«»« «m»w^iFe4}, **l iliinH 
••• aay* i g<m«ralljr Ie»i: «r«un4 en tk« «tr»«t Wfftx* «rai»*» 
tag, pr&t9M.j look«4 out f^r teis, vani if i hAtf s*«fi hki&, ihl* 
prttto))^ would »0t hftve )i«i.«p«n««d. * In d9»ttrllulnis this ftcoujrr- 
•Bfi« th« Hilta«»n t«siifi«?d turthttT tfa»t *Th« 39hi«Is« ri«;ht irmm 
wh0«l <»tl4^^t siy aoraor imA tntnt itpflm* * '* * ^ %ri«d id i$«t 
bjr bi»t h« hit jmi*. It mppmnxw %imt th^rtf w«r« 9Ui-t«in» «r 
d»er« in iluv tr%n% part fff t)w |»lftiRtiff*« truoacn strttood th* 
•9«e« ••aupi«d \qr th«» ohAufftmr, rs^ tJri»t th«>»« durtttlns w«sr« 
up er puXXsd l»M(ric «» tk<> l«ft hi^n^ eid« of tlb>« tru«ic« 

»Jtt« j;»Xt)ii,ntiff*» aiKtuff«atr wsiB i^i* only •«e«j'r«nc» 

vaa driTlttK th* d«f«n4tait*9 «Rr «»« a^wwni In ^h» i»«rYie« »% 
ih« tia« 9t tlw irlfil of ihift <?««•• 'i^heiror is BO r««fcr»noo 
Mwdo in in# i<^tttJ,nonjr ttu1i)mltt«>4 in >»«tealf of ti»e dfffK«t4Mit 
to tho otiMir o««u|MU»ta of th# oav» jr«f<!'rrft(i im> fetr the pldin* 
tiff** otMuf ;ottJr In hie tootinoai'. 

In support of ti»le niiVH^al tias a<»f<f*nd»nt oontMn^in ttet 
th« trial ou^urt orrod in r«rfttBiai« to dir«ot s v^rdiot «^nd ill* 
ittruot tho ^urj tc find tJao dofonooat net (nilty. lhi» ooa* 
tt'Stion i« not tonntolft, (» tMe CTid(»n<is, th<r »ub«tnne« of 
«))i«h ofl laoTo itboTO uttillnod, it is ««tiroljr el*«r i^t tho 

d«c «ttr« OB ito« Fart cf &be i»lftinUff » v«k« queeiieiM f^r vh« 
4«t»ynia«itiea of Uio Jury eatt^ th« trial «ieurt ai& not «rr Ia 
ovorruling tiH» dvfoadAnt** MOti&n for o dir^oif^d Tcrdiot* 

(>itm««l for tkft 6«femtiMit do«« nb i oenteii4 in nia 
wgiOM ttt tiMt th« vordloi i« Agi«das% t^ siua&fost woigtit of 
iho ovi4«aoo* Zhe only otlstr {Miiat 9r«»«HRt«d; in o^pii^ort of 
IM a^aool X» Xhrn 4«f«oeftat*« «&nt«iitl(m tlwtt th« ooori orr«4 
la ftdaltiiBa ««rt«ln iftottsse^y, mhitsh ««8 fillosodi to h»fm 
V««a iRotimp«t«nt. It would oorvo te> mo 9«r9t08« t« diirauso 
Uiis t««tl»OQ3r ia aetail. 9o hmrte «KM»ln«d it sill o&reftjaiy 
osd la our opiaiea tb«)r« mto no error o»«Ritt*«l In tM« «»«• 

thm JvMg»4m% of i.m nunieitml .^tiri i« th^r^foro 

341 - SB6LX 

u ooxporaiion* 




221 1.A. 659 

JKS, JOaneK XHrns^ d*lJLv«r*d Uw epiniea sf vb« 


Th* pl»iBiiff. Brown OoaI Ccwitaingr* broui^ht VAm 
aetien tc r^ooTer d«UMS4M t^x t)^ all«««tt failure of th« <la* 
ftfiidaast* Carterrilla tfaahed i^MtX C<ie9aiqr, to make 4eliT<pri«a 
•f aaal la eonplituiea -wXth tint eontiraet eni«?r«4 iH%» \^ iha 
partif^a* Tte d<tfeauAat fil«Ht a plea of set-off* ¥a»o4 on a 
SMUMtt iSitSHS^* ^<*' ^^ valuo of eeriain 4eliTorioa «hl<di - 
haa IMTOB aado 1^ it Imi for whiob Vte jtlaintiff had not paid* 
At %h* olooo of th* plaintiff *e i?vi<t«itoo» Uift eourt (lir«et«4 
a ▼or41et for Uiw <Uif»Bunnt for tte asoimt of ito o«t*eff, 
I&S7.74 and Jad^ont wn» «nter«d aooordlnelya to r^vffroo 
vkioh* tiM piaiatlff teto porfeoiod thlo nppoal. 

TlMre van no dlaputo aboat tbo faoie Involrod. TIm 
plaintiff mm aa Xo«n oorpornttien vlt^. ito priaoipal plaoo 
cf tmoinooo at Cloux City, lomu ¥te dofoadant «aa an iliinoia 
oor9t)rati(m, with ito prinoipal plaoo of imaiaooo at Cbi«ifiac 
llllnoio. la April, 1916, tho partioo Matured iato a writ ton 
oeatraot vh<frolqr th« defendant oold Ow plainUff ^0 earo of 
a opeoifiod srado of eoal to W daliv<>rod to tho plaiatiff 


•t polBts and by rout«ii sptxelfiiMi ^ th» Iatt«r at a 
•tipulatcd price f.o.b* 'A.\»tird, i:«niuelcyt th« s>eini of 
Alniag. while the shipaiente wnr** to iMt nade as orU«red 
lay the plaintiff, th'> eontriiet apeeifi^^d th» ap|»rexi«at« 
miBiber of oara ta be taken each Aonth during the oentraet 
period, vhl^ eaa is expire tfaroh 31, 1917. th» o ntraet 
proTided that pmymmntm varm to be vnade an th« 15th af aaeh 
nanth fbr all oDal chipped during; the preoeding nonth. It 
alee provided thai in eeee of » * * unavoidable delegr in 
•hiiMwat, intidequate aar aoppljr or at.h<>r oontinfienalaa bagraad 
the ••Iler*B oentrol, deliveriea af th<- »rticleci her<«by ooa* 
traeted far, aajr be partially or wholly eaepaaded » •» • dtuw 
lag the oontinnanae af eu^^ interrttptiona; antSt euepenBiona, 
faevaver, shall oot in anywiea invalidata this oontraet er 
amy part thereof, but on reeun^tion of the work, th<^ ehip* 
■Mnta ahall be eontinueti at the epeoifi^^d rat<' until the 
fall anount aontraeted for enall bo deliTored.^** 

Op to Cotober 1, 1916, the plaintiff hnd ordered 
tik» afaipaent of 250 ciitre of &>nl under uUo oontraet bnt the 
dofeadant had shipped only 71 oars and vma in d'^^ fault ae to 
the iMtlaaea* On October 16, the partioe Mot and «Kreed that 
"thoy vould eenaider it as though there were bat bc oara of 
ooal dno and undelivered'' np to Cotober 1, and tb<^ further 
agreed that the naount of ooal <»lled for iay tise oontraet 
for the riiBslnil rr of tk%ri period, would be oenoidered as re* 
dnood by SO par oont. fho plaintiff save the defoad^at ehip* 
piac orders for a total of 54 aero dariac Oetober, Soveabor 
«nd I^oeeaber bat the ^hlpneata aado by the defendant on thosa 
ordure dariai; the nonthe n»ntrd, ag^c'^Satod only lO oars. 7ho 
plaintiff paid the defendant for all ooal ahipped op to Oat* 

ob«r 1, Inat not in eoMplianoe with thp ^ermn of th«' oontrsct* 
for in oet i.tmtrirKxu pajr>^^nt« w«r« Maue atioj* th< 15th of 
the EMntJti. She j>liti.ntiff n«Ter paid thf* (t«f«n<liint for tho 
ooal ohipped durias the nonthe of Cetober. V^nrnhfr tmd 
0«e«a)Hnr» and it unib otlpalntwd tlmt. If tmything wan due the 
defen-Mit by way of iietoff, it ««• $5S7,74, the «uBOunt of 
the Jadfiaent reeovered by tbe de fea Aot* 

It wn« a^eed by thi> par tie* on the trial that om 
and aft«>r Cotob«r 23, th^re «ao an aoate ear ohortage and that 
o<>rtaiji o«bargo«*8 v^re placed by th' railroads on the snoYowent 
of oqulpment and th&i by rpaaon of ihomi^ ocndltions "the 
defeniiant fssy be deenod to be exeuoed for having failed to 
deliver oa thntaooount, all exeegt S4 c»r« of oeal, ^no the 
IMrtiee heroto atipulnte thnt th^r«? still r^miiin» und(»litr«^red 
a total of 64 a>»r« of ooal . • ihe p^rtler «1r© i^tipulntod so 
to the aY^^m^fO diff erenee between the ooniruot price and the 
aarket prico "of aaid 64 eaJW of eoal*. After iwoeaber, 1916, 
the plaintiff sont the defendant oennaniestinne urging; farther 
deliTerioo and the defrncant aado roci«Mat« for payiaent for 
tkw ooal proviusly shipped but net paid for. The defendant 
did not refuoe to .mktt furUier ohipnents but. wrote to plain* 
tiff on several oeonaione ea^lainiag thf* ecnditionc thai vere 
iaterfering with ehipnenta. i^efendaat seotse to hav«> chipped 
tvo ci.m on one oeoaeion but thry ijr*r*> never rreeiveu, Iho 
ountrftct period ex>)ired without aeiy further coal being reoe-ivod 
by the ,>laintiff and iAlti«ately thia station trow ont of the »»» 
treveray betwoon the partiita ovor the «ttbjeet»Batter of their 

ti vno the pool ti en of ch«> <iofen «nt in the trial 
oourt, that in or dor to sake out a prinn faoie eaae, la it* 
suit aftaimi Um dofondaat for the alleged breaoh of this 

ooniraot it warn n<*e«e8ary for litu plaintiff t.o ar.ow th<9t it 
«»• not in default aad<^r th<f tyontx-aai find that thi* plaintiff 
failed to make out suoh a arjw facia ea8« Vat on the coa* 
trary tha i»laittiiff*a own evio^nc)? tth<l-x'(^<2 thiit It w^a ia 
default itaalf, >y rc^aaon of its failarc tn pay for oeaX 
vhich hsi^c boon <i«liT«r«Ni aa4 th<»r«fore. Vim.) 4«f«nutuit «paa 
mtitled to a paroi^tory iaetrutition, %nd as th«r« vaa na 
diapute oTor t^ oaouat and valuo af th« ooaL daliveros -md 
BBt pai^ for, i.'ss d«f<^ndant aaa «ntltl(>d aloe te a Jadipaaai 
ia its f<i«<<r en ita alain for aaioff. Api?ar«ntljr th« sour% 
adot>te<l thnt tI^v of th' .%»«. 

Ia Um aaaa of e oont-iriei^b tev^t ae ^0 oa« In'^olvcd 
iMura* it ia th« gonoraX ruia ikttt th» Ik^/^jt OAanot tr^at ttoa 
eoatraet aa ia foroe »e far aa its right te di«tr.i;jid d^lirmtf 
af tli« goeda ia oonoeraad tntt not is t^roff^ ut» f«T fic tte» eall* 
cr'a ri^ht to d«]3h>nd pa^yyuifnt ftut ils« i;ec-e& dt4A.T«r(^d, ia ooa* 
o rB«4. if the bugror troaia the osatraoi as in fero<9, and 
toiasa an aotion for dajan^ea a^gaii^t Xshf^ s'^Llxt fcr th<! lattorfa 
tooaahs he ^aat ahov p«rforaa>te« 0/ '*,ii0 90Atr&>^t ;;^ his ova 
part or al«gaX axoaao for non-^iorfeiiasncfc* Ip ord^r t« 4* 
thia it «ou;^d ho iaouabrnt upoa '^a^ bujr«r» in asriicins cut 
hia priaa ^a^^ eaao, to eiooa ^t^gsm/m for Xivt^ gcede 4Aliv*rod 
9T aa affwr to pajr or to eat off i»«iy»«icti aguiaet thA fSseat^pHi 
^aiaa4« »ad at th« tiaa opeoifiod is i^ 9^mt7%at for :»njra«Bt» 
■arWr Brother a ao. r. tfoffnt Gjfolt? 0U>.. X51 III^ »4j ; ^^ ,f| 
l^llT^ '^T^ ^, « yhitaott. 20I Ui. isi>#. -CS*, «▼« HI, •»; 
G—rao a. aoaa go. ▼, Mi^mom. 146 III. 156; <;^np£*<% T* i^il^L* 
63 III. App. 527; BoO¥aa Pally 3o. ▼. Jeyall i»^Itina Co. . IC>2 
111. API*. ^?5; Sort 1 -horg Ikatbor Jo . ▼. uouth ^id» Uuahor g<y . . 
17$ ill. ApB, 9«; '^artarrilla i^iaxnif go. t. isldridjcei^ 199 ill. 
A9P. £44; S uaitoa T» ^UF? ^„ ^<m^hlii^ . £1C III. A99, 247; jy^^fi^ 


TurtraK yamaoe Oo^ t. >'yte Iron s, Bte«gl, CCl . 2X3 111. App. 
635; Cioajfo & yrovigo lee Oo. t. JBatcaa D&iry So .« 814 ill, 
App, 63&, 

But th€ plaintiff .oontt^nde ttwt. In each a tsltuatloa* 
the sftHQr, 1^ his oonauot, acgr valTa th« 1btty«r*B br«*eh In 
falling to pay for the gooris A^lXrvt^ii, In th@ manner epeei* 
fi«4 \if thm «ontraet» vml In that event the e«ll«r nmy a»t 
lnt«rpe*e th« bi»y«r*0 breach la falling to ]Mgr* eo ns to 
<pfeat th« buyer's right t<j reooirer liaaagoa for the seller's 
breach in fall ins to (3«Iiv«»r the ^eous as eallea for by the 
contraet. In ether words. th<? plaintiff's position is that 
wliere, ^ his oominet* th« seller hae waived eoaipll»nes with 
the terns ef the oontrset hy the btqrtr as to psyMsnt, the 
latter caay aalntain an set! on on i^ ess tract, for tfataasea 
oattS94 by th<* seller's breads in fi.llln«£ to deliver, without 
Bhowlnu. as a gon^tioa preeotfeet to liir right te rf^eever. 
or as a part ef hie ytrlraat f r^^^e oas^e. that he hl»e«lf taaa OMS* 
plie4 with all the Xe^nem of the contract as to payaent. TlM 
4«e«tion ef a waiver was raised in Bwtsn v. siiss & Laui^hUa, 
|wpra . but la that ease th« seller aaacelled the oentraet tgr 
reason ef the b«gr*r«s failure to aaJce pays»»nt* as a«ree4. 
tlie siu'^stlon was wh<*ther he seller had waiTed his right %» 
e^neel tte eontraet aad the eeurt held that the evidimae fall<^ 
te eetablisli mmf eonduet by th<» eeller «*Mviac snA a waiv«r. 
Ttos eeurt reforr«4 te the «ss« ef 01 en Ridite oesl ;o. v. Merlon 
Ce\iat> Josl Co . 2C» 111. i^p. 254, In tb«t esse the buyer had 
eeatlanally been in arrears as te paynents u der the tensn 
sf the eontraet but iMtwithstandlns that faet thi* sellsr had 
eoatlnnMl f aak« deliTerl<<'S for a tlcte but finally, beeanae 
•f the bsgrer's eontlnu«c brosoh ef th* oonLraot in im natter 


of ptk^iaent, the seller caneellQci the oontrAet and the question 
presented to tbe eourt 9a» whether the eeller vac Juetifletf 
in so doing. I'he oourt sai4, a2^a« ether UkiBi^s* that it 
oould not ha eusoeeBfjlly ^nteni'^d that, liyr oontlBoisg th^ ooi»> 
truet in for^r, the aefeailmit hi>.(i waived ail past breaches. 
adding* "The evidence ahowa that these alleged vaiTers eere oen* 
ditioaed upon th» fature fulfillmeat of its ooRtraot by i^e 
(ilea Hid^ Oi^ipasQr* aaa it >aviiH( failsd ther<>lB, the brea«ii 
was reviired,* 

Ooe of the «ae«s relied upch hy the defendiMt t» 
•ttstoia the ju&mmnt appe«l<Nt fro» is aarteryjlle aining To. v. 
KldUridLgey 199 111. A99, S34. The faete involved in thsat case 
were yr'irj Kitallajr to tiiosa itrroive4 in the ::»&: e at bar. Xa 
Ute ease eite4, the eftller hroitght an aetl.-ii ae^iaet the hqr«3r* 
ea Vui esmmm eoaats. to reooTer for o«>rtitia delivc^ries mm4» 
to the hiiarer vhi^ hod aot heen paid for hy the latter and th* 
iNgrer pleaded a setoff, elaimijtg dasBages for aa alleged hreaedi 
of ooatraet hy the eoller to furnish the buyer ooal ia e<«» 
pliaaee with the tenu of th« contraot. Ihe prineipal ^ues* 
ties hefore the eourt aas whether the hn^er vut entitled Ut 
a setoff, the balaaoe due the eellor for ooel delivered hut not 
paid for, aot belns disputed. 7he eontraot sailed for oaa 
•ar of eoal };mt day, of e speeifi- d grade &nd at a epeeified 
prlos. free the dat« of the ooatraet to ^ril 1, 19C«, peyaests 
to W mde en th*" 15th of tiM aoatli for all eoaii shipped the 
preoediac iieatlu I'lw testlaengr diseilos«*d (aa ia tbe oaae at 
hay) that aelther party repudiated th<* ooatraet end hoth were 
ia dt?fault during ainoet the satire life thereof. The seller 
ia aa asath farolRhed the quantity of esal sailed for, sad thm 
defendant at no tljse paid for the osal it reo^'ived, vtoiam pa9» 


BPBt va« du*. Th« Uii»9ry of Uu; \iuy«r as to hie right t» 
rcssvAr ttn<i«r th« plua of B«teff was vhat he had euBtained 
le»« and daiMMS* by r<*»80& of the s«ller*8 failuro to deliver 
ooal OS provided \fjf tho oontraet* neeoseitatiatg its purchASO 
iB tho opon MArkot at a prion in advance of tn^ ccatraot prioe. 
This ooiirt. oiting ^i^bcy , ,, ^ro , thgns , qo . v. fiaoffatt. C^qjo Jo. . 
ISl 111. 84 and Bradloy v. i;H^. 44 ill. 339. held th^t ia 
order to entitle Um buyer to recover on hi» plea of «etoff« 
it V)S iaetoibent upv'^a hi;^ to fuao« pr>rfor«Rnoe of his p«irt of 
the contrast or what woild sxouss pt^rforoonoe and that he had 
alM»«a neither, the evidence shoeing that he eas el ear 1^ in 
default in his failure to aaks pa^vents aa provided for 
in the aoatraet. ^jaotiag frooi the ^ises referred to, the 
oourt said that "Where a h«urer has aeoepted goo^s delivered 
aad'^r an expr«>s« ecatraot. hub not at th«<^ tme aer is the 
tuaatity reituired 1iy it, sith knowledge sf the default of 
Uie seller in thoss r^speote, and has h^Mself failed, with* 
eat legal axouso, tt* pay for thcsa aeeordin^ to it. 1m» cannot 
■aiaiain aa astion en th^ oonbraet for such default of tije esller*' 
Vo have oaiaained the abstract sf record and the briefs filed itt 
ttds court ia that case and find that the qseetlon of whether 
ttwt e«ller*e eoaduct was Mtch thai it had waived the buyer's 
brem^ and therefore was not is a position to insist that Um 
boyer had failed ts nake o«t a ariat fSjOis oa^a beaaasa hs 
had Bot sham that he had hisutelf porfomed undmr the con* 
traot or shsaa a legal exauaa for Aii- failure to perforai, 
waa not raiaed in a^^ way. 

Ia the oaaa of j ^in<fli v<^ Jo«i>an3r v. Hew Ohio aashoc Joel 
Oo, IM ill, App, 889, tw' buypr brooeht en aatiiHi agaiast the 


••Her for d«i»»g«B emiB^tl 'bjr aa alleged breaeh of a contract 
tiy the t«ms of vuioh tH« d«f«nunnt «a« to awll aiui tiw ^I&in> 
tiff vaa to btijr 8C,C0C too* of c»al of a opeoif 1< a kind In 
"a^ut aqual aontiily inataXlaanta during th« /car ooGMB«nein<{ AfxiX 
X, 19C5 «a<i ending &»reh 31. 1906* for whAch the b«grar vr.s t« 
pa/ liy rottitting on or b^ forv tho a&tb of «!vC/i monti^. iUe 
d fen <Attt aeller pleaded the gen<°ral issue and a aetoff. ih* 
cvid«Boe a})a««d that tbe defendant sold itc nine in Deeeaber* 
19^ ana the^reafter was unable ta saake dallTeriae as ealled 
fsr bgr the eontraet. Xhe plaintif : failed to pa/ for c etol>^r 
shipeienta on Sormabmr Sft. Under date of i>seeah«r 12, the 
defendant wrote the plaintiff re^tudiati&g the eoatrack on the 
srouad of the plaintiff* e failure te n^e j^a^ment «s enlled 
far uad-'r U&e ten* of th«» eontrast • fh« oourt bfeld that 
this vaa an after* thought and that the ri^al reaaofi for the 
repudiativs of tihe o^utraot Itgr the de^fen<iaat. aaa the sale of 
its aino. ttere vao a dieyuto between the parties as t& whether 
or net there h>d ¥000 on ej^restt extention of the pa/a<nt due 
Jlovoaker 26. and on that Irsue the jurar deoided againet th^ 
eeatentioa of the plaintiff. But the evidence ^ho^^ed thai in pre* 
wloas aonths the plaintiff hi»d aade hlo paynento after the 
dates speoifled la the oantmct an^ the defendant had aooepted 
thmi wlthoat oewplaint tmA hoi proeeed<?d to aake farther ship- 
aenta to the lalainUff under th«» «N»ntraet and the oourt held that 
such oondnoi Mi>:antod to a waiver 'not of the ri«(ht to demand 
pnyitent pr^nytljr, hut. of th«« right te repudiate, withoat netlc« 
or taif deaaad, all further ohllgstiose, hee^uoe of a failure 
to pny on the 26t)l of tlie aicatb.« a waiwer, in other worde, 
of tho rlghtto re<|uiro this striot perferawnee as a stxUot 
oottdltioa preoodent to th«* fulfillaent of defencant's eblisationo. • 


th« 09 rt h«ld that thi* {)«f«m.ant, iidTlits iBtpliedXy ««iTed 
strlet perfoiwaaoa, ecu lei no u tr^nt oIaIb tiff's nott9«jFn«at 
on Hovmbcr 25th as working, itf»9 . f a ct^ .. a forfeiture of 
plftintiff'e right, tc corapel furth«r perforniBnce, ih© ooujrt 
point'^d out chat th* Uafctttuant had filled «ertftla ef pl«la» 
tiff's 6rd«r« wltiaout r«quirine t>ip pajtri^ttnt cfcxll- a fo. by tije 
t«r»s of tn' oontrAct, on ^iov^'sbor 25, «n<i after thf.t dMte, 
it ase(?pt«d addlticiaal orr!<^rs without elij«ction, aRd eaid, 
"iBgr all tnee» aots, it w«iv'»d any prior default by pl.-sintiff 
«.« « Q ndltioa pr'^eedent; it oovld oe longer r«>pmdi«te on 
this grouBd"* 

tte plaiatlf la tli^ qusb at Imr sir&n^y oont^mte 
Ubkt on thf pi-inelpl«i» oT la^ aaaaoan^^*-;* in vh<^' forego tng aaie«» 
aad otrh«re of » alailsur iaport, it i^laoitld be h«ld tk&t, iMMnnite 
as t&«^ «Tldeaae before us eiiows that, aot«ntiist«adlQ« Ito 
fal^luro to ask* the p«|r»«nt.i> ^stllea for by thiS! oon tract here 
larolved. In iloT«MlMr» I>o««nab«r and Jaaoary, th« defeadaat 
aaeopted lt« ord«re without eo»pl&iai «<.nd «Ad« e^irtaln further 
•Mpaeata ana attenptod tu sittkn cthera, tli« d<?f«Bii«nt tk^^elgr 
«alT«d plaiatiff's fsiluro to faifili tho i«s«B of OiP «oa- 
tru9t ami tli»»r«fero the plaintiff wey lUftke out a prl.BMt foele 
oaoa ia its wait for daiaac • on th« oonttftot, o«o«KloBf^d Iqr 
defaaa»at*« W«a3h la falllag U> mik.0 doliTerl^e, «<itbcuv 
•ho«la« thRt it h»d fulfilled th« r<?Qalrea»»stt« of the contrset. 
la o-r o^lai a that eentftati n io uatonniolo. Ih'' oonduct of 
th dof«ad«ji%, r(»ferr«d to, b.-> havo b««in«»uoh thni 1 1. loot tho 
ri«ht to ropudlato or e»no«l the ooatraot, without notle*- t)mt 
it «o ,ld tie BO if p«y»«at vc^r« aot aad«, ¥ut thot r«et hea 
nothlag tc do vith th« burdoa ntiloh thi> lew hac pl^eod oa tho 
pl41atiff, in aaJciac out ito oaoa, whwro li. oaos for 4««««oa 

«na«ed bar an tillmgmA bre«i^ of th# contract* The defendant 
in tlte oft»« at bar is not aealclBS to exaroiaa the rl^iht im 
oaaeal the aontraet. Both pnrtiaa treated the eontradt aa 
ia force throu£]aout i^.» period. That b«ins th*" aitoatioa. 
neither partjr aould bring an notica asaiaat the ei.h<r on 
th« oontraet and re^<K>Vftr ^te«a2«8 for an Alleged bri»a^, «lth» 
out •howins* a* A part of iia j^ri^Bt^ jtaoJLo eaao* Umt it bod 
Itaolf cubotantiaJLly ooapliod with all %ki» toma of th** cc>n» 
tract and no eonduet of eu^ other pttrtjr, aiauunting to a 
vaiTor of itc right to oaneoJL th« contract* oould eff^et 
thttt burden vhieh tho lav plaoos ea « partgr ruing for a brea4ii 
•f a flotttraet or do »«^ wit^i nn^ of the Geeosaary eloaeats 
of his &rijK» fB-^i,; ^ oaeo. Ur|(i«s the csntrary rul«, the plela* 
tiff haa aloe «BllAd o^r Attentios to Hiborajan Baakjtnft AOfeoii|i» 
ti on V . goicl^rt i^ £;'<w>n jiillin^ ^:o ^« 14 i: ill, Apjj. *79, «>ad& 
aloo iRVvlTod n 9e^X ocntraot, wtero the ocurt. hold thjit widor 
all th«? eirouak»tan^ra th^ro aSwwn, tho d<afead?mt (b«y<^r) owi 
Jaetified both in pur^asine ooal in th** open saxicot vhen tho 
ylttiatiff failed to nidco the doliTeries owlled for by thair ooa* 
tract and in irithhelding [mjpatent for Utp ooal already reeeived 
whilF it roseAins i «3ubtful «ri»«ther ih*" pl&intiff «ould furaioh 
the eoiil oall'^d for by thn eentraot. In otlsiRr worda, tho oeort 
held, ia affect, that although the puftjf aeokin« daiaa«ea for 
aa alleiei»d broach, h«d itaelf not oea^lied with the ient&« of 
tha eon tract, it proved a Io,gAl osoaoo f»r net doiais oa, tim 
oaatraet Inrolrod in that (moo oalloa for anroaniago aB«i vhoa 
it beeaeo iapoeeiblo to fttrnio^t th«t the piai.atiff delirerod 
o«wo nine run ooal wid there aaa a dispute aa to tho prioo i^loh 
tho plaintiff v»o entitled to d' taaad for that grade of ooaU 

Xa our ojpiaion, the rule aa m» hero steted it nbova» 

ls w«Xl in thia -^-tftte mn4 in ord«r i.c aawe out » ||ifl|t 
faeic oas« in an Motion on ihf Qont.r«oi» e«9kiag 4ieiHm«s for 
an all«j»tt<i tor< AOh« ih« plaintiff, it h<* ia Uif ^ujr«r, .-aust 
allege ami 9roT« i2wi h« kaa hiunelf p«rfoni«d all th« tents 
of Uif ooRtraott as to pAjm»nt or su«hi facts as viould eon* 
stitute a Iftgal ex«tta« for hif' t:4«iiXur«> (O parferw. H« n^gr 
eetaVllsh perfsnnvnos Iqr showing that oithtr^r he Ime wtde or 
offered to i«ak«, all Um pv^^nts roqulrad hy th«- contra et 
and in tbo nanatrr therein sp««ifi«d or thnt, on or b fore 
t^ 4ato8 of sttob pajnsentSc be bas offered to set then off 
•gainst his oLaijs for d«M»gos eniased ^ ihf^ ^mngvel failure of 
tlM (ief#a ant to <3empljr with Ui« iems of Mm eentraot, whieii 
«ould bo oqaiTolmit to a tender of th« «<r<«e^ due. Fin oh. 4 ..Oe.*- 
▼• Mey Oilio hashed qeal !jo« 186 111, App* 589, iittoli an offer 

'■ M iitf W MWWSWWMS I f ii» J B*»»WOW<WBWWW H I * - ll iW aw(w— wsWi"^ * ** 

was iSAdo la tk« ^saec cited but in ttie osse at bar tibe plmxam 
tiff neitker au&dt^^ mn offered; to «i^« ti^e p;jjratente ralit^u f»r 
>]r Wh<> eentraet nor offered tn «ot tinfn ittt. He el&i?s in atade 
in the aase at bar that th«f plaintiff was exousod froea perfoxM* 
aao# In tJse ««i^ of making ti»» ya y o n to called for by vhs eoa* 

Sttt ttie Hiaintuff ooatottdo that sfvea en thiu theory 
of the ease, it •fae «mti«.lf$d to da»aga«, m% least for th« 
d fenudaf^s foilere to deliver Ui*i 5i. ears whleb it was agreed 
was the exioat of defeadantp's default eu Ootolfsr 1. anti that 
Its right to Buoh 4sMiig«o oa«inot W taJteA away bjr roAsen of ito 
eabsoqiMNit feilaroo te nako the pa/aents duo undor th« suatraot 
in iienreaAora jgee^aber ^nd January, ^m {>laittiJiff ie am in a 
peel ilea to urge that eencentiOiM i»(>re, inaSMi«t«ii as a earefol 
exaniiMtiea of the reoord shows that no eueh theory wme advaaeed 
aa^ J90 »u<A eottieatioa was iaade by the ^laiau ff in the trliA 



•f thlB aft* in tin* Superior ^urt. 

^ClM plaintiff** oonveatioa eonoemiofi the apylioMbil* 
itjr ef tii<» lava of .owa or of C«ntuoiqr» U th« icRuee inT«lTe4» 
is witn«ui. aerit, th& (»vid<rna« fihoi?a t^t iaa ooatraei vnu im 
IlllaBla oontmet imct yractleally all d«allnea b«»i«e«n the 
pjtrtiva vre traa8aet4>d la th«; Cit^ of :!hXoe^eP» Both p»rti«a 
t the oontraet if«r«> ooal Jobber*. lh<> d^ffTit.unv diti not 
the ainaa la K0ntudqfi una ted no lBter«»t la tinmk. It mmm 
»er«ljr •ocoriag the ooal there vith vhiA to meet thie ooa* 

We find no error in xhf^ reaor<S and t>)«^jf«»fe re the 
JnAgment of t^« Stsperior vOujrt is KffinBed* 



.L.'i ^HOJYAT 



Both purt lea beln^ lo def&nlt, if the ooort b&vf 
fit to t&ke jsrlsdlotlon ol tl» set off It oagbt i^leo to 
t«ice jurisdlotion of the pl&lntit£*8 ol&lm for d&BKs.ges. 
Vhea Jttdi^MBt in ttixox of the defendant le p&tA, it will b« mt^de 
^-jRtele, «hlle the pJ^intlff only Ua pari Aelioto . &ad &t the >»}8t 
guilty of a leaser bre&oh of ooutraot, will h£>ve been denied a 
remedy for Ita cI&Ia for dt^jnsi.^ ea* 

If one side of the oontraot is to be enfuroed, wh/ uot 
the other T Shs obligbtloo oa the boyer to pi&y for o<ifil reoelTed 
18 no store i»ored in the eyes of the lew thftn thti obll^tion on 
the aeller to i«sy d&ariges for ft refttssl to deliver. 

Ihider the olroaaet'xmieB X a a ooastrt^^laed to dia^ent. 

'3if«0| ^.!> 

if't -xo'-f v.. I 


SA2 • 2MSa 


chxoauc mAi>.fi^& aa&As-i/ } 


.0. vam 

221 1.A. 659 

■U JS£i¥XCei TaOHi^ tfttXiwred fcte epiaif^a vf 

ite QOuru 

•f M*<-^€0» rca»v«r«(i Iqr U» 9i»i8tiff la ntt •etioa tt^r pmruowtX 
i«Juari«s. XiM plaiatiff ««« • pA»0«ag9r en on« of Uv^ fiefend* 
»ai** esn, of tii sttyla kw»im as n w^sae »iui« Mur. teivlas; 
iMtJi <«tr»aM swt «3Eit at tb^ fr«ni plaifom. ¥te imtraaae 
ie %lw» Mtr took av Uh» fx«Bi balf of i^ ;^lsifoxM iw«r«si Ute 
4a»!d»a«l and %hs exit frost tl»» <fi«r ieeJt ap lb* ri^M haif af 
(IM platfan nasi ta xtno tei^ af %lae a«r» *» ^^right «t««A 
r04i, ruiwim tro» ib« p&atf am Aaar to ttoa r«ef at tto «a»« 
aapajraia4 th» eaixaaaa frost ttea «aii. §U«a Um osdr «»a la 
■el.laa Um lOaifemi «aa MidLaa«4 V^T &«&«• •<* <a«ra ai WUi 
ih* aatraaaa aad ths axii. t2M» «i^s iesdias «p «a tik* pAaW 
farm »i baili the aatn«aa «a4 Uw axlt war* aapai^ia antf aaah 
aa waoaaied vliA Uaa •aUrano* anci ajlt 4a«r« rrsyaetlvajgr aa 
ia «i»ara%a la •^oiiroBttiioa aiUi Umm. Umb Umb cntraaa* aaa 
vcXt 4oar« a^ra al«s«4 tit*: tt%apa v*r» feXAad ap ia <c parpaadi* 
aoilar pe»iUoa aaa wik»u %i» 4bMn war* apaaad ta« alM^m vara 
in a liariaaaialL position* i^teara umj? asultf Im asad 1v paaaancara 
ia aabcriag mr laaviag t2t« asv. Sash tfoar «aa ir. taa paria 
aad ^lam thnjr »*»r« o«>aa«a Ui«^ «ntraa«a 4aar foldad ap ncniaai 


ilM tesMNMMTd mad ih« •xLt do«r fcldeti up «sttiMi% %hm body 
•f Une oajr* The** doen w«?« operaV«tf Iqr tim seUmnn tgr 
■»«n» of V«o l«v«rs «t Me ri^&t hftSd and eac^ oould b« 
operated c«^arat9ijr ftr &h<yf «o ad b« o|i»r«ted te|(«th«r Iqr on* 
aotlon. TlH) plaintiff and h9r htt»b»iid liv«d «r H^sveod *▼•• 
aae n*ar 55th virset in thr^ iiW of Jbiotijgo. A^Oiit four 
o*olodk in thp »ft«meo» of liajr 3, 1915« th«^ ver« $»»oBOHeero 
ia ik9 e^r ia quoatiea* viiiich w»e proc&«dlae »loag SSfch straet 
ia %a eaatarl^ dirreiioa. Shortly Iwfore tfe^ oer rffae^d 
£«B»ood sTvnue, nn uau»ually strr^f raia stom OiS»i« oa aad 
eoaiiBuod uatxl aftor ^h*- ooourrenoe xb queatioa. Ihe ear 
aiopped oa tla« aoot aide of I aaweoa sv«aae sad l»h« vita<f8saa 
for Ui^ r<^8pnoiiv« partita aro in ^afliet aa to vbat oooorred 
aftar that. 

XlM plaintiff t««&tifi«;d that aa th« oar raatiiad 
E«Boao4 aT<niu«« *1 vaa otaadiag in thf door readjr te got off 
and the aotomaa * ^ * oponod thit door jMjrtljr**^ ^ » 1 got oat 
aad aa . (Ot oa Vh« » * * step, it vaan't level, it va8a*t 
dova and it vaa ahaky, and the a«xt tiling I ka<>« I slipped 
aad foil froH that ahaigr stop »nd vont oYer*" fallxag into 
th» »tr««t, A8 a result of Uxv fall the plaintiff euffered a 
fraotur«> of xhf left f«mir. It ie ohowa th^it when ohe f9ll« 
tho oenduator, vhooo pooition on th- Xj^^^ ^^ <^' iavolvod h«re, 
waa OB the froat platfoni. loft the otir and aoaietod the plain* 
tiff*« huahaad la <aurryiag hor iato Mitt etorr oa lu*" oomcr* 
vh« o a dootor «as otoKioaod froa nn of fie*' upatairs* aad a 
few Hii^utoo lator tho ooadMOtor B^atn aosiatod th<> plaiatiff'a 
hualmad riad o ihnro ia oarvyiag hor to hor 'tono w/tioh waa oa 
tho oppooito eido of r.omvond avonue ;«nd a ttm door* from SSth 
8tro9t. ¥he laotonuMd roaaiaed wit the oar which vao nooaoear* 

ily Ae^tttined 8<ae fi'.%ctin nimatr-c aac vit^-n th' oonductor 
reittrn«d toe tmr prG««e4«d. Cn cross^exaRiauticm \,m 
plaintiff t'^stlfit^a Uiiii no pasescngera X<»fi yi<? OfiT nh«Kd 
of her but that she vae th<=f firwt one to etop dov^u fr^Ai (Ju 
platform anU that all stM stopped (iowri *the step aao up »a<i 
•italgr* li was rai&ine no tliat I oo 14 ju«t see. X oav th« 
otop mts up * * * I slipped and fftll aa soon a* I st«pp(«<( 
(Sown en it. I saw th«^ etf^p hf^fore ;. stppp^d on it. 1 e«i» 
it WAS net leval* It ims tilted up trtnn xiw door* 7he 
outaido odgo was til tod up a little Instead of Isieiag pexw 
feotljr flat, it ^uia*t quite down « * » within a ae\4ple 
•f iaehes » » * 9iifl« I got o^ !> slipped (tnc fell over. 
It «»• ohalgr oaa I slipped uati fell over '■■ * I sot out 
en that step thinking that if he (the imlarmea) tk&4 «o»* 
trol of tbat ear it «aa aafo oaough tor fs*i to Rtep Ui>ctt it 
• <• » The first thing I know 1 was up in the air &nd dotsra.* 
Turther, on «rose*oj3uiiiwtioa, the pl&iatlff de<ai«d that she 
got off tne c.^r ia aefetjr and ^ralk«id o^voraJL steps tovstrd 
the oarbotoao anu then elif^ped and fell <^nti ch^ al^o vlc'ni^d 
that ehe had told tmy nurse in the hospital that fth@ get 
•ff the e!%r all ri^^ht and walked a few a toys aa^ th&<t e«u«,ht 
hor foot is lUtr drees and tae n slipped la &aaf> way and^ thus 
fell ta ti\r street bat thnt 'I al^s^ft tela the .<»u-see the^-« 
that the st^ aae tilted ap wsu th<^»t was what onused aw ta 
fall.* She txstlfi'^d further that when ake pat h<^r foot 
«B th<i ittey *lt did aot settle the stey right down level. 
X di>ia*t tere a ehaaas to aom» 4»wm with the other feet, 
I waa «9 la the air sad ewer* alippad ap in th»> t4ir and ewer 
aa ajr left side.* It appears thst %in> v>laintiff*c injury 
was not diagnosed as a fraotured fosuir uat^!. tve or three 
da/s after the a^oloeat and she aae thea rtsaowed to thi; Laka* 


Hide Heapiial. 

the plaintiff's husband va« «>t liTioi; with t3i«r 
at th« iiB» or Uif> trial, th«r«^ mivia^ W«^n n Be:if.rrktiQB 
•iac» th" ofl«irr»»B<7« sfhich is th« haslB of thib suit* He 
•9P«are4 under eubpo«nft and t«0tifi«>d ««{*• th< r«> i« «cme oon> 
fllot on the point no to whother ha «ns n willing or im>»illf> 
lag vitnoos. lio testified thttt hf» vas <iiveailjr b«Mntf his 
vif« sc tt» oar at09p«<t «t Ksmooil avenus and the aotoraaa 
only pariljir opimad th« front door; th^t hie vif« was right 
in front of th« tioor; that ho sa^ her «t«p on tH«» : tep vith 
ea« foot "ami then th«> next thing* she f«ll * * » Whon agr 
«lfs stepped en th«? stes'p I aas ri^bt behind her aa<l l could 
ssa Uusi4 t»a stop aas Vilted beoHue** th« daer 9«s not o^on* 
♦ >» » ihe dear * ^ * wfi« oarrow, av sftfo<J jitt»t get 
ihraugh." tin woea^ojuusluatien hR t«stiti»d thai, nis trifo 
VMS Uw first pHSSoagsr to isst off the c r and further ti^i 
«hea the aoiojraaa opormi th'~ doo; h6 di n*t look out nnd 
aao ahother th« stop was tiltod up or net; th«t -as vifo was 
in front of hia and that he '» id net "look out att<l s«» If 
the step was til tad ap* MMia she stepped Ui-.n i cso ad 
taa, but I OB ilda* t ea*? throujith her, part ct thf door «as 
sp«a« 1 seuld not saa th^ stop before sh« stsppod on it. 
Afti»r Sits stoppod an it, it was til tod up. » * • ^y aifa 
v«a probaiiljr a foot aasy fr<'« th aar whftn ab* fall. • * ♦ 
8h« foil probably a foot mtay f ran th«- eid« of the o^r. It 
wasn't B or IC fast, it was aapte^lt pavaaant th. r«. It 
was raittins sad the ,>aTaa«at was ss' slippatgr as ansr pavanaat 
is at Mtoh a tiao. ch« was not hurrying, ■'•hst cl<ln*t havs 
an Msbrslla** 

Vktaa this oaaa «aa roaahod for trisl thf» plaintiff 
prssaa&.a4 snd »ffiaayit fcr a aoati.atuuio», represanting thai 


e»e Frank Ho«k<qr» a untffrittl witaesst "hslu nVe«nt fron the 
4uri8dietioa of ^be court and 30 id not be produced tma 
Ui«i if pr »mkX lift ivoulei tenUfy "thnt on or ebo ,i th« thirii 
tf«gr of Moy 191&* tho plaintiff was a pKoaengcr upon a o«vr 
•f the a«f«>ndnnts« Trhloh atoppftd to let off pas on^ori: at 
nomicod BV4>nae itr^d &5tt str<&'^t« vhe «aici oer bf^ine <i» enst 
1>ound eovt at a^out 4:30 or 5:CC o*cilo^ ir. Uif> aft^mooa; 
U»at ther« »&■ n. r&infall «tt t.H« ti*ar> and th*" ceor of th« 
esT ¥i>to oal^ ^i>ri.i&Xli G()«n«<i by th« 'srapKiiioo* oopieyeo 
so Khat thf: «te? of the e:>.r was not levol; that the jrlftiiifo 
tiff »te?i^<Mt fros the top stop to the lo«rer stojt (in lesvia£ 
tSi^ e^r) «hiij}iL «a» no i li^yol. wluah oaaeo<i her 10 siip ftJ^ 
fHll* %r««kia4{ ^* hi.p» 'Sh^t th^ Oiur folly stopped ami th» 
doer oaly p^rtlaliy opoaod ana Xrtt in %\m% i^.^nn»r vh«»ii piais* 
tiff 4eee«ndo4. ** 'se avoi.d » cs0niiausiii3«« ee^JB»«l for (ii»f«rMi* 
aato adisittod Xlmt if tfw ab««nt witnosa were preoont t»<^ 
would tootify ao oot forth in vhv affidnTit, 9h«r9upoB* tk*^ 
trtj^l i»roo««ded aad in du« tia« th« etntoetoot of tbe e^i^oaee 
of the abooat «ita«Bfta «■ Qiiotod ftbovc, v^oe r«>&d to th«' Jury 
asd th^reapoB t^o laintiff reotdd* 

7iMi d«f'^nd<uita repr<!;««tttod t.hnt one witnoM of the 
eceurroBoo that the;^ had ox^otod to testify, had died eiaoe 
the i»ecia<mt hRd happeaed and that awth»>r wea abooav in ikhe 
•ervieo, tin* i»oten9»a, thf eoBdueter and a aoohmaie* familiar 
9ith the oporatioa ef th>» «a\,tsnce tuna exit dooro and atepa, 
oaeh £aT9 t atiiaoay d^'oerihiatf ouch operation in ooai* detail* 
aad otat^-d that if the lover o^joratiag «ith«r eet of thee* 
doere eaw pi^lod \tu<gk tnr onoj^h to opca th» dooro aao lower 
tke oorreopoadiag atep a»r# tAitn half «ay« tho dooro would 
ooatiaae boyoa<i that peiat uatiX fully opeaod oad th« stop 


«e (Id ocntlnue be/on4 that point until it ro^obed a a<aiplet» 
tiorizontal position* without emy furthvr pull of vhn I»vftr« 
ZJw aotoman t««tifi«<i thMi 00 ^io c»kr r^aoh^. i:i»n<Nood RV^nue 
on th'- aftf*moon in «;iuecticn* it vns zmlnlng hnrd ><na the 
street ««« ««t; thnt h-- stopped on th^ near side of lleavoot^ 
avenue Jtad tht« «»r stood perf^ctl^ «till. li« furth r teeti* 
fiod that 'l opened both s«t« of door«, the exit antl thti 
•atraaee * » « Ihere were Hbout 4 or 5 people to get on 
nnd <iuite a nunab r get off, •^ « ^rn. ?«t«r« was not the 
first ott« off* ahe/e <«*^r« thrn« or four people jjot off 
1>«'fOi« ahe did* » * * at ti^- ftxit door » » ftnw tiix or B^iren 
•r eitjht p*H»,9le «;dt off after she got off, » * * i op>ened betJh 
sets of doors all th^ wtjf open. %h» eteps go down wti#n th' 
dears are open. The «tep« *©?!► ij«txi of th;*^ flat dewn » * ♦ 
Vhen Ums first two or three people got off 2 eair ^r^. Peters 
«et off, When she «ot off th** onr sU** started for tht' side* 
walk. * * * 4here as fto fall in gei.tirt£ off t .e cr^r, * ♦ e 
She get Aear eff tite e r over >;lnost to tn eurbeten<^ and 
she turtt<?d, » ^ » li. locked u; m^ as if her foot slipped 
en this naptanli » * > She mist ^ve gone 4 or 6 feet away 
froa the ear bffere sh** started w^. turn ♦ * * ; he was burry- 
ine* • * • AS Mrs. fet^^ra got eff the car she took hel4 of 
the dividing red with her left hand." O' creee*exuminatioa 
the sMVemen teeUfled that %b» plaintiff was alanst tc the 
florli when she fell} Unkt tfae street iadLiaed Vn^cc «;uite 
a little bit; that he ^t lim nanes of t;«ft« on Utr platferv 
wlw sae ihe aoeldeat Imt dia tint «;ei the anses or ejotybedy 
that get eff the etr. He further testified «*I» th«'se eanee 
amreae thet ^te off our oar. that ftais after getting off 
ear ear. we nJt« tm^qpeeed to take th»« nanes of people aa 


•ifcn«*afta. If ib^gr g«i ^ff the «ur and ««lk to the «iae««Xk 
«ad f«ll, «« are Bt^>p eed t c s«t tk« lUMies <f th»»« p»epl«. 
thm tact thni, to»r aooiu^'nc «liaa*t hav* ^js^thlng to do «l th our 
ear didn't i>r«v»at bm» from gottiag wita^eeoo. i «»ai wad got 
all thr «ita^*«t>ea i ooud, - ^ ri?)* didn't have any^ 

tbiac to do with kor fell at all." He nli& i.eetifi«^d (.ii t »aaa 
wltaeoaoa «^o« annos h« requcetftd, refue» ., (,o .,iTe '. .' ir 
aasoo; Ui«t )m tmik the luuao of a i^lleo officer vho «&« ataad* 
iac on the front platforai and t^t thr; naae of AROV.h«r itnooa 
ho i^t «ao laak (d«o«asea) and anothf^r ««a Jriponstaplo, (la 
tho Angr). 

The pOliOO officer tO»tifi>^^(i Utut »t LXie U:c of 

t&< ooeu rronoo ie iiuiPAtica he wao is^tsiading on tit- front 
platfom aac aav ttei plaintiff «h<»a olie wrb icottlng off tho 
«av; that ah« got off in « hurry n^ 4ii9*t grah angrtl^ins 
•a alw was got ting off. thm door throt^h vuioH oho aoat van 
op«a« ttmr IB tayxaaaxxyieiK The atop «a» in tho regolar i»oai* 
tioB, it ima ao«a« it vaafLat. &m gat dova on the* stroet 
Mia aooMod to have l««t oontrol af heraolf, aR4 aha foil aa 
aho got on th« airoot.* On arooe-oxaaUaotioa he testified 
that ui»oa the oesaaloa In question he «aa on th? mqr to l*io 
otation tma that wk«n hfi reaehi^d thero ha aade a re;>ort of 
th» aaoidoNt in vhi«th ho et»tod timt ihv ^laiatiff "foil aa 
aho wko atoj^pla^ off* th# oar. «nu alco that hku re^rt 
aaatioaoii hoofci^ ma a vltaooa. 

Tho ooatfuetor tootiflod that ho ixmm in hio p< •!• 
tiea oa tho front vlotfona whoa tho oar machod rjoavoed aTOBua; 
that hath *Mra wojro oyon all the w«grs that ho aaar th<> ylaia- 
tiff whoa ohe gat off; that aho wao not thf> first ono off 
hat tlMre ware sovoral pooi^lo thai loft before eh* did and 


ther« vere also »om« that left after; that ehe used the ssmc 
Btep that had been used 'by the passengers who preceded her In 
leaTing the car; that "after the first two or three got eff, 
X sav her fttll~ on the pavement. She took hold of the center 
rod with her left hand and stepped off the car on to the paTe-> 
ment. Then she fell after she had gone a little vay froa the 
o«r. about three or four feet.** He further testified that he 
left the ear to assist the plaintiff and helped carry her into 
the nearest store where he remained about fifteen minutes, 
"because we called a doctor and we found out her home was 
right nearby * * » We helped to carry her OTer to her own 
iixaam * * » I was gone from the ear all told about fifteen 
or aoTenteen minuteB before I get back.*' On cross-ezasiination 
the conductor was asked, "S© Mrs, Peters was extremely care- 
ful and took hold ef this (center red) with her left hand. 
Is that rightT and he answered, "Tes sir", and then stated 
"Xhen she walked three er four feet away from the ear and th«a 
she fell. * * * She turned and faced south, slipped as she 
was going on the indine, the incline being very wet, th?^re 
was rery great chances for her slipping. ♦ * * fhe was some* 
where along ten feet froM the edge of the walk when she fell 
• * * My ear had nothing to dc with the accident at all aa 
far •• 1 knew. ♦ ♦ » But Mrs, Peters had been a passenger 
and that was the reason X took her husband's name and hera 
and her residenee. » * e The lady didn*t get eff in a hurry, 
nobody rushed her. I wouldn't say she took it sort of eaey 
because it was raining and she would be glad to get under 
shelter. She hurried a little bit." 

The plaintiff was in the hospital for a period 
•f soTen weeka. When she went into the hesoital, one Jeaa 


Johnston, a aura* took ear* of her and »>at on a , I: st«r oitst* 
XJsii* murmm iastiflot: that the onsa wnm 4i«8aoe«d a« « fmcture<ai 
tmmr and that the i>l,aint&ff told her "that i*h« «&• geiUne 
off of tne* ear ami atoppad on her skirt and fell** Cn eroaa* 
azaiUjEuitien this witn«o« at»tod tht.t it ^im about a /«or Itettorm 
th« trinl th»t a<»Beoa« first qaafitiooeU her about thi« ooa* 
Teraetion; that ob« thing ^ish parti oulKrly 0!>ll«(i t)^ plain* 
tiff* 6 «t4t<<^»eot to her aind was "that I hnd tc ^Te her euok 
a i^od aeruBbing. X «aa o^lled to get her <di(^fta» That is the 
r<^a«oa I iheu«]it of it* « » • sh« told nc shift «ao at heae t^r 
several days hefor^ %h<^^ ^ro'^ ;t har to the hospital •** 

fiuring ti%f> tin* the plaintiff %ft8 in %hf^ hoe;)ital 
«noth»r Boraec lira. PatraoBS, noted as th?^ floor nurse oa the 
floor where the ;t>laintif f * a roon ««a located and took a-xra 
of her nttofa nomiiic and ;m«««re<; the ball vheaerftr ahe «oald 
•ail dur;.as *^ ^ajT* Xhla vitaeas t«^tifi<>'d Uwt the plaintiff 
told ber '%hnt «h«»n ahe alightod fron the atmet oar that ata* 
O'tae^it i^x foot eaid fcUt. Ske naid tteft she thimgiii she 
OBO^hft it la her Arena.* Cn «ro88»ex«oiinatioa ahe atatatf 
that she had cwt bean aaked about this eoflTereati«Q until 
the dift^- pravloua to th'^ tiae aha tnas testifyine; that ahn 
had uQfx dlKOuaaed the antter vlth the ether numn, Mrs* 
^haatea; thai <hiriag her period of a<>rrio* at the hoopital 
elM rmaahared oariag for only tee atreet etur aeoldent oaMHi« 
•as of which va£ the plaintiff* e; thu,t her r*eoll«etiea «a» 
that the tiaa of the plaintiff's »ooident vs« in April or 
Hiqr but dhn did not r«a«alH»r the date nor did oho roasaber 
«hero the no^dent hnd oeeurred tout ahe th«ttt.;ht ft?v> plaintiff 
tald her that thrr d«jr of her ae«id«Qt -wno a rUaerable day. 


aad ii was rtUnlng** 

Cn re^dlreet* ihe plaintiff Look thff etund. auad denied 
Ui«t sh« had ev^r ti^ld piUjiier kr»« Jotmstroa cr .Hira. .^Eirccee 
tfaav eh« hai •it^'ppttd en h«r dreee eoti fallen. 

In support of th« Aj)pe«l fcl^ ddfemi&tnts aentead 
that e»une«X f«r th« plaintiff indulged in su<^ exisume&t to 
Ui« Jwqr aa requires a ri^reroftl of the iu^samnt. In iatis elosiag 
srgwnoet pX&iatiff*e oounsei, »iaeng eth«r ihin«{s iit.iii "Jiow* 
aqr (UstiagttislMML brother in hie fdxy^ Xittle #«y, aft^r b^iag 
so «xir«s«ljr diligest and p&raistest in tf«ttiBjK &« isto tliis 
SK«*» aftor feM ksev agr wiia«ss ims e^Nqr •*• Oeuss^l for 4«fe»d* 
oats int9T'^oBifd nn o^Jec^ioa B,t l^t» p^Xnt «xn.ij ih« sourt t^t* 
t»iia»4 It nnying^ •TJ^e ,|i:iiT '»**' aatbing t« do ««itit that." 
il*i9tiff*e €»uBE»l Vatin »«%ld, •! su€sa that is probably tr»««" 
Tbe oBurt sd4(><l, *1l%i9 aourt 4Rcl<te(l that ^ueeti^ja**^ Couaeol 
fsr th* (t^fontl^ais pr«»s«sr»f"ti iiie fixe«ption t* t&i? rewnriss 
•f oouBsel for «Ue plnintiff oMd th«^^ latti«r thcn» &ip|uMr4miljr 
tttrsiBe to th« iwfjr, siii<! *Xh9 f&ot rtRaug^ine, s.^T»tt«^im tft tiw 
Jttxgr, ^««i tto« «««ne •*. swd sgein eo.;si-eI for U<« {iefcnti&jito 
olB)4»eio<t and the Ocurt svld. *¥h«« iury iriXl bo l«>«trtt<3to4 to 
ili cr^^gvrA AcgrtMng oounnel >^e gnid n\a>u% Wine f®ro<K' iate 
triftl, Thnt ic n Ksitti«r tbnt th«i iwrj hcO nothing to 4lo i^iUu* 
Xhi» »reM)s6ttt mo of oourec <mti tfly witkaoat JustiflantioB 
ein& minmr* the «soo vtto • tfiffieult one for th« p^LAinUff, on 
thf- fftftts, ih«»r.» is ^rminti for the 4ef<^.&rato* e&«t«^i)Uon 
tiMt it «ss i«c«ulgo4 ia top ooaaotjl fi»r tfeio i^inlatiff nololjr 
for tJMi purpos* of opponilBK to th« foolioes of tlt« Juiy oa« 
■ot ttolr Jtt(t«^««t. Xi %r.ii« for thr csourt Un mlo on th« 
q«»fftion of a owsiiaMoaon on^ th« eotirt hnd rulei> («a<i tho 
a>««aoat o¥Jo«i«d to vks in ths aoUiro of jun WP<^»1 ^ eoonos^ 


froa tre jua^«nt of tha court to Ui» ugrEipathgr of t!ie Jury ami 
tt»idi netloa hflta no proper plAoe In the tzlal of a lav cult. 

In tain dosing argiraont oouneel for plaintiff further 
urgu^d to the Jury **!» •rder io go into tha trial of ttale aaoo, 
it was neceooary for Qeuneel to stialt that if Ur. l»ok«y wore 
h/sff" t0 voild toetlfy to thooe faet»»* At this point eouneel 
for the «Jlff«>n4«ints intcrraptod and stntAci thtit h« had not ad- 
aitted th« truth of HookiQr*o tootlaoiur Vut KiMs>ly th&i hit 
would testify ao all«g#d, if pr^^sent, OouaKOl for plaiatiff 
thee proe«"dod, "Mr. Kookoy*s muM itao oa the polie« report 
maA Mr. itookegr wa« availablo as a witnoes. and if thoy ««r« 
willing to adayit that if hare ha would ae testify •• they kaav 
4tttt aa well as I |Qmv vhathey or not he wouid «o testify • 
and if it was sMtlroa that he wo ild oo t<?8tify, tl»y would not 
adttit it; ao that he eaaaoi so oavalierly wavo hiK eat; it ia 
a question of tis» t«8tiM»«Qr of this aaa Haokay; anti he ounot 
arawfiah out of it, after he haa adaitied it here and ha g0% 
we into th« trial • « • ihm teat^sMgr of Saokey wa« trao» ttaay 
admitted it waa true, he enid iv was true; h«> sb» it • *W»rm 
ooaaael far defead^dits interrupted asyiag that ha had newer 
adaitted thai it waa tnM aad then oouaeel for plaintiff 
froeaedad. *Yaa adidlt it waa true, haamuM if it was not traa* 
yott 90uld newcnr have adaltted he would have so testified if ha 
esMO here.* \3euasel for defemiiuito o1iJeet«><i and the flOttr% 
said, *13Mre ia no suA adnieaion. Proaeed.* t^uneel for the 
defeacaatc esa^^tad to the wrcaaeat of eouae^l for Uif* plaintiff 
aad the lattar th^a i>raeaeded to argaa to tl»»^ Jmy thst the 
faet that defead^ta ha : adaittrd that Houkay »« Id teatify 
aa alleged if pr«?aent, raised the iafereaoe that each teati- 
■esgr waa true, this argHWoat alaa wm highly iaprapar. 


that th vieifllet and Jud4p»4nit for y»e plaintiff should n»% 
h9 di«WrlB«4 OA tills «prti.4»d, for ii>s r«««oik that tkm proa^t 
«i4 «il«as' rulia«« of the tx-ial Jtt«lg» or Oef^nd^sts' ebjeetloao 
to tiBC rwtajrko of oeimcol for Um pIftiatif/» ««r«^ euch as to 
MLTO vtet would &BT« ^«a rovoroiblo error, witl-^ut mtob 

i^Uaer It Im iJh» cpi^Le>£i of <st aE&iorll^ «f t^hlc oourt 
tte-%i It oonnot V« «>al4 tJu«t Mat- verdlot i«: &2eJ.ii«t tHr jmmiLi» 
fcot ««igbt frf tbe cvlii«nc« Itut U^i, IjicORUQh (<4» the ehsry 
eoai'lieto la the eri<S«rBoe ««;rft ooiuii<i<*r(*d %^' tht> iury smA %1m 

tootineaijr of '^ho nueioua wittaettt;08 voi^lurd Issr th<m, thair 
▼•roiet snitti W p«»^ialtt«?d to etioad tus th>?rf* is oitiffiQiffnt tocti- 
■oogr in the r*oc.rd, if ^lic?Ted tog tlv* jaarjr* to -tffcrri.nt the 
ooBolusioa to wiiloh tk^^ saaa. 

Tor th« r«af<oao 0tai«4l« the JatfoaMmt of tiue f;uporler 
Court io afflnood* 


XAYLOB, F.jr. AS G*QmKm, J, OvH(»R, 

S78 • SAMft 



221 1.A. 659 

thi* eo««a,«lnAnfc filetf blw bill yr«ijri»jg for « 
41 Tore* fnm hie wif« (h« dAft^ndiuat mkj «3»« fll«<i h<»r «r«*«* 
Mil prvylas for 8«p«rtttc auilat«»ftno<^. AfKrr a henrlne ttjr 
ih« 3ha»s«ll«r» Us« Ml of Ui«» t}e«|»lctia»nt wiui 4i«Mie«*4 
for wcuftt of od^ttitisr ^ntf o 4««r»« «ao «»t«r»d a« 9r«jro4 la tho 

Mth of tho |>«3>U«« lMt4 Voon iBMril«o pr«Tio«oijr. 
At th« tin* of ttiio morJdUmo ihA ae»vlaimuii woo forty- fivo 
a»d tte (l«ffta4«M% «oo forl^jr yenm old. JcMiqilainiutt ktatdi flTO 
ohildron by hio ^rf^io<A« mitrriam* ond tlt« dof«noiiMit tMiU tvo 
ohlldroii by )iojr pr^riauo murriiMtO. Xhoy llvod toyoihor oinrm 
aoatte. wlwo tlw d*f«ndimt vlth hor ohildron l»ft tta* taoo* of 
Um «««ipialaflnt« nad »li« tea sinoo boon liTia< opart fruo hiM. 
OM^^loinont fil«d hi* bill woao tvolvo yooYO aft«r %hm «»p»ra» 
tioa* ollociag d<^o«rtitfn on tho fwrt of tho dttf «m ^^nt. In 
lior «reKO*bill thn dofoniiant ollagod that otiortly after hor 
■arrlago vit/^ thr Ob«pIain(ini "ho bO((a» to doeuMUd aonoy of 
four orooo^ooaploinont aoii to throotoa hor with vieiaaoo upoa 
hor rwfMoal to •ftvply vitix oh oh rf'poatod dcowado and troatod 

your «ros»>0M«la4iuuii hMrahljr iMvi r«n44r«d h»r life ai««ral>l« 
M tiMiti * * • »im wiic «)«$^«ll(Hi» )9jr r«*it«<m of hi^ ^jondiiot «fer«* 
•ftid, M live svpftrate mgiA Rpnri from th« drQ»<»«<lef«naimt>« ami 
trmi tlMttM IdUierio k&» «« 1Ito<1 8«p«rat« ctnd Ap«ri vlthout 
hMv feult «nd ligr reftvon of th« wreng «Mieii »i4e«i>ndu<ii of tiao 
ore ••• defendant. * 

In oupport of %hX» appeel t}i« o s^lainfcnt oenteiMlft, 
firoi, tmt> onaer th« «vi&ftno« he maa wnUtlea to « deoroo of 
divoroo \if rooen of Hi» »if«*e 4eoortioA im^ s^'eond, UiAt ti»e 
eTld9no« failed fcn enow tlMi Hut defttnaimt w^s c>fitlU4^4 %o effiirair* 
ftio BMtiiiieastn<»e« It le «rKttftii In Bijpoiort of the first j>repooi« 
tion tH'rfc it) ju»tify • wife in X covins teor Iiuo1hism1« iiQr Krlor* 
Mioo Mtuot be auo^i ao itoelf w»u; 4 entitle fewp i» « diiroroo 
and in n^ppert of th« eeoond itropoeltlcn* tkikt la ord«r to en* 
tltl» o wife to a (i«>oree for separoto «>««int«M»tuRoe» %M« groundc 
for her livinfi ooi^rote and n^ttrt. fre» her huobmnd mu«t \>o 
of ottdh • noture th^t th«^ thenuselTes «oaid bo groumi for a 
divoroe. neither of theoo atat«B«nts la eorreot. Our i^preno 
Oourt did aajr In <;».rt,g,r »♦ q^yt^' . r . fi2 Ui. 439 « t© mhim 
oouaeel hao oell»d our ettenUen an<£ la wAlol) the tuiehnnd oouiiht 
* dlToree fron hie wife on th« gro-^md of d<»oerilvn« '*io have 
boon JueUfl»d in l<»AVl!a^ her fauobftad, hlii; oonduet e^uld hnvo 
been euoh b«, if eoatlnued for the otiiitutery period* would havo 
aiatterlsed tta> dooreoinff of a divoroo.** In Frlto f, yjrJ^^t . ISA 
III. #36, tho Uupr9m« oourt aaid. ^t% hao b«>eT» held that *reaoea- 
ablo aauiiA whikoh juotlfloo a wife** deoertion erui abandoanant 
of her haobaad Mast be ouoh aa would entitle her to a diworoo**, 
citin*! Saiiiaafe v. Sehbaofc. 83 Pa. »t«to, 343, In ml ton T. 
f alien . 114 ill. App. lid, that eutonent ie repeated opting 
the oaoo of FHta ▼. yritn , »upra« All theuo eaoee were divosoo 


Atftions pttr«ljr «n4 90 ^jupstloii of e«iMur»t« »«lnton««o» «»• 

Xi bMi V»»u re{i«ati«41/ h«l<i end! in tJ^ vetfttlliidMMI 
rul« of ihie frtetft titfii in or4<<^r to nctlaVKlii • Mil for ••9«v<» 

•tfttuWry creuiMla f«r tSlvoroct but Merely t^hat Kto* ia livinf 
•«SMurai« aioA »j^rt from hnt huatend wiihout h<»r fault ctnd it 
la attffiaiani if alM aataUialwa « D«r«iat«nt and unjuatlfialala 
•euraa af oeB4iMt oa th» igmrt «f liar huatmnd, whl^ ftwaaaaarlljr 
r<nader» liar lifa atiaarabla. i ^qly ^ an v* gaJMnm . 43 ill. App. S8S; 
Kailanaon t. ^llawnoa . Ua III. A|?^. 81 j mn%9rhmr^ t. JjynJtiy^ 
l>Ta . lir? Ul, App, 495; Joanaon ▼. iJ2lHauai» *** ''*^» ^***- 
Thia la th" rula, vbalhar Ui« oondttot aoa^la inaa of haa eauaad 
th« vlfa t« !*«▼« ter bualiazMil er haa «MliaittAt««l in iha httabftitA 
laaTlng hia «lfa. In fioaa ▼» Ijoja, fS 111, 869, tha ;-'U3?r«»a 
(3»urt h«l(l tba^ a «ifa aaa «nUUe«t to a^imlfata ai«Unta«Hua«a 
«a4«r iha attttuM, it]|4»r« aha «»a living aaparat* sAd a9«rt 
frwB har biaa^MiM vitbaui iior fault, and tii«> aourt e&id« 'vitlip* 
ant tear fault* aiaaBti unti«>r auai^) eiravaiai^neaa aa would an* 
abla liar t& aYail tearaalf af Uta aooHMa law ranadiy af a t> tain- 
lag auj[»i>«ri and naintaaaaoe «uit«blf> to th« oendition af vh« 
yartlaa invalvad, u^an tlu» aredit af har huaband, thm emprmm 
Oaurt raaiiarad tMa daaialaii in <taaa truing tha d«|aivata Jiai»» 
tanaaa* Aet af ltd?, vhisla taaa identioal la tama vith aur 
praaaat Aot to tim,X eabjaat. Xha haabioid, V Uia cxaawn lav, 
«aa iMuad to previda Ui« wife with aaaaaaariaa auiubla to 
thalr atatian aad aoaditiaa la llfa« Wj raaaon af that duty 
atta^aac ta tna teabaad It aaa hald. at eaaaaaa laa, that if a 
taaaWad abaadanad hie vlfa ar ttea aaparatloa waa aauaad b/ in* 
prapar traatmant on hie part or ha aaaaatad to tha aaparatlaa 

•r •wtuissvftd in ii. without wi/ prorlacn tor h«r mftl»t«»> 
»■«*• th« JMuibaad ««• liable for h«r n«9#»aariee. iyri|^»^i8 ▼• 
fkm\»r . 10 ai. »«•; » i:«iit»» Coia« 146. It tla«r9f«r« follow* 
that a )at«lMMB4 mi4 vifo «Mgr ooparato. Iijr th« vifo loaviac 
h«y busVaad** hsMA and livlnit a«|kar»to amdl a^ari fr»s& Ma «iRti«r 
•««ft «ir«MHatas«oa aa «mtl4 mmkm tine hoaVani liaMe at «<maMm 
law for nooaaaarlM furniwlMd to fatttf or Ml would «ntitla teor 
to aopairata aaint«nAna« vni4«»r our |»r«»«tit atatuto, «ltlio«gh 
tba airawaatanoo* «»al4 iwt l»« B«i<di aa would antlUo tlia wifa 
t« a (!i«ero« of dlvoroo mnA in *u4l» m f>xt«ation, vh«re tfeMP Ima* 
Wuid flle4 a bill for dlveroo a^saiaat tho wife, ohntgiim doaaiPw 
tioB, in* wifo would %o in » ^oKitKta to Ju«tifjr >>er ooad'aot 
in l««Tiait ^' tatabaacL and in oa^o b)»« fl3.<!!^ a ere«a*bll. for 
aaiNurato maiat«9aa<» m)» liovdid Ho «»4itl«d to a dooroo. 

In oar opini&n, t^ (2ltimo«llor wea el«arljr ritfht In 
«an4fl.a4iiti fr«'.> tl£« efiaaaOA that tlt'^ e^^attplalnaat waa not on* 
titlo4 to a divarao fr^^ia ^la «ifo on tj!»» ^o<md of ]ft»r dasor* 
tion ttikA whila th« evid<^n«a tmy net 1»« (titvid tr: mak* out a 
ftiTBac «aa* In iMr favor im ar» uaaii»l» to aajr fren th« ovi* 
doaoo tlMat tho (anutieallor arrad in iprantirttf hine a doo^ao for 
»0]»arato smintonanao. Cn hio own diroot aanwinatioa, oou^lain* 
ant in rolaUn«i an iaoidont inpaodiataljr pt*9»4itte, t)w» oopara- 
tion, oaid tbat IM bad aaoldad hi« wifo to^oeaoa th« ahildr«« 
wore dirtjr «Mid vOtmn Im ratumod freu work no e«p9ov Iwd boon 
proparod and l&o found him wifo Ijrinc in bad, wlto.o the ori* 
dffno9 obawod oho bad b«on for two or tJttiroo dajra and at titat 
tino, )M t«atifi«d )M» told hav, *lf oho woalti not got out of 
bod iu* would tharew i»r out iona rro w. iih^ aaid oho woaid got 
ont*" Bo oaid th^ro l»d boon aaanrroneoa of a ainilar aatvra 
prowieaal/, "a oeupla af Unoa.* It a»poaro froa tlM» «irideaoo 
Ibat tho following da|r tho defontiiuit gatharod ay hor balonginsa 

ftad l8fi th« «eapl«i«An%*« iwrn't with h»r ehilArvn «»<& that ta»r 
batbAOd r«tam«4i Immm firew work b«f«r« cho d<^«rtcil anct sb* 
told hia aJso wm« KOinc Had bid kl» eo»dVy« &»<i h* Bad* m «ffert 
t» i»dua« her to rmemkroi nna t>Mt a^t«r tlw ••j>airttti«B •>»« luidi 
ne>T«r jautdo any «ffiort to r«»Wm. )h« «)c«ipl«iinNnt*s •xplana* 
tien af bin atttif^cmt t« hi» wif« Hihat If »li» di«ia*t e«t out «f 
l»«d the n«xt (Si«^ h« would t!ure« h«r out, wr^a tH^t i^a ssesnt aht 
•heuia s«t. «{>• If tiaAt vm* thi> j^urs^ort of ih« toQldlni; h» 
SKWm Me «if« e» tlhM» «««aalaa in qitaetlen svtia of ih« parUmtlar 
roauurk r«f#rr«il to. It *•««• aixwR^w iJaat h« 4i4 not sittka aeaia 
•ffert to axplaiii It u> h«r» lAwn, v^^im hia rt^tttni trom watlt 
tha f&l laving day, te found aha had uAderat^od h« hs^A t)iiP4i«t«n«d 
to fmt har ant aad had takon t»lm nx Mis wnyd and w»« ftppairoiat* 
ly TM eating tlia ^rasiaoa to anroici M>i»g thrown out. Or oroaa* 
omalaktlofi, on* of tho •aojapiiainAnt* a daughtara In x«tervitnt 
to thia oeattXT«>nc9 whan th« d*f «n<Sant ««« in bad thra& iiAya, 
aaid tiMt *ah« got aiek;** that har fathar and th«> (i<»fnnd<mt bad 
had ' a littla B«r«# atetut th« eldldrwn*; that it was tha aaino 
kind of *»orap* t)My !^»4 itmA bafora,* alwaya aloeut tha ohil* 
dran; tt»t Mar awnt t»X4 h»t tha defendant «n» ai^ *froa baing 
•ngarod*} that tha dafandant had bean aiidr on a pravioua 
ooc««ii»a,"aftar mhm had had a littla operatien'*. Frota tha 
tfatiaaay it ap?«ara that an that pTturicvat aoQnaion rofarrod 
to, tha d'foitdant had •uffc'rad a Kiaoarriago* 

titm dafaadant t#etifiad that aha laft h#r haabaad 
teaauao ha did not giwa har aaovgh to oat ami that N> did 
aot prowido hor with aanay te aako yarelMLaaa af food for tha 
faaily at tha aaiehhorheod atoraa bat arraagad ta gat aaah 
a«99iiaa oa oradit by is«»ans of n book whioh ha turned aror 
ta Ma daaghtar and that viXH this book ideio aado tha parohaao 

!• cat* 3J»« i«!«Ufi«d twe%lBt**T, %imi% her ]ttt«1>wM r«i»»»ip(ay 
(eld h«r tii«% •(hitr jMiop^l* kAd u3kd lil» ilM»% ah* )i»d noa«y 
(]^«<»iuMl»l/ l«ft ber bn' H'^r flr»( iwnli«M4) «tict h« <s0«i>l«la*<ll 
1»«4iKMse «]»» «o 1.^ net £;ive It to Him; Ui»t thin «e<9Mrr«<l 
<(«tiit« •ri«a. Sl»9 ftNrtk«r tff«tlft#<i (!!)»% for thr»» Mentha 
«ft«r tteair iMirri*s« ttea aoo^lisiinoAt nu:p9li«d h«r with naii^ 
hut mtlfr %hmt h» ««▼• hmr swihiag itt all* but nil th« euj^ipliAS 
««r« pure^««d V tbff linitelitav i}is«tt«h th« iMiak r»f«rr«^ te «n<t 
t)smt ciia flsAlljr i«f t her )»t»Vett«i 1>*««ue« hm mid &e irould 
threw her out. 0« crf>«»-«xa%lnntl«ii »h» t«»«:tifi#4 thei en the 
ee^eion when eh*; renalned in hM f«r tHif«« dUstye, «he nmn 
eiflk* sad «!»«« helas aeked whet tU<« ireulAe -warn she efiid, 
*Be elvajre \ufA %o tr&uhle •»» ana tell »« he weuXa ehitae ate 
•Mt aM fre« the a<Nrrear« tmd thiatUag erer ef It, I get atek* 
(UmS *whe« I wae a&ek eJid Ijrihg in hett he uoett to heller at 
■e heoawae I di<ia*t ^{et t^p »a4 «erlc»* She ttltM* to'^Ufied tli*t 
vlMMi her hMBbetad uaed te tell h«sw he weu^d threw her out »ha 
*thea£ht IM waui idtaaiag me eut ef tUe hauae. that X ahaultf 
g« * # 1* ffrery tlxe ve h»4 &» avpnant he i»«u;di tell »e la 
get out*t that hia ehildren wiasted ta ^leae her eMldren eutj 
th»t ea the evonlaf hefore she l«ft **he tel4 ne that if 1 
«<ml4 set ga^ uf he eawiid threw ite eut e « • xhm% aatne Hajr 
whaa he eaiii he waald three «e aut in the* <»v«inln«, X deaiAed 
te aave** 

la aaaiplaint ie sade ef the ettount allowed the 
defendant and araa8««BMii»l»4nant in iha wajr 9t aenutrntn 
aninteaaaeea Var the ri^aaeae eta tad the deeree af the Snperier 
Oauri is affineed. 

TAYLOR, f.j. Aii> e*aoBaioR, j, josauji. 


MS « «|04f 

A, 3. syjiHtca, 

.A. 659 

m. Jrt2&tl3:@ THOinOK d«liv«r«^ tb« epinioit of 

th« ooart. 

flM i)l«intiff, ritftiiioiit «nt«J~#d int* « wi lifts 

•f vh&cH h* tnts Ml ft«t tt» «( in<» truster la th*^ Mith aeliool 
in e> rttiia au1»J««t« fer a t«m of ten neatha. b«xlnaiiv 
&«9%«adMir 4, 1»19, ttn4. in rotiurn for «;ua(b o^rvlo^o tlM» 

Miatii. tho j^tliiantiff «nt*rc4 vipoii b4« dttU«e uaa^r this aoa* 
traot 8tt4 a ntimiod totoROh la ih'^ high eah^ol until tumm* 
tlm» in ih« BMath of BooMOlMir* whoa ho left to tako a pooi* 
Uon trbl^ tM4 1»««ii offorod laiim in amitltitf aohael. H» «•• 
i»aii hi» aUptaatod otilwpy for ih# flmt tJbur9« month* of 
h&« oarrioo Wt h« oerro« for oncMtlilrd of « wontli tooyoa4 
ttao%« for vhloh !&« hod not bnoa paid. So ^iii»«<a thitt a»4l«r 
his oOBtroot ho w<i« ontitlod to th» f»uai of #60 for th« lotior 
yoriod. nto Board rofuoed t<» ps>^ hiii nnd ho toroucht this mo- 
iioa %o rooovor tlMt dmouat elolAod. In Hio dttolarntioa ^ 
ollofod %li9 ootitroot oad oot forth hi» yoriod of sarrioo 
Mtti tho faot ttoit ho hud not bcoa yald for t-bB ono* third of 
tho flotool Math Of dooomhor, at tho aad of vhloh Uuo ho al* 
loc«d that 'V aotiial a«r«*a»nt hy aad l>«two«n the oaid plala- 

vac r«tttra«d f»r %h» pliantiff* aia{^e»««i«sg nitt «iiMiM»g«!« mt tlm 

III BtiqN>ort ef the f^ijMstiiiL t^ 4«f«ntlanf» oeraMnda ttm\. 
tb» irial oovurt •rr«i4 in A^itiing {mr«l •via«»nts« on Xi» <(«»•<• 
Uo» of «}iai, if rnvsr, «.eUoa )ia4 )»«i«n t«k«n % i t i^'itb r«sMNI 

ins ^•er«iezy ftf ilM 4«f«»4««t B«ard «f ^4ua«iUon %««>'Ufi«« 
ih»i » i»ftrli 9f lii» dutio^if «»• to k«ft|» a r<^«u»rd af th* preo#<*<k 
ii^^ of %]Mt }»««rtf Man %^% tkmret v«» « »«eUii£ hH'i V ^^ 
a«ftr4 in Hov«mV«r 1.917, «t wMot^ t^x>«> %l^ht hBT« be«n »n lo* 
tmtttMl discusaien ^tr Ui« mmi'^v» of the •«4'4l oa %o %ht p\Ai,w» 
tiff lattTi»|( his pool tion »s & iaariNaajr in «h« )iisb 8Oh»0l. 
Xt would ••«» froifi tM r«oor4 i>«itt %3m a««pfftftx>^*ft rmrport of^ 
tlM Dtootifl^i shewed no station tdkon at that titto* ih« ^Itnoan 
further too tin «d %hnx, toa h»4 tut r»oord of oi^ isoetiiis of tha 
Soard sttlsaottuottt to thm ana Jaat raforrod te, at whi<ii onjr 
aaiiOB r«ffardla« tha plaintiff loaving tH« aoboel. vaa t«keii. 
Oaa saath* tlM yrinaipal of tha aohool* woo p^raittcd te taav> 
ifjr tttti at XAm nwwmmtfr aMoiing rofi^rrad to, ha »»($« « rojport 
te tha itoard of IduoaUon to th« «ff9et ih^t th«< ; lainUff had 
toid Ma that too liad an offov in ana thai- aotoool ^tma t)iAt lia 
vaa roaicBias and oaatod th* J«a)r4 to aeoopt tliia raaiffnaiioii 
00 t!»v IM oould oofiiopt %h* Craao poaition** Ma f«rth«r ioati* 
fiad that ooAOid raU.0 disauoai' « foliewad 1»«t«e»n th<^ aiaai1»«ra 
of ilM .ioard oad «Mf»I«int wfto nade to tha of fa at th«t tha j^iaia- 
%lff aao not doing tha fair thing ragnrding hi» oontraot and 
that it «ao finally d«eidod to r<»for tha mattar of hia roaignft. 
tion to tho Ioaeh#r«a Ooagatvoa, with powwr U> aot. In our 

•pinion %h« ««teiBsioii mt the latter l<i*»timofi]r vkb error. 
>««tlon XX2 •T «bt%pi«r 12», of %ht* i'trnf^tev of Uiineis r«- 
quir»« ilMt « rvoerd of th^ otUeUil iidiw <»f \i9!^r4n of •oh»o3. 
4ir«etore aluill ^» k«pt tQr tliut al«»r)E« th« onijr 'way Vo provo 
s«ati effi«»i«l ftotc i« fay mx^h »¥.mv4 <»« ih« iaw ro^uiro* »haXl 
*• k«Pt. HottUro ▼. BSISE, 802 ni. App. 487. 

But cvofi if tfa* «H^fm00 in tlaia oae* «Hi»bli«]b«d 
•ttofe action tt> th« 4»f^nii»A% Be«7<£, otiewiljr* thi»t th« ntti«,t«r 
•f tjw plftltttif f * i» rffsifsaRiioa ««&s :ef<*rr««i to ih« ^ohool 
Gtouiaitt«9« wiifi i»«««r to Hot* i% «rDul4 bs tteo*«t»«iry to roTorao 
th« Jua^seioai of th»7 triAJL ooart iRtt«R«i^ «o th«i< v«^rdiet 6»d 
iu4g:s}«at ore vtiolljr unsiipForied t»y thm #iriti«i«e«t for 1% -wr^b not 
•ho«n t3a»Rt tlio d'Ohool Oo»ii^tli.e« «i0t^d. &u«tii ^vitl^^noo -»« wo 
find i» t)»« x^«(Sor<I on thtii -:rd«eiien t«ndK rRtrter to tn« «on» 
tntiry. It i« aivBym tiukt tb^ oJio.i£»iiii of the ^j^^iool (Mmt^itto* 
vMi m Mr, aoLSougttll c»a<l thot the piointiff iw>A «ert«in ooiivor* 
ootiofto with kitt. ViMt tlt«/ ««>ro tho OTl^onoo 4o*« not oio* 
odLofO. AootuoiBK euQh ovlsionoo to h»v« W«r> oKfeoisaiitiir Uio 
pl&intiff hoo ««9i«ao4 no ore«« errors in roX«itiOR to tho oetien 
•f tb0 oourt ia oitot«lnift« tlie oli»^«ation» int<»ry>otft(i. ¥h« 
ovidoaoo dooR ohov titat t)a<- priooijiel, ^""witli* m*A« cmm offorto 
to s««rttr« a tcAo^or to lokfr the* ;.>lttintiff *• plnoo* Aft<»r thn 
lottcr hud n,dTi»«d hia of ai* desire to r«oi«pi» but th» oooro* 
tftry of th* 3oar4t»otifi«d thot th« r«oord« of th« Bo«r4 
•hoood nothing regnrdiiig the ompl ojr»oitt of oiqr invtmotor to 
t*ko up th« oeura«o whioh iMd boon o»nd>«tod Vy th« ploift* 
tiff up to th« tima iw l«ft« It opi^Aro thot oi.ortljr »ftor 
tho ploiotiff loft, m Ur. BrooJkloy «»o «a« tluta • Moaibor of 
tho toaohiac foreo of ti.^ «^»»ei, tock up tho eoiraea whi cii 
Wmi plaintiff had bo«n t^aohin*. th» ]^riaoip»l t«*tifi»d 

U»% ih« pXmin%itt "had l«rt •ttd^««Xjr« ?m4 tlner^ hj!»d io 1m 
soHi* pin»viiiioa swdA far t>4»«« eeurtt9« fta4 X »ta4i«4 i.h 
•ttiHa^ttl« »Ad rtt«MUv»W^ the 90ur««ii!s s<» f:^. Streeklttjr «90uld 4» 
that * » • X toii*i r«a««b«r Um% &h# »o&m took any »«tioa in 
%M Mftii«r * * * «)M»a ir. stfintoii Inft t^t I (9ft sty t««o))i» 
lag fer«« <tit&t« thAri, i haA t« «««ign «EOM»ea» «!•« to talK* 
tils !»l»o« fty nlr« « •tt«e«s«»r, W« had te aot iMtftdlA tvljr 
as th'tr* wKs Mt «n«'X'g«tt% . »r. lvoeicl«jr ««» |tr«p»r«d to 
A» thRt attrt vf «»rle« sur* St»atmi t&iagkt Botitnjr »»& ^^ofgjr 
VlHtt k* l#fi««w»r« wlUifiut R t4»sQn«r ef t^tony ^tm ^eelogir. 
Mr, fitaatoa left aiuiaealjr, »rior te th« day he inft | did not 
kaev ilMit h« iMi«i fioirtg %» l«:«aT«« J!i<» had not told si« tk« pre* 
avdinK d«jr. I X«t9km«d it Um^ next mem ins iihmi «« feund st&t 
k«ar« •n hl9 d«iilt.** CmriminXy thni in fmv tmm. ^rvTlng tlmi 
tl8» wfiti«it aeiitmoi d««i«ftr«d on hmi b«#i) turrairutieS b/ mxitttsl 
ii|^ro«M»nt* ft» tlM ^Iftlntiff «ll»s»a, 

K»irlnii «»»«r«d Inin «. writton o«>«tr«»t to r«aMI«r 
bl« Of-rfie** fOJT tiw j»«rlAd of » /««r »;»& twrinc dloMBtlauod 
hi* oArrlooo xmdoir tlse «oXo <3lol« 1>hMi th«» <iSK>niJnk'St ImmI boon 
iomiaatod bgr Muttud oonoont, and tho ovidonoo foillatB to 
•oittlAioli tlKAt fAOt* thttt i^oiatiff ootmot rooovof upon m 

tS lU. 897. 

for th« rt^ooono ■t^ti'd t£i« J t,td4|!t;£i«n t of tiio aoaatjr 
Ooart !■ r«»v>>ro«d« 

409 • af%568 



tWi ftMlTSU B.iSXiQpH IB 


' 221I.A. 660 

MS. JQSXXaSE 7i{ uses deliY<«r»<S ih« opinion sf 

th« eeurt. 

XMs «MI fi fOaxXh. slase aetion in the i^uni<sLpAl 
Court of Shloaeo, x^tir»\^ the plitlntiff Siorka to 
rooovor fron tlM deftadant. for profesKlosHl serYle^ii por* 
forued 1)gr hia »• on aretUtftet at the r^quoot of th« dofeatf* 
aat Iqr it« agont, for «tei(^ he alleged the dof^noant pro«ls«a 
%o p«)r irttat oaici aorviooo ware reaoonabl/ worth, ihe aseuait 
-alalBMd vao #470waS, Xhe affldaTlt af woritii aat up thai 
the defendant had authorised ita poator, one tfhimett, to 
agree with the plaintiff that the 1 attar ehould draw plane 
and epeaifioationa and ^l»e aaeare bide and auperviae the oen* 
etmeiiaa of a parao»a«e umA aa addition to tho (afaarA Wild* 
inc* et a oeet of ant nore than |X0«OiK} for a eowpensatian of 
t«o and oae»halC per eent of Uie eeet priee, to. be paid whan 
all of the work vae oosipletedj thet WkLaaott wae the oalj 
pereon autoorlsed to aot for tte defendant in thie aatier} 
that no d'-alince were kad with the plaintiff niher than 
through »hiwiett: that any a«ra<e»eat ndii^ the latter had aado 
witk the plai.ntiff other thrcU in aac»rd with aaid opeolaX 

agenogr waa wholly unauthorisad. The ieouee were heard ly 

», ^ . M M. M M .. finding and judgment 

tke oouri witnout a Junr. roeultin*' •m m Hmi»4^S .->< )I.^^Z..^^ 

f»r Uftft pUiAiiff for UMi sua of #4<lf*ftG, to r«T«r«o «ia«li 
the d«f«iMl«kni tu»« 9«rr»«t«4 tliia ayi^cai, 

Za mq^iii«r% of th« «9Sie«l th«» <i«f«n^tfiRt ure^o 
• mm%9r of flwttt*r» of Xim «h|#i Am doulitlooo eenwst but 
oliiOli, ia aur «^ittitsaia iwvo no ttji;i}ili3$«tloa to iH<» fa»«to Aiim 
oioaffd Dgr th«» 9ti.4mim, 11m plainUff *toUfi«4 tlukt M 
««• iatjrodaooA to dor. «lil«ii«tt W eao Irfmirolok, «, ooatrootoyi 
that VMUoMtt toX4 M« of th« mrk \km% %lit»^ woato4 to <lo at 
tlw dharote oad t!i«t aftor thia aonroraation, «M#t i««a at tfeM 
hou 10 of tb« oeatraotor, tta^a wo»t ovor t» tha Oiaort^ «od 
VkUsuiatt polatod outi vtei «ao te v« (ictfo »«d ui^t. na thing 
ataa oaid li^ itMawatt la •it)i.«r af tla m (saivroraaUeitt aa to 
a«r XlMifcatiaa of a»ot« B» taatifletf fwurtter thet he b»u1o 
awrtaiii p«a«Ll dvawinso ia aoaort^Baoa witu tha iastraattOMi 
of fkUMOtt ead tixns aaat orer to aaa Id^ aad at wfULauMitt*o 
v««tto»t to* aont to a«at tJM tmtataoo* h^mft lati^UueeA to 
tk* lKtt«r lor Hi&iwiottt tluit Ha 03c»-ii«iaa4 iH9 panoil «x«»l«ca 
to tue tvastcrao muA ^tlMqr told in» ta |^ ahoall and «»ats»loto 
th» dyaaia^o, ^tMaf{ waa •al<l al»0!t aajr eaut ldUBiiati<m«" 
Tha ylaiatiff <1U fUraloli tha draoriaca, ooliaitad %iOa attioli 
totalXad |ia,700 and tha mttor vaa dfon>ad t.l»«r». tha aoii* 
struotioa of Uia ia9t««T«a««t ayparentlir bain^ •iMUidoaad. 
LaacOXoh t*»tlfi«d ttmt Iw aaa praaaat durinc all af tto* o»»> 
▼«T«Atiaiia iMtaaaa tlMi plalaUff and «<hlasott at hie Iwaaa 
aad aX«i Mat of tbo tiiM darloft tha ttonraraatiaii ahtah thay lOMi 
at %h* akurdli aad that aoiluUic ««• osld ia hit> prmwnw about ay^ 
prioa liait oa the «ar)t ahioh ana to to* deaa. rrhlBwatt t«»ti* 
fiad (V d«po«ilUoa} tkat tlia told .iha iklnlntiff tha> wantod 
ta pat U9 an adcitioa Mstiag about $6,0&0 hat not to axawad 
#10,006 aad that tha plalaUff ateurad hLa that th« Ohaafaa thajr 

««uit«4 tt»uX4 h9 wm<t0 «JtK2. ««ul4 tt«i 9tt»t no.r4» t)i(fpi» #8»0QC>{ 
thfti soil* Ua« lAt':^y i3a» ^l&Xntltt 9r#««ni«4 %• Met «s jj^riNt 
9ft««<i flan nati fw totd \W» ^iKrintitf it woald ivxYe t« b« 
sliova ic tR« irttet«««s ^^^ ^^ l^>.t«r «Raf#3rr#il %'iih tli» flsaitim 
titf At th» latter* « ofHw. roftiiriiiiie th« |iIhii» to %>hM i»l«i»» 
tiff uiid tilling M» tihwtt is g4m«r«l thi^ n«t vitk thc^ (eMpj^roVAl 
•f th* tirttet«»r<«, fMt<t tii»t Iw a««iiia 0(»iitl«B*4 laiia Alwut thft 
«i«i «e«i4 tt8k«(l hin whfltt hi* fflNi would bet lUKt t^Mt H* waid tteftt 
liwnM«|| iMt it wan « ohureh* h* «o«ld <t« it r»y t«« wild •«•• 
telf 9«r ocat* t^w 4»p«iiiti4m of tfliimMtt «»• th« «nijr «vl* 
d- na9 offered liyr tH« d»ftt!ntia«it« 

t'hft finding 9t tint ttourt mui <i»ulit].<^«« W««4 «m 
th« Murt*« opaeluaion timt 9lii»Mitt bud not pXmiomA acgr 
iiaitation «f «o»t »a th« iii9r»v<»»««at« in hict %9XU* with 
Um piaiBtiff, V« «BDnot •ay fj>»ai t}k« r«<M»ir4 tiSAi. the mftAi* 
f»«t v^iieat «f tli^ •vid«ao« vas to tte ooatrary* yurth»raMir«« 
wlwea ttao plaintiff i>reo«'nte'4M,« ptiiliimimuv ptinttil okot^kwo 
to .tteo miuet of !fm«t««o cutd i»ont ov«r tJa«M. «ttli tte« i^oir4 
«UAd t>)* i«tt«r ft)f>97«v«d tiMt NdfcotobA'o «iAd dirftot*^ tlM i»l«iik» 
tiff to pMoood with tlw |Mr«9a»oti«ii of hi« dotoiilod dnwinftO 
and (FfooifiaatiMia. th<t}' f»tifl«d th» notion Of Whimoott in 
laoirint thtt »rrfNtt0«u»nts h* had nod» with tho plaintiff for 
tho proyajmtioa of ^* dnnriafto. Th« oontoatioa of th# dofowl* 
•at thot this notion of tho Xruotooo oftuld not hnvo onooaiod 
%m * ratifiiation, beontiao it rao done «iti>eut ooy knowiodca 
on th« p«rt of tho Boordi no tn «hot h«d \»»«» cnid V thia»ott 
to tho plaintiff in th«ir proviouo ooairorontioao, in untonobio. 
At tlM tiao tho Board took thin aotioii thoy haa b«for« than 
tho plaintiff* »r«l%miniar «hotoh»« ano thoy anot hm doonoA 
to havo notod witn all the kno«lo4cn that %hf>— skotirtiofi i«» 

9li94* tlt» 49mtA lW«lf 4ir«>«i«ci the i»l»iatirf to «i» th* 
eri<k<mm it iMrul4 wi«ii thftt em |MP«Y<»(i an «gr««»<'>nt betiF««>ii 

tiuutf f»r Vm 0«.rTio«s «f tin »ir«hli««'% In tfvuvlttg the ^liaii« 

MM MQttHJIg th« bid*. 

439 - 26?00 

osAOS i>, jjQtwm. ocvLinsH And 

\ Appnklixntm , 

cc^ aaomr. 

221 1.A. 660 

KIU JUSTICE t^i(at0£!f d»iiv«r9<l &h« o^ini»B of 

ih« Qfturtx 

Ca« J^Hn 81««/ dio^ %««%«%«* asm b^ Me will hi* g»T«« 
deviv»4 »&4 lH»^u«a%i-t*<l all of >iift j>70p«>rt9 to i-ii»iMif« *>to !«▼• 
and to h«14 thv «mm <tuiriafi i^^ t'Mns «f l»«r lauitHrikl life, h^r** 
iQT siviag hmt tvai ppvmt %e e«ll» ufte or <&i«i?9»« of, for bor 
•wn «•• «^ ^nofiio, fesd to iavoot «ni4 rftinreet tim tmam mm 
If oho vortt tho eol« ftn4 *b»oXuto ownor thfiT^oft with » gift 
•v«r to oertoitt nio«««i, twp of w(«a ve«-o tlir eoapl «lnimto who 
filo4 thio bill. Af t«i> %'im <iMth of ^olm KLooy. M* wifo took 
out o polioy of Insurmnen for $ft«CCO, makjlag tb« gefondjuito 
h«r bonefloiarloo. Tho »is»ti»l pr(«iUB on t^^le pelioy «iio #(l3C«fO 
and obo paid out a total, of i@5*e78.1C ao i>r)MittMO boforo hoy 
dofttli* UJM was 64 /«ar« of Bi§o vhen oho took out. th« )»«li«jr 
aa4 72 yiwro Of ago at th? tiso of hor aoatiu Af t«r tH« Ooath 
of ttoft widow, the '3Bia;>lain<uit« <ll«oover«4 t)vao faet9 and tl)»r*- 
VQ^a fil«4 thlo bili, oont0ndiiiii£ that t)io prepsrtjr of tito oototo 
of Jokn Xloo/ in %i^ to«$n<l« of hia «i4ow mna in wiiesi ahw had a 
lifo ootato, oottotltutod a tmot fund and that tho anount M uood 
^ ho» in pa/Mont of the proaluMO ao abOT* doooribod, wao not 
a ttoo of th* propmrty for hmr "woo and b«n«fit» within ih9 moan* 


ins of %h9 will sad pruning iJwl ttn ftoc»uatifi|; tiil£ht "b* 
UUt*n of Ut« mouat* of taen«jr •sllootcdi lity e»«^ of ih« dcfen<}» 
ants cwd«r osJLd iwivunusoo pttXi«|r end tluat th«^ mi^hi b« dio* 
•reocl io pojf ic e»t)Lpl^i»;3At.» satf oihAr li^&to#o ua<^»r« 
will of Jokn Klooy, inc &&14 wsteuat of #Stf78«lC, c^o laifitgMft 
itt havo b«en divurtod Rn<$ lli«ig»lljr ;^i4 o^uv of y&« fui^o 
of th« 8«tld trust e«^i« for ^rmnivmm 4tt«$ unaftr tlM i«f>Bo of 
tlM> policgf, t04i;otlt«r 9i Ut ietr^r^ot tAercoa. Aftor fc hoorlas 
Iwforo ViM ^Maeollor, %he bill wis 4ianiBS«a for vant of 
o^uity* By (Mo ftV9««l yM eeo^lolAottto »»«]( « r«troroal of 
iliftt 4Rero«. 

Ytero woo no 4ii»Fui# h9tM»%n tii<» i»4krtio« oiM^ut Xhn 
fftcto isvelTod ottd the eoi«pl«laaat« outiffldt in this mwt% "tbot 
ttw oieiljr Qtt««ti»n in ^R^n 4»fto la 3aa» or l«iv oo mpg'li*^ %» tito 
vill of Jete ^lo^.* In Oui^port of fclwir opf^ool, ooo^loiaoMto 
iMiTo 9«11«4 OvO* ottimtloa to sssBQjr U«»ei«i<^Re, mil of vbida ooa* 
otroo loacwm^ oia^lor in kh&t iarelT^d h^r*, sm^ Iiel4 ttet 
«?h4^r9 {trop^rv ie ^iv«ft Hy vill to a lifo toasjtt for hlw or 
IsioT tt«« aad l^aofit, with pmt to »«I1« ih« lifo toauii io 
not siv«tt •» olMiolat« risHt to diopo»« of nitm ptinc^fitl of tko 
•otcto, b«t is ealy glvon mvaSi vso of th* jpropi^rigr ao ia ooa* 
oiatoni vlth Umt of o lifo owtwr. As woo ooi^ tgr our ftv^roao 
Coart in frott v. taiff , 849 ill. SM, «t |M«o ;f74. "th* rulo 
io voll a«ttl«^ in ihi9 et«t« tlmt whojro o {MHrcr of dispoosl 
aooaapHiioa a Voqaoat or ooviao of « lifo ooloto, tho pooor 
of diopoaal io onl/ oooxtonoivo oith tiw ^^atoto which iho 
d'^Tiaoo ioicoo aador tho vill oad acaac ouoh diapaoal ao o 
toaaat for llf«» oe Id aoko, ualfoo th^ro or« oth«r vordia el«ar» 
ly iadio&tias that o larcor povor «aa iatoBd*«.« Bat ia oar 
view of th* moo, ttiooo dooiaieaa «r« aot aniianblo to ths oit* 
aatioa 4ia«looo< hero. 




9te tki m r jf ^f tlie «»Mpl*in^»t9 i« thai thn psravadL 
ptuperlj ^loaAinit te tA« MitttW of JeJm Mvcy* vliiofei eeua* late 
ttm p«eccci&ioa of his wiiiew «s a life tofisQi, b««MMiu» tYttet 
]»roi»«rtjr and iluit tisojf laivo thA rl^^ht ic f8ll««r %i»t pnspufT^f 
in iiiA hiuida of tho d«f«»<}ftntii. lh«@ bardoa imc upcn o^aipljiiaw 
aAto to proT» Uiftt i^ ftm^e oought, io %« r^^eelwfl in LH«> toitdo 
of Um» tt*f«Fa.9MatBa «tt« truAt 9a«i»«rl^ bel <til!;lai£ u; Jolm 81»«jf*s 
Potato, ( WQgro y. t9 ^1ftr . &S& ill. 4@3) or t.kfkt %hi^ f«»ds 9«i4 
•lit 1^ %U9 widov In 9aj^a«at of ib« 4n«sx«s«« yywiriwo ««re sukdo 
tfu tko i^riAoiipAl of tik« «&$^to aa4 aei freit iaeo»». ¥hio 
Um ooM.»Xoiaaat» fniXod io do* 

jrxvBk o «e(»eidPiatioji of >y.l %h» e^nfme^ i& i)rS» ro» 
oortf, wo «u»oi eoy ihst Soim Slf5«>y*e vidow <Ll<^o»o4 of ony of 
tito priaeli^ol, of xae all«g«(i 4^rtt«v fufi4 i» wni.&i «£(« t<od « Xif* 
jLBt«reot« %n j^tgriay th« pr«HlBa» «kt« on tnio i>oll^ of iaotur* 
aaeo froiB jreor to jri^cur* li xuty «9lX jteve Im^or thot oaeh p«jr» 
ttoato vsro nado bjr k«r oiti of h»T ]^«»r«o««i fimdo oaa otteh !»• 
eon* ao ^mo to k»v fr^m jronr to jroor fre» the propter tjr in «dUL«li 
olM» bod theXlfo ootMto, It In Qait« o^^porent frov t)w loacMAf* 
of tlio will Uukt th^ doooased hod no iatoau^ tliot tiikf laeoso 
dCTlirod fro« tiie pro^^^rty* ta vMoli hio «if« voo girm* « life 
Ittt^reot, woo tc k« ftllowd to aeowBuXAto. Uador tte viXl, 
&io wldov h&6 on oboolttte rl^t t& uoo all th« Inooao oo do* 
riTodt oo oho ea» fit amct te '^ «ith it ao oho ploaood, and 
»ao aader ao oMiKatiaa to a^touat for it to aigreao. Ao «ao 
BKld in ^lio ▼• FlaaBiitaa . 279 Hi, 95, in eonetrttine m oiai* 
lar proYioioa, oa a bill fil«d oa tlie thoorjr Invoked Iqr Um 
eoaploliiNiiis in tkw oaoo at Var. "Tho tXtt of Ui' lifo eotato 
earri'd with it thm uarootrietsd a«o of tlio inoe*«." In thot 
oaao, oar 8«q^«MO Oourt holdo that oadi a doviao ao ic iavoivod 
ia tlM oaaa at War, dooo not oroato a traot* Coo aloo j&^j t v. 


^^ * fl , 2i^ ili* sas, that th» wiAew <^9!ei,'9»i mn»« in«eM9 tnm 

ilM yiWiiwM •}! i1»^ polity of i^sur^n^^ r^f«jrr«»<t tA (siseaMiail 

•«i<9li »•• it> imrtt W«m j^ ias^ffii^^r «»«•» for ass^ pari of ilv; 

V ^^ ^^^^ t^jaasi* or .^ar iisMiividw&l tm^ds, it ws-m iatsoHlMiHt 
•a t3m (&a««eiler t«>^^i^«« <M>a^lii>ifie.»tei* Itili f«r vmsti of A^uitjr* 

Vor th« r««uioa8 givfto the a««ye« of the ^Aperi^r '^art 
lo »ffiraH»4» 

ttaOMB, ^,J, AKS ©•3<Sf!IOJ«, .r. nc«3tti« 

21I.A. 660 

Mil. Jt)8TIS]i HummM (i«liTer«<i tkm ^pinictk %t 

tbff «wui>t» 

TM* is aft «9i>e«l tqr ih« mfnaasA, Jituracn* fwn a 
joint 4ii4^it*nt for fS.ftCC r«aov«rflNa Hy th« i»]i«ifiUirf afiAiBftt 
li|« aad Um 4iof«n<teiit.o« Sniob^o Bftilwo/n a9tt|»«^ mn^ I3MIMA0 
CIV Kilwigr CeatjiftAy. thf diofwmUmi oonjisiiloe r«f(»rre<t tio 9t«ro 
foot«4 « •«p«rttio Apj»««l froR ^SMlr J«i(liBi*i«tit, wMciEi i« aooo 
iZtnOf Xm inis 00 ir%« 7^t <Mke« «»• goa»oIi<tJit*d wi%& iMo 
for b*«rinc* 

In Um* wj^tnion «bi«h !» b«in« fU«4 %toJi» day in 
•»•• #tftt09« «• hfliTO ftilly ••% fertk all iii« fmoto 1iito1v«4 
and wo «lll not roj^oat Utim h«r»^ 

In Ott^yArt of j&l* «9p««l tJa* 4efon<iiMi%» Huraon* 
oeaicado tlwi iho vortUet vac a«»l»at th« Maa&foot oalghi 
of the oHdoaoo, in ihav ik (iwaoaatratotf ihcit tho ovllislon 
kotaooB hi« fuaoral oar and tho oirooV ear «aa ooi eawood )Qr 
(ho aagliitosoo af his akaaffaar, but oololj V roaaea of tJM 


lit th« «tlMr iUmi tit* Jury «<ii»r«v ««xrttat«E'd in onnol Hiding » 
fro. ilM •vlitea««, thiii ij%« s^> %«««&» «»• guilty ef n«sli|t*n8« 
aatt «ft«r « sarwful <ii»neid.<9)mUoni »f «].i iim «iri««ne«, «• km 
of t^ opinion t^ai Um Jury mm ala^ waviiiRtnivd in ««R<»ltt4ing 
tlmt Um» <i«fes^»4:i%*« eiiauff««r 'ms mXm tfttlliy ef ac«lis«ii««« 
•ad. xhikt th« aftj($li;g«rffie« ef ft«4dli tm* inyrolwA in tkm #r«3tiWR'i« 
aetiui* for ibo ao<iid*et in <}u«tf.Uoa. Wliiil* *« *>«>ll»v» titat |li« 
•Vi4«n9e •«tabli«h«s that ih«:- eirvet «Stt:'r«k» into ih^' futi«r*l 
owr* «• ftr« of the e^inian that ii ft»rt^r ootftlhiiBkfro ibai 
tb« «x«rei0o of a propitT 4^i^« of oay*' «n %h«f psar% of (ho 
olwiuffotur nould lMtT« ftVoi4«el ifo# ooliieieA* fhe oli»a.ffoujr 
tooUfled ti»i )i« nmr itho etreri «g>r atendln^ At ih« «•»% wrooo* 
Wiik; %ymt )t« ol^votf {le^im fof Vm iiiiors«oU«»ii t>o a »]»oo(t of 4 
ie b miles an i$s%ir 9,M i\im% "Ja»^ b^foro** %Jm front wtaoolt of 
ilM fuMOntl mr «£0i on the «»Ribowi4 troek, th» airoffi oor oiortoil 
V9, It tlMW aypottre that v^itn itw ohAuffour oaw ihlo otrooi 
oor oooins toward hia iaetoiKt of ooooiorotias M« opood and 
ftotiiag out of the mijr, h« »iovo4 up to also'ut 3 or 4 ailoo 
an hevr. Mo t9»iifi«d furthor that fth*m h« first »«tf ttao 
otroot oar ho wao alaeut Xao f^ret north of tho «roos «aik ani lio 
vao coin« 8 or 10 «il«« ».n hour* It will h0 apjMirent fro» vlwt 
wo bare oaid ia ti»» ot>tt;r opinion^ ».n4 In thi«» tliat the ohaaf* 
fottr ••« tJM BiotonuMt attd that tho caotonum oav or oiaauii i-iaro 
oooa tti^ ehauffour, «b«n th<^ir r«>hittlos ««ro IGC foot or nero 
apart an4 ao xh«y teth npproaehod thoir point of oiroooiac thoir 
Tiovo W'trt* obotruotoii by tho paooin^. of a iwrthboand ear. Xa 
that oitiaatiott, tho exoreiao of a propor do^roo of mro on tho 
part of oaoh of thOB« required thim to ajproaoh that point of 
oreosiac with vh«ir r««pootivo rohicAoo uttd«r ouoli oontrel 
that thogr oouid ho atoi>ood ohort of tho intoroootion. Xf %hm 

elaiaff«ur d««ttrib«4 Uii« Bitattiion ttooutftiftly natii th« front 

vlMMls ftf his irtJoial* r«««^d. I>h« ii)««<ittoDtt»4 %r«Qfe »« tJtt« 
•tr««i enr «f»ii •t«iriiiift uf* h» ^▼''ii iliim ^ftulA havw «void»4 

4Mgr Iteii tb« v«r<ii«>t is »eali»»t 1^« isfiuilfe»i ««i«ht. of t>ii« 
«Tidiffin«Mi »• ie n«i^X ij|;«« «• ttf thin 4*tf»:miSin% ilur««>n« 

Shis d«f«^n<i«int mltsa 9»n%mndm tbrnt tia« oeurt 9rTm4 in 
th» giving »f ih« in«tr»9tioii qs^lM^d in %h« ethef oi»iBioR« 
Ver ib* rm«on» th«3r« eiT«R« vMoh w» ivill nc% ntpm.% li#r«. 
«• «x« of tJMi e,>imo» «l»si Ihic a«Rtmii«s ie tt»t %«n«lii«. 

fMl» 4«f«a««nt Alae oonten^s ilutt ih« ettari ftrrM ia 
r«ftt»iii£ %e eiv« tine Jury %JfeM» feliaviKi^p ins truot ions 

*fh« «H»^rt ia«vru0t« you Vjmt if jrou beIl«T« 
fren th« «Ti4i«»9e in t^iin «»»« ilmt ihf frent '■^««iti 
•f fc}it« fuawmtl mt w«r« en i)!i«> «««tb^ua<i trnok •» 
74 th strtst ^f«»r« t^« tmt io <t«««tioii hA4 stArt^A 
op, if ii M started ( from th9 piB«iti«ii «^«r« it «»• 
stftRdiim, i^ stimdinKt &it ill* Mtat sids »f lf»I«t«4 
•tr««t« th«i %h(m jrou Must find th« (tefr^ndiiat» j^rsvn, 
Mit fuilty*" 

M«nif««tljr« tlBMit iiMtnittUeB mis sntiroly i^pr«p*r« 
for th9 r«?Rseii« v^ieli «• imvo iilr««dy 4isaiMnM4 in ooonMiitiiae 
on the (»Tid«a»», 

Th* a«f«aiteat Hurom niee eontoods th«i %)sm 4wujBOs 
rooOTorcd ^ the plnintiff •r« sxoosoiv*. «o t»rm di««iuis*4 
that poiat in ih* other opinion and will nov ropoat he^ro vttat 
«o ha TO stHtod ihero. For th« roasoao «lv*n in thai opinion 
no mr** of tho epialcm that thie oontoation to rIsd vithaut rtiorit. 

«• find no error in ito» rooord «nd thf^rofor* tho 
Jndcnont of th« dlrooi i Court !« •ffimod. 


44« • t^lif 

SAKttAKlflU JB^lAfmRtt 


M»'^mk nmt 

mm, amwrf* 

On ii;;9|»«ia AH^. {thl<m,ge Bnm.vti^-» 

«..^^.\ J I22II.A. 660 

la* JimtlOl f>HmiO» A«Xir0TWi %h«t apini-m •/ yi« 


7h« {»l«inUff, .^ir*. J^apbArt. 1i»rei<«j'iit.^'.ii" .motion 
io r»aov»r ti»^i>»ge« for injariwa jT'ero^lTdd Igr hAf in ». oellieioa 
1i««««Mi « atrr^ci OAT i>i«3 m fxmvrml &»v in «M-'^ «H« tm* ri4» 
iac* Xh9 ittjry r6ium«d n v«raict in bnv favttr Si^alnBt Iwili 
tJM> sir**! mr mmptmitm mxtd tH« (ii»ffta<teiit )3ur««* for Vho^ sum 
tf It.eciG, •f vhiflii Ui# l>X«lBtiff rMiit.»4 ll.&t^e , follovlnc 
i^«ti iiMS#»«Rfc «Mi <nt.«<«4 Atfiklaiit \h« d«f«a4Atai» for $«^.5ru 
YlM 4«f«tt4|«at 9M|9«nimi p«rf««t«tf ikii« Ai»»*ftl aaa bi-.«i aef<md- 
Attt 14ur»«n p%rt9aV4 m. ••pAnti* A9i»«iil* «hi«h io «»•« #S5V€4 
in ihi* 4»arti, Xhtt ive «n»4»« »«r« «»a««li4ai«<l for h*Hrin«« 

Tb« fta«i44nt in ^u^ttticn •oourr«ii m% th« lat')'T««o- 
ilOB af mi»t«<t eir«et ftntf 74tfe •tr««t« in ili<^ tSilgr af OhiORiS** 
TlMv« f^^ir««%a iai«ra««t at richi anglea and anoh sf thaa <!oa«> 
talaa a 4oubl» liaa mf atraav oar traaka* Tba atraat ^ar \tm» 
lo«|tia( %o tit* «afancUknt 0o«|>«m&«a aaa proaeadtinc aaat aiaaK 

paaH«a«9r« ie get off itnd oi^rs U» i;«t on. At ft)»oai baie 

(• « «<i»i«t«i7 vi%li ihfi' <MSkfti ana bo^ of tH»« ('.«««A9«<t itB4 

ttir*»t fx«» %i» Mrih in iJal8t«d »tjC««%« the t>m«rft.l car wae 
1i«&iHi Atitmi «it>t tti^ rl^M hatad vimml* a lttU« «>uici4« ef 
itMi V9«t rftil Af thK» BOui^lM>utt4 fcrask »»i tjft» l«fi vuvmIb 
b«t««9n ih« r«Ua »r %)M^t trtt«lt:. Wh«ti th« iitre«t oar «tftrt«<l 
ttj» from %SMit «<Mit (HtmswsJLk of >lAl»t«d mtrif«% and 9»>Q««tf«d 
«oro«» the ini«r««otion, th«r0 ««» «t oelXlaien 'b«tv«*n ilt« 
t«e ▼«?3iei««, aft*f *ni<Jfe# ^^he fMaer«l oar wr* cv«r «g&lftet 
iite eurh •U>n« At tJ»« 9)«ut.)»w««t 9^Ttn-r of t^t^ ini<><r»«c!tiott, 
with t)M> t«9 ttf thit «Mr ItmniMs a«*itt»t a tr»Il«>y pel* i»hl^ 
fm» loo»t*<l ih«r«. X1s« injttri«s «j>a9iuii«rd ef bjf ih« plftlniiff 
•••rw r«s»iv«d %ty h«r Itt ouPimwctties wl t^Ji either ttie aolXlsios 
lMt«««ii l&e two vofettolMt ©r in« e&lii»ion ^•t.w««tt th« fiuiena 
CMT MBid th« trfiii«/ 9«l« or betJa. 

In Auppert ef their ays^eiji. tii* *J.«»f nwclant o..js«|M»ni«« 
ooaUmt; i.*w.v tji^ T«r«iiot t«r %hM pXaint.xrt wm «i^inst tlw 
MOtifMt w«listii ef thft «via«tia«« in tiiAfc th« •«i««ne« •$««• 
tUAt ib«y ««r« Mt M«4Eii«*nfc ^t ««vhi»r ilOAt t.^w> «<»ilisi»B 

«AA dliA AOlAi^ U thA n«tfli«»IIO« AT tft* ■♦■JTVAnt Af tH* 4«f»n*» 

Ast ^VAAii, wh» VAA driTiiig iii« funArAl <M»r, Af tAr « oarAful 
AxaalttaUA» Af All th^^ ♦viiiAnsA •• tkr» muiWIa %a Bajr tk»t Ui» 
TArAittt i« A«&in«t iri« iMiaif<«iii wAir.Ht of tb* •Yi«Ane«« Ju«t 
bofor* t.*** AOli l»ioB, tt northbound cmr (>ASRAd OTAr tteo inter* 
•Aotion en /«ilat»d «tr«*i and tH(cr« «ab aoma 4ifferAnoA in ihM 
teBtiaway of it{« vnrieat wiinetwvA ae i» jnat vhAiO ihat bart))* 

• Am. 

\tcym4 4ar «a«, wh*<in %im wvablrauntf oar ftt&rt^pd jtp fro« tiM 
«««i «r«ia»imlk .'lad i)reQ««d«ci v«8t on 74 Ui ft&r««t. it i^ th9 
iM«i0Wf of ilw <tef»n4tint oooipiimif* ihAt thKt vftntte^oiicji o&r 
Btftjrtfftl tt9 AAti }»jro<M»fi<i««Ji eirour «^h«i >Jster»«oUon slowly, vith 
ih« f!i»i»r»«m riit«Sai4| Hi* e«>a«s l.i«tti titie neFthb««iiui ear at«ar«4 

«»• sterUng uy fr»m tlM «»»% «r««»v&3Ji etnii thmV ii o1»et.rttai«di 

AIMS p?<rr«ntiNl hi« froM B*<^3LGig amy TeaiQl«»«|^pri»*eitin(s frem th« 
aertb imd tthat t)i« fuia«rnX (S«tr tts^e out from r>ehiad thp nerili» 
1>0tfa4 ««rt KoiMg in a «ou(h«rIjr ilif«ot^on »t » e3»««4 of 13 %o 

K »ii«c iwn iwurs ^^^ ^^^ fiivtUtTfAtssi put en th^ cwmrgwuQor hrmk* 

•tMrg« frc% b«))ia4 Xft^^ tuertHhinun^ m^r; ifmt. tm tocu«£h& his oar 
W m. --2»»4t •t9>» wit^'r'ttiMn ^H« fun«r»l cmr ripta inte tke front 
*Md 0f tho Bir««i nsKft ^roAklim t]a« front glttSe of th« h««A* 
llf^bt bttt l^NkViHc %]&*> iiie»n<t9»94rai Wllb lnta«t, emes &!«• tCfAOk* 
ing •ff ih* diroul«r* a«»(«il W>ai aoniaiclnit %iw rtip^ tk\%iAttivtd 

»•« <$t tiitt fr«n% «ii»a<»»ii on Ui tisw iiXA%f»r«t ih&t Ui«'r«)t#«m Um 
fanarctl «fiy v«*r«(ji off %«mmwA y>« Mnuthyvfti eomer ftn4 l»ni94 
up Agftlaci ih» 0urV«%on« mnA i««ll«y ip«l«« The ju>3r ««it Jiu«U«> 
ri»4 in e«tt«2.tt41]i|{ fre<» in« t«atlaiOMy ^^t %>.<>>- f>m»r«l omw Aid 
aot run int* tivs etr««t >i.«tr bat r«iher ilwt th« siriMt «mr rmm 
iato %hm faa«ral ear. Tli* left •!<}» af th« funeral oar mia 
%n»kaa la, at aba at th<' ««nt«r uni lh« plwtasraplk of tha aar 
in aridaiaa*, tanan afiar thr a«oi>jiaat, tirmv na marka u> %.lm 
raar of ttiat braaJc. '»m »ra unabla to fintf anytulng in vti» 
«Vi4an9a te »e«aiuit fa; th« Matramnnt af th« funeral aar frMi 
l^raetiaalljr tii» e»nt«r af tt» Inif^raaetian, to t)*? ourbataaa 

•« tc«tlfi«4 ihftt «rt«r tii)« «oiiiitioA iNi« ov«r. &ht* et^r««i owr 
im« lM»jrea4 ih« «««t aroMnraXli of H*Ifii«il 8t;r««t Irat aAat «f 
ilMt «liiui«a*«» ie»Uf Jie4 Uuti &:&« alr^vi Mr Bto<»4 with Si« fx«nt 
«Rd 4tti»t f»r ttiM»u«h «4M(i %^ |tri^v«i«ti %H« si«««ft6* <^' »euid}beiaitf 

Ut0 8tr»«i «ar ««.», aft»r th« 36lll«i#n, att«t «f%«r th« rsotor* 
am ohA MAdiUQWr iui4 «iielfit«»d in irmmriitti %h» pe»pl«» fr»« tlw 
tvnmrmX wftr. ih# w«9il»eua4 ««ur vm» nm «v»r ^Hk ini«;«.T«««tifi«i 

lii«sk th«> f!aaat«d •t3r«4»% trmSfis* ^%, «« do t}»% A^rtt* with 
«>«ni»*l f»r tJ»i «e«^iMtl«» in %'h^ir mnt»n%i9». thai ttstal faet 
tf««oa»tm«#s %hm% %h9 «ir«et wur dl4 not run inte tkh« fani»jr«l 
ear, whi^ tmc ^e«*<^41n« praeUoftlljr in tlMS' seufciAiaMMl !lia«i«4 
•tr««i tmtie. TIM aa«d4«^t ««9ttrr«d in Smmukxv on « 4a^ «h«ii 
Uwr« «ui a drisalinc rain a»4 ik»r* mm •tm* aittali aa tha 
atraata* In our eplnioa* iha faat iliai %h» imUtrmkn waa nanJ leant 
ia d«nan»tynta4 V ^c o<«n taetinaaar. aa taaiifi<Ndl thai Uw nortlii» 
toun4 atr#«t 'inr on ilttiata4 eira«t «ma altawt half «»jr aaraaa tJM 
«aaikaun4 traek vtown torn atarta4 bit ^af frasi tha aaat «raaan»ik« 
calns (Mi evar $ nilaa an hoar) tttat hf firat mm %m fonami aar 
vltan it apy^arad fraa Vahiii4 tha rumt 4m4 af vh« nart»)boun4 aay; 
thai thn funarai aar wa.a th«n bf>tw*an 1ft Mid 8C faat nartb af 
tlMi tradk ha anaa on and una oaninc tQwUi ia th« neuUiihatMMl 
tra«k oa 3ialata4 ttra tg that at that Una th# frant af hia 
•ar "vaa Juat abaut an th* narthWiaad traA*. w find aa thine 
in tha a/idaaoe te a«oauat far tha failura af thn awtaraan to 
ataf hia oar and aTai4 a aolliaian andar aaah nlriiMwliiiaiMH, 
It aa«aa anUraljr Aaar that if tha aitaaUon vaa aa tha natar* 



uju* di»a«rllH»4 ii, tiB« «aK«rei»« of n r«a8eii«1»l» Assftu^ni of «ur« 
0s i»i* part voild Hotvo ttvol4«4 Ui* solllftioa. i^i, Ui« is«t«r* 
nta t«;tUfi9s furiJMr i3M% Um 4riv«r ef th# futt«rftl »r atextetf 
to a»k« m turn te the ir»«i am %lmm »ppar«intl|r "h* «teflc*<t ML* 
■IttA" «n<i *4nniiig his «h«el WA a^ia wnd ttte imtat»* mms i»im • 
tcnmytfs tlw» mx mi4 «nuih««l Into it" mt%«r vhieis it B)ciii4«4 •ft 
la tlM eU)»r dijr««itien t«var4i th» i^utkMWit «irb. ?roai th« 
^••tiflmay ef mnttrcu* eu>«r iAVB»n*%m it «*• •«t»bli«te»4 Umt 
ti)« funvrai oar <»ii.hi»T «aa :pro«««dlRg wtraisht »»utti \mtom 
and u9 ta tii« tlsi* of tiM oelliaion or Juat )M»for« tita oeXlle* 
iaii t*ak |d»a* it tmAm a tllg^t tum to ih« *«at. Umi tfrlaaliac 
mill oaitaa^ W)ist«rc x» aallftot an tha wiadetni at th« front oa4 
of Ui<^ atroat ocur aa^ tfea ruetarsuun aa/s h« ;»4 <*9leaaia4 tha 
«lit4ov okleld la V)Hf Y«'eti1mlo*« al»«ai a iwif a k11« aaat of 
•lAat^d atr»«t. Ra tt«^;tifi*^ alao that aa Itis^ ear atoea at 
ta* aaat «fo««»aJjE« aa waa in a i^sitiea vhiah aaa *oaaai4ar>» 
atljr vast of ike Voiltfiag lina*, (en ta« aaat si4a of Halataa 
atroat) »a<i *aa I atoo4 ih>i>r« I »tt4 a oiaar viov of ^lalatao 
atroat** aa ili#H t9«tifio4 that irh<m h« atartaa his oar v9» 
taa nortfaV>ua4 m.s aaa it^uv hsaf ««gr OYor taa traok a« «Nia oa 
aa4 «iMn t)i<^ r«ar oa4 of Ui# nerthbo«ai4 oar iaft tha vaatbaiia4 
raila ha vaa l»oiw««a th« aaat «a% iiao oa fiaXato4 atroat ftad 
tha aaat rail of tha aerttdM»aa4 traoic* It i» apparMtt that aa 
tha oaatbaiuMl oar 8too4 at tha aaat orea^vaia, tha aotar«aa of 
that oar ha4 a oloar viov ef Saietoa otroot to tha north aa4 
thia viav «aa aaahatraetaa ai» te Ui'» ti«o ha atHrta4 hi» ear 
aa4 at that ti«a iha fmoral oar awa, ef oeurao, la !»iaia ai<M 
eoBiag froa th* iierth* A r**8eiui^o ax«roiao ef oara a« tha ^art 
of the aatorstaa «04^4 have fttrTiiaha4 h&ja the knoMaOao that tha 
faaoral onr eaiAias frao the north «aa approaoMac tha iatar* 

to (•«« ft gr**m%9t jrfftaftttiitfs ttea b» a:#:fiar«R|||r 4H In {»r««iHml« 
iac ttirwr %h* ia>%ftir»«o-Ui»«« S\m»v«m» vi%nm**«m £ftir« t«»tii«Mi]r 
o« UUb qucsUoA )Hit 1% in imxAJk;^ p«3>t<ttil»lft to 8im>^«« It $aX 
viihln %h» limitf of Uii9 opini«m, mitt imm 0imml»»6. t% tklX 

•Bjrafulljr i^nd «r« of %m f^pitAtm %iM% it fully «miiNutt#(S tlm 

Murt «rr«4 in ffiviiNI <^«! fell«vijie iii^tinii^tikon: 

•Wmi wurt t»rptr«ct« Wi« 4«J!T the^t if yea 
find tiir %h» plttintitt ifc-^a isiXi 1»«! r«^uir«<^ to 
4i»Mnri«iii« %h9 sneimi •f Mir <iiMMiic««» Xn «i«t»r» 
■iniac ^^ <>w»«ast or amaago ite«? ^i&iaiiff i«i «»» 
%JLki*4 ie r«<9»v«(r in tfei« m(9«, if enjr^ Si.h« Ju«gr 
1mm a rig&t le «a<i thnty wbfiul4 lak* into ofiAfti4«r» 
aitii»A All iiil«« fe«t« «r>4 9irmmmltam9»n mtUmAinfi th* 
{»Ia,iatiff*e iajoiy, if tmy, a> |>r<rr«4 %jr lih^ wrl* 
4«no* ^f*r« t«i*ai; the ,ti«tur« &t^ «xi«nt> «f ii]iai»- 
iiff** |»)^»i«a^ in4ujri«)^«« if «ny, «(> faur a« iH« 
iMm« »r« «hft«tt li^ %]»« «»viti^is««« iMr •wff'!*rifie in 
Vodjr «.ni) Jttlnd* If Mijr* r««ulUas fren suah pHyvianl 
injttri«ft« nni flM«di fntnr* vaff urine «a<i Xei-6 of 
)M»4ilili* if wgr» a« i^« Jnxgr ougr ImiIIvv* fro» tlm 
•TidviMM In t>;ii« WMM ma* ham ««i«%Ain«n nx- will 
•usuinitt \v nmm»n of nuoh iniuri»8« isair inaMlity 
te vnrka if «nir« »n a«neunt ef »v>.^ injnri««» «tli tt^afr* 
nnonnaMTiXjir 9«i<S or bcoono liable for for dodtor's billB, 
if aajr, vliiilo t»oiitg trontod for tuofti lajario* &n<l nojr 
find for hor auoH omk on in th» JnAjpsont of tho Jnry 
vmA9T tiM oTiaottoo nnd inovruetion* of tho oeari in 
ihlH ofton will >« « fair ooniionoation for iho in^or* 
ioo oho kmm onotninod or will oootain* if onjr* no 
far ao Ott«ii doMocmi and injnrioo, i^ »itjf, ar« eloinod 
and oll«««d in ih^ (i^^alnration net oxeoodiac lionorer 
iho tw^i of ion tJwuoand dollaro," 

In Our opinion iitlt> inotrtioiion is noi onl»Jooi tn 
Uw oliJooUono nrcod a«oino% it. It i» <»ntond«4 tiiai U)o in-> 
otrnotion 4»^m not iinii th* dnoafoo r^noTomUo, to tnooo 
p«i6ron na th« trial, ^i pormta rooevory of all omm^cs al« 


I«g«d In xh» a«oltur»tion. v« ile mt ao r«m(li it, iT^e In* 

• iruQiioa dlsttttoUy Uillm %'m iwty %,hsk% %ki^ mttjt m9».vi& tk» 
pXminiift {»ba\xi.4 Ui«y d«%Qrmin<? ik« l««wHi in h«r f«v«r) 
•uah nm aa in ih*ii ^ut^f^^-ai **uii<j@,r iJ^w «v&4«fl)«tt hm4 in* 

• irueiioas ai* ih.^ sa-i9%t* muil4 '!&« <» fair MN|»«)it«atiiiit f«i* 
ilk* injttri«tt 9uctaiii«4« if amr« »G ftit^T «« iH«ty' mr« «lAiHa4 

and «i3,X«^«d in tim <t«<ii»r«;tion« fh« <£»f«n<^««t« «>ttt«i$4 furihir 
that iQT ihi« iasiruetioa, ih« Jury v«r« <!Sir«ot«dl Um»^ atitiiiit 
avardi «li«na||aa for le»» of tima aa «t. raault of ttm iR4uri9a 
and thai ibia was errei? a* ihrtts waa a« stvcaf «a its aaali 
daflteeaa alili0tt^,Ji th« 4aelaraUa% {Al«irM limi hy f<mno>m of 
Uia In^turiaa c«i'»:^lai»e<l «>f« tlftft plalntift Jftad ¥««» .{»r«v«at«<l 
ff«x& att«n«Un£ to .r^ar u^ual »ffaijra m*4. work »m taad *ll!i.«ri^ 
laat diy era gr«nt oiaiiia ai»s pT&titm aha «0ui4 have wada.* 
nUs a1»^aeUe« i» uataiiftbia* 7it(»r« i» »a iraf^^ranoa in ttea 
ittsiraotiea <9ov«riii^ IH« £>09sil9la allawaae* af 4mim^»9 for 
piAiaiiff*s lac* af UioMr, a« itii«^r« 'WR.a in tim l»fiirtt«ftio» 
iwralved is th# 0aa« of | ^yi , |i^ ▼• <i. .■% Hy« >» . 8C» III. i^p* 
448, va vnieb wsunaal jsna imi.l#d attr attaniitta* !')»« inAinta* 
tian hara coM^lalaad af 40»» mr«r tba aiiaiattttM af dasMgaa 
far plaintiff* » "ioaMiilar io aertc,* if angr* an aeoaunt af 
attah injttxiaa. £wfaa4ftat*a baaa thair a^bj^ittiea an Uia faat 
thai ih« •vX^mnm aha^^aa ihai ih« i^liaaiiff vmi a amtfemr ^t 
t99mmfn aad iha% tha Uaiifiad tliai oha had baoa abla ta aava 
far ail iha roaata hcraaif hafara tiiis aoaidaat hai oiaaa ilMa 
oha had nai ha«« ahla ta do aa «a«i had baan oUigad ta an^i^ 
hal9 far thai mrpfttm bat that tha avidaaaa fail ad ta ahaw 
aittMHT tha Talua af har oan aarrio#a or tha aneuat aha hod haaa 
ahligad ta pa/ to a thnra ta parfana tlk» work af aarin« far har 
raaaa dajrias i^>« pariad af har diaahility. Tha i»talatJLfr*a 

at Uia«"» A» »»» ««.li^ In (31|i|L.,^ia^ , ^ & &jLl.w%i^«i|^.^ ^ l^«8tyj^<s .ny .«. 

h«r In oMmgr «fl^ii iwottliar t<} h«r»«ilf.* lPttjrtk<tnM»r«, it 
«•>» entirfflj within tlie provisi<»e ^f y3>«» iury. In <m»m thi^y 
f««iKii th« l»«tt«c fsr £h« pXnyiattiff, te «•«••• Imw 4$mmt'^» 
in F*r%, «n "Iwr ixutMlity te <a«jrlE, if woy, oa «»<nMittiit ttf 
•tteh iffJiari«Mi«" •vm tli»u^ im» wit«i«>»s euAjr itafff t««ttfi4Ml 
•B to vlMt the Axtmit af th«t iiiftVility^ wft* in ii«il8(r« and 
o«ntB. Yluit i» nn «i«w»iti 9f d«tiHM^ on whinsHi, liic« fUgrtiaiKl 
iajttries Aiid iiKff»rlng, U%« Jasr^r atagr «•»«»« to«»«;«« twem tii«iy 
g«««ral kn«itl«4s«, elMMKrvfttloa nm «aiip«ri»n«« itt U»« mffaim 
• f ixt% vitbdttt i»rottf A« to ti»R «w»%ait •/ aiioia dmrngt^m* to 
eiha»r ««rds» tM« #l«»'S«mt of (liunftis«e iii not -miNftliltt •f «»»«% 
pceuaij^ry sui«»ux'«»»«Bt« Xn cntr <»!!irini«>ft ino inetsitetien oeu-KI 
not r««9aiMil»ijr Va eN>aeJ.<tein»d as rwf^^vtn^, to r«|' a«:4«4pMi in* 
TolT«4 i« «mr lei» vr nutla^ th# j»l*iistifl' te»4 lMM«i •1»li««4 
to oaf f«r lur T«*««n of thm «aij;l.«jra(«ai «f baly ia 9i»ia«i3ti«a 
vfttta tk» k««yiag of h*r r»«n«* 

Viaally t)M d«f(»a4w)to ooatemi thAt %b« 4ajM«Mi 
r»ooY«re4 Ity th^f plaintiff ara <maaaaiT«. It «o Id aarv* aa 
yajrpeaa to diaeaoa tto« avi4«no« an tni* qaantidn in dataAl ia 
this e^iaXoa. Tha raaerd oantalna \im taatieaugr of uwyvrwl 
9lggraiaiaaa «av«rias iiM» ttxtaat of tbfl ^l»lBtiff*a iajuricn aa 
wall, aa tha 9laistiff*a tnatiaaajr ai^ Utat af ooa ar t«a aibar 
witaaaaaa vf^a wcra har frianda or itaii;M»aya. «a ara af tlM 
ofinioa tJMt tha aridaaaa aaraljr tfanoaatirataa ttet tiia plaintiff 
did aaffay aartaia >liyaieaX iajariaa and that theaa iajuriaa 
did raadai har uaaibla to aagaea in her uaual hoaaahald dutiaa 


XATLOii, i».j, Axm ^*smMm, s, nmmm^ 

4C0 • snTsi 

IHVXM 1. S<af6¥f MM Aliiailf J 


221I.A. 661 

UM, Smttm timmm a«liv«r«Mi t^ ^ftimion »f 

tJM »(4ri« 

mrlttaa mntrAOi vlift the «i«ieaa«Bi fsr this j>ttr«fa»tt« ef 2^ 

•9 49»«a to l»# d«XiT«r«4 C<4!%»b«ir IS* 1913. 7b« Afkt*mtm% 
failed io tfaliv«r tfe* julflVea wad %h« piftliitifrs 1»reu«hi 
(nls asUon U» r««»v»r ti»«» iijwnai;** %h«^ oIMm to hnv* •uff«y» 
•4 V r«i»««fi of 4of«f}tiMit*e br«a«}i* th» ioouo* ««r« »u1»ailit.4Nl 
io tta« eoari «it>v»at « iwey , y«oultta^ ;a a findiag for vHo 
ylalttilff and a Jatlgittont against thp d«f9ttunrtt for $34^8* &«• 
to roverao i^iqthk ih« dmtfmimnt hao perr^etot} thla appttal* 

Ir< ottit^rt of Ita apyoal, ib« t:i«fenii«Liit flrai oo»> 
t«a>is tmt ith^rf was ao br<?atidi of Ut« aontraet, in vftat tha 
oiiiOMoo okovatf that ito iaalftilltsr to dallvar Ulio Koado fwf 
«te«o4 woo oomoiana^ l^r a sirlico Itt th*- tanu«ri*« it^ ahi«n«;o» 
«)ft<^ra tha «ff«n«iani ««• isaatad, akaking ix liapovetblo to ao* 
oaro t1i« nm natarlal, ^h9 onntraot ooatalBed a ohaao raadlaf , 
*all ordara ara i*Ji«ti oubjaot to d*>laya or noii«d*lUary, 
cmuaad bjr atrikaa, aoold#nia, or for aay r^eon b«yea4 our 


soBtrol** IMS yroj^oxltion 9y««Ant«d • qunstiC'R of faot 
AS well a» on« ef l»)v, for the <lei«»irMin»tion ef i)i« mu.rU 
A atrilc^ In iHe i«aK«vit*», {«Maiuf«afcttrin« tii« fftntftrlftl iimi*4 
Iqt fch«i «i0f«nd«j!at la staXliaff tM glOT«s, would a^^s'taialy b« • 
jr'!«»«n b«>yoad th« «lffrttmi«snt*e <i9Rtr«l« if iJmi v».» V«« <»i«ii« 
• f lis fKiil«ijr« to fill UfK jwaupsot^t %mt ae ie whether th«» »trlke 
r«f«rretf ue 41 c in f««t f)irni«h feb* r««i»«n for <i«tj>odfjnt*« fall* 
are to fill ih« «)airft«\, ime tii« »»&j«ot ef letttlsueaar that 
wie Bfti entirely wili:»»\>iit cmitfliet. 

tlui defendant* e 0U{>«ri»t#n$^f«)t i,e<«tifi^ ee io fJie 
strike in ih<t tanning im-''mr>%ry of Ci^i9»0t Ib U»if imA ^wam «f 
191$. laaUA<£ abeul sixty <lfiy« ^n<l .IM» »t«te4 iMt the ^efewA- 
»ai. <x>al«[ not s«t thie amt^rie.! i9i«Hii4e4 to f^ll lie ao»ir«»«3t« 
en t>i» Aftrket* Wi :M^ tttiil tiaw^t tli«? ^efenatunt d^id not tzy 
to get it eiqr^vir® eace^pt in sankmm* 3fie leter t^'^tified 
ttekt th^Tn eroi're m» tann#tri<»» o-.-ti^iiae of i^ism^ 'MFime Hum^i^' 
f»et«ire<l hogfikin leatjuer. th« Keer^tary »»^ miXmetr ef tJate 
4«fen^sAt testified »« to thr strike in <3iU«r«tioa end else 
to the Affeet tlHtt %hm 4«f«a^«(it IehmI tirie4 to get aMt^rlel 
f»r ike »MuittJhftetttre pt tH»e« i{IeT*« but aeuld tm% 4e ee. 
Oa «Meih>eauuaiaati«>ii Urn ateationetii ktos-ee taania«; evdpeniee 
itt Cljieege, fr«a eliieto <4efeaslftnt*ttBu»lljr* beaght this rmr 
aeteriel bat ho «tat«4 thet th' r«^ ^(^;e "quite « fev e there 
tlit^re but we did net Igruy soe4e fresi thea"; that meet of th«« 
were in i^aeAge 1»ut tJsAt th»re w«re ethem in Newark, dread 
Xftjdde ead s^ilweakt^e; thnt defeni-lent tried te purehaee aex^ 
elMiadiee, euoh ee wee rewiired for this etaer, tr9» MllvAulcee 
sad aread Ksqptidet thet «%h«r was ne siateriel ef this kiad 
ea the narketa a1n«lutely neae." there are eeaut letters la 
the reeerd written te tke plaintiff • by the defeadant whieli 

hfK.r on i!^a« (ju«»tierA* It m^p-^imt* thai ttw j»lAiatiffc h«A 

Cl«v«B 0T<i«x»4^ vtn^*T %M« oonvrftoit ii!^»» iim*k9 In atfvnii«« 

•«l«l th« slair«» to ih«lr trad* for AeliTory en Auguoi X, 
19IA, aiut «e OftVljr «io Juao 'M, %h9^ h«igaM i«» ttr«« ih« (I** 
iToA^imt to sMiiko oMsas^ntft vmdmr %h» deatrAOi* !ilna<»r c>.i« 
• f ^«M» 80» 1$1A, tlM» (&*fi»i(t«tit w>t>%» tlbff i^aintiffSt «%pr0te»» 
Xng ihoir rffjs''*^ at th4»ir iiMMllty to «i>«Ks«i!8ao4ftt« tteK» at 
ihitt ii»* "for i^ rmekm^n ih»t w« ar« o-vctrloadod with 6ril«iro 
no* anct do sot ^oli^TO tba« «• would ¥» »\iln io forward yeur 
•rd«r l»«f0 7'«' ih«» tije%« opeeifiwd.* 2f ii%fT^ »««« a otriko of 
«eni« Kixt^ dajro &a t^ tannii^ indttetrj" diiria^ i£a^ and ^it»o 
•f t)Mt ^yaajr* tl mft^i^ »oa» oomawlsat »tr»x^<» th&i ae »«niioa 
waa aad* of it in «lti« lott^^r, ootwitJiett^milng th« f»et, ac 
thft d*f«adant potato out tn ito briof* that tt b«t« until 
S^ionibor I mid Ceto^^r lb, to fill tbe ouat.raet« 'Ui^»t aaio 
•f 8«t»tOHWr ?• 19I«, dofoodani a^in jrvoto tH# plalttUffo 
•ad Itt t}iat lot tor t!it«g^ r«f Arrc»d u» *o)«»rta««8 of Xoath«r 
asd otrikwo** »o a roawoa for dolajro in ote&^Monto. Und«r 
data of Coto^«r S« 11»ld. in »neth«r letter » tho defentisat 
iB f^rinti Um raaoon for doletys in ord«r«, r«f<%r« to otiorta^po 
of natoriol and ctloe aitortaso of lalior. Qnd- r ^i^to of OolalMr 
13. 1916, thi» dofoititaat «ret« tho i^laiatiffo aakins tti«ai if 
tlMqr would Vo oatiaflod to havo thoir ^^ntraot fillod vlth tho 
•ubotitutioB of anotbtr inatvri«tl for t>t« hOKOkin, and in 
tbio l«tt»r tb* d«fon%i«^nt oayo. "Vttr tho laat aix Mcniha or 
aa tho loathor laarkot hm^tm to rioa 1»iQroad hmum OMvirolioa* 
aiton*, boaauao of tho inaroaood ^naad for loathor la tho 
united states. Aoforo»eo «aa flwd* to tho foot that the ehao 
atMS haroo oaddlo Indaotrioa had 4akoa all tho l«>atbor th«gr 

o»uid lay their hmaAv •n tmA *ih« «1«t« iii<iuetri«!» w«fft |>raati> 
•Klly l«ft «&«t«out ar^t!!iisni ■U 99*aM of. Qp to « f«« itMiithc 
Af» Ui«)r« VIM St liitl« Megfikln In %)^ nuurktt %fmx «• MtilA 
l{«i At pr«aJlMn prists, 1m i «Vftiti thift hn» !»««» tAk«n swiiy frm 
tt« Ity thR other iMdusirl«fl stid wo are* 3»m«Ue«lly l«ft witik* 
•ttt. iMitlMr ^ «c3^ oa aur ojr4,9r».* I)» t)3&t «tal« of iho 
r«oor< m oftulit istei «Mjjr tJaat tJ%e tirxal oourt «».• not jaotlfi*4 
la •ea«l«uilni; that tte« diafftn^^at** fail«)r« %^ fill Uh* oontyaot 
naa aoi 4aa to to« faai ihai i'» wuld aoi pro^mre tit* iaaiarlal 
Wt ra Utor to th4 ri»« in ^rio^a, «u«» to m% in«r«as«« 4t«ai«uMl. 
ISa^ar tm&h 9'^4m»m a« thia vm 90.-1^ iMt aiKiwrV a fi»4itt« 
<*ith«r Mtiy, 

loaavar, it wtil hm aao»aa«b]ry to r«-ir*r»« thlo 
JUaAinaat and ^(^(^(S tm 3»»oa for a aaa trial, lagr r«(ii«o>n af 
ti^ arror of tite stoi^rt it^ fladag t}M» ^sflatntiffft* 4aji«ft$««* 
Th» a»ou^.t of Ui« {clfiintiffe* talaiM van #ft3A.4€t* Cna af 
tlM i»laiatlffa t«8ti'n*6 thi«t ^ reason «f via 4ftfan4aat*o 
faiiura to 4«iiY«»r at the tlaia aatielpata4, %h0 plaintiffo 
vara ■aoa^allad t« ^ out t» Xim opaii laarJiot «8€i purohaaa 
ainilar ^avec at th« r«p«lar oarket ▼ftlua &»A fill a part 
of our ortloro.* 4* furih«r te«Ufi«K» taat th«jr filled 
"about lft& dOBono in %U»t aay, •'sad that thojr *Had to ^ay 
alwut ice par o^tit )ai«gkor tlna th« ipirioa ^tiatad V tba 
Maabattaa 6l«v* (^sq»aiiQr.* ttao i^iaiatiffa v«ra a^i^rantl/ 
ll^rao»»diim •» tha tiseor^^ tmt thair naaaara a# daMMnaa 
«aa tiaa diff«rane«>> batwaaa tha ooatraot prlao on tha quantity 
tbay rarobaoad la tha ayaa aarkat and tha prioa lh«> aotually 
faftd ftr tlvM in tita apaa fl»rkat. thm ;)laJLntiffa war* j^oaood* 
!■( iq^a aa arrenaoua thaary aa to tha aAaaaro of thoir damaeaa* 
Xt a]»p«ar» froa the aviaanoo that tha eilorao ahioh wara tha 
aahjoot af this aantraot. hod a kaaaa aarlrat v«Iua. Unaor 

%h« oentratft, tlM amtrnm^imt iiM utttil a«$rt«»»^«r 1 to d«iiv»ir 
ic^ dosim *n4 until cotob^r t^ t« di<^^l7«v ih« rmmialtm 99 
di««««« AsswidnK ih* 4«f«»iaAt*H lift)»i)Li1i)r» Khw a«i««vir« of 
9l«itiiiff«* (taMMSM, «« t« t}i9 l&i 4»»mk, ww» the diff«n»ne« 
^•W««tt th0 <»iit;r««t yriso an4 the «9i«4t:9i |>rio«^ on &«9t«ttlMW 
1, In Swm sork ii«d «• to th« t$ d«s«n* tlwt dlff^'.fftaoK i»#t«e«a 
th« «»atr«i«t prio« ttftd %l$e £S«ri£«t. pri«« «» October 1ft, at 
X«« teyk, «xo«p(t »• t« «tt«lk (}«uMStitjr ati ti)« jjuXfisintiffii omst 
)!«▼« ^'Aght in vh« ogMMM »sjrle«i &i, a priof* l«»f<^ ih&n iH# »»• 
trttot i»7)loe* to re{ii«c« tH« g3.ev«« dontragtvii for and net «•• 
liT«r«4 Iqt ilM d«f»n<i«at, nna «« to «u<:^ ^moitituft %H« »•»■«>>• 
of AsMtngmB would \tm %im Aittfirt^na^ h^%w«i*tn lh«> aonizvoi $>rle« 
and primn p«i<{. ^.H ,^^i^t^ya ,Hef i^|$,|,fi^ ;;;f?WMi ▼• afi,<^!:,fit,ftt, 
Jmsikina , & '^.M. iii-» Ap^» Ji"1r«t M»t. , 0ft»# S», 247IHi, aot yot 
r»^r%iKd. opinion filotf Mmrah X8« 19S&. tim pl»Lnlitf» in* 
%ro(lueo4 ae «vi4«a«« WfHttA'Vex^ m« to th* ssavkot prie« on ih»»« 
f^oYfto at ]!l«« Xork oa tfet^ dtties immmmI* Itlio teaUAoajr of tho 
d^fonctimi voe tttat on U»« ^iai^io a«ae4 i3i« priooo of t)Eii<t«« 
ClOToc at i«r» York ««o K; 9or ««int ftboT* tti« ousitrFaoi prioo 
vtiioh vould teavo «a4o th« plj»inUffo* damas*s aaaount. to |66,M» 
aaomuRg thai k»« plaintiff a ttJMi net |ittr4riB^«a4 aaar n^ovao ia 
tiko opon aui&rkot aa4or Vi«« oontraot ii»rio«« U> ro^iaoa ihaoo 
not tfo)ivoro4« INi tkM oouri doeo nei o««a to Imto folloaMI 
oitbffr ih«t tltooirjr eoat«ad«4 for ty iho plaiaUffo or thai 
•oaioadod for Vy tha ilofoaOikni a» to th« <lais«c*** ^^ artoi* 
t]»rily fixad tlMM at #JI»8,00, wo oott find no iMtoio mhA%»Y»r 
for taot aotio«« In Utff roeord* 

fiar t1i« roaaono otatod th« Judipaant of tito i^uaioifal 
Oourt io r«v«ra«d tmA th« oaaao ro»aad«d to that osurt* 



221I.A. 661 

HK. JU5ll^ fi^CltsOV 4«liv«re»d %h* upknUn »f ih* 


•«&in«t tbe 4»f9!Viaiit ailBM»r« ttnd. «il»0 en* Mi«« Sron. ail«g» 
lac thttt Qilner« «(»• a pr!»oU«ltt« atUtriwy ^ad th&t sh« r** 
tain«4 M»i> 10 ftdvtc« iwtT in tJM» lxrr4Nit««at •t il9d0,o« vidoli 
«lM iMtf in yx9T i>a«8«8»lo»t ih&t ailiiM>r« %v>\& luir h« lutd « 
«li«nt w»»» «»nte4 tc< b«rro« »««« ^«n«y npftn <tte« e«ttruriljr »f 
pr0p«riy vhioli th<^ eli^nt ownc^, tiad b» r«'aena«ii4«tt Uswti ih« 
plAia%lff lean Iwr aoat^y t« iMe «li«ai sad ta)r« a iraet 4l»«Nl 
aad aet«« of tli* lait«r, wHitzh fan aaawratf Ismv «ould aaka a 
ga«4, aafa mi<i a4vin«ia« inr«etn«ini. ;Sh« fariHnr «li««:a4 
that ah* folXavad tttlii RdTioa and iatrantad &ilsi»r« with h«r 
a»H*y ie b« Imraaicd aa Ken pro^avad aa<il ibat ahertljr xrmv- 
aftar dilaare daliv^rad to tt^r e«rtaln nat»r vignad lay Kiea 
Croa and nleo « truwt d»ed axaout«d Vy tiM XaVt«r aad oonray* 
ins eertoia yroj^rtjr t«> ailM»r« aa iruBtoa te «*<Mir« ttaa f«jr» 
■•nt af tha aataa; that at th« ttam Mam ttllsar« cav« bar hia 
•graaaant in wri Ua«« ganraataaiax Uw» paymant af th« nataa 
«i nsataritdf. B)m fttrtla«r Alla^ad tlutt tha natf^t had aaaa 
du« but Biill rwaaiaad anpaid ead that tktwra wa |13»S du* on 

■ sag 

Uii«n{ thAi tftmr <t«f«ult in Uw pnywtniA of tfet* n«t««i itat 
plsiiaUfr 4aitt»*d an inT«*%if(«Uon to h^a iSM^4« «Lit<l itmn d4ii<MT«t>«> 
•4, for Ui« first Uno* ttunt tl»«» riNUL toorrovor of h*r f«ni4« 

in i|u«>ftilen i-.; ^,iso Iirw& who ons « a»»r« olortc in teio o^pXojr 
«n4 fianneioiljr irroaponoitiio, so on to oi)ttl>l<t b«>r ie »x««iuto 
tlk« tjnwt 4«oA Olid ttOi«»» «n«i. thot itiiioo rjr»» inoa wjholljr iirit}»» 
out sAjr ^ooofieiol, e^rneir M9 or iitt^^rc-ot in th« yroiwr^ 
in %u«otiea or ttio i»rooooiis of tito lo««, «iad thot obo further 
di«ooTot«4 tliftt th« tiilo to t^ ^oforty moo in oao Ql9», 
V rooooR of o t«x ti«i»<l «hi#i hoA Imoo i«atto4 to him «ml tlMt 
BO alkotrttot of Utlo, goAroittjr poltogr or 1sb4 rofiotroiioa 
ooriifiooto of titXo bH<t l»««n furtxioboA or proTidod ti^ ttio 
4«f«ii<iMit in oomtootiBn with tho loon, fteo plaintiff furtbor 
alI«i;o<l thnt th» oupiwood truot 4««4 mwn %h« jtrop^rtgr in 
quootien wok »u1ijo«i t«' a prior ootftttytmim ooeurimg tho yojr* 
H»«nt of ^18C« ami thRt the- projsrorty woo la oa uoMlooirobXo 
le<»ility iusd in o dolopida tod oonitition ana forniobod on in* 
suffioicHt ooouritjr for tho oMOunt of Ibor looa* tlio plain* 
tiff tlMm olliHE*^ tJMit bor fua<to toatf 1»«en ooourod Vy Oilaoro 
a»0 Mioo KroK throM«li their f)roa4ttiont mai oclluoivo ootion. 
00 a rottlt of vhlott oiM tei4 ouotaiRO^i ttio uomo«;oo oo«plainoO 

Mioo KroM duljr filo4 hor oppooroBO^. by «ttorniqr« 

mnA tho ciof«nd>ttit OiXMoro filod aio opfMdmaoo g y ,y ■[£• viio* 
ibo oooo vfto roooboA for trioi, Mi«s KroA tmo pronont vith 
ttor iwiqror tat tho tfofoiMtoat ttiliooro woo not pr«o*nt. th» 
ploiatiff ihoa Oioodoood ao to Hi 00 KroA aaii* in Uie aboonoo 
of tlko dof«>n<]wBt ailaore, oulnittoi nvidwnoff to a ivaj, ao 
a r«oult of wiiioh tho iur^ fouad tho dofoaitABt ailworo ctiiltjr 

▼«r4iet Vh« ofturt «»t.«r«d J|«i4|p&«nt» IMk. o<!Ottrr««l on Januftjry 
&2, 1919. tiinln i>b<^ t(*r» ine> ^«rf«»diait>, (»llj»e!r«, wiUMlr«« 
bit 9«r*<>aAl w,>v*»mnfsisi and e«$^t«reA tfe« fl^|»»ftr«&.«ie« ef nmethf^r 
liHiqrfir* «iMr«ii|io» a i^etion «ar Et«;t«i« Ir hi* V«>>M)af that tiam 

flt»%len to Ya0»te iit^ jci4^«>ti« In ett^^vert «f the :3t«ition Ut« 
<l«f»ati«nt 9r^«9ist«di an affidieyit c^btinig «^ tht»t he Jma M»t 
b««n •iiis)HS«4 in ftetlT« pim«ti«>« «« n. iJitw^^^r .f«y «<m« tiia« 
prior to Um bcgiaaias 9f t^is A9tion laia ^hfti, h« 4id cMt 
IMY* «a offioe M»4 wii« net abl« to litt»vpi in «le«« iouuli with 
All tiM trial oourt»;that on January ^2» 1919 « h« in»« infomMKl 
thfti this «a0« im» 9n tl»» %ri%l mil 1m t Umt th<«:r« 'ws a m»« 
an trial aad V3t««4rii fort/ an^ fifty ea»«« en IM Mil «.>w*&A 
•f t)i9 (»•• at l»r aisd ttoat t^ior* was no pr«1»«hllitjr of Mkid 
CHUB* b«inc r*aeh«a for tri»l for n«r« th«; « •r««k: ttot on 
tli« •T«nin« of ta»t tf«y l3« '^as r«t«ia«4 V otrtaln ooiaplaifh* 
i0C «it&«»09s in » oriaiAnI saeo, vtiiofe eaaa «as K«t for haar^ng 
in tlM Souts Clark i.'tra«t bmmeh of th« >u<«iei9al <^urt im 
9)ii«£g» on TrnMotry 2%, 1919, at <l^:3f) A.M.; tteat h« wot ancagaA. 
ia hi* aapui^oitjr «« a lamjror* in naid \Rraa«l» of Ui« i&unioipitl 
^uirt en J^amtaxy sa* from 923e A«li. until IStOO noon of that 
4iqr« aad tiwt ittrinc tiato italaneo of tbo day tea vaa wiieafotf ia 
U« eapaoity ao an attemoy* la Tarioiaa taattors 4a8s«ndiac hio 
iaB»diaio fitteationj that en tlw ownins of Jantt^ry 29 ho ox* 
a«laa4 tlto JUi en^e Law Maiotia and vaa unaH* to find tho 
oaoo at ^ar oa any of th» o<»lls for tho following day aad van 
alaa anatto to ft ad that anjr Judgsuont or orditr hnd b»oa »ntc>r«d 


in %\m Qae«s ttet hm ««ai Into «a>«»rt on th«- followinc tsorn* 
ins to »se«rtAia iritt«m t^« <me« woiid )io (»Mdl«>ct for trial «a4 
ih»a loanaioii Utki s J«t%u«nt iui4 b«fl9i «nt«r«d oa tiM prtrlGUM 
(Sa/f ttlihou^ls jn«ay of th« a$-»s«« i«tii#>i fir^o^^od ti>« oooo Kt 
liar ««ro oUll boing oarrl^d en that «?n3Ll; %lm% h» h»A no 
Rotioo of oiii/ iftoiaen to tk^Taaeo t^o e«tt«« Katt t^»t ao nkiloa 
had V««tt oatoro^ aAYttnoins it for trial. 

ftoo affitlaTit thoa ouaictia^^d a n«Hal»«r of allogatiena 
all of whiob iMd to do YiUi tJi« 4«f«M«ttt*a oi«.ia t]»(t H« ha4 
a aaritariauo <tef#R8« to tH« i^laintiff *« oauao or aotien* In 
t^iis aonn«oti«n tH<* dafonttmat oot forth in tdtt «ffi'i»vit tlutt 
ho hatt booa Mi 9 oiiear of a #ieco atort^ais* sia^ft Iqr oacv Ho««11{ triwt 
ha afforvd t^ie Kort{?«^« for sold', «i« he waa in a«*4 of fuadis 
aatf that ono aaitort adTieod him he hada parehaoor who %0a}« bu/ 
lt{ tjmt bo th«« tranaf »rrad and doliv»r«d th« aerti%«£« to 
Oottart aad raooi^atf a ohaok theroforj that on \.\m n*xt aaai* 
annual into root &ey ^ottort Wkem to dofontiaai** offitef with 
tho plaintiff* introduolRC h«r ao Ui« purohaaor of th« iloaall 
wartgaso; thnt aa r farttr to dettort »mi at hlo ro«iu«et, ssefaad* 
ant oiwll#at«« tho iat«rost and ronlttod it to tho plaintiff* 
without aay ohar«a for hlB oorrioan} that tho rolationahip of 
attorney aad olioat noror oximtotf botwooa tho plaintiff »nd tho 
aofondaat* Tao affi^iavit further eat forth that tho iUnvoll 
Morttas* waa net paid at ito oaUurilir aad th« plaintiff olaiak* 
od that It hod hooa taarnntaod Vy dofoadMnt whioh the latter 
dealod} that tho plaiatiff than reauoetod the defendant ta yur* 
alMUM the aort^iaiiEO fron }»r or giro her enother norttca^ in 
oxahaJB^t*} that the defendMst oav mm^lX who aaid ho eoaXd not 
tajr the laortiEaca; vhat the dofenaat af fared to taico the Hawaii 
aartca«o frea tho plaiatiff and giTo her in exohanca a aartgaga 

of $1,6^ »n aeiMW T»«Mnt pn>9-«rty In 'mti^mn i?mrk, tkr^ « 
•noeiMl oMrt^niK* on %h^ ^ii9%X ptapt^ri^, for #&;&€:« vsUoh 
of f«r shA ik«o«>!it«4{ lOMtt ihf? ^vfo^tj^wat lth«n ]b«4 I69W*!! 

9»a(t^3f bi» !!»re.p4^rtiy, for ». mmlX ^mn9l4«rmii,iain» i^ Ms* 

asmw* ih9 aortgan*} ^^<> <l«£'««4H.nt mmw^-jfUf^ his ^r^i^^rtir 
in umr«mn ^wek to ^is « t>«ni|E7«|t]Mt¥ Mi»e Kjrttn. w)i« l^bm «x«» 
eui*4 m first aM»rii£iMi,« *» 1^« Jewell pn>mv%w i»» <i^l,8iHi} 
«n<l alss Ui9 stlisr «i»riKft<£*> «€«''^«<(^ tti^eaj ^<i»^ w^n d«f'»£i<|« 
&iit 4mii.T«Ti(4 ih« iH»«s«Hn4 a»r^pft• f»r $M€^ en itw Httwtll 

9«rtjr to plsinUff ilte »«k)ff4 whe l$4«» Kx^n ««« Aotii tf«f«tMiiiait 

t«14 iMr wKS sh* tHM» »,n4 mxplttlnmni. thmt 9h* ImXA titl« i»nkf 

fsr his »»• «iBa t}<rn«fit» w}%eir«iap<i7« 8ih« A,s]K:«»d a9f«n4mB% f«r 

A»mm9mt »fi4 iieIiY<er«4 it. to pl»i^»%Xtf tsgetiaBr with %ii» ni»v%» 
4eM(* ya^srs ami, le «xeie»Ki4l«» r<»<»»iv»d fron h»r %ht H«v«il 
atrViaijgs l»«i|i<»r»* th* i»»lan«« of tit*; sffiamTiA fueni u» iJ« wliis 

AMIS SB UM ^riaoijMil sf th« ••#end M»rie««;« Igr th» itef«n4»nt» 

tlM MtetiSR iK-< i«.«At# 1^« JfadKiMai was ttil4!Ur«s»*d %» 
%h» sswwi 4iS9r«vioii of th« irlsl o«>ir( *nti frea ail Um faota 
•h««a )Qr thm raseril* w^iloh as laiva euHiasd* «• asoast say thai 
ilwra was aa^ altuaa «f tlaii diserctiaa. lf« an th« day itui 
aasa at Var aas r<»aaba4l on tao trlai oali, tuo «Aa«ts 9r«aa4inc 
it want airor t« thm aoxt day t9tt eno raaaoa •r aaetMrKa4« vtian 
tiM oaea at Var aaia roaoiiaa, plsintiff ana yreaaai. aad f»4y 
€•9 ^rial sad a«faml»at aas ast pr»s«At, aitiwr porsoaally or 
Iflr oaaasal sait Mad Mi adTised ihs triol oourt ©i* his aasaea* 

MMti tm «Mtb#jr 09«r%, th« pla4> hnd ^ right U> pmntrnv 
hmx •vid«»B9« icfid Ank for sufth & J^^giMHii «• 1% mmrrmnt^A* 
tte plaintiff alM iMitf .}i» tt&M tn 4imU9» bmr »uii sj^Kiavt 
Ki«s Cren, It »pt>«»r« tiMt di«f«n4M»tAi 4»ttri *9^M(*VWt •• 
lanoAiry 38, 414 ««oi ^eitiinuiR b«yend i^« f«i*«jatt«a vati it do** 
iwi ftpM««jr vlKt %imm 99 tlmt «J2Qr tb« Jtt4«K«int «.p|»«Ale«t frtm 
«»• vaterAd* 

4«f»aaaai in «itp i> ert of hi» ttj^^Mil fiva %lm iniipmnt itM«lt, 
It la Qeftt«!i4«4 tkat ^iBlntlff*^ ohmrg* »f mnmpiinyagr »i*^ 
oallaaioa b«tw««n ui* d«f«ati«Bt mut ul«« iiraa aust n^tmnmitriljr 
hav* failed af deflQNtteat pr(M»f, b«Q«u«!« af tit* dlaalMal af 
Vb« ««• a» to mnu %rwn, «fi«r ahloh no arld^ao* «a Id ^a 
a<biae«ll»l« »« to Kny omia^lraay, iMliiC a varlaaoc frea tiw 
di»ol«ratloa* wHlflli was aat anaiuiad. thmt 4»at«ation «aandt 
prairail fnr tvo r^^ison*. First, ti»«r« Is no erldenaa pro* 
oorvod In this r««ord unA aoooooariljr ito ok^ooiioao ««r« pro* 
oojnro^ to any of v3i%o oyldfrnoo tliot «»o effc^rftd. i^ooead, ovon 
iHoti^h tte^ro woo no Mioadaoat of tlio d^olwratioa aftor Uut 
aotloa «aa dimlosod ao to Xioo Kroa, tfea plaintiff «ii;at 
proporljr latrodaoa orldoaao toadlac to piavo tlso i3hot«o of 
trmuA laid in tao dodlaraiioa ao a^alaat th« dAfondmnt* Juiko 
tiia racoat oa«.o af Joan v. jmM^iltl* ilUnaio Appolloto 
Gourt* riroi Jiifftrlot, aaeo Ro, 845d7, Ojplalon fUod Doeoa^or 
•c I9l9» not /ot roportod; th* aa»o at bar *a* an ootlon In 
tor>» <k« oo oald la tlmt oaoa* *Ia «a ROtloa on tti«» anoa ia 
tho a«taro of a e«noplra^, tho JadiiEBont aajr b» o^olnot a 
oiaglo dofondimt «lt>i«ut proof of th# oone}»lr«Qy. iteo giot 
•f Ottoa an aoti'^a 1« not ttio oesoplmojr all«>«t*d, but tb« tofl 
••awittad a4Pilaot tho plaintiff, and Uio doMa«o ottff'r«d Ijy 
Mn aa a rooult of ouoh tort , t^oa iho lort ootmittod and tha 


ttota, %h« «¥«*»»«» t tli«,% ili«^ w«ir* 4d»« Itijr •«nr«re.l i» pttiwuftnon 
•f a Qomtpirftoy da<»8 stev »« a%Mang;a lite ttaWr* «f Ute action, 
itmt If U!ie wreagfb^ ft9i« art »h««ifi te fouve ^rmjn don* I19 oi}« 
ottly* it fl«!tn«( b« aaintkaJ^niNt emfltinet him ft].«n«, eutul Ui« «i;ii«ijr 

t«n!l» ««f'F« IciAfeing ad t^r itm all««g«tien^ in tM «i«4il«r«ti«a 
ar« •oaeeme4 «a^ ibat, :m\. h«itim sTerre^t tb^tS*^ «t«tnna% hm 
oen«i<Sered «iB hairiag ^CAtt ^rovaa. in Ui#< tstaia of vhls re«3ar4, 
«iib aana af ih« ^ri^f'tim l»«fera u«» «« eauat 9ie^mmai ihat ttt« 
«vid<msa «a« awffietiant 10 aiip^oirt lytta ir«r^ldt imA S^4tpsnm% 
aatf furtbar, il»(^ ($ «»aXa ra iioa is 4|uit« cuffioient t& «u|>pari 
y»« Jttdfi^naat* aftar veriiioi* Whmt ura i^va «4rfi«(ijr «ai4« 4ia<* 
l»aa«a af alijaati«aa raiaad hy %)m dafand^wit to cwirtain in* 
«tjru9t.ion»* th» <taf»mltt»t> alsa aenia«idi» tlmi fcl»» aeuri arratf 
Xu Uta cpiving of 9«ri«iift inetraeiioaa o» ih« aubj«et of 
fraad* wa havo e«rafttlly axasdnad thorn all and ia or opla* 
ion tho <t« n>adRat*a aoat«8Vi(»na are aei taaabla* 

iKr find no »rrnr in ^li» r««»ord and ihf'rvfere tue 
iuoftitdoat of tiM Ciraait vsaurt is affii-nod. 

89S - ^004 


C, H, MO GM' Gf*g»C;«^Y if^P^iy, ) COOK C«TGJB?Y. 

e oorpor&tioot \ / ) 


221 1.A. 661 

This i» ten &pp«fel frcs; a JuilgK^nt for *3,500 in furor 
©f the plaintiff* Knzmer, against ihts d?f?-ndsat» ap|>elle6, for 
dajEsgns resttltlBg froK m cAllision Ijntiswen a li|;ht d«livery auto- 
tiucJc Iselonging to fi.pp«ll&at aad « ^icyels on «1^ioh appellee ym* 
riding, fhfi place of the necidtiat was ia Chieaga, et the inti?r- 
s-^ctlcw of iMn^Xey ovrnas, nmning north and ssouth, an"? 43rd 
stT8®t, runnint^ ec^st snd ^est. Oa the latter street w«ji a str^yet 
e&r line. The collision ^ns ab'Hit wherti the 9s,Bt cross, walk of 
Lan^ley avcrajc crosses the south r»r east houBt! trsolcB of tha csjp 
lijse. She autornbllc Bt^rack th« rear gheel of the hi cycle # 

There wna ?i conflict of cvidftncs an to the d!ir«ctlon 
api>ellce wnc ridin<5j. I'h.e driver of the truck snd two of de- 
fendant's r'ltneeses testified that h^ va@ riding his bicycle 
vest behind a vest bound c;u* and turned f ro« its rear into the 
ecst bound track Ju ;;t hofore the collision. Appellee teatifiecl 
th&t after irakizif: ^ buiiincsc call ^ t an .-fpartsent building on 
the B'^uthfreat comer of Len^ley avenue snd 43rd street, he left 
hy itB entrehee, which ■wca nl»o«t 49 feet south of the south 
line of 45rd etreet. nounted hie bicycle tit the curb opposite 
the entronoe* end pr'^cet'ded slowly towards the southeast comer 
of the street intersection and thence north to the point of 
collision; thut he looked first to tho west for abrsut one ^Tuarter 


«f a bloek si^ %ii»ii «&fitt l«t sav no Tskiele uppro«ching. His 
iBability is a«« tiM) tru«k within a <|uartev af a l>l6«k is a«t 
lAcenslatent with tsetixaMty by otiters && to tltttt «lirdetion h« tank 
aaA the 8p«ttd with ^hiok tm aai.imfn'bile was drirea* 'SkskX b« was 
ia that building Juat ]p»ri<»r t« t^e ftecit^ent «a« testified to by 
tho porson he Tiaited, atid another i»ecu|»»at of the aps^tneat saw 
hi* ie«Ttt the apertaeat building, get oa his bicycle and s^ive it 
aortlwaetorly toaar^a 43rd atroet isaediately before the accident* 
Aaotter wlteess on thfi opidosite 3id&> of 43rd e'brect s&w niia or«3inf 
aertSik an i.caB«ley avsiate. v:;thc7 evid^aee &!&& tea<ieii to eutabliidi 
tho fi&dt Uuit ]be was driving hii; «hcci sortsi on It^j^s^oy cv^nue. 
and not vest ee 4i!ird sU'Cit&t. a& to thf>^ direst ion sMi o<3ur»e takaa 
b^' expellee, vr. ^hiuk the jury «isre s£^l^ Jusitified in &ee&ptiu5 
his vereiOB. 

lith that ossoluJsio&» vse esmioi regard the verdict aa 
againb& the prepoctCcr^moe of ^<s cviJcnoe exi cither the; qpcbtioa 
of ncgligi^aee or contriUi tory negligsace ♦ 7er lilAiatitif unauee- 
tioa&bly haci an equ&l right to the svrti.-;^, «&ss on the proper side 
of it, had evldcatly entered the intersection with taue o&ution 
and ««11 aheaul of tVia auteuotile with nothing to obstruct the 
driver's view of hia; and had the driver of the truek be'jn dririag 
at the rate of speed the law &a6 ordinary care required him to 
oboe nre in cueb a place the accident vould probably not hava 
happened. Taking this vie^ of the evidence v;e e«e no special 
reason for a mare detailed sn&lysie of it* 

Zh^rti was a o^uKt for wi>nto» end wilAil negligeBeO* 
JWifsnUent nelo^A for instructiontB tP th« effect that there was 
no evidence to sustain auid. eeunt. msv-J ivseigns ftrror In tluj rs- 
fusal to glTe anoh instruetlojiB. There were fttorfcs an both sides 
of 45rd street at the comero of the Intsreeotion. At suoh a 
place it was priaa facie negligence to drive at a epeed of IS 


Biil»it aa hnar. From th« teativony ppp«(ll«e «ks in plain Tiew 
of the driver of th«i trtiok and had set cnrt way ^crese 43r4 
street before the mtomobile hail reached the intcreeotion, and 
there was evidenca tending; to ahow that the e<ur wf e running ^t 
the rate of 30 iFiles ao hr>ur and did not slaok ita speed* Under 
atieh eircuaatnneaa we think it wae a rwestlon of fact for the 
Jury to dfccidc whether or not th«i driwer w»s not I'^iilty of wr^ntoa 
and wilful negli^enee, and, therefore, the instruct loao ware 
properly refused. { iraopi^e t« l^ftlko Titcl^. 28C 111., 321.) 

Coaplaint la jsada of one of plaintiff* » instructions 
which told tha Jury in effect that if they helieved thnt defendant 
was guilty of wilful and wanton negligence they might give exeaplary 
danagea. It ia urged that the instruction failed to tell the jury 
thKt they arast find such f^ct by a preponderance of the eTidencc* 
They were told in other Instrurtlona given »t defendant* 8 request 
ihet the burden «uu upon plaintiff to prove auch element of dnmege 
claiised by the greater weight ot the evi denes. >e dn not think, 
thnreferc, tbnt they wo'Y Bisled by the oaissioncelaiiBed, and in 
fact the inatruetion ia that fona has been approved ia several 
c&aea. ( Foote v. mi^iole . 28 111., 426; |he ^j>^lcagp ::enselidHtBd 
Iraction Co. v. Kahoney , 2S0 111., 562; O'Leary v. ^ijadt, 109 111* 
App., 309; Chiceigo §t eastern Illinois a. ,> Co. v. Clesiiager , 77 
111. App., 186; 178 111., &36 . } Beaidea, there la no ooKplaint 
that the d«sages asaassad would be exceasive, even w&th'^it tha iaavs 
of wilfulneas. Finding no good reason for reversing the Judgaent 
w« vlll affins the a«SM» 


Oridley and Hatchett, JJ.. concur* 


- ^OiS 

ADOLFH larasR* 

\ ApvXlmAU. 

\ 7 ) AJPPKAL Facii 

▼»• \ / i KOBlClftih COJHT 

\ / ) C3f CHICAGO, 

JACOB Sturm ^a j( 
e. iLtni, \ 

221I.A. 661 


In this suit pXttlatlff, Bender, repleried eertala 

fixtures and personal property in « deXientes^^en store oened 

by defeadant Jhsfer. end ecoapied o^ the tijw by defendant 

Klela mm • tenant uader said Shsfer. Ihe beeie of . leintiffe 

elnia to possession and title of said property is a bill of 

him from 
•ale to_/6ne Lipeehutz, alio was the last tennat of the preaieea 

tefare He in. There was an attcMpt to show }ty an aaalgaed bill 

•f sale frflB a tenant by the neaae of Ihoaeon, wtum Lipeehutz 

Bueeeedeci, that the latter obtained title to said property f raa 

the fomer. .;aoh proof, however* wns utterly incompetent for 

that purpose, and there was no proof to shew that Lipschutz h«d 

any right or title to su^ propert to cmvey, or that plaia* 

tiff h(id any right to posseseion thereof when the suit was 

brought . 

The oontrelliag foots are these: chafer bnught the 

buildiag froM eae Pronte in 191^. At that tiae a Mrs. 3keUy 

occupied the preaiisec as a tenant of ProTus, and used thea as 

a delieatessen store . They contlMaeti to be uo used up to the 

tisM of plaintiff* e alleged purch»t;e of the fixtures, vhioh 

were in the building at the tisie of c^hafer's purchase , whloh 

included the fixtures and personal property on the preaiees. 



iSlMa Xrs. SkftXly vao&t«d t^ praniMts she left said fixtures 
aad personal property therein* ishuttr rested the preaieea 
•ueeeai^iTely to oite r.«iiider&, one Graff, said Th<MB80n« mm 
VodSB* another Ihoseon. sad aaid l^ipsotautx. All UUs tiae the 
fixtures end pex^onal property retsaiaed in the store and were 
ttse<i as a part thereof or in oonnf^ctloa with the delieateseea 
hasiness . 

^liile most of said property sas in soate saaner 
attached to the building by anils, soress or ether attafthmeata 
it is aaaecessaary to consider whether they were aetttally fix* 
tures, there heing inaafiieient evidence to sustain the replevin 
writ even on the theory th&t nil ths pjr^pct^iy takJiaa «&s ^rs«ttal 

Bender purehe&ed the property of X^ipadbutz* who vaeeflkted 
the store before the terainatiotn »f hie lease, there was a een» 
f list of eTid«ne<9 as t^ j^t^ther ^ttder t/tta to rtsaaia la tho 
prenises until Ohafer procured another tenant* hat the f&et ia 
iawaterial if tfee title to the ps'tJerty e«a «;otu*iXy In iai«tfer» 
Ob again dicing poeeer-^ien et th^i p?«Kfi»ci.' al^fer rented the e<iaM 
to defcndsflt Kleia* act! uteile the ifttter v&u in pcsrGsssien the 
property in qaestic^i ires taken by sir^itf repXsviu .^rit. there was 
ao prepondcraaoe of evidence te auppeTt pliklrttiff *ii olal& ox titla 
ta the property or rij^ht to the pesr^iisioa thereof « »nd, there* 
fore, the judjpaMit of the cn^nrt ti»,j the titl^ to the pr^vsrty 
mt» aot ia the plaintiff ««d tbet it ahovrM ^^i T-^lsurmi to tha 
defendants, v&s prooer, »tn4 will h* rittiTrtad, 

Ihe Judeaeat fron whioh this appeal ia pray.'-^^; v— 
eatered Jeauary 31, 19^, and 60 deys were givra ia whieh to 
i^epare a bill af exeeptiona. A few days mibseqpiently plaintiff 
saved to have the Jadsaaat waatkted, preseating ia eappart thereaf 


eertaia affidavits t«Bdiiig in ftbem &e«ly disGovered irTidfra*** 
th» KOtioii %aa d9Ai«4* 7ri9jii snob xuliBS th9 defabd«Ai ipraysd 
aaot>i«r appeal* axA wtus glTtta $C dajrc in «li9h i« f 1X« » bilX 
«f except lona. Th* j?artiae »tipulate4 th»t tt» aj^pcal tt^m 
th» l8t«r oir^er silsht btt conaiaer«4 >)nd revicvod by tais oourt 
in ooanectinn with the «p]H»aX f7n» th« JudisBdat* aasl tiu» e^Hirt 
ttJOdertink to enter an order to tit» e»Ke effect based on eaeh 

AjipelXecs huv9 Kored tn «xpaB^ ttiim purt «f tiie hiH. 
of eTcecptiens e.e not properly a ^urt cot %}m bill «t exw«pti<iMi 
in oanaeotioa vith tfole npfxtfii. "^ thiuk tbe setica should c4i 
gr«mte(^* ^<9 appeaJL ^ett prrfeet^d fros tli« final order d^ayiiig 
Um Biati«« to vsoate tjofl JudcKestt. It i« erideat the parties 
eould Bot mAk» rm cv-r^eal by iii.i]^2c<ii»ft tmc Ou^reby chafer 
JarlsKiictioe ws^n thl« eourt* App««li^ ^re eii^iatci^' a>ad the 
etatate viU: r«£ord %h&Tit%^ mutt be C'«9^1i«d witj^. 1^% Jtt<ijp49«i 
«ill be affimcd «a4 tbe a.^ti'^ t9 d^^Ofte allawed* 

QriOimy oad liatdMttc JJf», eimmutm 

265 - i:6 S7 

J. T. iirra, ^ 


This suit -im-Vt trcittrtit in r»rl«nfin. li« return ef the 
writ 8hcwiB£ •«rrie<» on appf»ll-5Bt wnd h^f refusal te d<»li7i»r the 
pwpertv, « tstet<[>isi»«t cf slsis) !k trpv»r wmi fll««l 'by Ijwit*' of 
court* It ch rre4 delivery by ?;pr?n^^. th*» rleintlff, to i»frelliB»t 
of e«rtftin <!e«cr!b*!^- ^i^vftlry cb pcn^^tloB tJi»« sh« wtald Rarry fel», 
tel» oubeefju^at demand en hrr ^r^ th?> .i#v«1ry, mit^ *h«t it v«e ^erth 
^1,0 o. issue was tal-en in <l«f ^-n^laist** affidRTit of aerita e» ottcli 
of theso «Terffient»* 

tii€ «Ti4«'iae is rtfvy ccTsfltetlrg «»nd UB»»tl«f«otcry, 
but iB the Tie* w«e tAVs? ef tJ p cs»»» it, is «nri«»co8PRr" tr '^iseut* it. 
1Ui« ee«rt*s flnuin*: ^^m for y^l»»intiff an«1 bis d«9feijr*a VT« asH#»«8«4 
at SlvOCiia, 

iiie only proof of *~ii9 vulw* of th« jewelry <tm» in 
plaintiff* t.«'8tia«By that It ««« *wcrtfa about ^1,;ao," jief«oa*nt»« 
■otlor. to atrike suoh eyld«mc» wis denied* b«tt, we t.MnV, should hnwe 
be«a gractod. It Is In&uff ieinct erldenoe of v»lue ob which tc a*ee«« 
damapee and b«»« th« <ti«^pwwnt« 

i^pellee eoBt«:id9 that *ren if it tmn ino<Jrap*»teiit 
eridanee y«* thp yalor «t?»t#?d 4ij rl^intiff '• affldaylt of rejl*ylB ie 
RgJaHt faeie ewitUT^ff* thereof, in arery ease nAieraln the courtt haye se 
k«ld» that hAe been bro«ffht to e«r at**»ntie». th** rwl laf ■«» a^aiaat 

Bur*ti«» on tU» replmwin bead in «a net ten th«r«on, on the theory 
of ee tercel b»8«d en %h« recital? in the sff idftTlt, ■nrXt Rnd brisd. 
Ikkt w« ftr« u^mre of bo ruling ^.«r« in s» caso Irs trevnr rlaiBtiff, 
U7"0n ^«B tB« burden of proTlnif th© sascuat cf dBwagee «*5en put 1- 
iavue re«t8« has b««R p«>rmitti»A t» trmut bis e«n di^fllnrfttions as 
rvldimce thereof. 

Furtiieusere, th** ft>rv ef ♦,!»• J«dj^#nt le unautViorlsed. 
»hich <m» tbut tha def^nsissnt "we» jtoilty ef hJtrlnjt w' Idoimly, 
«11 fully ftnd iBtentienslly, nti9 ■^%h intent te injure *wd <?f»fr»u4 
tb.r «»lJ»lntlff esnT*rt«a t- aftfsnf«jjt*n ows use, tt« Tvr&TPTtr of the 
rlpfntlff,' «tc, *"b«re *s« nc cliftyjpe in the BtH*;p«Bn*. ef ol*f« «]ul 
BO proof ttj JawtJfy ••uc>! n finding. 5«ltii«P Bailee Bcr fmud «R« 
•a issue in tha ennMa, Ttie ecurt hi»TlBg besed its ju^lf^ent Hp«a 
Inocapfteat evidcnee rf -r^ltie, ar.sS tb# fcrw of the Ja^pment not 
being Juttifietf by tSe pi eedlEpe cr j^roof, tfee oftse trtlT be sent 
bsck fcr Si net- tri?l . 

Oridlogr ond S»atoh«t:t, Jj., ccncar. 


a?? . 2«04t 

ViAsy:^ snjjr. 



9 CiiiCMa. 

221I.A. 662 

m this enac flalntiff, sppellen, sued for ^1.60 
due "^s ?«iKe» fjp« def©^4iist arT«^Ti^«*» '^« latter filed Aa »f- 
fidcTlt of SKsrits »«>ttinic ^!? thet -s^llf^ rt»intiff mtt ec e»p3cy«l 
endi ia ehftrg« ef on«» ef aef onaast*8 w»^e>n« ss e tfi«Bi»t«r, h« i3«»f- 
Ilgttntly rian th<? tmm mm& 9R^e« a^inat ?^n a«tra©"biJe of s tb.lrd 
p»rty, oeuflinp" 5n«njit«, ^i©b ima edjaste-l a.% O©'* ^ sue Ui«t ««• 
1«S8 tytan the usHisl, r«>a8c»!ible «b^ enstrsiery chsjrute for Kich re- 
pairs, pni effwrea tr nmt off th** •««0 af:fttn«t p1»J«ittff' » dwoaud, 
ca plaiBtlff »• BcticMH this «fft4Rvlt. w««, in cur iudrKfint errcn«e«»iy 
strioVaa. Iftider the dectrire letd dotm in atct?g t. Tterycod, 14 ill. 
4.-4, defeoaAct ««« ffrtilpd tr r«»eniip, thf> c xiri th»re h Ttlla« that 
it ie net n<>e»«««r3r thmt the t^'pceinti o1»l»« »be«li b«» ef the omi* 
ehsraeter, citia^r easaa -9hi>r« the ?ieti(>B ^ows Id forn £X i<«i latp 
snd the elRiffia nllev«S lis iefffnee »rc»«» jex f-r<».mfitn . "^e oourt 
Mild: ^11 iu mufficient that tbe eeMst«roltiis« arese eat ef U!ie 
•««« subject s«tter, end thut *.h*>y «r* sui»c«»ptlbli« ef a4Ji»at««at 
in oa« aetiea." -««& is Uic f»i«t in tfe# ««•« "Rt bar. 1^« •wit 
an4 daoagaa dafersdant aeopht to r«»«<:iip «T«* »«t cf tbe rolatle* 
of K ater and aurramt . *» tfaerefcra tbe affidavit set fcrth 
propar irrmuida fcr r#»«e»p««it It «a« «rrer to ©irlko the earn* and 


«it«t $mUm«»% as in ccise of defaitilt. Mr i« th^e isnyttine In th« 
rules of the court ««♦, fortli In th« record which ju«tifi»»J such 

REVERSES AllD It'CiAjn :>KT> . 
Oriiiley aed ii»tcfc.«tt, -*-., eoncur. 

a eorporatlon* 

t». \ / 

J. C. KSCARTKST # ia.« 



1 221 l.A, 66i 


In tills ea^ie the Judgsent appealed fr«M w&s entered 
laasary X4, 1921, and appeXlitat vas allowed 60 daye for filing 
a bill of exeeptions. <!^ U&roh 12tli the ti»e was extended to 
April let, and on April 3nd to April 15th* by stiiultttion of 
tlM parties, ^be docunent wee presented sad signed April 12th* 

No order for extension of the tiaio within «Aiiob to 
file the bill of exceptions waa entered within 5n days after 
the Jud^Bont* after which tine with<^t an order within sueh 
SO days* the Municipal Court had no power to extend the tias. 
( ^^aseers t. Kort^ QenHen Lloyd atewsship C£*« 244 Ill.« 570) 
and the SuprosM Court has hold thiit the provision of the 
Municipal Court Aet so limiting the court's power cannot ho 
waired by stipulation. C i»irlitger Co . t. Dickineon. 247 111.. 
27; Haines v. . andertne qo .. 248 111., 259.) 

Accordini;ly we mist grant appellee's Kotion to strike 
the bill of except iona fron the transcript of the record, and 
blso his motion to affirs the Judgment as the only assigiMsnts 
of error argued by appellant relate to that part of the record 
so stricken. 


Gridley and korrill* JJ.. concur* 


^Xt:f 9rf,i 

^tnaimmtm o 


21? • 2»9at 




eop&S>tnarB M 3.Al£S':m mOQ» /) APPEAL FBCW 

Appellant*, ^ j STJPSRIOR C<^^, 

▼•• \ / ) COOK C(^»IT. 

*»^"t/ * 2211X662 


On Oeto^r 37 » 1913, {ilaiatlffa, a:«a\»«rs of tb« 
ChlMgo Board of frade and brokers and de&lera ia gr&ln« pork 
amd other ooBsodltiae in Chic^o. coaasionood an »etlon in 
• MtnmSBJt ia the Buferier Court of Goek County again&t de* 
fendantf a reividoat of Richland, Xova. (yn tde c^ta day plain- 
tiffa aued eat an stt&<d»«nt in aid en the grmmd of the nen- 
residence of defendant and sabsec^uently filed a declaration* 
eeaeisting of three- special counts and the eosson cflunts. to- 
gether with e<ipie8 of the instrusenta and of the account aued 
Ml. Plaintiffs ci&l»ed that defendant waa indebted to them 
la the total «u» of #4986.29, iteaized aa follosa: :)efend»nt*a 
sate for |3e>00, dated Kay 17, 1912, p^^yable on or before one 
year ft«r date, with iatureat at €% par anniw after date; 
hia eheck for ^^SOO dated October 9, 1912; hia cheek for I7&0 
dated October U, 1912, accrued intereet oa 8«id note aad 
cheoka aKCMinting to $2&&; and aa open account for aoniea 
expended by plaintiffs for lefendant'a uue Mnd benefit at 
Tarioua tinea betaeea /u^at 7.7. 191.:, and Uovenber 3C, 1912. 
in tht> aggregate sua of $4)^1.25. defendant entered hia 
appearaaoe aad filed a plea of the general iaaue aad aeveral 
epeclal plena, to n&ich plaintiffa filed replicationa. By 
agraeBeat the eaaee «aa sutaaitted to the court for trial 
without a Jury, re^^ialting in a finding of the attaohaeat 

?$»«£ « rx« 



-5 ..'f^' '« 


iaatte in faTor of plaintiff a, ^t ia it finding of tha aaawpait 

iantcs la faver of >iei'e&dAat. On Qettfber 6, I9X9« the court 

ftttt«re4 Jud^aent as^inat plaintiff a for eeate and thia appaal 


Gn the trlnl it tres admitted that defendant had exaeutad 

and delivered the uup^ld note and ihst ci@fen<lant*a tvo oheeka had 

been duly pre^^ented to the banii; on idiioh tha^ were dravn and that 

pnysent had been refUaed. The sole iasue raised In the p^eadinga, 

and ttpen ahieh the ossaa nus tri<»«l» whm^ as i»t>ated bjr oonneel for 

plaintiffs in their prluti^d Isrier said ur^tsm^at here rili»ds'^ihet>i«r 

the aoiea and oinaoiiM au&d tm had hiEr«a given in eetkleBent of 

loBs-zti isaa^iiiiatid in gaesklix^ transaetiona*'* It ia provided in 

S8Cti4» l^C of the CriJBis&l Ca&e: 

''Hiicmv&r contr&ct& %o ii^ve or giT« io hiBsolf 
or another the option to sell or buv. at a futnre 
iiKe» finy grain, or atbtr aeaajiodity, - * where ii 
ia at the tine of mi^Jciug such eontraot intcndodl 
by ^oth pur tio a '^htsi'etQ bii«w ih« eptiotit ehenevar 
exercised, or the contract re&ultine tberefroai, 
8hb.ll he t5ct^l^:d, r,ot by tii« z^aeipi or ddiivery 
of auch property, but by the payeent only of 
dlfrereaota in. pritasa thtsreoi", f * k^kall b«i fined 
net lea- Uian tXO or »ore t>xan ilOOO, or ctmflned 
in the cnunty jeAl net rxc«ciiiBg oee ytto- or both; 
and all oontraots nmde in violation of thlts aecticaa 
»l>ull be considered gcsMing contracts ^ad shall be 

And it ia provided in aubstanoe in eeotioa 131 of aaid 
Cada that all notea, bills, aMrtgagee, or other aeourities or oon- 
vejTMMaa Bade* ate.* by any peraon tBhatsoever, idiere the «diole or 
any part of the ooaaideration thereof shall l>a for noney, property 
or other valuable thing wtm by tmy ganbling* etc.* ahall be void 
and of no of foot. 

Ihe zuiea of Ion to be appll^^d to eeaoa of thia 
^ar&cter >!tre veil aettlod. In order to invalidate a contract 
under the statute it wiat appear that neither p^rty had the in- 
tantiim to deliver tha property but thst both had the intenti<m 
of aettllng an the dlffereaeea only* ( Janieson v« | , 167 


'rrq xitib HW9t 

10 siod-. 

'J i-A.ait 

Xli., 588, 396; flraX B^tioaaX B<mk ▼. Xj.Iley > 238 111.. 1?S, 140; 
gsjrtirlK T. gentlf . 217 lii. .s.pc.. 7C, 74.) And till* intention aay 
be (SrtBbllshed( not only ^ their &s&ertiene« but fron the n&tur* 
«r tbc transhctlons, the Bothod of ofirrylng on the businoss and by 
»11 the attendias circttKdt«Be«»« and tl» qaeeiion of intantion is 
oaa for the jui^ or the cie«;rt on a consideration of all the 
•ridenoe* (^ jMHieiion y. ftlliice . ,qm>r&; l!jLS2i EiL^iSBfii B»n lc^ y» 
Killer , wtpro ; Kfertwlg ▼. Boot h, oupra ; Prfet t & Co. ▼. Aahyorc « 
824 Ul., ::^e7, b61.) «*Xf it is \,hc i»rpoR« &;ad the lnt«nt of on* 
9art>' to uee tho lagitim&te ! onsu of trending «m ttx: :&&«rd oi' Trad* 
fnr %h.9 yurpoae ef putting gvht en iilcg&l trsuaaiiction* and tlM 
«>ther ^:;:rty kccs^n^- ihic londs his Keeistands Ib cfcrryiiag out the 
purpG2«, the p&rtied tre jtawiutplicea in criaut*** ( Hart vlg v. Booth , 
217 HI. Apr,, 7e, 76; ^ \ p«>K v. MSl.* 2<51 211. App.. -iSl, 255; 
ir&BC Y » lUuiise . i^ 111. tJ17, eiii; ".ecre CGsa&tBaloB Co . v. fsopla^ 
gC9 ill., 528, B4£.) Cttdtr the j^rovlsioBS of seotion 121 of the 
Cr^ilBal Code It h&a been held th&t no rcecvery o«iS be had on notea 
or dr&fta given or a^c-lgcud where tha oon&idcruiicu of which in 
wliole or in ptri ttristb out of gtsu^lling truii sections iccntion^d in 
Qf^etiori loO of atslc Cod©* ( Por-s v. tisrJcfe, 1&!; ill,, ei7, <i^:9, ani 
coete there cited.) And in Latateon v. eat . 3'M iU. >.pF». 251, »7, 
it ie £&id: "ttheu a bruiser eKfiigee to esi^iai hiu client in caasittias 
the oriole nf gawbline* Ite Cftjmot recever freai euoh ftlient for his 
f*rTlc«« or for 1oi<bcs inoitrred by }iiat.slf on behalf sf mieh client 
is fer«{>rdint- th» trenafcoiion,* 

Cn the triftl of the preeent Ofe&e the defendant »a» a 
vltneaa In hie ovn behalf eed he e«.lled &e vitjieese* ^illia* B« 
X-u^ey. chief elerk of I^lsLlntiff * in Chlcase md hA7in« general 
KiSxrTieion e? their b«r>k»> wnd ecc-iwnts, ma-i *s.ltejr aardyie, re- 
siding in ^tt>:lo, IOT«, :^d cnssiael ia the ^uaincsa nf fuming 
and V.iyln,^ sad acllins h-^gs ^nii et-ttl'}, Plalatiffs, i« re*att«l. 
sailed aa vltneaasa Leslie v Catea, one of plaintiffs* fim in 


Cikio&go, Had Harry L. K«ca,, pi&latiffs' repntsent; tlT« at 
¥A«liingtoa» Xo«». Ccrtftla c!eoiu»ent»ry evidenee alao »«8 Intro* 

Tb« evi4ea<n introdueod ty def <mdaBt landed to ahmr 
that in the year 19X2 defendant oim»d tmd was operating • fem 
of 520 acres neer fiichlnnd* Iowk, and fo^out 13 alles froK 
ff»ahlJigtaii« Iowa, raising grain*, hogs» cattle and sheep; that 
prior Lo UhTch, 1912, he h^d nevar traded in any oomtodities en 
the Chicago Board of trade; that in ^sroh 1913 ho met Nordyke 
oho suggested that be taiy Boaw pork on the Chioa«o Board of 
Tra4c through foga aa repreeeat»tiTe of plaintiffs' firm; that 
a few d&ye thereafter he and Hordyke etdled on Kaga at the 
latter* a office in ir&)d^neton« lova, and as a result of the 
iaterriev he on Sareh 29* 1912* places! hia first order with plain- 
tiff a throu^ Saga, to buy for hiit &CC barrels of pork for 
:i«pt<»ber d>iliTery and paid over eartain »oni«s as ■; rgins; that 
on April 4, 1912, he in the asaie naaner pur^saed SC aore harrela 
of pork, and on April 5th he purchased 50,000 pounds of rihs f -^r 
Ally delivery; that on April ISth and 13th he aold out all of 
aaid pork and riha; that between April 18, and iovesber 19, 1912» 
he hott^t and aold, through plaintiffs as brokers, large lusntitiea 
of Virioua ceanodities, pork, ribs, Inrd, wheat, nata and com for 
future deliveries, aggregating in value sany thousanda of dollars; 
that during said period he Bade aore than one hundred aeparate 
purch.see of ctMceoditiea and the eaae nuaber of separata aales; 
that in soaa instances puroh&aea and sales of p^rtioular ooBaedities 
ware aade on the saae day; that no deliyeries of any of tha 
coBBMdities were aade or tendered by either p&rty, but all tradaa 
were closed before the delivery dates; and thct all trades, auch 
as were settled, were settled on the basis of the differenees 
between 'rtiat the particular eoaaadities were purchased for and 


iriia« tboy ««r« »oid for. Defendant testified ia 8ol)et«L»«« that 
!• ose of hli first Interyiaas with £ji&h the iuitwr told iiia 
that be eottl^ ?aalce noaoy eftnicr on th« Jotird of 'ir«d» Uuua h» 
9««aXd bjf faming* uai t&:it all it wau mrodsaair? i'or hl